Plato is actually one of the most, if not THE MOST, respected Philosopher of all times.
His ideas are really wise and incomprehensible to most of people.
But Philosophers just love his ideas!
Beacuse they understand them.
Love,
Nelson
I'm stupid trying to explain God rationally!!!
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
Plato is actually one of the most, if not THE MOST, respected Philosopher of all times.
His ideas are really wise and incomprehensible to most of people.
But Philosophers just love his ideas!
Beacuse they understand them.
Love,
Nelson
Xev,
I have never seen such things in his Philosophy... :bugeye:
Fallacy...?
Not for the books I've read...
Love,
Nelson
I have never seen such things in his Philosophy... :bugeye:
Fallacy...?
Not for the books I've read...
Love,
Nelson
Xev,
Here, us, the universe. Absent from existance.
Here, us, the universe, are these not ‘things.’
I asked you to describe ‘nothing’ not absense of something in relation to something else.
Tyler,
Jan you're an idiot.
Tyler your’re a thuper intelligent guy.
I gave much proof and historical fact that showed Hitler killed discrimanatorily.
If that is the case then every muderer kills disciminately.
When fools go into a school and blast whoever they can, probably they said beforehand, “lets go in that school over there and blast whoever we can,” yep, silly me you’re probably right.
Oh and try asking people who survived that mass murder ritual of a holocaust and see if they see things the way you do.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Here, us, the universe. Absent from existance.
Here, us, the universe, are these not ‘things.’
I asked you to describe ‘nothing’ not absense of something in relation to something else.
Tyler,
Jan you're an idiot.
Tyler your’re a thuper intelligent guy.
I gave much proof and historical fact that showed Hitler killed discrimanatorily.
If that is the case then every muderer kills disciminately.
When fools go into a school and blast whoever they can, probably they said beforehand, “lets go in that school over there and blast whoever we can,” yep, silly me you’re probably right.
Oh and try asking people who survived that mass murder ritual of a holocaust and see if they see things the way you do.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Nelson, you wouldn't recognize a fallacy if it hit you on the head. No offense, but you ought to study them and avoid a bit harder.
Jan:
'absense of something in relation to something else.' IS nothing!
Nothing is the absence of somthing - we find this absence in relation to the 'somthing' that we observe.
I wonder if 'nothing' can truly exist, but that's a different topic.
Fine, fine, you define nothing. Right now, I am thinking it is 'the contents of Jan's skull' but -
He is a 'super' intelligent guy, you do have that right.
And I rather don't blame you for trying to sweet-talk him, but you're really not his type.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Jan:
'absense of something in relation to something else.' IS nothing!
Nothing is the absence of somthing - we find this absence in relation to the 'somthing' that we observe.
I wonder if 'nothing' can truly exist, but that's a different topic.
Fine, fine, you define nothing. Right now, I am thinking it is 'the contents of Jan's skull' but -
He is a 'super' intelligent guy, you do have that right.
And I rather don't blame you for trying to sweet-talk him, but you're really not his type.
Originally posted by Xev
I wonder if 'nothing' can truly exist, but that's a different topic.
Until you find out, the answer to your original question is;
What is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and [inothing?
The difference is, nothing does not exist.
Right now, I am thinking it is 'the contents of Jan's skull' but -
nothing!!!!
contents!!!!
in my head!!!!
Love
Jan Ardena.
Jan; describe discriminatorily.
Like I said;
Are you a Jew? If yes, die.
Are you a Commie? If yes, die.
Are you a Gypsy or Gay? If yes, die.
The opposite of discriminatory killings are random killings. So no, a killer who just runs around firing a gun is not killing discriminatorily, he is killing randomly. Hitler killed people based on their religion or political convictions. To me, that is discriminating against Jews, Commies, Gypsies and Gays.
If I killed only women, would that not be discriminating against women? If I killed only women and Jews, would that not be discriminating against women and Jews?
"When fools go into a school and blast whoever they can, probably they said beforehand, “lets go in that school over there and blast whoever we can,” yep, silly me you’re probably right."
So killing someone based on their religion or political views are is the exact same as randomly killing anyone? 'yep, silly me you're probably right.'
"Oh and try asking people who survived that mass murder ritual of a holocaust and see if they see things the way you do."
