Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

People often describe Hitler as a monster, or as evil, when Der Untergang came out alot of German Reporters asked if it was right for Hitler to be portrayed so humanly.

But, Hitler was a devout supporter of the Survival of the Fittest theory, he believed that the strong had to survive and to do this it involved destroying the weak, and so, the concentration camps where set up and millions where gassed and killed...but

Is the extreme take on, what is effectively Darwinism, actually evil?

To say that Hitler was evil would suggest that he was devoid of Human emotion and soul...but, it is clear if you read the reports of those who knew him that this wasn't the case.

In fact, he did do what HE felt was best for humanity...so he wasn't acting out of malice but HE thought he was doing what was right.

Although he may have been wrong and his beliefs on what is right and wrong where extremely warped, does that actually make him evil?

No, I dont think so.
Hitler, as you said yourself, was a extremely warped individual.
Hitler's idea that the Arian race was superior to all other races is totally warped.

He was just a very confused individual, I dont think he was in essance "evil"

Hitler wasn't evil to Hitler. Or to Eva Braun. It would be interesting if one could see what the world would be like if he had succeeded at a career as an artist.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
People often describe Hitler as a monster, or as evil, when Der Untergang came out alot of German Reporters asked if it was right for Hitler to be portrayed so humanly.

But, Hitler was a devout supporter of the Survival of the Fittest theory, he believed that the strong had to survive and to do this it involved destroying the weak, and so, the concentration camps where set up and millions where gassed and killed...but

Is the extreme take on, what is effectively Darwinism, actually evil?

To say that Hitler was evil would suggest that he was devoid of Human emotion and soul...but, it is clear if you read the reports of those who knew him that this wasn't the case.

In fact, he did do what HE felt was best for humanity...so he wasn't acting out of malice but HE thought he was doing what was right.

Although he may have been wrong and his beliefs on what is right and wrong where extremely warped, does that actually make him evil?

Bieng evil doesn't mean you don't have human emotion. It is when you act with the intent to harm another knowing that what you are doing is wrong. Thus he is evil. The nazis few perfectly well that what thay were doing was evil. That's why they were ordered to kill all the remaining prisoners open germany loosing the war. It wasn't to eliminate the jews. they knew by then it was a lost cause. It was to hide the evidense. That's also why they destroyed the camps and burned the bodies of the people they had alredy killed and buried. They knew it was wrong, and they did it anyways. how can you think killing jews and gays is survival of the fittest?

Originally posted by Rapscallion
Bieng evil doesn't mean you don't have human emotion. It is when you act with the intent to harm another knowing that what you are doing is wrong.

Hitler didn't think killing the Jews was wrong did he?

Originally posted by Rapscallion
How can you think killing jews and gays is survival of the fittest?


Hitler also killed people with disabilities and people of different effnic origin, besides he often preached about the strong surviving and the wiping out of the weak, it was the foundation of the Areyn Ideal.

He believed that Jews and Homosexuals where counter-german and that their genes where inferior to others.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
People often describe Hitler as a monster, or as evil, when Der Untergang came out alot of German Reporters asked if it was right for Hitler to be portrayed so humanly.

But, Hitler was a devout supporter of the Survival of the Fittest theory, he believed that the strong had to survive and to do this it involved destroying the weak, and so, the concentration camps where set up and millions where gassed and killed...but

Is the extreme take on, what is effectively Darwinism, actually evil?

To say that Hitler was evil would suggest that he was devoid of Human emotion and soul...but, it is clear if you read the reports of those who knew him that this wasn't the case.

In fact, he did do what HE felt was best for humanity...so he wasn't acting out of malice but HE thought he was doing what was right.

Although he may have been wrong and his beliefs on what is right and wrong where extremely warped, does that actually make him evil?


It was not Darwinism. It was not "survival of the fittest"

It was "survival of who looks the best in my opinion" that Hitler was promoting. The Jews contributed much higher to economy than Germans and Europeans of other religions at the time, and they were doing VERY WELL.

In Fact, Hitler wanted to attend an Art Academy and was rejected due to his failure to paint portraits of people. He felt that the reason he was rejected was because the Jews that were IN CHARGE of that school rejected him.


His acts were out of HATRED....NOT science. He didn't like the Jews, he didn't like the Slavic Races, the Russians, Gypsies, Polish, Blacks, or Homosexuals.....because he was a bigot.

It had NOTHING to do with Darwinism, again. IT was all Superficiality taken to an extreme. HE favored the Aryan Race because they had Blonde Hair, Blue Eyes, and Light Skin. He felt that because of thier beauty they deserved to be the only race of Human Being worthy of continous free existance.

He wanted to Exterminate all races and groups of people that he SIMPLY DISLIKED...not that he felt were too weak to go on. And he disliked them for SUPERFICIAL reasons, not scientific reasons.

In fact, Hitler suffered from Inferiority Complex. He hated the way he looked, he hated his beaty eyes, dark hair, and crooked nose....he also denied the fact that he himself was part Jewish (he had a Jewish Grandmother)


There is so much you seem not to know about Adolf Hitler....for you to claim that he was just trying to promote Darwinism is ABSURD and shows how much education on the subject you lack.

What an idiotic and unsupported claim.....

Originally posted by The thinker
No, I dont think so.
Hitler, as you said yourself, was a extremely warped individual.
Hitler's idea that the Arian race was superior to all other races is totally warped.

He was just a very confused individual, I dont think he was in essance "evil"

If Adolf Hitler wasn't evil, than NO ONE is Evil. To say that he was a "confused individual" is a fkn cop-out and can be applied to ALL people who do evil things.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It was not Darwinism. It was not "survival of the fittest"

It was "survival of who looks the best in my opinion" that Hitler was promoting. The Jews contributed much higher to economy than Germans and Europeans of other religions at the time, and they were doing VERY WELL.

In Fact, Hitler wanted to attend an Art Academy and was rejected due to his failure to paint portraits of people. He felt that the reason he was rejected was because the Jews that were IN CHARGE of that school rejected him.


His acts were out of HATRED....NOT science. He didn't like the Jews, he didn't like the Slavic Races, the Russians, Gypsies, Polish, Blacks, or Homosexuals.....because he was a bigot.

It had NOTHING to do with Darwinism, again. IT was all Superficiality taken to an extreme. HE favored the Aryan Race because they had Blonde Hair, Blue Eyes, and Light Skin. He felt that because of thier beauty they deserved to be the only race of Human Being worthy of continous free existance.

He wanted to Exterminate all races and groups of people that he SIMPLY DISLIKED...not that he felt were too weak to go on. And he disliked them for SUPERFICIAL reasons, not scientific reasons.

In fact, Hitler suffered from Inferiority Complex. He hated the way he looked, he hated his beaty eyes, dark hair, and crooked nose....he also denied the fact that he himself was part Jewish (he had a Jewish Grandmother)


There is so much you seem not to know about Adolf Hitler....for you to claim that he was just trying to promote Darwinism is ABSURD and shows how much education on the subject you lack.

What an idiotic and unsupported claim.....




Social Darwinism

Ernst Haeckel, introduced Darwinism into Germany and formulated a racist social policy for the Nazis.
Indeed, a heavy Darwinist influence can be seen in all the Nazi ideologues. When this theory, which was given form by Hitler and Alfred Rosenburg is examined, one sees concepts such as 'natural selection,' 'selective mating,' and 'the struggle for survival between the races,' which are repeated dozens of times in Darwin's The Origin of Species. The name of Hitler's book Mein Kampf was inspired by Darwin's principle that life was a constant struggle for survival, and those who emerged victorious survived. In the book Hitler talked of the struggle between the races.
Hitler got the idea of the necessity of a perpetual war and conflict among human races from the theories of Darwin.

