He did what he thought was right. Meaning he did what was the most right according to his moral system. Or at least what he did wasn't "wrong" according to his moral system.

I'm saying, it's right to kill Jews if it does not go against your moral code, but it's wrong if it does.

Hitler had some extreme misconceptions about the world (probably, he was a paranoid-schizophrenic) which he incorporated into his moral system. This doesn't make him "wrong" in what he did.

I'm not saying I would encourage killing Jews (of which I am one).

Just that sometimes, genocide is the right thing to do.

People who reply that I am racist and seriously believe this have limited mental capacities. Seriously.

You have to be able to think outside the box to understand what I'm saying here.

If you can't, you'll think I'm a racist, or if you're a "racist", then you'll think that I've got the right idea.

GB, you're a Jew? One of the earliest posts I viewed when I stumbled upon Sciforums was your Arafat-Under-Siege thread and from your posts I would have never guessed you for a Jew. I'm probably revealing my ignorance more than anything but this is really an eye-opener for me.

As for this thread, I think I will have a hard time agreeing because to me, genocide means systematically killing people (including innocents) for reasons other than self-defence. This, I think I cannot accept. Unless I am willing to be on the receiving end if the situation were reversed, then I cannot reconcile myself to do this to another person.

Originally posted by aseedrain
GB, you're a Jew? One of the earliest posts I viewed when I stumbled upon Sciforums was your Arafat-Under-Siege thread and from your posts I would have never guessed you for a Jew. I'm probably revealing my ignorance more than anything but this is really an eye-opener for me.

As for this thread, I think I will have a hard time agreeing because to me, genocide means systematically killing people (including innocents) for reasons other than self-defence. This, I think I cannot accept. Unless I am willing to be on the receiving end if the situation were reversed, then I cannot reconcile myself to do this to another person.

Most Arabs believe (and with good reason) that all pro-Israelis are Jews, and all Jews are pro-Israeli.

Not the case, there are the few Jews who hate Israel.

But then again, I'm not a follower of the Jewish religion, it's just my "ethnic background", as most people would put it.

Originally posted by aseedrain
Unless I am willing to be on the receiving end if the situation were reversed, then I cannot reconcile myself to do this to another person.

The thread is not about whether you are willing to do it or not, but rather if it is the right thing to do or not.

I don't mean to be rude or blunt in what I just said, I just wanted to be concise.

I think it's ironic that as familiar as the device you're describing actually is, the way you've dressed it up with the Hitler argument tends to freak people out.

Like so many things, a principle is okay until taken to the extreme. Technically, it's no different than you or me. Just a lot bigger and much more severe.

Scary, indeed.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Maybe I should have elaborated a little more. Whether it is right or not depends on whether "I can do onto others what I want others to do onto me" (lousy phrasing, I know). Since my answer is no, therefore by extension, in my opinion, genocide is not right.

However, since this thread ties the matter of right and wrong to a person's moral system, doesn't it mean the question of right and wrong becomes as subjective as a person's moral system, assuming there is no common moral system to speak of?

Or maybe I didn't quite grasp what you were really asking (my apology if so).

Incidentally, I am interested to know what moral system do you think Hitler could have had that in his mind, his genocide was not evil but a justified action.

Moral "code" doesn't account for morality. Doing something that's evil and being able to justify it doesn't make it less evil. By your logic, you could do and feel good about anything, and it would never be wrong, as long as you believed you were right. And come on. That's ridiculous.

With Hitler, the bad far outweighted the good.

Hitler did do things that were good for his country. They are forgotten and what he did bad is what is remembered.

He consilidated the German languages into one common national language. He instutited a common written language. He was responcible for the rail system that is in use today.

When compared to the starting of WWI and the death camps you never hear of the few good things he did for his people.

gb

how many times have you done something that you know was wrong but did it anyway? why do you presume to know the inner workings of hitlers mind?
do you know for a fact he was mentally ill?

can you please explain why and how you might have come to the misguided conclusion that genocide is a good thing??? we need the "imperfect" as well as the "perfect" in this world.. to balance things out a bit and put things into their proper perspectives..and, yeah..that includes human-beings...

think about it...without the "imperfections" in life...how would we ever being to value and appreciate even more so the "perfections".. in otherwords...if we all walked around being perfect 10's...no, wait...perfect 20's...well, what a boring world that would be. and, consider if each of us looked so similarly alike physically that we would end up looking more like each other's brothers and sisters instead of potential mates... who would end up being attracted to that? :bugeye:

can you please explain why and how you might have come to the misguided conclusion that genocide is a good thing??? we need the "imperfect" as well as the "perfect" in this world.. to balance things out a bit and put things into their proper perspectives..and, yeah..that includes human-beings...