First of all, it's impossible to survive a murder. By definition. So they would have survived the Holocause camps. If they were killed in a mass murder, how could they survive it? Second of all, if you look around Jews feel exactly like that. They feel they were persecuted because they were Jewish (which is true). Being tortured, imprissoned, or killed based on your religion is discriminatory! Third of all, ask someone who survived a camp......what......you mean like my grandfather? I have, thank you.
Like I said;
Are you a Jew? If yes, die.
Are you a Commie? If yes, die.
Are you a Gypsy or Gay? If yes, die.
The opposite of discriminatory killings are random killings. So no, a killer who just runs around firing a gun is not killing discriminatorily, he is killing randomly. Hitler killed people based on their religion or political convictions. To me, that is discriminating against Jews, Commies, Gypsies and Gays.
If I killed only women, would that not be discriminating against women? If I killed only women and Jews, would that not be discriminating against women and Jews?
"When fools go into a school and blast whoever they can, probably they said beforehand, “lets go in that school over there and blast whoever we can,” yep, silly me you’re probably right."
So killing someone based on their religion or political views are is the exact same as randomly killing anyone? 'yep, silly me you're probably right.'
"Oh and try asking people who survived that mass murder ritual of a holocaust and see if they see things the way you do."
First of all, it's impossible to survive a murder. By definition. So they would have survived the Holocause camps. If they were killed in a mass murder, how could they survive it? Second of all, if you look around Jews feel exactly like that. They feel they were persecuted because they were Jewish (which is true). Being tortured, imprissoned, or killed based on your religion is discriminatory! Third of all, ask someone who survived a camp......what......you mean like my grandfather? I have, thank you.
Tyler:
Oh good. Jan didn't seem your type, but I wasn't really looking forward to fighting her for you.
Gee, you think so?! Whatever makes you say that?
Jan:
Very well then, I will not dispute this now.
So, what is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and somthing that has no relevence?
This God is irrelevent.
That was my friend's explanation of athiesm. He was a very insightful man.
Oh good. Jan didn't seem your type, but I wasn't really looking forward to fighting her for you.
Gee, you think so?! Whatever makes you say that?
Jan:
Very well then, I will not dispute this now.
So, what is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and somthing that has no relevence?
This God is irrelevent.
That was my friend's explanation of athiesm. He was a very insightful man.
Tyler,
Now before we carry this on lets try and understand each other, I know where you are coming from, and from that perspective you are right, but try and understand where I am coming from.
Hitlers ignorance became apparent when he saw people as designations, instead of human beings. He therefore caused the slaughter, torture, suffering and murder of millions of 'human beings' based on what he thought they were, but in actuality they were just human beings non different to him or any other human being, who happened to be called, Jews etc…
So killing someone based on their religion or political views are is the exact same as randomly killing anyone? 'yep, silly me you're probably right.'
As I said before, the fools go in the school, they say “lets go in that school over there and blast ”whoever we can,” so they go in and blast whoever they can, wouldn’t you say that discriminatory.
First of all, it's impossible to survive a murder. By definition. So they would have survived the Holocause camps. If they were killed in a mass murder, how could they survive it?
I said; "Oh and try asking people who survived that mass murder ritual of a holocaust and see if they see things the way you do."
If you temporarily take out the; ‘mass murder ritual of a,’ you are left with ‘holocaust’ which is what I meant.
And what’s this ‘you’re the only gal for me trip, stay away from these atheist gals, they’ll bring you nothing but trouble, you’ve been warned!!!
Xev,
So, what is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and somthing that has no relevence?
Trick question right.
None.
Because the concept of relevance and irrelevance both have to be part of the being that is both everything and everywhere, so they are reletive.
This God is irrelevent.
To you!!
To me, your prattle shows just how merciful God is.
But its just a matter of perception, it will all come out in the wash, one day.
That was my friend's explanation of athiesm. He was a very insightful man.
To you but not to me!
Everything in this phenomenal world is relative.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Now before we carry this on lets try and understand each other, I know where you are coming from, and from that perspective you are right, but try and understand where I am coming from.
Hitlers ignorance became apparent when he saw people as designations, instead of human beings. He therefore caused the slaughter, torture, suffering and murder of millions of 'human beings' based on what he thought they were, but in actuality they were just human beings non different to him or any other human being, who happened to be called, Jews etc…
So killing someone based on their religion or political views are is the exact same as randomly killing anyone? 'yep, silly me you're probably right.'