Hitler's view was in fact influenced by Darwinism

Originally posted by The thinker
Social Darwinism

Ernst Haeckel, introduced Darwinism into Germany and formulated a racist social policy for the Nazis.
Indeed, a heavy Darwinist influence can be seen in all the Nazi ideologues. When this theory, which was given form by Hitler and Alfred Rosenburg is examined, one sees concepts such as 'natural selection,' 'selective mating,' and 'the struggle for survival between the races,' which are repeated dozens of times in Darwin's The Origin of Species. The name of Hitler's book Mein Kampf was inspired by Darwin's principle that life was a constant struggle for survival, and those who emerged victorious survived. In the book Hitler talked of the struggle between the races.
Hitler got the idea of the necessity of a perpetual war and conflict among human races from the theories of Darwin.

Hitler's view was in fact influenced by Darwinism

Influenced, but unlike what the thread opener said, he was not thinking of only darwinism.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Adolf Hitler wasn't evil, than NO ONE is Evil. To say that he was a "confused individual" is a fkn cop-out and can be applied to ALL people who do evil things.

"Evil" is a totally relative concept.
This "evil" argument is philosophical agument.

He was just misunderstood

Originally posted by The thinker
Social Darwinism

Ernst Haeckel, introduced Darwinism into Germany and formulated a racist social policy for the Nazis.
Indeed, a heavy Darwinist influence can be seen in all the Nazi ideologues. When this theory, which was given form by Hitler and Alfred Rosenburg is examined, one sees concepts such as 'natural selection,' 'selective mating,' and 'the struggle for survival between the races,' which are repeated dozens of times in Darwin's The Origin of Species. The name of Hitler's book Mein Kampf was inspired by Darwin's principle that life was a constant struggle for survival, and those who emerged victorious survived. In the book Hitler talked of the struggle between the races.
Hitler got the idea of the necessity of a perpetual war and conflict among human races from the theories of Darwin.

Hitler's view was in fact influenced by Darwinism


The Concentration camp idea was justified to himself by the ideals of Darwinism.

HE always hated Jews and the like, and with or without Darwinism, once he gained power he would have killed and tortured the same people any way.

HE was evil. Get over it.

Originally posted by KidRock
He was just misunderstood

I take it your a member of the KKK

Survival of the fittest? Thats crazy he was a racist and had the power to kill those he thought of as lesser humans. He did a lot of evil things which makes him evil in my opinion.

He was not evil. Evil is a point of view.

Originally posted by Flamboyant4Life
He was not evil. Evil is a point of view.

So torturing and killing millions of people is good ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So torturing and killing millions of people is good ?
Thats not what he is saying, he is saying it is a point of view.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It was not Darwinism. It was not "survival of the fittest"

It was "survival of who looks the best in my opinion" that Hitler was promoting. The Jews contributed much higher to economy than Germans and Europeans of other religions at the time, and they were doing VERY WELL.

In Fact, Hitler wanted to attend an Art Academy and was rejected due to his failure to paint portraits of people. He felt that the reason he was rejected was because the Jews that were IN CHARGE of that school rejected him.


His acts were out of HATRED....NOT science. He didn't like the Jews, he didn't like the Slavic Races, the Russians, Gypsies, Polish, Blacks, or Homosexuals.....because he was a bigot.

It had NOTHING to do with Darwinism, again. IT was all Superficiality taken to an extreme. HE favored the Aryan Race because they had Blonde Hair, Blue Eyes, and Light Skin. He felt that because of thier beauty they deserved to be the only race of Human Being worthy of continous free existance.

He wanted to Exterminate all races and groups of people that he SIMPLY DISLIKED...not that he felt were too weak to go on. And he disliked them for SUPERFICIAL reasons, not scientific reasons.

In fact, Hitler suffered from Inferiority Complex. He hated the way he looked, he hated his beaty eyes, dark hair, and crooked nose....he also denied the fact that he himself was part Jewish (he had a Jewish Grandmother)


There is so much you seem not to know about Adolf Hitler....for you to claim that he was just trying to promote Darwinism is ABSURD and shows how much education on the subject you lack.

What an idiotic and unsupported claim.....

Hitler's entire Ideal was based on the ideal's of Darwinism, he was just very very extreme, if you listen to what Hitler actually said he would talk about the Strong wiping out the weak, he told Aryn people that the could not have children with those of lesser races.


He deemed that Slavs, Russians, black people, homosexuals, Gypsies and Jews were people descended of lesser beings, thus subhuman.

He DID NOT have a Jewish grandmother, the CIA created a file on Hitler and that was not included as a fact but a rumour, more like Anti-Hitler propaganda.

As for being rejected from Art School, yes he was, but did he blame the Jews for this? Possible, but unlikely, there are rumours theories as to why Hitler hated Jews, but it is most likely that they where an alienated part of society who, as had been for centuries, where the subject of discrimination even post WWI Germany, people then where still preaching anti-jewish propaganda, Hitler clearly believed what he heard and found the jews the perfect scapegoat for his failings.

But I assure you he didn't have a Jewish grandmother, what a silly thing to say.

I really fail to see how genocide falls into the theory of natural selection..

Hitler could though, thats the point, he saw what he did as being "loyal to nature"

Hitler was evil, depending on a certain perspective. To actually study the man (and I have for many years. As any one who knows me can atest, I have a certain fascination with the man) But to call the man evil is to apply certain personality traits to any human being in a categorical fashion. It is unfortunate that that is how most people think.

Some people say the abuse he suffered at the hands of his father was the reason for his actions...that he spent the rest of his life acting out his resentment towards his father on a grand, global scale. Then there are intimate stories about the man himself. He was a vegitarian because he was against cruelty to animals. The stories recited by his sister about he and his friends playing cowboys and indians as children. He loved his mother deeply, because she treated him with respect and equality while his father abused him.

So, in one aspect you could say he was a mommas boy with a resentment of his abusive father who had a dominate personality. But that really simplifies his actions and doesn't pay them the merrit they deserve.

The true evil in his personality was his apathy. And oddly enough, this mans apathy came from his passion. His passion for power and the advancement of his ideas for a perfect society. And that apathy resulted in the extermination of six million jews, millions of others in the camps, the death of 20 million German soldiers, 20 million Russian soldiers, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and millions, I'm sure, of other combined allied forces. Not to mention freedom of thought in that "perfect" society.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
But I assure you he didn't have a Jewish grandmother, what a silly thing to say.

Then tell History Channel to take that back !

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So torturing and killing millions of people is good ? Yes, from the perspective of Hitler and the Nazis.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then tell History Channel to take that back !

Ahh, I see, the History Channel may have had a documentary which commented on the rumour that Hitler's grandmother was Jewish, but I can guarantee that it didn't state it as a fact...I suggest you really really pay attention...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Hitler didn't think killing the Jews was wrong did he?




Hitler also killed people with disabilities and people of different effnic origin, besides he often preached about the strong surviving and the wiping out of the weak, it was the foundation of the Areyn Ideal.


He believed that Jews and Homosexuals where counter-german and that their genes where inferior to others.

oh my bad! i had forgotten he had killed people with disabilities. in that case he's a good guy. he was just cleansing the population. my apologies.

i can't believe we are seriously debating whether or not social darwinism is bad.

oh and yeah his grandmother was jewish

oh and your whole argument about him being influenced by darwin is irrelevent. social darwinism is the worst atrocity a country can commit

Still doesn't make him evil.

Yes, Hitler was evil. As is said, actions speak louder than words, and he was responsible for the deaths of millions, deaths brought about out of pure hatred and nothing more.

This doesn't mean that he wasn't human, who says one can't be evil and still hold on to some shreds of humanity? The guy liked his dog, he was proud of his nazi children, does this mean he isn't evil? Of course not. He's still responsible for the greatest evil the earth has ever seen, the fact that he thought he was doing something good just shows that he was crazy as well as evil.

I don't quite follow the reasoning that he was following darwinism, survival of the fittest or natural selection in any way. There was nothing natural about the way he selected who lived and who died. Survival of the fittest is dependant on nature deciding who lives and who dies, the weak die naturally because they can't live in the world, it's not decided by some bloodthirsty villain who's choosing it based on the way a person looks/sounds/thinks.

