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

Weren`t you banned?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People are not good or evil. The path that they are on is good or evil, and Hitler was on an evil path.

What is Evil to you? The path he was on was paved with good intentions for the German people!

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
Weren`t you banned?

Only temporarily for posting mainly in german. I will still post in German a bit but not as much.

Believe me,

Der Teufel wird los sein!

Originally posted by Boots
What is Evil to you? The path he was on was paved with good intentions for the German people!

The three lower worlds are the evil paths.

See:

http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/faqs/tenworlds.htm

Okay, vast majority of people consider Hitler an extremally evil person.

What matters Boots, is where do YOU stand?

Originally posted by Lord Melkor


What matters Boots, is where do YOU stand?

Why? Does where I stand matter so much?

Originally posted by Boots
Why? Does where I stand matter so much?

Now I want to know.

It matters to me Boots, because it would say much about you, at least to me.

I don't think Hitler was evil, I think he had reasons for what he did. I don't believe in evil.

Originally posted by Boots
I don't think Hitler was evil, I think he had reasons for what he did. I don't believe in evil.

The act of allowing Innocent people to be killed is evil and he did not stop what was going on under his command. That evil karma is his evil karma.

But don`t you think that people like Hitler should be opposed?

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
But don`t you think that people like Hitler should be opposed?

Why?

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
But don`t you think that people like Hitler should be opposed?

If you are asking me; the answer is YES

Of cause they should but to the question is Hitler Evil no he isn't, as the one above said his path was evil but he had some pretty messed up childhood to.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Of cause they should but to the question is Hitler Evil no he isn't, as the one above said his path was evil but he had some pretty messed up childhood to.

Hitler had a gift. At some point in his life he made a choice to follow an evil path. If he had not followed that path, he may have been a great leader of his people. As it is, he destroyed his people.

I am asking Boots, I don`t doubt that almost all people on this forum would believe so.

I hate questions like this.

Any really intelligent answer must prefix the "there is no real good or evil", which then seems to legitimize the actions of evil men, simply because there is no universal standard to hold them to.

However, since Hitler did break pretty much every moral code on the planet, with the exception of the one that says "anything Hitler does is right", I have no problem calling him pure and unadulterated evil.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
But don`t you think that people like Hitler should be opposed?

With every cell in my body

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
I am asking Boots, I don`t doubt that almost all people on this forum would believe so.

I actually doubt this. Many people on this forum do not see Hitler as evil.

Originally posted by Boots
I actually doubt this. Many people on this forum do not see Hitler as evil.

Yeah, all the accounts made by you..

It is matter of semantics. They claim that there is no such thing as objective evil, but I am sure that Hitler`s actions are totally contrary to their conciousness.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yeah, all the accounts made by you..

Was bedeutet das?

I'm sure many on here do not believe Hitler is "evil"

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
It is matter of semantics. They claim that there is no such thing as objective evil, but I am sure that Hitler`s actions are totally contrary to their conciousness.

But will people admit he is evil?

But they are still disgusted by him.... hardly a practical diffrence, Boots.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
But they are still disgusted by him.... hardly a practical diffrence, Boots.

As I said will they admit he is evil?

I will make it straight- those that actually use the term "evil" will consider Hitler so.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
I will make it straight- those that actually use the term "evil" will consider Hitler so.

So many will not and shall not use the term "evil" and will argue Hitler is not evil because no such thing as "evil" exists.

Yes! Do you consider it the end of argument?

Originally posted by Boots
So many will not and shall not use the term "evil" and will argue Hitler is not evil because no such thing as "evil" exists.

Because someone like me believes that people are not good or evil does not mean that what Hitler stood for was not evil; it was evil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because someone like me believes that people are not good or evil does not mean that what Hitler stood for was not evil; it was evil.

In what sense?

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
Yes! Do you consider it the end of argument?

I do not believe in "evil".

So? Do you believe in right or wrong?