As I said before, the fools go in the school, they say “lets go in that school over there and blast ”whoever we can,” so they go in and blast whoever they can, wouldn’t you say that discriminatory.
First of all, it's impossible to survive a murder. By definition. So they would have survived the Holocause camps. If they were killed in a mass murder, how could they survive it?
I said; "Oh and try asking people who survived that mass murder ritual of a holocaust and see if they see things the way you do."
If you temporarily take out the; ‘mass murder ritual of a,’ you are left with ‘holocaust’ which is what I meant.
And what’s this ‘you’re the only gal for me trip, stay away from these atheist gals, they’ll bring you nothing but trouble, you’ve been warned!!!
Xev,
So, what is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and somthing that has no relevence?
Trick question right.
None.
Because the concept of relevance and irrelevance both have to be part of the being that is both everything and everywhere, so they are reletive.
This God is irrelevent.
To you!!
To me, your prattle shows just how merciful God is.
But its just a matter of perception, it will all come out in the wash, one day.
That was my friend's explanation of athiesm. He was a very insightful man.
To you but not to me!
Everything in this phenomenal world is relative.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Last edited:
Don't listen to her, Tyler. It is a well known and documented fact that athiests are better in bed. Jan is simply trying to provoke a catfight over you.
*Growls at Jan Ardena*
Say, Jan, didn't you once claim that most everybody was an athiest because they didn't abide by the true religion? That's rather going to limit his options.
Jan:
Yes, they are relative. Everything is.
However, what is the benefit of believing in such a God? What distinguishes this God from irrelevence?
*Xev is struck by a lightning bolt*
That stings.
Yes, but you don't understand athiesm and you're chasing Tyler....so your opinion is irrelevent.
"Don't listen to her, Tyler. It is a well known and documented fact that athiests are better in bed. Jan is simply trying to provoke a catfight over you."
I got $10 on Xev. Though religious people do tend to be pretty violent when they got somethin' to fight for. Haha, I'm all yours Xev, don't worry!
"Now before we carry this on lets try and understand each other, I know where you are coming from, and from that perspective you are right, but try and understand where I am coming from."
To do so, I would need your definition of a discriminatory killing.
"Hitlers ignorance became apparent when he saw people as designations, instead of human beings. He therefore caused the slaughter, torture, suffering and murder of millions of 'human beings' based on what he thought they were, but in actuality they were just human beings non different to him or any other human being, who happened to be called, Jews etc…"
Nay, Hitler still saw them as human beings. Perhaps what you mean is that Hitler saw some human beings as more valuable than other human beings. He always continued to view them as humans, just some were super-human!
Not different from any other human? First of all, this is irrelevant. We are debating whether or not Hitler killed discriminatorilly. Hitler did think races of people were different. Whether or not you think this is true does not matter, what matters is that Hitler did segregate people based on race and political views. Second of all, people do differ from race to race in my view. Besides the obvious physical differences, there are attitude differences. Many PCers will say that this is an incorrect view while completely ignoring the logic in it. Different cultures produce different social values and attitudes. It's quite simple. Personally, I'm beginning to hate 'multiculturalism' in the U.S. This whole 'no one is different' bullshit is an attempt to assimilate everyone into one 'human culture'.
"If you temporarily take out the; ‘mass murder ritual of a,’ you are left with ‘holocaust’ which is what I meant."
Like I said, my grandfather.
I got $10 on Xev. Though religious people do tend to be pretty violent when they got somethin' to fight for. Haha, I'm all yours Xev, don't worry!
"Now before we carry this on lets try and understand each other, I know where you are coming from, and from that perspective you are right, but try and understand where I am coming from."
To do so, I would need your definition of a discriminatory killing.
"Hitlers ignorance became apparent when he saw people as designations, instead of human beings. He therefore caused the slaughter, torture, suffering and murder of millions of 'human beings' based on what he thought they were, but in actuality they were just human beings non different to him or any other human being, who happened to be called, Jews etc…"
Nay, Hitler still saw them as human beings. Perhaps what you mean is that Hitler saw some human beings as more valuable than other human beings. He always continued to view them as humans, just some were super-human!