In Hitlers mind it was the right thing to do. Genocide made perfect sense to him.

think about it...without the "imperfections" in life...how would we ever being to value and appreciate even more so the "perfections".. in otherwords...if we all walked around being perfect 10's...no, wait...perfect 20's...well, what a boring world that would be. and, consider if each of us looked so similarly alike physically that we would end up looking more like each other's brothers and sisters instead of potential mates... who would end up being attracted to that?

Actually its been proven that women are more attracted to guys that remind them of their fathers. For guys it was something like if you had a sister then you would be more attracted to a girl that looked like your sister, not just like her but same hair color, skin tone, or maybe they just sound alike.

Does anyone have Hitler's diaries or writings? Or are we just using our logic to pretend we know what he was thinking.

but seriously....have we found any of his writings? anyone have some links we could take a look at?

edit: I found something interesting

He believed that Jesus of Nazareth was an Aryan, not a Jew, and that Jesus fought the Jews and was killed by them. He believed in life after death, the supreme being, and universal creation. He opposed the Catholic church only because its seat of power was in Rome, not Berlin. He was intolerant of competing versions of Christianity (an approach lifted directly from the Catholic playbook), but at no time did he ever commit acts or express beliefs which were not expressed by other Christians before him such as Martin Luther (as well as certain Christians after him, right up to this day. The mere fact that the Lutherans refuse to change their name is very revealing; if there was a Hitlerian church, don't you think it would have changed its name?).
source: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/Hitler.shtml

i think we are using assumptions...not logic, dear GrazzH. and, yeah...that was a good point. are we???

but, sidenote...i am not, in any ways, shape or means attracted to my father, not even on a subconscious level. so, don't go there. :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Walker
Moral "code" doesn't account for morality.

People who do something that they think is the right thing to do are doing the right thing.

Doing something that's evil and being able to justify it doesn't make it less evil.

Define "evil".

By your logic, you could do and feel good about anything, and it would never be wrong, as long as you believed you were right. And come on. That's ridiculous.

Ah, but alas, one must truly feel that they are not doing something wrong, this is not about pretending to justify your actions for yourself.

If you truly believed that what you did was the right thing (or at the very least not the wrong thing) to do, then that is what it is.

But if you just tell yourself, "This was the right thing to do", even though you think it is not the right thing to do, then this does not apply.

My point in the responce to "By your logic..." is this:

This only applies when you truly believe it is this way.

With Hitler, the bad far outweighted the good.

Hitler did do things that were good for his country. They are forgotten and what he did bad is what is remembered.

Define "bad" and "good".

He consilidated the German languages into one common national language. He instutited a common written language. He was responcible for the rail system that is in use today.

When compared to the starting of WWI and the death camps you never hear of the few good things he did for his people.

So what? If he truly thought what he did was the right thing to do, than it was.

yeah, granted, but, that does not make it right. you know..

how many times have you done something that you know was wrong but did it anyway?

I never said that everything everybody does is right. It is only right if they truly believe it is.

why do you presume to know the inner workings of hitlers mind?

Because of his writings, and his public face. He may have had some ulterior motive that to this day we do not know, but most likely, he thought killing Jews was the right thing to do because they were a danger to the world (his view of "the Jews" almost exactly matches what is said in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), or more specifically, the Aryan world.

While this may not really be true, we're pretty sure it is, and that he did think this was the right thing to do.

do you know for a fact he was mentally ill?

No. But with his very, very biazzare view of different cultures/ethnic groups/religions, I think it is safe to assume that he was a paranoid-schizophrenic, or that he was raised by one who taught him this stuff.

Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange
can you please explain why and how you might have come to the misguided conclusion that genocide is a good thing???

Where the fuck did I say that genocide is a good thing? Read my second post in this thread 350 times, and then read my first post, 10 times, very, very, very slowly. Then respond again.

I said that genocide is the right thing to do if the perpetrator truly believes it is.

:o ok. ok. but, my question still stands. since you were playing devil's advocate by even posting this thread...

Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange
:o ok. ok. but, my question still stands. since you were playing devil's advocate by even posting this thread...

No, I wasn't.

I really, truly think that what Hitler did was the right thing to do, although I would be out of my mind to say that in public, where people would think that I meant that in a neo-nazi-ish way.

Hitler did the right thing. He did what he thought was right. That is the right thing to do. End of story.

Oh, if our dear friend Gil_W passes through here, he will think I am obviously anti-Semitic and not read what I really said.

:bugeye:
I really, truly think that what Hitler did was the right thing to do


:confused: :eek: well, make up your ever-lovin' mind. for cripes sake.:p

:mad:
MOTHERFUCKING READ MY WHOLE POST, YA BLEEPWIT!

grr............well, quit changing your tune. *wants to make the words large, but, can't quite figure out how to* :mad: :p anyways, Hitler was a moron. genius, maybe...moron, yes.

GB, I am going to take a very very wild guess here. Does this thread has anything to do with the way the world is today and Israel's role in it that you thought Hitler, in his demented mind knew this is how things would turn out and therefore ordered the genocide, which according to the rational of his demented moral system - is the right thing to do?

I know this is presumptious of me but I don't believe you'd think genocide is a right thing per se.


**edited - sorry, kept getting the sentences wrong.

Just an aside...if we were debating about a serial killer and how he justify his killings, I think we would still be addressing the same issue.

The serial killer would feel his actions were right based on the schizo-demented moral system of his that he saw no wrong in it.

GRR! NO! NOBODY READS MY POSTS!!! ACK!

This was just an example. Cannibals who believe eating other humans is the right thing to do are doing the right thing when they eat other people.

There are plenty of other examples.

GB, the point is, if what anyone does is right because they believe it is the right thing to do, then what is the purpose of debating it? One man's wrong is another man's right.

gb,

i see what your saying and fully agree with it. I would just like to say tho, youve brought on this attack on you because you mentioned hitler (its a no no, people dont like to stray from the ordinary), u should have applied your theory to something alittle subtler like Snoopy or something.

Right and wrong are only what you believe to be right and wrong-thats what i agree with gb gil transglobal. (just incase people start calling me a racist, anti-semitic, bigotting, preduduce person)

GB I read your posts... they make me mad most of the time but I do read them.

I do agree with you though. On another not I think that Robert Heinlein once said "One mans religion is another mans belly laugh." or something like that.

GB, I posted something on your PM board. Hope you can go through it and reply. Thanks.

Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global

Hitler did the right thing. He did what he thought was right. That is the right thing to do. End of story.

"hitler did the right thing"
this indicates your opinion of hitlers actions

"He did what he thought was right''
an unnwarranted presumption tho probably true


if right and wrong is merely subjective, i would like you guys to go discuss that with your parents (pad yer pants first)

;)

It all depends on whether you believe in absolute more law. If you believe that objective, universal moral law exists then you could say that Hitler did the 'wrong' thing. If you don't believe in absolute moral law, then nothing matters and you can do what you feel like.

Some of them just don't get it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Some of them just don't get it.

And never will.

Take care.

elitist pigs!
;)

enlighten me
please?

"some of them just don't get it"
"And never will"


Tiassa, Xev, I'm not sure who you meant but I hope it is not because some members' replies were not agreeable with GB. I believe some of them did get GB's question but were trying to point out that there are other relevant aspects than just coming to a "agree/disagree" reply.

Nasor's reply is a good example. He was pointing out that If you believe in a universal moral law/system in which Hitler can be objectively judged, the you will arrive at a certain answer. But if you don't believe in a universal moral system but a personal moral system instead, then you will come to the conclusion that what Hitler did was right - based on HIS moral system.

And because personal moral systems are as varied as individuals themselves, then nothing matters because you will do whatever YOU think is right. Same goes for everyone else.

Peace.

Originally posted by tiassa
Some of them just don't get it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Exactly.


Originally posted by Xev
And never will.

Take care.

Yep.


Originally posted by Spookz
elitist pigs!
;)

enlighten me
please?

lol. On one half, there's the feeling that you're smarter than everybody else because you and a select few others (that are also smarter than everybody else) can understand a concept that everybody else interprets as exactly what it was meant _not_ to be interpreted as.

