>> He would have shipped tens of hundreds of refugees out of Germany if he had happened to be a bureaucrat for the allies and if that had been his job.

1. So he said. Others thought differently - "When considering the sentence, the judges concluded that he had not merely been following orders, but believed in the Nazi cause wholeheartedly and had been a key perpetrator of the genocide."

2. Somewhat irrelevant. He committed genocide, if he hadn't had the opportunity he may not have done. So what?

>> But where did I say that's not genocidal or Nazi?

>> "Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making."
>> "To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time."

You're saying it's not right to say he was a Nazi, and not right to go from there to calling him genocidal simply because of that. I'm not calling him genocidal because of that, I'm doing it because of his actions.

And to be very clear, I understand entirely the point Fromm is making (lack of empathy is the root of Eichmann's actions and if you don't lose your appetite when reading about hunger you lack empathy, this puts you on the same spectrum as Eichmann). I understand and I disagree, vehemently.

To really hammer this home, your very first post about Fromm quoted - "As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did." Eichmann organised and supervised genocide. This is not simple lack of empathy, and neither does keeping your appetite demonstrate a total lack of empathy. The argument is wrong at both ends.

>> I said that's not the point of why Fromm is making the comparison - lack of empathy is.

And if you think lack of empathy was all Eichmann had going then you're pretty delusional, IMHO.

>> He doesn't mean if we don't loose our appetite when others starve, we grow round glasses and and clothes from the 40s, and many other things. He doesn't mean we will start putting people in box cars.

Then why make the comparison? It's hyperbolic in the extreme and basically a Godwin violation.

>> To ridicule my supposed lack of reading comprehension considering this whole string of completely useless attacks on strawmen, is kinda rich.

You misread something and childishly posted a link to the definition of analogy as if I might never have heard of it. I'm sorry I shot back at you, I hope you didn't find it too offensive.

>> Your reaction that Eichmann is completely beyond the pale of any comparison is kinda fitting.

No, not really. Eichmann's crime is substantially different from a simple lack of empathy, as I've said many times now, he was actively involved in some of the worst evil we know of. It may well be that many/all people are capable of this level of evil. However that still doesn't mean that failing to respond in a simplistic, set way to an empathic situation is anything like organising the deaths of hundreds of thousands of jewish people. It's not the same principle, it's not the same root to the action, and I fundamentally disagree that a lack of empathy and a set of orders was the driver behind Eichmann's actions. And yes, I am familiar with Milgram.

>> The second is also "not showing empathy in a specific way". And no, I do not want to play games.

It's a lot more than that.

>> I acknowledged that before. But that doesn't change the fact that it consists of many aspects, one of them lack of empathy.

But if that's only one aspect, the analogy is about as useful as saying "You know who else had a moustache like that?" as happens on fark.com, except here you seem to want to be taken seriously whereas over there everyone knows it's a joke.