Not different from any other human? First of all, this is irrelevant. We are debating whether or not Hitler killed discriminatorilly. Hitler did think races of people were different. Whether or not you think this is true does not matter, what matters is that Hitler did segregate people based on race and political views. Second of all, people do differ from race to race in my view. Besides the obvious physical differences, there are attitude differences. Many PCers will say that this is an incorrect view while completely ignoring the logic in it. Different cultures produce different social values and attitudes. It's quite simple. Personally, I'm beginning to hate 'multiculturalism' in the U.S. This whole 'no one is different' bullshit is an attempt to assimilate everyone into one 'human culture'.
"If you temporarily take out the; ‘mass murder ritual of a,’ you are left with ‘holocaust’ which is what I meant."
Like I said, my grandfather.
Xev,
Don't listen to her, Tyler. It is a well known and documented fact that athiests are better in bed. Jan is simply trying to provoke a catfight over you.
Be careful Tyler she’ll promise you everything, and for a while you will feel you are in heaven, then as soon as new fresh blood comes along, she will dump you and leave you with a broken heart and you will end up a broken man.
Trust me I know what I am talking about.
*Growls at Jan Ardena*
*I extend to you my heart and arms in friendship.*
Say, Jan, didn't you once claim that most everybody was an athiest because they didn't abide by the true religion? That's rather going to limit his options.
Options for what?
However, what is the benefit of believing in such a God? What distinguishes this God from irrelevence?
He is also a person, therefore He is everything and separate from everything simultaneosly. For example your body has its own mechanism, you don’t have to remember to breath or eat or sleep, it does that for you. When you are asleep or unconscious, your body is still doing its thing, so in a sense you are your body but at the same time separate from your body.
This gigantic universe is a part of Gods body, it works automatically like any body, but God Himself is separate from this universe, He has his own abode called ‘Vaikuntha’ which means ‘no anxiety’ or more commonly known as the ‘Kingdom of God’ or the ‘Spiritual world.’
*Xev is struck by a lightning bolt*
That stings.
Just demonstrating, what goes around comes around.
Yes, but you don't understand athiesm....
There is nothing to understand, its like saying one doesn’t understand the dark, atheism is just the opposite of theism, both are only explanations of state of mind, therefore quite irrelevant in reality.
.and you're chasing Tyler....so your opinion is irrelevent.
Tyler!!!
Do not be taken in by this woman!!!
YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!!!!!! :bugeye:
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Don't listen to her, Tyler. It is a well known and documented fact that athiests are better in bed. Jan is simply trying to provoke a catfight over you.
Be careful Tyler she’ll promise you everything, and for a while you will feel you are in heaven, then as soon as new fresh blood comes along, she will dump you and leave you with a broken heart and you will end up a broken man.
Trust me I know what I am talking about.
*Growls at Jan Ardena*
*I extend to you my heart and arms in friendship.*
Say, Jan, didn't you once claim that most everybody was an athiest because they didn't abide by the true religion? That's rather going to limit his options.
Options for what?
However, what is the benefit of believing in such a God? What distinguishes this God from irrelevence?
He is also a person, therefore He is everything and separate from everything simultaneosly. For example your body has its own mechanism, you don’t have to remember to breath or eat or sleep, it does that for you. When you are asleep or unconscious, your body is still doing its thing, so in a sense you are your body but at the same time separate from your body.
This gigantic universe is a part of Gods body, it works automatically like any body, but God Himself is separate from this universe, He has his own abode called ‘Vaikuntha’ which means ‘no anxiety’ or more commonly known as the ‘Kingdom of God’ or the ‘Spiritual world.’
*Xev is struck by a lightning bolt*
That stings.
Just demonstrating, what goes around comes around.
Yes, but you don't understand athiesm....
There is nothing to understand, its like saying one doesn’t understand the dark, atheism is just the opposite of theism, both are only explanations of state of mind, therefore quite irrelevant in reality.
.and you're chasing Tyler....so your opinion is irrelevent.
Tyler!!!
Do not be taken in by this woman!!!
YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!!!!!!
:bugeye: Love.
Jan Ardena.
No no, I can't promise him everything. For instance, I can't make G.W Bush be smart....
This is beginning to sound like a Brazilian soap opera! Now all we need is for Nelson to turn out to be Jan's identical twin who underwent a sex change operation!
Okey dokie artichokie, do you have evidence for any of this?
Yeah, next I'll have Zeus hitting on me.
*Hits a few amourous swans, then gives up and feeds them to the Great Cthulhu*
Not the opposite but the absence. Not bad at all.
Allright, that does it....
CATFIGHT!