Originally posted by Rapscallion
oh and yeah his grandmother was jewish

The truth of the matter is that no one knows. Not his sibling, and no one in the Nazi party could definitively answer this charge. And the records about his family that existed in his home town were lost during the war because he ordered the town used for target practice. The city was leveled...graveyards and tombstones, city hall, houses, hospitals, churches, dentist offices, the civil office at which his father worked. Everything.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Yes, from the perspective of Hitler and the Nazis.
Err... that's because they were evil; or at the very least, brainwashed by evil.

C'mon guys, this argument is just...well, daft!

If Hitler and the actions of the Nazis killing 6 million Jews, and millions of others, were NOT evil, then what on earth is?

I fully appreciate the argument that 'history is written by the victors', and that in the vast majority of wars 'evil' things have been committed on both sides, but the sheer scale of the terror afflicted to so many people by Nazi Germany makes it the very definition of evil! In fact, the only thing MORE evil in the history of mankind was Stalin, who managed to kill 20 million people.

Originally posted by Mithlond
Stalin, who managed to kill 20 million people.

yeah, but that doesn't count...because as Eddie Izzard said: "they were his own people".

Originally posted by Mithlond
If Hitler and the actions of the Nazis killing 6 million Jews, and millions of others, were NOT evil, then what on earth is?An action doesn't necessarily need to be anything though, it simply is.

Evil is a condition applied by an individual to what displeases said individual.

I can believe Hitler, Pol Pot and Barney the Dinosaur evil, but neither I, nor anyone else here, is a universal moral authority.

From their opinion it was good. From our opinion it was bad.


Nothing really. Depends on what the person feels evil is. To you, what they did was evil. To them it wasn't. Who are you to say that your opinion is right?

hitler had a choice on what to do with his life
he chose actroctites which can only be described as evil or wrong.
what he did was plain wrong.
who can say if he changed in the last moments of life if he repented and prayed for forgivenesses.
the ultimate decision on wether he ended up evil is god.
however i can say for sure that a great many of his actions were evil.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
From their opinion it was good. From our opinion it was bad.


Nothing really. Depends on what the person feels evil is. To you, what they did was evil. To them it wasn't. Who are you to say that your opinion is right?

It's called common sense, kid. And it's supported by every basic law of human decency and accepted morality. The fact that Hitler believed killing millions of people out of hate was RIGHT just shows how skewered and ultimately evil his thought process was.

If you want to argue that Hitlier is not evil based purely on point of view then the world you are living in is entirely without morality or any possibility of value.

By any reasonable or useful definition of the word evil, Hitler was it.

Let the total relatavists cry that there is no such thing, but an ounce of common sense says otherwise.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you want to argue that Hitlier is not evil based purely on point of view then the world you are living in is entirely without morality or any possibility of value.

By any reasonable or useful definition of the word evil, Hitler was it.

Let the total relatavists cry that there is no such thing, but an ounce of common sense says otherwise.

Not really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really.

I think only a Sociapath truly beleives that what Hitler did was not evil. Whether evil is a social construct, or a true existance, by definition, Hitler is infact evil.

No doubt about it....doesn't care why he did it, doesn't care who says what...doesnt matter if morality exists or not....if anyone is Evil, Hitler is it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really.

As demonstration, that is the position of someone lacking common sense.

what do you base your views on, bardock?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think only a Sociapath truly beleives that what Hitler did was not evil.

I don't think anyone said that what he did wasn't evil. But the point of the question is the man himself.

there is a saying:
actions make the man
however he could have been and probably was mentally screwed up
so bad that the only place fit for him to be would have been a psyche ward.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As demonstration, that is the position of someone lacking common sense. Depends on who is determining the requirements for common sense.

edit

The question remains though, is it evil if you do what you believe to be right?

We could say that the 9/11 terrorists are evil, they killed hundreds of innocent people, but they would describe themselves as noble freedom fighters.

It should be clear to us all that Morality is a point of view, it is shaped by your beliefs, but who are we to tell others that their beliefs are wrong, or even evil.

It is easy for us to call Hitler evil, because we all hold similar moral values...but are any of us so impartial and just that we can decide what acts are evil and what are good?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

well by definition evil has nothing to do with relativity or perspective. either something is morally wrong or it's not. just cause someone thinks what they are doing is right doesn't mean it is.

amd since you're so high on darwinism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social%20darwinism

oh i see where you're coming from. there's nothing wrong with that is there?

Hmm, yes I recall declaring myself a follower of the Darwin theory...and, with all due respect, Morals are a matter of opinion...everyone has a different moral perspective, the dictionary isn't a tool for relative debate.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
In fact, he did do what HE felt was best for humanity...so he wasn't acting out of malice but HE thought he was doing what was right.

Although he may have been wrong and his beliefs on what is right and wrong where extremely warped, does that actually make him evil?

If Hitler truely felt that every single race was inferior to german/aryan/supermen, and that he was obligated to make sure that all non-supermen were destroyed, does that make him good?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think only a Sociapath truly beleives that what Hitler did was not evil. Whether evil is a social construct, or a true existance, by definition, Hitler is infact evil.

No doubt about it....doesn't care why he did it, doesn't care who says what...doesnt matter if morality exists or not....if anyone is Evil, Hitler is it. Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you want to argue that Hitlier is not evil based purely on point of view then the world you are living in is entirely without morality or any possibility of value.

By any reasonable or useful definition of the word evil, Hitler was it.

Let the total relatavists cry that there is no such thing, but an ounce of common sense says otherwise. Originally posted by BackFire
It's called common sense, kid. And it's supported by every basic law of human decency and accepted morality. The fact that Hitler believed killing millions of people out of hate was RIGHT just shows how skewered and ultimately evil his thought process was.
Not Really.

Originally posted by Penelope
If Hitler truely felt that every single race was inferior to german/aryan/supermen, and that he was obligated to make sure that all non-supermen were destroyed, does that make him good? Yes, from the perspective of himself and the Nazis.Originally posted by Rapscallion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

well by definition evil has nothing to do with relativity or perspective. either something is morally wrong or it's not. just cause someone thinks what they are doing is right doesn't mean it is.

amd since you're so high on darwinism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social%20darwinism

oh i see where you're coming from. there's nothing wrong with that is there? Yes, morally bad or wrong. Exactly. From his point of view it was not morally bad or wrong, therefore it was not evil.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Yes, from the perspective of himself and the Nazis. Yes, morally bad or wrong. Exactly. From his point of view it was not morally bad or wrong, therefore it was not evil.

So if a person thinks he is doing good, he is not evil?

Originally posted by Penelope
So if a person thinks he is doing good, he is not evil? Evil to us, but not evil to himself. Therefore he cannot be labeled as evil.

All I know about Hitler is his moustache was gay

Originally posted by K.Diddy
All I know about Hitler is his moustache was gay When I'm older I'm gonna grow a mustache and make a hitler mustache out of it for Halloween.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
When I'm older I'm gonna grow a mustache and make a hitler mustache out of it for Halloween.


Cool

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
When I'm older I'm gonna grow a mustache and make a hitler mustache out of it for Halloween.

Noooo, you want a real, manly moustache, the kind of thing that strike fear into the masses. You want a... Stalin 'tache.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Hmm, yes I recall declaring myself a follower of the Darwin theory...and, with all due respect, Morals are a matter of opinion...everyone has a different moral perspective, the dictionary isn't a tool for relative debate.

dude, not exactly the stuff you want to rattle around. yeah your entitled to your opinion, but when your opinion is as hateful and bigoted as supporting social darwinism (genocide as most affecionately call it), as you are strangely proud to admit, then you probably deserve a tiny bit of biased irrational opposition (as i tend to give) seeing as it tends to include the submission of minorities and has resulted in such events as the appartheid, segregation of african americans in the U.S., genocide in Rowanda, extermination of native americans, human "cleansing" in the ormerly called Zair, and everybody's favorite: the holocaust

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Evil to us, but not evil to himself. Therefore he cannot be labeled as evil.

So if i call myself "evil" i am legitimitly evil. hitler

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Evil to us, but not evil to himself. Therefore he cannot be labeled as evil.

To take that further, you can only be labeled evil if you are doing something which you know and feel is wrong but continue to do it anyway.

