> Dave writes:
>
> > Strictly speaking, I fail to see much difference between killing someone
> for their
> skin color, heritage, religious affiliation, etc. and refusing them entry to
> a dining room.
> It's the same thinking at work.
> >>
>
> You are kidding, right? Does that mean that people who refuse others entry
> into their dining room are mass murderers, or that mass murders are only
> guilty of a breach of etiquette? --jks
You misread somewhat the basic point behind my example. Is it merely a breach of etiquette to decree that from this point forward blacks and whites will use separate drinking fountains?
I think the 'logic', the mental process, that allowed the denial of the Jews' entry to the country club dining room is identical to the 'logic' that allowed their extermination - the resulting actions differ only in kind. There is a fundamental assumption in the relation between the protagonists that underlies both. How could it be any different?
And we've been blessed with many more recent examples of this peculiar ability on the part of people to deny the humanity of others - denial of the right to exist on an equal plane based not on well-grounded, supportable arguments but solely on... well, what? What's vexing is the thought that people seem to be able to slip in and out of this peculiar mode of thinking in relation to one another with relative ease.
--
/ dave /