*Xev bopples away to change into leather miniskirt*
Is he a human being?
Did he commit any crime worthy of being slaughtered?
Love.
Jan Ardena.
"I believe that as a ‘human being,’ you have human rights, and therefore a right not to be assaulted on the grounds of your outward bodily dress, where you were born or how you think."
Yes, you believe that. As do most people in modern culture. However, you seem to think this matters in whether or not Hitler was discriminatory.
To discriminate is to segregate people based on creed, political opinion or race. Hitler, as you admitted, segregated humans. I dare you to go up to a Jew and say Hitler was not prejudice and discriminatory against Jews.
Now, here's where you start altering the English language (though nowhere near to the extent that our friend nelson does).
"An expensive coat and a cheap coat differs in value according to the desire of everyday people, but in real terms they are both coats and have a specific use, therefore a real value, and that use actually has nothing to do with the afforementioned value."
This metaphor says to me that you feel no human is born greater than any other human. That our religion or political choice does not make us any less of a human. To discriminate is, in essense, to segregate people because you view them as lesser humans. So, you have eliminated the idea of discrimination.
Now, this is where it gets hard to explain this to you. So excuse me if it seems like I'm grabbing at an explination.
You view all humans as born equal. To me, this is the correct view. To others, this is the correct view. Ultimatly, this view means that you can not discriminate because there is nothing to discriminate against.
Hitler viewed some humans as better than other humans. Hitler believed in Darwinism in humans. Hitler believed Aryan race was stronger and therefore would be the next step in evolution. If you told Hitler that all humans were born equal he would stand up and give a 40 minute speech on why you are wrong and why the German race will be supreme. So to find out if Hitler was discriminatory or not, we must look at the reality as viewed by him. He discriminated against Jews. As a people.
And, I don't know if you know this, but most of the world agreed with Hitler. Italy was fascist. France was socialist, but it was like a 55/45 draw between quasi-commies and fascists. America was okey-dokey with Hitler because most Americans hated Jews too (Henry Ford wrote a book - The International Jew - which Hitler idolized). William Randolph Hearst was a huge Nazi supporter. Canada came close to being either commie or nazi because of economic gain each system promised (and at the time, delivered). The world was just fine with fascism. It was faaaar from out of the ordinary. Rascism and discrimination and prejudice and ignorance (as you name it) was flourishing.
"But they weren’t super-humans, we can see now in hindsight, that he was miserably wrong."
Like I said, whether or not he was right or wrong TO YOU, does not matter. To HIM, he was right. To much of the world, he was right. Hitler discriminated because he believed it was natural and in the best interest.
"But that does not mean they deserve to be slaughtered?
They are all human beings and have as much right to live as you."
Quote me saying Hitler did a good thing and I'll ignore this comment. I never once insinuated that they deserved to be slaughtered.
"What kind of a human being slaughters women and innocent children?"
Ah so women and innocent children are more deserving of life than men? Interesting prejudice...
"But I fail to see how the European Jews, at that time, deserved that kind of treatment, maybe you can shed light on that."
My pleasure. World War Two was a necessary act. You can in no way blame Germany for WWII. To understand this, you need to know WWI. After The Great War, when Germany had lost to the allied nations, there was a treaty signed. Basically, this was the idea; Hey, we've killed their men, destroyed their army, so what should we do next......how about we destroy their national honour, limit them to never being able to be more than a 3rd world nation and destroy their industry! The Treaty of Versailles basically stated that Germany had to take FULL responsibility as murderers in WWI, limited their army to a size too small to ever defend the country, give up extremely valuable land, let French military roam the streets (which, beyond making Germany little more than a state, embarasses the hell out of the nation and teaches the kids that their country is not something to have pride in). You probably looked at the first point about Germany taking full fault for WWI as true, but it really isn't. World War One has no clear good guy or bad guy. If you want to ask why this is so, go ahead and I will happily answer. Anyway, I have to ask you this; you fight a war and loose. After you loose, your opposer says you can never again be allowed to be greater than a third-world nation and your people must feel shame for 100 years (which is how long French troops were to spend in Germany). Is this fair? No, not in the least. It was a ridiculous mistake by the allies. And Germany had NO say in it.