Originally posted by Penelope
So if i call myself "evil" i am legitimitly evil. hitler No, because you are calling yourself evil, but based on your morals you do not believe that you are evil.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Noooo, you want a real, manly moustache, the kind of thing that strike fear into the masses. You want a... Stalin 'tache. Fear the Stalin 'tache. fear

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/299/medstalinpn6.jpg

Originally posted by Rapscallion
dude, not exactly the stuff you want to rattle around. yeah your entitled to your opinion, but when your opinion is as hateful and bigoted as supporting social darwinism (genocide as most affecionately call it), as you are strangely proud to admit, then you probably deserve a tiny bit of biased irrational opposition (as i tend to give) seeing as it tends to include the submission of minorities and has resulted in such events as the appartheid, segregation of african americans in the U.S., genocide in Rowanda, extermination of native americans, human "cleansing" in the ormerly called Zair, and everybody's favorite: the holocaust No but see, in your opinion his opinion is bigoted and hateful. But in HIS opinion, his opinion is not bigoted and hateful.Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Noooo, you want a real, manly moustache, the kind of thing that strike fear into the masses. You want a... Stalin 'tache. I'll make a hybrid. fear

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
No but see, in your opinion his opinion is bigoted and hateful. But in HIS opinion, his opinion is not bigoted and hateful.

I don't support Social Darwinism, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Not Really.

Clever retort, next time maybe say something with a little substance or relevance.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Whether evil is a social construct, or a true existance, by definition, Hitler is infact evil.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Depends on who does the defining.

By either one of those, the man was evil.


Trivia: "Crazy White Man" was the Navajo Code word for Hitler. Just thought I'd share that.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
By either one of those, the man was evil./B]Depends on who does the defining.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Depends on who does the defining.

No it doesn't. Find any definition or connotation of "evil" and Hitler very much applies to it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No it doesn't. Find any definition or connotation of "evil" and Hitler very much applies to it. Depends on who did the defining.

We should remember that any act is morally justifiable, it depends on your morals!

Originally posted by Penelope
So if i call myself "evil" i am legitimitly evil. hitler

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
People often describe Hitler as a monster, or as evil, when Der Untergang came out alot of German Reporters asked if it was right for Hitler to be portrayed so humanly.

But, Hitler was a devout supporter of the Survival of the Fittest theory, he believed that the strong had to survive and to do this it involved destroying the weak, and so, the concentration camps where set up and millions where gassed and killed...but

Is the extreme take on, what is effectively Darwinism, actually evil?

To say that Hitler was evil would suggest that he was devoid of Human emotion and soul...but, it is clear if you read the reports of those who knew him that this wasn't the case.

In fact, he did do what HE felt was best for humanity...so he wasn't acting out of malice but HE thought he was doing what was right.

Although he may have been wrong and his beliefs on what is right and wrong where extremely warped, does that actually make him evil? Well, I learned that the Nazi's were just like normal people and treat their 'jobs' like we treat our jobs. Imagine, we might see AC throwing BlackSunshine's baby against a wall. Sick, but interestingly weird

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
We should remember that any act is morally justifiable, it depends on your morals!

That is categorically untrue, as is the comment by someone else that because Hitler didn't think what he was doing was evil, it wasn't evil.

On this line of thought, NOTHING would be evil or immoral:

- Mass Genocide, such as by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or more recently in the Balkans, because there are reasons of 'cleansing' a region of ethnicity, or protecting a power base.

- Serial Killers, as they have a variety of twisted reasons for what they have done.

- Paedophilia, because 'they like it'.

Doing something because you think it's OK to do it does not make it moral - doing something that is within popular moral boundaries makes it moral; following the accepted moral code makes something or someone moral. Doing things outside of these boundaries makes it immoral.

Of course, morals DO change and vary with place and time. Feeding Christians to the Lions in Roman times was seen as fine 2000 years ago; today it is very much seen as immoral. Trading slaves centuries ago was not seen as immoral - today it very much is. Even in modern times, there are tribes in Africa and elsewhere that practise female circumcision, when it is generally accepted in the rest of the world that this is immoral.

So, what makes our moral code 'better' than those people's? Some of you will say "nothing - we have no right to judge." You people are wrong. Why? Because anything that causes pain and suffering unnecessarily to innocent people IS immoral and thus in extreme cases evil. We have learnt that through making mistakes in the past, through progress and enlightenment. If everyone followed the widely accepted Judo-Christian-Islamic moral code of pacifism, non-violence and tolerance, the world would be a better place. If on the other hand we indulged in slavery, genocide and mass rape, the world would be a horrible place. Go figure. (and yes I know religions haven't always followed their own rules - ie the Crusades - but that doesn't make their basic message wrong)

So any claim that Hitler or anyone else who does similar things is or was not evil is utter madness. The people who flew the planes on 9/11 or blew up the trains on 7/7 WERE evil because they killed many many INNOCENT people. The vast majority of the muslim world viewed those acts as evil. Furthermore, BY THE ACCEPTABLE MORALS OF THE TIME, Hitler's acts were considered evil, even by the vast majority of Germans, and are considered even more so today, because we as a society have progressed and learnt since then.

Originally posted by Mithlond
That is categorically untrue, as is the comment by someone else that because Hitler didn't think what he was doing was evil, it wasn't evil.Who dictates what is truth in philosophy?
Originally posted by Mithlond
On this line of thought, NOTHING would be evil or immoral:That which displeases us we deem immoral and evil.
Originally posted by Mithlond
- Mass Genocide, such as by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or more recently in the Balkans, because there are reasons of 'cleansing' a region of ethnicity, or protecting a power base.

- Serial Killers, as they have a variety of twisted reasons for what they have done.

- Paedophilia, because 'they like it'.Evil to you. Evil to me. But the concept of evil is still wholly dependent upon who is defining what constitutes it.
Originally posted by Mithlond
Doing something because you think it's OK to do it does not make it moral - doing something that is within popular moral boundaries makes it moral;The popular moral boundaries according to whom?
Originally posted by Mithlond
ollowing the accepted moral code makes something or someone moral.Accepted by whom?
Originally posted by Mithlond
Doing things outside of these boundaries makes it immoral.Boundaries defined by whom?
Originally posted by Mithlond
Of course, morals DO change and vary with place and time. Feeding Christians to the Lions in Roman times was seen as fine 2000 years ago; today it is very much seen as immoral. Trading slaves centuries ago was not seen as immoral - today it very much is.Depends on which Christians, I probably wouldn't mind to much if it was the crazy lady that FOX loves to show.
Originally posted by Mithlond
Even in modern times, there are tribes in Africa and elsewhere that practise female circumcision, when it is generally accepted in the rest of the world that this is immoral.Not to those who enforce it's practice.
Originally posted by Mithlond
So, what makes our moral code 'better' than those people's? Some of you will say "nothing - we have no right to judge." You people are wrong. Why? Because anything that causes pain and suffering unnecessarily to innocent people IS immoral and thus in extreme cases evil. To you.
Originally posted by Mithlond
We have learnt that through making mistakes in the past, through progress and enlightenment.The enlightened would realise a lack of moral authority.Originally posted by Mithlond
If everyone followed the widely accepted Judo-Christian-Islamic moral code of pacifism, non-violence and tolerance, the world would be a better place.
Originally posted by Mithlond
If on the other hand we indulged in slavery, genocide and mass rape, the world would be a horrible place.Probably not for those doing the raping and killing, but
Originally posted by Mithlond
Go figure. (and yes I know religions haven't always followed their own rules - ie the Crusades - but that doesn't make their basic message wrong)Women are subordinates? People who are different are bad?
Originally posted by Mithlond
So any claim that Hitler or anyone else who does similar things is or was not evil is utter madness.Any claim to a transcendent moral authority is utter madness. I can believe Hitler evil - it has no impact on what Hitler is. Belief does not dictate reality.
Originally posted by Mithlond
The people who flew the planes on 9/11 or blew up the trains on 7/7 WERE evil because they killed many many INNOCENT people. The vast majority of the muslim world viewed those acts as evil. Furthermore, BY THE ACCEPTABLE MORALS OF THE TIME, Hitler's acts were considered evil, even by the vast majority of Germans, and are considered even more so today, because we as a society have progressed and learnt since then. Two of the greatest acts of terrorism in terms of sheer magnitude - if one takes by definition terrorism to mean the targeting of noncombatants for political purposes - are the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The vast majority of the Western World lives under the delusion that this act was a necessity and for the greater good in order to bring WWII to an end, in order to bring the act within "acceptable morals" of the time and of todays.