What do you think of Hitler?

Originally posted by Boots
In what sense?

The choices he made lead to the death of innocent people. Do you disagree?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The choices he made lead to the death of innocent people. Do you disagree?

I think in war many innocents die!

Boots, give your honest opinion about Hitler and I may not consider you a troll.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
Boots, give your honest opinion about Hitler and I may not consider you a troll.

Ja but was is a troll? Consider me what you want.

Troll=Evil.

Originally posted by Boots
I think in war many innocents die!

I'm talking about the choices he made before the war.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm talking about the choices he made before the war.

Did his choices before the war cost lives?

Originally posted by Boots
Did his choices before the war cost lives?

Yes. He started the war.

Germany was in need of a savior and he built up their confidence and pride. He told them "Be proud", only thing was he took it too far.

He was brilliant, and cruel, those two things must walk hand in hand for a leader to be a good one, he had to make an example out of someone so why not who he thought was the reason germany had fallen so low, then he would support who he thought was the righteous, this has all to do with his past, if you look at any great ruler in time and see how they ran their empire you will see that many if not all made great examples and sacrifices, the difference is we cannot see the brilliance because he is a suicide who had quite a bit to do with the deaths of millions, if you are biased against a man for his ideals it says alot about you, though i would not support the killing of so many people, i do think he was a brilliant tactician, and that if his past had been different so would have the rest of his life.

not again *nervous laugh*

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=417908&highlight=title%3A%28hitler%29
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=433405&highlight=title%3A%28hitler+evil%29

Hitler was evil.


I don't care if you thnk evil does not exist. Hitler fits every definition and qualification of the term evil. In most cultures, that is what he would be considered.



He was cruel, hateful, sadistic, and malicious...if that is not evil, then nothing is.



Boots, you are an idiot troll...go away.

I don't use the word evil so I would say no.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Hitler was evil.


I don't care if you thnk evil does not exist. Hitler fits every definition and qualification of the term evil. In most cultures, that is what he would be considered.



He was cruel, hateful, sadistic, and malicious...if that is not evil, then nothing is.



Boots, you are an idiot troll...go away.

Each and every person is both good and evil. So, are you telling me that Hitler did not have a good side?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Each and every person is both good and evil. So, are you telling me that Hitler did not have a good side?


He loved his mother....that's about it.



His evil outways his good. I know I have both good and evil within me...I am kind, compassionate, sensitive, generous, etc....but I can also be cruel, inconsiderate, wrathful, jealous, judgemental etc.


The difference is I do not allow that negativity to take over. I care more for others than I do myself, which is why I swallow my pride (among other things) and let it go.


Hitler just had to have his revenge and force his ideals upon others. He was either evil or psychotic.

He had syphilis I believe. Syphilis affects the brain and thinking.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
He loved his mother....that's about it.



His evil outways his good. I know I have both good and evil within me...I am kind, compassionate, sensitive, generous, etc....but I can also be cruel, inconsiderate, wrathful, jealous, judgemental etc.


The difference is I do not allow that negativity to take over. I care more for others than I do myself, which is why I swallow my pride (among other things) and let it go.


Hitler just had to have his revenge and force his ideals upon others. He was either evil or psychotic.

You are correct "Hitler just had to have his revenge". That is way I say the Hitler was on an evil path. Do you understand the difference?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are correct "Hitler just had to have his revenge". That is way I say the Hitler was on an evil path. Do you understand the difference?


Yes, but I still deem him an evil person. The evil consumed him. It's not as if he made a horrible mistake, and then stopped. He continously enacted his reign, torture, and murder upon millions. He had no plan to stop.


He was cruel, sadistic, and hateful.


Do you know of a woman named Elizabeth Bathory ? If not, then look her up. Look up what she did....tell me she is not evil.


People who are over all good do not take evil paths. They may wander...they may even walk the path for a while, but they do not continue walking for long.