On the other half, there's the frustration over knowing something, but not being able to successfully convey it to others that aren't as smart as you are. :p ;) :D

I think this: there is absolute morality. it's called logic. things are moral as long as whoever does them thinks they are by their personal morals.

Now if you don't understand that, go and shove this topic up your not-as-smart-as-I-am (:p) ass and don't respond.

On a side note, I'd like to ask Coffee why my posts irritate him. Most of the time, he seems to agree with me.

Calling morality 'absolute' implies that it exists separately and independently of any human opinion or perception. Absolute morality would be represented by the idea that you should never kill people because it goes against god, the cosmic order of the universe, or whatever.

The idea that people each define their own moral system and that we shouldn't judge people based on our own ideas of morality is called 'moral relativism.' Moral relativism implies that ideas like 'good' or 'evil' are effectively meaningless because each person is free to decide what is good or evil for themselves.

Originally posted by Nasor
Calling morality 'absolute' implies that it exists separately and independently of any human opinion or perception. Absolute morality would be represented by the idea that you should never kill people because it goes against god, the cosmic order of the universe, or whatever.

The idea that people each define their own moral system and that we shouldn't judge people based on our own ideas of morality is called 'moral relativism.' Moral relativism implies that ideas like 'good' or 'evil' are effectively meaningless because each person is free to decide what is good or evil for themselves.

You do not understand what I am saying. There are moral absolutes: 1, to be exact.

That is: people are judged the way they judge themselves. If I think I did the right thing, I did. If you think you did the right thing, you did.

Where do you believe that this absolute (albeit simple) moral law comes from?

Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
He did what he thought was right. Meaning he did what was the most right according to his moral system. Or at least what he did wasn't "wrong" according to his moral system.

I'm saying, it's right to kill Jews if it does not go against your moral code, but it's wrong if it does.

Hitler had some extreme misconceptions about the world (probably, he was a paranoid-schizophrenic) which he incorporated into his moral system. This doesn't make him "wrong" in what he did.

I'm not saying I would encourage killing Jews (of which I am one).

Just that sometimes, genocide is the right thing to do.

Genocide sometimes is necessary. Look at what we tried to do to tuberculosis, smallpox and other infectious diseases.

Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
You do not understand what I am saying. There are moral absolutes: 1, to be exact.

That is: people are judged the way they judge themselves. If I think I did the right thing, I did. If you think you did the right thing, you did.

Is this even a *moral* absolute, or a philosophical conclusion instead? In my mind, there is no judgment and there is no right or wrong; there are only effective actions or failures.

I think it makes sense to put all of the religious people and criminals in a large oven and roast 'em until toasty. What the hell could be "wrong" with making the world a better place?

:rolleyes:

maybe i "get it"....but, i just don't want to
....get it???

Genocide sometimes is necessary. Look at what we tried to do to tuberculosis, smallpox and other infectious diseases.

I don't get it. How is genocide related to infectious diseases?

yeah...i guess i don't get that part either

...maybe he can come back and clarify his point..

On a side note, I'd like to ask Coffee why my posts irritate him. Most of the time, he seems to agree with me.

Yeah but you always post the interesting stuff first.... You make me feel inferior.

I think he was just giving a cynical example of how morally relativistic thinking can work.

Originally posted by grazzhoppa
have we found any of his writings? anyone
have some links we could take a look at?

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein+Kampf

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
On a side note, I'd like to ask Coffee why my posts irritate him. Most of the time, he seems to agree with me.

Yeah but you always post the interesting stuff first.... You make me feel inferior.

:D

Sorry.

I thought you meant like how our dear friend Joeman goes and cries his heart out into a pillow every time he reads one of my posts (after all, he's a sensitive gi... man, isn't he? or at least he's "peaceful" ;))

How is genocide related to infectious diseases?Well, infectious diseases are a useful tool in genocide. The US has a history of biological warfare, including an attempted genocide. Just as a for-instance.

But Aseedrain, you did raise a couple of other issues that I owe you responses to.
Tiassa, Xev, I'm not sure who you meant but I hope it is not because some members' replies were not agreeable with GB. I believe some of them did get GB's question but were trying to point out that there are other relevant aspects than just coming to a "agree/disagree" reply.It's never the mere fact of disagreement.

Rather, it's the basis for disagreement.

The purpose of this thread seems to be somehow related to the pointing out that such ideas exist. Moral relativism, as an example, taken to the extreme can destroy nations.