The majority of people believe Hitler was evil, therefore Hitler was evil.

Argumentum ad populum.

"The popular moral boundaries according to whom?"

The general 'populace' - hence the term 'popular'

"Even in modern times, there are tribes in Africa and elsewhere that practise female circumcision, when it is generally accepted in the rest of the world that this is immoral.
Not to those who enforce it's practice."

Exactly - hence 'generally accepted in the rest of the world" I don't think the general consensus in the world today would argue with it. Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule.

"Women are subordinates? People who are different are bad?"

Don't remember that in Jesus's sermon on the mount... Unfortunately, organised religions have been used by people with political purposes to achieve their ends...

"Any claim to a transcendent moral authority is utter madness. I can believe Hitler evil - it has no impact on what Hitler is. Belief does not dictate reality."

The only transcendent moral authority is the opinions of the vast majority of people living in a said society at a said time. That is all 'morals' are, hence the fact that opinions are changing towards homosexuality for example where it is not blanket 'immoral' as it once was, and as a society it is not deemed as 'immoral', no matter what individual opinions on it might be.

As for reality/belief, is it not the case that someone's belief defines their reality?

"Two of the greatest acts of terrorism in terms of sheer magnitude - if one takes by definition terrorism to mean the targeting of noncombatants for political purposes - are the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The vast majority of the Western World lives under the delusion that this act was a necessity and for the greater good in order to bring WWII to an end, in order to bring the act within "acceptable morals" of the time and of todays."

War is terror. Thus any form of war or act of war is evil. A notable postscript to the atomic bombings was that prior to 'the bomb' both sides were flattening cities - ie carpet bombing - with thousands of bombs. What the scientists believed 'the bomb' to do was simply to replace those thousands with one single bomb. What separated 'the bomb' from convential bombs, other than strength, were the side effects that the scientists only found out about afterwards - radiation sickness, black rain, people with clothes burned to their skin - and it's almost these side effects of the explosion that make 'the bomb' so terrible. I think once people realised what the bombs could really do, they realised the true evil of them, hence they have never been used since, and hence people have been regretting the dropping of them ever since.

"The majority of people believe Hitler was evil, therefore Hitler was evil.
Argumentum ad populum."

Exactly. That, my friend, is this whole thread summed up in a sentence.

brain had to have a few neurotransmitters wildly misfiring

spirit and outlook on life were further corrupted by upbringing and external influences

Negative belief in his capacity to forge a wholesome sparky non-violent future with freehold + 2.5 kids

Negative Love for humanity

Pure Evil.

Originally posted by Mithlond
The only transcendent moral authority is the opinions of the vast majority of people living in a said society at a said time. That is all 'morals' are, hence the fact that opinions are changing towards homosexuality for example where it is not blanket 'immoral' as it once was, and as a society it is not deemed as 'immoral', no matter what individual opinions on it might be.Popular morals are not a transcendent moral authority; they are wholly subjectively dependent upon the individuals. Many individual's subjective moralities combined are still individual's subjective moralities.
Originally posted by Mithlond
As for reality/belief, is it not the case that someone's belief defines their reality? Their reality. Not Reality.
Originally posted by Mithlond
War is terror. Thus any form of war or act of war is evil. A notable postscript to the atomic bombings was that prior to 'the bomb' both sides were flattening cities - ie carpet bombing - with thousands of bombs. What the scientists believed 'the bomb' to do was simply to replace those thousands with one single bomb. What separated 'the bomb' from convential bombs, other than strength, were the side effects that the scientists only found out about afterwards - radiation sickness, black rain, people with clothes burned to their skin - and it's almost these side effects of the explosion that make 'the bomb' so terrible. I think once people realised what the bombs could really do, they realised the true evil of them, hence they have never been used since, and hence people have been regretting the dropping of them ever since.I can't be bothered getting into Hiroshima in yet another thread.
Originally posted by Mithlond
Exactly. That, my friend, is this whole thread summed up in a sentence. I take it you don't realise argumentum ad populum is a logically fallacious argument.

moral relativism, scary

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Popular morals are not a transcendent moral authority; they are wholly subjectively dependent upon the individuals. Many individual's subjective moralities combined are still individual's subjective moralities.
Their reality. Not Reality.
I can't be bothered getting into Hiroshima in yet another thread.
I take it you don't realise argumentum ad populum is a logically fallacious argument.

No, I didn't. My stupid.

That besides, it is true there is NO transcendent moral authority. The nearest thing we have is a)God, if you believe in it, or b)the popular concept of morality, subjective or not. Morals, Laws, Opinions, good, evil, etc are all man made philosophical concepts, and are thus 'subjective'. We cannot debate this whole thread without that understanding. My argument was that morals and thus 'evil' are decided by popular opinion. Without popular opinion there is no concept of 'good' and 'evil'. And because the vast majority of humans say Hitler was evil, he was.

There is also no one 'Reality'. Your reality is different from mine. My reality is one where Hitler was an evil man who killed millions of people and where something is 'evil' if it involves hurting or killing people.

And if you can't be bothered talking about Hiroshima, don't bring it up.

Goodnight Vienna

If you want to read arguments about the necessity and motives of the bombing of Hiroshima then wade through the Israel Lebanon thread or search Remembering Hiroshima.

That was my point there is no transcendent moral authority. My believing Hitler to be an evil madman does not make him so. Hitler was. Period. My assigning the condition of being evil to him doesn't impact anything he did, and doesn't affect who and what he was to anyone but me. To Hitler, his actions likely weren't evil, to Ava Braun they likely weren't, to the Nazi followers they likely weren't. While I can say I believe Hitler was evil, I cannot technically conclusively and truthfully say Hitler was evil, as I'm no transcendent moral authority.

Hitler was evil, to me. We deem evil, what displeases us.

Originally posted by natashia
what do you base your views on, bardock?

The fact that there is nothing to determine if something is truly evil or not.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As demonstration, that is the position of someone lacking common sense.

Because you said so? Oh no, you must be right...it's all clear to me now...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Hitler was evil, to me. We deem evil, what displeases us.

I knew that mosquito that insisted on buzzing next to my ear and keeping me up half the night was in fact an evil vermin of the skies. No worries though, by 4:45 AM, I managed to catch her and abruptly end her evil ways.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Two of the greatest acts of terrorism in terms of sheer magnitude - if one takes by definition terrorism to mean the targeting of noncombatants for political purposes - are the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The vast majority of the Western World lives under the delusion that this act was a necessity and for the greater good in order to bring WWII to an end, in order to bring the act within "acceptable morals" of the time and of todays.

The A-bombs were an act of war, NOT to be compared to 19 nutcases hijacking planes, slitting the pilots' throats and driving them into skyscrapers in excess of 500mph during peacetime.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hitler was evil, to me.

Good, so you admit it.

Hitler was as cold-blooded as a rattlesnake in December.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Two of the greatest acts of terrorism in terms of sheer magnitude - if one takes by definition terrorism to mean the targeting of noncombatants for political purposes - are the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The vast majority of the Western World lives under the delusion that this act was a necessity and for the greater good in order to bring WWII to an end, in order to bring the act within "acceptable morals" of the time and of todays.

Acts of war... But if you really believe that to be terrorism, why use those two acts and not others as an example? Like what the Japanese did to the Chinese in Nanjing (1937-38); 300,000+ civilians and POW's murdered and mutilated and over 20,000 women raped or, the experiments on live humans for the purposes of producing germ/bio weapons or, dropping cholera and typhoid cultures in Zhejiang Province (1941-42) to test the effects for a viable weapon against the allies; I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 Chinese died from those 'test'.

hitler wasnt evil he was just CRAZY and DISTURBED!

