(September 26, 2016 at 3:54 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I agree completely with everything you say here. I just don't believe in 'human monsters' because to me calling a human a monster is like calling them subhuman.
Well, we each have that capacity, don't we? If you wish to think of that as "subhuman" -- with all the historical baggage that entails -- I can't stop you. But I'm not saying that, at all. I'm saying that humans have the capacity for both the angelic and the monstrous, and furthermore, I'm not singling out any person, at all, from those capacities. You, me, Mother Teresa, Ivan Boesky, Angelica Friar -- we all carry the potential for great good and great evil inside us.
(September 26, 2016 at 3:54 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I'm thinking perhaps your way of looking at things makes more sense. I guess what I'm asking is what is your definition of a 'human monster'... Hitler is an example, but how about a definition?
A human monster is anyone who offends me.
(September 26, 2016 at 3:54 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: ETA: Oh I agree with everything except I didn't quite agree Hitler was a monster. I think he's almost one and about as close as you can get... but that's because I'm defining a 'human monster' as subhuman and I don't believe in such a thing. I think he's about as close as you can get to one because he genocided millions of people like they were monsters. But yeah, Hitler is a classic example of a 'human monster', although I personally wouldn't call anyone a monster.
Well, you're free to define a term as you wish, as am I. Me, I regard anyone who consigns eleven millions to death as a monster. And sadly, not the biggest monster in human -- repeat, human -- history. I'm content to let the readership decide.