Any number of interpretations are possible: one of the first things that occurred to me when reading the topic was the idea that such logical devices are not too far removed from my world. Most everybody I know employs them at some time, but it's fair to say that they don't take it to the genocidal level.

We can isolate the device, of a sort: He did what he thought was right. Meaning he did what was the most right according to his moral system. Or at least what he did wasn't "wrong" according to his moral system. I can say that this pertains to stealing, lying, having an extramarital affair, killing someone, or, as such, genocide. The idea exists; Hitler's manifestation of the idea, however, is quite extreme. It can also be said of Thomas Jefferson, bypassing the beloved Constitution to pull off the Louisiana Purchase.

I just want to look at people and say, "Kinda makes you think, hmm?"

The Inquisitions? Manifest Destiny? American slavery? Encomienda? These are a few of my favorite things. I mean, wait. Er ... these are a few things which can be justified by the moral perspective GIL has outlined.

We cannot afford to mistake the process for the result, or ignorer the process altogether. That kind of mistake gets you, well ... Americans.

I agree that Nasor's reply, as you noted, has merit. That's why we're limiting ourselves to some.

It's not a particularly easy concept to cope with. Generally, it makes people angry the first few times they come face to face with it.

I'm waiting around to see what GIL does with it after he's made his point. That's where the real show will begin.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Morality is by nature relativistic. After all, there is no God active in the world* who can determine an objective morality.

* - This is not an argument about whether or not there's a "God" (hahaha) but merely an assertion that his/her activity has not been seen in the physical world recently at least.

Originally posted by EvilPoet
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein+Kampf

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

With Hitler, the bad far outweighted the good.
Hitler did do things that were good for his country. They are forgotten and what he did bad is what is remembered.
I agree to this. He did things in respect to his country. Just like you for example, do things that are good to yourself only..
I believe he was a great and dedicated leader..
That he was a great leader, is already proved by the fact that most people in germany were willingly following him.. Now that is leadership..

I am not very aware of history, but scientifically he was advancing his country well as well..

Morality of doing things has bugged me a hell lot...
who has given these moral lessons to us?
Dont you and I that make society?If yes,then why do we get F**cked up over doing some things by worrying about what other will say.
Let me put it this way:
If we can give birth to a child,then its a good Omen,but Death is considered Bad in our society.this goes on to show we havent grown mentally tough in all these years to understand the phenomenon.

But on the contrary i would say if Hitler thought that way is what the question is?!...I once read this old G.W.South hampton Book and it said that Hitler was once Insulted by Jews on the street over his Height...
you can guess the rest of stuff urself...

thanks.
bye!

As Quoted By NDRS:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not very aware of history, but scientifically he was advancing his country well as well..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.i remember when Americans Arrived they werent able to recognize most of the military stuff made.Luft's design is what was the most intriguing thing they found...



bye!

Originally posted by prozak
Genocide sometimes is necessary. Look at what we tried to do to tuberculosis, smallpox and other infectious diseases.

Stupid. I didn't say it was nessecary. Just that it is sometimes OK. Go read a few books and get elitist lessons, and then we'll have a REAL debate.

past your bedtime kid

shoo!

Genocide is never okay, under any circumstances whatsoever.

Let's put it this way: I think that Hitler pretty much acted honest upon his own value system, just like Sharon.

synopsis of the trajedy that was hitler.


He was not crazy. He was doing the elites bidding. Some of the wealtiest of the time funded him.

He was being a fascist dictator, what he was paid to do.

Genocide sometimes is necessary.

This is the most retarded oxymoranic thing Ive ever had the pleasure of hearing.

But thanks for the chuckle.

Oh and another thing - Hitler was a fucking psycho. Period. Who gives a shit about his value ie moral codes? I bet Bundy thought he was doing "the right thing" also. Or that bastard down in South America that has killed 200+ children. Excuse my lack of class in this post, but I just cant believe the odacity that certain members display around here.

Get a clue people:rolleyes:

Originally posted by jandt
synopsis of the trajedy that was hitler.


He was not crazy. He was doing the elites bidding. Some of the wealtiest of the time funded him.

He was being a fascist dictator, what he was paid to do.

Sorry Jandt, I usually dont put people down around here, but WTF are you snorting? Seriously, look at ALL the shit you said about Bush, yet your defending Hitler? Isnt Bush doing "what he is paid to do?"