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think only a Sociapath truly beleives that what Hitler did was not evil.

What kind of person believes this:

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
My conditions for a spouse:

2) I hope we live long, but I find out you're gonna die at age 30, because you have cancer, then we're getting divored.

I'd say that any human being that comes up with a master plan to brutally kill thousands of poeple, including children and woman in a pit of fire, would be classified as the most evil on earth!

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
People often describe Hitler as a monster, or as evil, when Der Untergang came out alot of German Reporters asked if it was right for Hitler to be portrayed so humanly.

But, Hitler was a devout supporter of the Survival of the Fittest theory, he believed that the strong had to survive and to do this it involved destroying the weak, and so, the concentration camps where set up and millions where gassed and killed...but

Is the extreme take on, what is effectively Darwinism, actually evil?

To say that Hitler was evil would suggest that he was devoid of Human emotion and soul...but, it is clear if you read the reports of those who knew him that this wasn't the case.

In fact, he did do what HE felt was best for humanity...so he wasn't acting out of malice but HE thought he was doing what was right.

Although he may have been wrong and his beliefs on what is right and wrong where extremely warped, does that actually make him evil?

I don't know if he was EVIL, in the sense that religious people like to identify it as, but he was definitely not a good person. They say there is a fine line between genius and insanity. I'd say Hitler was a few degrees off of genius to be sure.
And I'd also like to take issue with your your belief that he MAY have been wrong in his beliefs. My friend, he WAS wrong.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What kind of person believes this:

WOW!!!!!!!!! was he being serious?????

The fact is that Hitler's actions, whether they were ethically moral or immoral, infringed on the European's nations instinctual right to live, to survive. It is irrelevant to say what Hitler committed was wrong or right. The point is that Hitler made an attempt in wiping out other races of people he did not see derserved the right to live, which, due to the common instinct to survive, whether it was an influence of righteous moral enlightenment, or just simple acts to live, resulted in a retaliation. Whether moralities were involved or not, the biggest reason for Hitler becoming the most targeted enemy for most nations in Europe, and America, was his opposing ideals that killed millions of people on Earth. Ultimately, morals or no morals, the instinct to live on is what drove Europe and America to fight and defeat Hitler, all conclusions open to what may or may not have been either right or wrong.

So, is Hitler evil? Well, depending on your point of view, he may or may not be evil to a lesser or greater degree.

Personally, if a man were to try to gas me, or hold me in a camp so that I could starve to death, I would have no problem in resisting him and his opposing ethics.

So, to finish this all in a nut-shell, Hitler pushed, and other countries who suffered his blows pushed back, and he lost. Morals or no morals. It was the will to survive that Hitler had underestimated while he opposed his own propaganda and ideals.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It was not Darwinism. It was not "survival of the fittest"

It was "survival of who looks the best in my opinion" that Hitler was promoting. The Jews contributed much higher to economy than Germans and Europeans of other religions at the time, and they were doing VERY WELL.

In Fact, Hitler wanted to attend an Art Academy and was rejected due to his failure to paint portraits of people. He felt that the reason he was rejected was because the Jews that were IN CHARGE of that school rejected him.


His acts were out of HATRED....NOT science. He didn't like the Jews, he didn't like the Slavic Races, the Russians, Gypsies, Polish, Blacks, or Homosexuals.....because he was a bigot.

It had NOTHING to do with Darwinism, again. IT was all Superficiality taken to an extreme. HE favored the Aryan Race because they had Blonde Hair, Blue Eyes, and Light Skin. He felt that because of thier beauty they deserved to be the only race of Human Being worthy of continous free existance.

He wanted to Exterminate all races and groups of people that he SIMPLY DISLIKED...not that he felt were too weak to go on. And he disliked them for SUPERFICIAL reasons, not scientific reasons.

In fact, Hitler suffered from Inferiority Complex. He hated the way he looked, he hated his beaty eyes, dark hair, and crooked nose....he also denied the fact that he himself was part Jewish (he had a Jewish Grandmother)


There is so much you seem not to know about Adolf Hitler....for you to claim that he was just trying to promote Darwinism is ABSURD and shows how much education on the subject you lack.

What an idiotic and unsupported claim.....

I agree with 99 percent of what you have to say, but, maybe this person just lacks knowledge and or commonsense. There's no need to call him an idiot for being that way. However, if he's shown this behavior repeatedly maybe you feel you have a reason. Isn't it counter productive to try and help educate someone while degrading them at the same time?

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
The fact is that Hitler's actions, whether they were ethically moral or immoral, infringed on the European's nations instinctual right to live, to survive. It is irrelevant to say what Hitler committed was wrong or right. The point is that Hitler made an attempt in wiping out other races of people he did not see derserved the right to live, which, due to the common instinct to survive, whether it was an influence of righteous moral enlightenment, or just simple acts to live, resulted in a retaliation. Whether moralities were involved or not, the biggest reason for Hitler becoming the most targeted enemy for most nations in Europe, and America, was his opposing ideals that killed millions of people on Earth. Ultimately, morals or no morals, the instinct to live on is what drove Europe and America to fight and defeat Hitler, all conclusions open to what may or may not have been either right or wrong.

So, is Hitler evil? Well, depending on your point of view, he may or may not be evil to a lesser or greater degree.

Personally, if a man were to try to gas me, or hold me in a camp so that I could starve to death, I would have no problem in resisting him and his opposing ethics.

So, to finish this all in a nut-shell, Hitler pushed, and other countries who suffered his blows pushed back, and he lost. Morals or no morals. It was the will to survive that Hitler had underestimated while he opposed his own propaganda and ideals.

Hitler's ideals were rooted in the American institution of eugenics...so I'm not so sure America, at least politically, wanted to go to war with Germany beacuse of moral differences. Morals are relative to the culture. And cultural morality, when infringed upon, is a factor that gives any given culture that spark to fight against any invader who threatens to wipe it out. So morals whether you believe it or not had a lot to do with it.

Actually, eugentics is a British concept that started with Darwins cousin. Also, the concentration camp was first used by the British during the Boer war.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Actually, eugentics is a British concept that started with Darwins cousin. Also, the concentration camp was first used by the British during the Boer war.

Really? The Brits? Why am I not surprised...lol. kidding, kidding. But still eugenics was adopted by the colonists of N. America and from what I've read was later used as kind of the blueprint for what the Germans created.

Those damn snobishly elitist brit's creating eugenics and concentration camps. Good thing they got put in their place when they did....wink wink.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Hitler's ideals were rooted in the American institution of eugenics...so I'm not so sure America, at least politically, wanted to go to war with Germany beacuse of moral differences. Morals are relative to the culture. And cultural morality, when infringed upon, is a factor that gives any given culture that spark to fight against any invader who threatens to wipe it out. So morals whether you believe it or not had a lot to do with it.

Well obviously there were morals involved, but to what purpose are those morals trying to achieve? Embedded in every belief or idea, in the very core of ideals, there is a single common goal to each moral code. Existence. Survival.

You may say morals had a lot to do with it, and I won't disagree. But how well do you think you could hold up your own morals in a life or death situation, such as D-Day? I'm sure many people's judgement changed after experiencing hellish battles during WWII.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I don't support Social Darwinism, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

so you admit that you don't believe what you're sayin?

sorry i gave you a hard time.

Originally posted by PVS
WOW!!!!!!!!! was he being serious?????

I think his (undoubtedly) tiny brain meant to say something different. At least I like to believe that I would enjoy to think that.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
The fact is that Hitler's actions, whether they were ethically moral or immoral, infringed on the European's nations instinctual right to live, to survive. It is irrelevant to say what Hitler committed was wrong or right. The point is that Hitler made an attempt in wiping out other races of people he did not see derserved the right to live, which, due to the common instinct to survive, whether it was an influence of righteous moral enlightenment, or just simple acts to live, resulted in a retaliation. Whether moralities were involved or not, the biggest reason for Hitler becoming the most targeted enemy for most nations in Europe, and America, was his opposing ideals that killed millions of people on Earth. Ultimately, morals or no morals, the instinct to live on is what drove Europe and America to fight and defeat Hitler, all conclusions open to what may or may not have been either right or wrong.