In 1919 the Russian Bolsheviks had a revolution that put Communism in place in the country. Global Soviet Domination was beginning to look like a possibility. Much like 15 years ago when Soviet/Democracy fight was big, the race was between Commies and Fascists. Every nation had a big Commie party, and every nation had a big Nazi party. Germany was a country with a 1% Jewish population. However, the Jews held 15% of all Lawyer positions and 12% of all doctor positions. So a 1 in every 100 person holds 1 in every 25 (roughly) high paying position. Not exactly an even ratio, eh? So point 1 against the Jews - They Have Our Jobs! Hitler, along with many others, was also a firm believer in Darwinism (as I mentioned earlier). He believed that evolution was a part of nature. And that the strong survive. As he saw it, the Aryan race was far superior, stronger and smarter than other races. (The logic question involved now that a lot of people reach is; if the Jews have all the jobs, how did he see Aryans as superior?). Point 2 against the Jews - We Are Superior, We WIll Survive! Germany under democracy was an impossibiltiy. Like I said, they would be a third world nation forever. Germany under communism or fascism however, could quickly become a leading nation. So how do you choose? Well, the communists wanted a global village where only The Party is loved. The Nazi's suggested a love for Germany culture, history, mythology, music (Wagner - though don't you dare say it like that, it's pronounced Vagner!), philosophy (Neitzsche) and education. So as a German citizen, which one appeals more? Point 3 against the Jews - They Are Keeping Us Down! There was a large communist support in Germany though...and they were mostly Jewish. So the Jews, as Germans viewed, were trying to destroy German culture (which the Jewish communits were trying to do, though not because they hated German culture but just because they saw it as necessary in global communism). Point 4 against the Jews - They Want To Destroy Our Culture!
So World War II was necessary. And fascism was necessary. But was the killing of 6 million Jews necessary? No.
"Is he a human being?
Did he commit any crime worthy of being slaughtered?"
You have to understand, Hitler saw the destruction of Jews as a necessary act. It was just another step forward in evolution.
How you see it is of no relevance to understand Hitler's view.
Yes, you believe that. As do most people in modern culture. However, you seem to think this matters in whether or not Hitler was discriminatory.
To discriminate is to segregate people based on creed, political opinion or race. Hitler, as you admitted, segregated humans. I dare you to go up to a Jew and say Hitler was not prejudice and discriminatory against Jews.
Now, here's where you start altering the English language (though nowhere near to the extent that our friend nelson does).
"An expensive coat and a cheap coat differs in value according to the desire of everyday people, but in real terms they are both coats and have a specific use, therefore a real value, and that use actually has nothing to do with the afforementioned value."
This metaphor says to me that you feel no human is born greater than any other human. That our religion or political choice does not make us any less of a human. To discriminate is, in essense, to segregate people because you view them as lesser humans. So, you have eliminated the idea of discrimination.
Now, this is where it gets hard to explain this to you. So excuse me if it seems like I'm grabbing at an explination.
You view all humans as born equal. To me, this is the correct view. To others, this is the correct view. Ultimatly, this view means that you can not discriminate because there is nothing to discriminate against.
Hitler viewed some humans as better than other humans. Hitler believed in Darwinism in humans. Hitler believed Aryan race was stronger and therefore would be the next step in evolution. If you told Hitler that all humans were born equal he would stand up and give a 40 minute speech on why you are wrong and why the German race will be supreme. So to find out if Hitler was discriminatory or not, we must look at the reality as viewed by him. He discriminated against Jews. As a people.
And, I don't know if you know this, but most of the world agreed with Hitler. Italy was fascist. France was socialist, but it was like a 55/45 draw between quasi-commies and fascists. America was okey-dokey with Hitler because most Americans hated Jews too (Henry Ford wrote a book - The International Jew - which Hitler idolized). William Randolph Hearst was a huge Nazi supporter. Canada came close to being either commie or nazi because of economic gain each system promised (and at the time, delivered). The world was just fine with fascism. It was faaaar from out of the ordinary. Rascism and discrimination and prejudice and ignorance (as you name it) was flourishing.
"But they weren’t super-humans, we can see now in hindsight, that he was miserably wrong."
Like I said, whether or not he was right or wrong TO YOU, does not matter. To HIM, he was right. To much of the world, he was right. Hitler discriminated because he believed it was natural and in the best interest.
"But that does not mean they deserve to be slaughtered?
They are all human beings and have as much right to live as you."
Quote me saying Hitler did a good thing and I'll ignore this comment. I never once insinuated that they deserved to be slaughtered.