Hitler was not crazy? Oh of course not, why the hell would we think that!!

ANYONE can become used to ANYTHING, that is why we were able to leave the trees in the first place.

The facts of hitler and what was for a time nazi germany have been altered to place all the blame on an insane hitler to deflect the ECONOMIC realities of fascism.

Again, I plead with you to investigate the FINANCIAL facts of history, fascism, and the elite of the world.

www.theyrule.net

http://www.brasscheck.com/heartfield/rise.html

You are right, Bush is no more or less a nut than hitler. Both answer to those that own them, those that put them there.

I am not defending hitler.

I am drawing parallels between the two.

Those that desire and profit from a fascist state have not changed their tactics much in the last fifty years. It is an attempt at more friendly fascism, at least at home, but it is fascism none the less.

Fascism is and always has been a false revolution. One of the main components is a manufactured scapegoat. For hitler it was the jews, for bush it is muslim.

What does fascism have to do with genocide?

Genocide is a side affect of fascism..........

It didnt have to be. Its what that fascist group decided to do.

I do agree that Hitler did not act alone. It was just as much as his fault as it was his administration. He is more of a symbol of that era - and he was a psycho.

No, you are not seeing it. Such atrocities are a fundemental part of the fascist state.

Left to its own devices, i.e. big business has no complaints under a fascist ruler, a fascist dictatorship cannot help but be consumed by its own lust for power and examples to exercise same.

Genocide and like atrocities are the undoing of any fascist state.

Selling Black cars is another side effect of fascism, go ask Henry Ford:p

Sorry GB-GIL, but I don't see the point of your post.
You begin by saying that something is good if compatible with our own moral system, but then you tranfer it to a shared moral system ("IT is good", you use the third person).

Don't you think that you should have said 'We -personaly- think something is good if compatible with our moral system', but then you just tell us the definition of a moral system.

Am I missing something or you just want to say that moral, good, evil is a relative notion and that Hitler (for ex) was coherent with himself ?

I like to think in terms of the world population.

Its hard for me to admit, but I cannot lie to myself for that would be wrong. I truly believe that if AIDS would spread more throughout India and the middle east, the future would be much more prosperous.

I know this is really sick, but you have to realize that in the year 2050 there will be NINE BILLION people.

http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm

Europe's population will be the only population to decrease. India has the most people now and will grow the most.

I'm sorry to offend anyone, but be truthful in this matter.

What does everyone else propose that we do about population control? Many religions do not believe in using preventive techniques... so I am baffled.

At least you recognize that you are really sick. Admitting it is the first step.

I hope AIDS spreads through your immediate DNA pool. No offense, just I think in terms of intelligent populations.

This one is very easy. Hehe, you're playing with words though and some people aren't following apparently. Genocide is definately a good thing if you are so freakin jacked up that you think genocide is a good thing. How can that be debated? It is retarded to debate it.

However, if someone comes to that conclusion I believe it's indicative of a serious problem. If they were to even remotely attempt to hurt someone in the name of their grandios conclusion then they should be exterminated. :)

I think a much more interesting thread would be: "Should someone be exterminated for coming to the conclusion that they think genocide is good?". Hehe, now that's a debate.

Could Hitler have thought that what he was doing was right? Yes.

Is it possible that most reasonable humans would disagree with him? Yes.

You start to lose your right to free expression when it infringes on other's right to life.

God, this argument fatigues me. GB-GIL, yeah, most people aren't or didn't get what you were saying at first. I've read your posts in this thread (all of them) and i understand and vehemently disagree.


You support moral relativism which states, essentially, that my subjective truth equates to a moral objectivity. Nonsense, hogwash, egomania. Sorry, but while you might have a point concerning someone's personal convictions: "I thought I was doing the right thing!" or even, "God dammit! I WAS doing the right thing!!!" This merely means that they didn't go against their own personal convictions. It does not mean that they have followed what is "right."

We say, what is right if different for every man and every culture. The semantic twists in such statement parallel the complexities of human nature. We DON'T know objectively what is right. We might be positively sure in our minds that grass is green. Hell, chlorophyl is green!!! But our eyes aren't sensitive to the red in the color-spectrum. (look up Earthshine on the internet).

anyway, my point is this. We are not God. We disagree on what is right.