So, is Hitler evil? Well, depending on your point of view, he may or may not be evil to a lesser or greater degree.

Personally, if a man were to try to gas me, or hold me in a camp so that I could starve to death, I would have no problem in resisting him and his opposing ethics.

So, to finish this all in a nut-shell, Hitler pushed, and other countries who suffered his blows pushed back, and he lost. Morals or no morals. It was the will to survive that Hitler had underestimated while he opposed his own propaganda and ideals.

I meant imposed instead of opposed. Figured I'd correct it so there is no confusion.

Originally posted by Robtard
Acts of war... But if you really believe that to be terrorism, why use those two acts and not others as an example? Like what the Japanese did to the Chinese in Nanjing (1937-38); 300,000+ civilians and POW's murdered and mutilated and over 20,000 women raped or, the experiments on live humans for the purposes of producing germ/bio weapons or, dropping cholera and typhoid cultures in Zhejiang Province (1941-42) to test the effects for a viable weapon against the allies; I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 Chinese died from those 'test'. By definition the targeting of civilians for a political purpose is terrorism.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
By definition the targeting of civilians for a political purpose is terrorism.

Are we still continuing the Japanese Atom bombing?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
People often describe Hitler as a monster, or as evil, when Der Untergang came out alot of German Reporters asked if it was right for Hitler to be portrayed so humanly.

But, Hitler was a devout supporter of the Survival of the Fittest theory, he believed that the strong had to survive and to do this it involved destroying the weak, and so, the concentration camps where set up and millions where gassed and killed...but

Is the extreme take on, what is effectively Darwinism, actually evil?

To say that Hitler was evil would suggest that he was devoid of Human emotion and soul...but, it is clear if you read the reports of those who knew him that this wasn't the case.

In fact, he did do what HE felt was best for humanity...so he wasn't acting out of malice but HE thought he was doing what was right.

Although he may have been wrong and his beliefs on what is right and wrong where extremely warped, does that actually make him evil?

If by killing 6,000,000 million jews and others. Then yes, Hitler was infact evil.

nobody can be evil. they can have an evil mentallity, and commit evil acts. however nobody IS evil...if they are then you cant really blame them for anything because....they're just evil and cant help it.

So what you are trying to say is Hitler isn't evil?

Originally posted by rooobarbcustard
So what you are trying to say is Hitler isn't evil?

Your sentence should have read wasn't evil as far i am aware he is dead, waits for conspiracy theory!

No, I do not believe he himself was evil. He simply had no morals.

Originally posted by rooobarbcustard
If by killing 6,000,000 million jews and others. Then yes, Hitler was infact evil.

That was wrong... not evil. It doesn't matter how many people he killed, killing one person for the wrong reason is just as bad as killing 50 people for the wrong reason. If it were the case of how many people he killed, we would have a lot of "evil" men in the world.

Hitler was not evil, his ideas and actions were indeed evil actions, but he was just a man, as Itzak, with no morals.

Originally posted by rooobarbcustard
So what you are trying to say is Hitler isn't evil?

wow, i am so intimidated by your smilie as well as your blanketed threat to label me as a supporter of hitler. your moral highground is nothing more than a tall mound of horseshit. way to forsake logic just to browbeat others

Originally posted by PVS
wow, i am so intimidated by your smilie as well as your blanketed threat to label me as a supporter of hitler. your moral highground is nothing more than a tall mound of horseshit. way to forsake logic just to browbeat others

Which all of this ends up trying to push the bible into public schools. Nice quote by the way PVS... I guess there was a purpose for God writing the bible after all. What a jackass.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Which all of this ends up trying to push the bible into public schools. Nice quote by the way PVS... I guess there was a purpose for God writing the bible after all. What a jackass.

...eh? maybe its just too early and my ability for comprehension is dulled, but could you perhaps rephrase/reword that for us simpletons?

Originally posted by PVS
your moral highground is nothing more than a tall mound of horseshit.

I meant to quote this statement. I was agreeing with your stance that most morals, though well intended, blur our sense of logic. For example: forcing the bible into public schools.

edit:

ok, thanks for clearing that up

I don't think Hitlers actions were evil.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think Hitlers actions were evil.

ok, how can we yet again philosophically disect this into superficiality bardock?

I think we can safely call people like Hitler evil without stumbling over the classic Manichean argument for dividing the universe between rival good and evil principles.

Existence by itself is good. Human life is especially sanctified by the West. This would seem to argue against any human existence being labeled as evil. In an ontological sense, this is correct. Existence is categorically good.

However, from the Augustinian viewpoint, the whole idea of moral evil is that it is not a substance, not something that possesses being in itself. It is rather a perversion of good, and is only actuated when good beings desire what would otherwise be good things in a wrong order.

This is how moral beings always lose themselves. They choose a partial good and mistake it for the best thing, or the whole. And when the other, higher goods intrude and make claims upon the conscience, the partial good demands that its territory remain protected at the expense of everything else. The lover of the partial good now finds himself in a quandary. He is invested in the thing he loves yet finds himself at odds with the encroaching world. He must either relinquish his love and reconcile himself, or commit himself utterly to unceasing rebellion. In time, rebellion hardens into something like confirmed hardness of heart. This is the path from partial love to confirmed evil.

This is why ardent patriots sometimes become bloodthirsty tyrants, or covering seraphs become angels of darkness.

Originally posted by PVS
ok, how can we yet again philosophically disect this into superficiality bardock?


I am not sure what you just say, but in case you agreed with me....good, cause I am right. Hitler not evil. Hitler's actions not evil either.

did hitler exist?

Originally posted by PVS
did hitler exist?

I don't know, but in case he did I am rather sure he wasn't evil.

fine bardock. fine. there is no such thing as evil. we get it.

Originally posted by PVS
fine bardock. fine. there is no such thing as evil. we get it.

Yes. It's true. And I think a point that needs to be addressed in a thread with the topic "Is someone evil (evil being that thing that doesn't exist)". But that's just me, I guess we could also just talk in a way as if it would exist. Certainly wouldn't help much...but we could.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know, but in case he did I am rather sure he wasn't evil.

I think we can all agree that, while maybe not evil, Hitler's actions were unnecessary and unjustified.

however your demands for absolute objectivity restrain any reasonable discussion of a dangerous mentallity/action/person. what do you call him? how do you identify a mentallity which delights in the misery/suffering/death of others? come up with a better word and maybe it will catch

Originally posted by PVS
however your demands for absolute objectivity restrain any reasonable discussion of a dangerous mentallity/action/person. what do you call him? how do you identify a mentallity which delights in the misery/suffering/death of others? come up with a better word and maybe it will catch

Hey you can talk about the pros and cons of killing Jews if you feel like it I won't stop you. But that's not the topic of the thread. And if you want to talk about it calling his actions "evil" won't help. Since that is wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey you can talk about the pros and cons of killing Jews if you feel like it I won't stop you. But that's not the topic of the thread. And if you want to talk about it calling his actions "evil" won't help. Since that is wrong.

how is it wrong? you cant state philosophical school of thought as fact.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
I think we can all agree that, while maybe not evil, Hitler's actions were unnecessary and unjustified.

Maybe, but then what actions are "necessary" and "justified"?

Originally posted by PVS
how is it wrong? you cant state philosophical school of thought as fact.

Actually I can. There's no logical way in which there can be absolute morals. So...I can stat that as much as a fact as lets say Evolution. Not a perfect fact, but so freaking likely.