"What kind of a human being slaughters women and innocent children?"
Ah so women and innocent children are more deserving of life than men? Interesting prejudice...
"But I fail to see how the European Jews, at that time, deserved that kind of treatment, maybe you can shed light on that."
My pleasure. World War Two was a necessary act. You can in no way blame Germany for WWII. To understand this, you need to know WWI. After The Great War, when Germany had lost to the allied nations, there was a treaty signed. Basically, this was the idea; Hey, we've killed their men, destroyed their army, so what should we do next......how about we destroy their national honour, limit them to never being able to be more than a 3rd world nation and destroy their industry! The Treaty of Versailles basically stated that Germany had to take FULL responsibility as murderers in WWI, limited their army to a size too small to ever defend the country, give up extremely valuable land, let French military roam the streets (which, beyond making Germany little more than a state, embarasses the hell out of the nation and teaches the kids that their country is not something to have pride in). You probably looked at the first point about Germany taking full fault for WWI as true, but it really isn't. World War One has no clear good guy or bad guy. If you want to ask why this is so, go ahead and I will happily answer. Anyway, I have to ask you this; you fight a war and loose. After you loose, your opposer says you can never again be allowed to be greater than a third-world nation and your people must feel shame for 100 years (which is how long French troops were to spend in Germany). Is this fair? No, not in the least. It was a ridiculous mistake by the allies. And Germany had NO say in it.
In 1919 the Russian Bolsheviks had a revolution that put Communism in place in the country. Global Soviet Domination was beginning to look like a possibility. Much like 15 years ago when Soviet/Democracy fight was big, the race was between Commies and Fascists. Every nation had a big Commie party, and every nation had a big Nazi party. Germany was a country with a 1% Jewish population. However, the Jews held 15% of all Lawyer positions and 12% of all doctor positions. So a 1 in every 100 person holds 1 in every 25 (roughly) high paying position. Not exactly an even ratio, eh? So point 1 against the Jews - They Have Our Jobs! Hitler, along with many others, was also a firm believer in Darwinism (as I mentioned earlier). He believed that evolution was a part of nature. And that the strong survive. As he saw it, the Aryan race was far superior, stronger and smarter than other races. (The logic question involved now that a lot of people reach is; if the Jews have all the jobs, how did he see Aryans as superior?). Point 2 against the Jews - We Are Superior, We WIll Survive! Germany under democracy was an impossibiltiy. Like I said, they would be a third world nation forever. Germany under communism or fascism however, could quickly become a leading nation. So how do you choose? Well, the communists wanted a global village where only The Party is loved. The Nazi's suggested a love for Germany culture, history, mythology, music (Wagner - though don't you dare say it like that, it's pronounced Vagner!), philosophy (Neitzsche) and education. So as a German citizen, which one appeals more? Point 3 against the Jews - They Are Keeping Us Down! There was a large communist support in Germany though...and they were mostly Jewish. So the Jews, as Germans viewed, were trying to destroy German culture (which the Jewish communits were trying to do, though not because they hated German culture but just because they saw it as necessary in global communism). Point 4 against the Jews - They Want To Destroy Our Culture!
So World War II was necessary. And fascism was necessary. But was the killing of 6 million Jews necessary? No.
"Is he a human being?
Did he commit any crime worthy of being slaughtered?"
You have to understand, Hitler saw the destruction of Jews as a necessary act. It was just another step forward in evolution.
How you see it is of no relevance to understand Hitler's view.
Just wanna clear up a couple of things.
To discriminate is to choose by prefernce. I choose my shoes by disciminating. I choose what I want for dinner by disciminating. Not really a good idea to redefine a word in terms of its current political use when that is hardly the only use. Discrimination is a good thing. If we did not discriminate, nothing would ever get better. Now, discrimination against any particular group of people might be a bad thing, but that's a different story.
Humans are not all born equal. Some have birth defects, some are smarter than others, some are faster runners or better gymnasts. People are all different, and this trend of political correctness to deny human individuality is ridiculous. The only thing equal about our births is our rights, and that is nothing objective and "real", just something we made up and use.
No. Only Germany had a NAZI party. The letters NAZI even specify it as a German political party.
Well, people called it Communism, but it wasn't. It was a twisted Socialism. Note what the letters USSR stand for.
The Black Hand, and Archduke Ferdinand.