Allow me to quote a Zen koan to round off my point here:

"To be uncertain is to be uncomforable; to be certain is to be ridiculous."

Originally posted by tastybrain
We are not God.We are the Borg.
Discussion is futile.

:m: Peace.

agree and be assimilated?


Peace (yeah, that would be nice) :m: ;)

jandt,


just I think in terms of intelligent populations.

Well, im guessing that you are attacking my intelligence, and i can take that, but you must realise that we are going to fester in a human cess pool very soon. I am guessing that you live in a Western country where population is not a problem, but very soon Middle Eastern countries are going to overflow with people who are going to come into your country... after this, more and more people will procreate... think about that for a while...

Oh yeah, and thinking intelligently...
India (the country with the largest population)
http://www.ilpnet.org/about/

Those are just the people that CAN read, many of them do not have many other life skills. Think about how that will effect the earth.

I find it strange that, as maticilous as the Germans were in keeping files and being organised, not one political paper was signed or written by Hitler that had to do with orders of genocide. So if there is no written proof ....then we are all assuming in the first place that he ordered it.

Hitler's goons did work hard on destroying such docs when they were about to lose.

I still do not get how Hitler can be considered to have done the right thing.

:m:

I'm sure Hitler is relatively mild compared to the NWO Bush is about to serve us.

:m:

:eek: it's mind boggling to perceive <--looks at that last word suspiciously..i before e except after c) ok. what i was saying ..it's hard to believe that a society that produced a Beethoven and a Newton has also produced a Hitler or a Herod..know what i mean?

I admire Hitler for the way he did things, not what he did. You cannot disagree; the man was a brilliant leader, able in body and mind to command his soldiers, to inspire passion and to disregard the very human emotions that would have prevented the entire event from happening. He was amazing. We need people like Hitler, to turn all the sheep that we have become into a singular body, an entity with a goal and purpose. I salute Hitler, not for his intentions, but for his ruthlessly masterful technique.

Slacker47,

With you all the way, man, about population control. But I don't want to do it so subtly, because AIDS is hard to control. I'm thinking worldwide extermination ... just global annihilation, know what I mean? Kill them all, and let God decide. And if there isn't a God, well then hey, all the better. No more suffering. No more cruelty or pity, sorrow or crime. Peace for all.

"You cannot disagree; the man was a brilliant leader"

I might disagree, actually. I'd say Hitler was a brilliant oppurtunist. He was very charismatic. Add those two together and you have all that you need to get in the positions Hitler did. And let's not forget, he was a terrible military commander.


"to disregard the very human emotions that would have prevented the entire event from happening"

So, blue, allow me to ask; you would say it a virtue to have the mindset that other people do not matter?


"We need people like Hitler, to turn all the sheep that we have become into a singular body, an entity with a goal and purpose."

Now blue, you just completely contradicted yourself. "We need people like Hitler to change all our sheep into a different kind of sheep". Hitler did the exact opposite of making people free of themselves and society, he enslaved them (and I'm talking about the German citizens, not the Jews). He basically made it illegal to have an opinion different than his. Will you kindly show me how this makes people anything other than sheep?


prozak;

"I'm sure Hitler is relatively mild compared to the NWO Bush is about to serve us."

Care to make a bet? So far I've asked about 8 sciforumers who think Bush will start a world war or bring terrible slavery or such to the world if they want to bet money on it and I've yet to receive a yes. I hope you're up for it!

Bush is fighting a religious holy war. From that nothing but negativity comes.

1) Any proof for your claim?
2) Once again; care to make a bet? Or are all you folk just a bunch of idiots who know you're wrong?

Yes: read the Bible.

Bush is not fighting a holy war. Bush is playing politics and finishing the job of killing the bad man that his daddy didn't like.

Bush is not fighting a holy war. Bush is playing politics and finishing the job of killing the bad man that his daddy didn't like.

Funny, I thought that it was about oil.

That's why his daddy didn't like him. OH, and oil falls under politics.

Bush is fighting a holy war. Oil alone doesn't explain this problem; there's plenty of crude.

But Israel and the Christian right/left have something in common...

Any proof what so ever that it's a holy war?

You seem to be denying the obvious.

Isn't this a war against the "evil" Saddam Hussein, when North Korea is making a mockery of the USA by actually being a greater threat?

Prozak, let's discuss a number of 'obvious' things.