If you can give any evidence supporting anyones claim that Hitler's actions are evil..then do, please...if not, understand that you are in the same line as people arguing for their Gods. No difference.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe, but then what actions are "necessary" and "justified"?

none. 'necessary' and 'justified' are topics of human reasoning. but human reasoning and the generally accepted rules which govern them are the basis of our lives, whether or not we claim to be above it all. you would not just walk next door and kick your neighbor in the nuts for no reason, right? (i hope not)because that would be/not be *insert subjective term which only applies to human reasoning*

almost every aspect of our lives is governed by subjective reasoning, and there are those who willfully go against such reasoning for the pleasure of control, power, revenge, causing suffering and death etc. what term should be applied to them? by your reasoning it should all be written off with the blanket term "unnecessary" and "unjustified". well then what differentiates the act of me speeding on a highway (most likely unjustified and unnecessary) and someone else attempting genocide?

Originally posted by PVS
almost every aspect of our lives is governed by subjective reasoning, and there are those who willfully go against such reasoning for the pleasure of control, power, revenge, causing suffering and death etc. what term should be applied to them? by your reasoning it should all be written off with the blanket term "unnecessary" and "unjustified". well then what differentiates the act of me speeding on a highway (most likely unjustified and unnecessary) and someone else attempting genocide?

No, not at all I think the terms "unnecessary" and "unjustified" are really shit. I also don't think that it is willfully going against it. It's just a different subjective reasoning.

As Goethe said, there is no crime I know of that I couldn't, under the right circumstances, commit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, not at all I think the terms "unnecessary" and "unjustified" are really shit. I also don't think that it is willfully going against it. It's just a different subjective reasoning.

As Goethe said, there is no crime I know of that I couldn't, under the right circumstances, commit.

problem is this argument goes nowhere. as i said, every aspect of our lives is governed by subjective reasoning. everything we consider "fact" is really just a generally accepted interpretation based on our own perception. if we stretch this to its end, there is no room for discussing anything, let alone good and evil. a schizophrenic somewhere knows for a fact that dick cheney ordered the f.b.i. to implant tracking devices in their cavity fillings. we know for a fact that grass is green, though it really might not be. but where is the line drawn? why can we not identify an act as anything subjective, since in reality there is nothing objective about it besides the act in itself?

Originally posted by PVS
problem is this argument goes nowhere. as i said, every aspect of our lives is governed by subjective reasoning. everything we consider "fact" is really just a generally accepted interpretation based on our own perception. if we stretch this to its end, there is no room for discussing anything, let alone good and evil. a schizophrenic somewhere knows for a fact that dick cheney ordered the f.b.i. to implant tracking devices in their cavity fillings. we know for a fact that grass is green, though it really might not be. but where is the line drawn? why can we not identify an act as anything subjective, since in reality there is nothing objective about it besides the act in itself?

the difference is that it is obvious in this case and that talking against it is stupid. As I said if you want to talk about why you think his actions were bad, harmful, wrong that's cool. But to call his actions evil implies an universal moral code that is just severely lacking existence. Evil is a word used by people to imply that their actions are better than the actions of others. There's no reason to determine that. It should not be used. Not in the way it is meant nowadays at least.

Originally posted by Bardock42
bad, harmful, wrong that's cool.

bad, harmful, wrong, and even cool are purely subjective terms. so thus it is apparently incorrect to use them as well. look, i know the word "evil" has been whored in politics and world affairs, but does that negate it?

Originally posted by PVS
bad, harmful, wrong, and even cool are purely subjective terms. so thus it is apparently incorrect to use them as well. look, i know the word "evil" has been whored in politics and world affairs, but does that negate it?

Absolutely. Which is why I said "Why you think ....". I can tolerate if you want to use evil as a subjective term that applies only to your opinion. But it is generally not meant as that. That's why, if you want to say Hitler's actions were evil, you'd have to add that only in your opinion. If you don't you imply absolute morals and if you do I will point out to you that there are none. Easy as that.

i have to add "in my opinion" after every opinion? can i just type that in my sig and be done with it?

Originally posted by PVS
i have to add "in my opinion" after every opinion? can i just type that in my sig and be done with it?

No, you have to add in your opinion when using a word that implies general truth without being accepted as that...at all (or actually being wrong as in this case). Like "There is a God", "Homosexuality is wrong" and "The Moon is made of Cheese".

Originally posted by PVS
i have to add "in my opinion" after every opinion? can i just type that in my sig and be done with it?

Lord Urizen demands this kind of exactitude as well...except, of course, when he expresses his own opinions.

Bardock, you don't want to start sounding like Lord Urizen, do you?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Lord Urizen demands this kind of exactitude as well...except, of course, when he expresses his own opinions.

Bardock, you don't want to start sounding like Lord Urizen, do you?

Certainly not, but I won't step back from a (true) opinion just because you two might get the impression I behave like Lord Urizen. Which is weird anyways, since he hardly makes sense, while what I am saying is rather logical.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you have to add in your opinion when using a word that implies general truth without being accepted as that...at all

committing genocide is evil......in my opinion.....seems like a waste of typing

Originally posted by PVS
committing genocide is evil......in my opinion.....seems like a waste of typing

Just say "I think genocide is wrong" or even "Genocide is wrong" ....has much less claim of being absolute.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Certainly not, but I won't step back from a (true) opinion just because you two might get the impression I behave like Lord Urizen. Which is weird anyways, since he hardly makes sense, while what I am saying is rather logical.

Easy, easy! I was just kidding about the Lord Urizen thing.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Easy, easy! I was just kidding about the Lord Urizen thing.

Oh, good, I was thinking about suicide already.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just they "I think genocide is wrong" or even "Genocide is wrong" ....has much less claim of being absolute.

wrong is absolute. right....wrong....black....white. get it? there is no escaping implied absolute statements. "in my opinion" is just a pointless tag for people to not seem pompous. i however consider it a waste of time since opinion is imho already implied.

Originally posted by PVS
wrong is absolute. right....wrong....black....white. get it? there is no escaping implied absolute statements. "in my opinion" is just a pointless tag for people to not seem pompous. i however consider it a waste of time since opinion is imho already implied.

Fair enough, just wanted to make sure that you know that when you talk about "evil" you are talking about what you think is evil not what actually is evil. You seem to know. i am sure many others don't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough, just wanted to make sure that you know that when you talk about "evil" you are talking about what you think is evil not what actually is evil. You seem to know. i am sure many others don't.

i passed? ....but....then why do i still know that hitler's acts were evil?

The trouble with your view, Bardock... apart from it being more or less inept in the area of actually trying to put intelligent thought into a difficult subject... is that it assumes that no-one is trying to know, merely defining things that they don'#t like. That's a silly thing to think.

You have deliberately given up even trying, so you are certainly in no position to question conclusions PVS has reached on what is evil or not.

Your own attempt to hold what you consider to be an enlightened opinion on the subject has rendered your ability to actually make a meaningful contribution to the debate round about zero.

Originally posted by PVS
i passed? ....but....then why do i still know that hitler's acts were evil?

See, now we have to start again. It's the "know" part that is just..wrong (imo).

Originally posted by Bardock42
See, now we have to start again. It's the "know" part that is just..wrong (imo).

your mom is just wrong (imo)






HE SHOOTS HE SCORES

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The trouble with your view, Bardock... apart from it being more or less inept in the area of actually trying to put intelligent thought into a difficult subject... is that it assumes that no-one is trying to know, merely defining things that they don'#t like. That's a silly thing to think.

You have deliberately given up even trying, so you are certainly in no position to question conclusions PVS has reached on what is evil or not.

Your own attempt to hold what you consider to be an enlightened opinion on the subject has rendered your ability to actually make a meaningful contribution to the debate round about zero.

The thing people like you do not understand is that there is a difference, between deciding what one themselves thinks is wrong and right and claiming that it must be universally accepted. To me Hitler's acts might even seem evil. I can give you reasons for that , as well as reasons against that. But it is just to me. It's not absolute. If there would be just one piece of evidence that there might be absolutes morals I wouldn't so furiously argue against it. And believe me I certainly believe that there might be a possibility that there are absolute morals, just as I consider the possibility that there is a God (even though absolute morals are even more unlikely than a God). So, please understand my view before you try to argue about it.

Originally posted by PVS
your mom is just wrong (imo)






HE SHOOTS HE SCORES

You shouldn't take so much pride in your evilness.