I am alive. Can I prove this? Yes (without getting too philosophical), obviously if I am really writing this I am alive, as only a living human could type.

Gravity applies to me. Can I prove this? Yes. For one, I don't float around. Two, I am human and gravity applies to humans.

Bush is fighting a holy war (which I would define as a war based upon and encouraged by religious command). Can you prove this?

I still do not get how Hitler can be considered to have done the right thing.

Zero, I think that Gb Gil Trans European Multinational was just saying that right and wrong are relative principles. Something is only right or wrong because we consider it to be so.

The end.

Originally posted by prozak
Isn't this a war against the "evil" Saddam Hussein, when North Korea is making a mockery of the USA by actually being a greater threat?

Tyler:

1) Bush's rhetoric draws exclusively upon Judeo-Christian mythology.
2) Bush himself referred to the war as a "crusade."
3) Bush is pursuing an enemy of Israel while North Korea, a more credible threat, taunts him.

Seems clear to me. Can you disprove it? What is his motivation, in your view?

1) This means absolutely nothing in proving that this is a "holy war"


Holy War: A war declared or fought for a religious or high moral purpose, as to extend or defend a religion
dictionary.com

That Bush draws much of his social beliefs from religion does not in any way say that he is declaring the war in the name of Christianity. Do you know what would say this? If he said something like "We the Christians must attack the Moslems in Iraq".

2) The word "crusade" only carries the religion connotation when one wants it to.


A holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse


3) One reason? Because it would greatly, greatly hinder North-South Korean peace talks. Another reason? There's no oil for us in North Korea. Another reason? The relations between US and NK and US and Iraq are two very different stories. Another reason? A war with North Korea could drag a massive Chinese army into the mix and I'm willing to bet 99% of Americans aren't pro-war with China. Do you need any more reasons?


So prozak. Any proof it's a "holy war"?

Tyler,


So prozak. Any proof it's a "holy war"?

Bush can NEVER admit to this because we have a separation of church and state. I do agree that there is alot of evidence that does cloud and clarify both sides. The US gov is involved with the India/Pakistan thing (Bush is not Muslim), Palestine/Jeruselem (not Jewish), but you have to admit that this particular war holds a very religious connotation.

It does hold a certain aspect for oil, and Saddam is fucking insane (he has a copy of the Quran written in his own blood!!!). I beleive that the solution lies in assassinating Saddam and any EVIL succeeding leaders. Just leaders would obviously be alright. A major morale crusher is just what the middle east needs, not a war that would destroy the people nd the land.

Can we agree on that?

Originally posted by Slacker47
...and Saddam is... insane (he has a copy of the Quran written in his own blood!!!).Propoganda. This story has never been verified and is probably hype to bolster" his image amongst his subjects.
I beleive that the solution lies in assassinating Saddam and any EVIL succeeding leaders.Fortunately, assasination by the U.S. is illegal, and you would do well to consider the door it would open for those who might see America's leaders as evil, and claim the same right.

:m: Peace.

Tyler, you're just stupid and will never admit this is a holy war no matter what is set in front of you. Get fucked.

Oh geez... someone disagrees with you... get mad and insult them! :rolleyes:

:m: Peace.

Did Hitler do the right thing?

It is absolutely possible that he thought annihilation of a race (Jews) was the right thing to do. For example, right now in Palestine, there are many who want to see the annihilation of a race (Jews). Many people think the American media (run by Jews) is biased in it's news reports. Who's right?

Damn, the Jews sure do know how to piss people off!

Anyway, just because someone thinks it is right to kill me doesn't mean I should stand still while they throw rocks at my head trying to kill me. If I think I'm right in wanting to live, there is a problem. The only solution will be someone's death. Sorry, but if someone comes at me with the desire to kill me with rocks, and I have a gun, -pop- -pop-. I win. I didn't wanna kill ya' but ya' left me no choice, pardner!

i eat liver cos i like it

Do I have the right to kill you if I think it's right to kill all people that eat liver because they like it?

i eat liver cos i like it. therefore it is the right thing to do!

I will kill you because people who eat liver should die. Therefore, it is the right thing to do! :D

:D

"Tyler, you're just stupid and will never admit this is a holy war no matter what is set in front of you. Get fucked."

I'm sorry, next time I'll have to abandon logic, proof and the actual meaning of words.