I am a beleiver that we are all born neutral. A good person can become evil, and vise versa. I am not saying that an evil person is evil by nature or cannot change. But sometimes a person's evil is so powerful, they do not have the strength or even motivation to over come it.


Hitler, like Elizabeth Bathory, is one of these people.

Hitler did bad things.

Hitler was a good drinking buddy. Only ever ordered Shirley Temples though.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Yes, but I still deem him an evil person. The evil consumed him. It's not as if he made a horrible mistake, and then stopped. He continously enacted his reign, torture, and murder upon millions. He had no plan to stop.


He was cruel, sadistic, and hateful.


Do you know of a woman named Elizabeth Bathory ? If not, then look her up. Look up what she did....tell me she is not evil.


People who are over all good do not take evil paths. They may wander...they may even walk the path for a while, but they do not continue walking for long.


I am a beleiver that we are all born neutral. A good person can become evil, and vise versa. I am not saying that an evil person is evil by nature or cannot change. But sometimes a person's evil is so powerful, they do not have the strength or even motivation to over come it.


Hitler, like Elizabeth Bathory, is one of these people.


I believe that a person's Karma or path is good or evil. You are a good person because of the good Karma you were born with. Hitler was born with evil Karma.

We agree more then we disagree, however, inside of every person is the world of Buddhahood. I truly believe that Buddhahood is NOT evil. So, for me to say that Hitler was evil is to say that his Buddhahood was evil. The problem with this is that all Buddhahood nature is the same nature. So, if Hitler's Buddhahood nature was evil, then so are yours, and mine and I know that is not true.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that a person's Karma or path is good or evil. You are a good person because of the good Karma you were born with. Hitler was born with evil Karma.

We agree more then we disagree, however, inside of every person is the world of Buddhahood. I truly believe that Buddhahood is NOT evil. So, for me to say that Hitler was evil is to say that his Buddhahood was evil. The problem with this is that all Buddhahood nature is the same nature. So, if Hitler's Buddhahood nature was evil, then so are yours, and mine and I know that is not true.

The second paragraph contradicts the first paragraph.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that a person's Karma or path is good or evil. You are a good person because of the good Karma you were born with. Hitler was born with evil Karma.


Although it's enviroment that shapes people's actions, reactions, and outlooks, there is evidense that supports the possibility that some people are born with sadistic/cruel tendencies.

Scientists took a look into the mind of a serial killer and have found that the part of thier brain which promotes hesitation, worry, and fear of consequence does not work. This would explain how and why male and female serial killers can kill with ease, while the rest of us would hesitate before committing such acts.

It is possible that karma may have to do with this, but it is not yet proven.


On that note, I do not think that it is simply actions that make a person good or bad. If you generally hate people or hold ill thoughts of other people, but do not act upon them, you are still a bad person.

The feelings of compassion, sensitivity, and empathy that I have for other people far surpass my actions. I still consider myself a good person, because I do care.

Hitler did not care for the suffering of his victims, in fact, he enforced it. That is evil.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We agree more then we disagree, however, inside of every person is the world of Buddhahood. I truly believe that Buddhahood is NOT evil. So, for me to say that Hitler was evil is to say that his Buddhahood was evil. The problem with this is that all Buddhahood nature is the same nature. So, if Hitler's Buddhahood nature was evil, then so are yours, and mine and I know that is not true.



Hitler has no access to his Buddhahood, and according to the theory of the Ten Worlds, not everyone reaches thier potential Buddhahood.

His actions, intent, and psychology were evil. Therefore he was evil. Even if he never comitted the Holocaust or his horrid actions, he still had the thoughts and intents of cruelty within him. He savored them.

He was an evil person.


Did you look up Elizabeth Bathory ? Look her up, she what she did, and tell me she was not evil...or atleast insane.

Shaky, i do not truly beleive in evil. I think people who do those things are insane.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Shaky, i do not truly beleive in evil. I think people who do those things are insane.

Perhaps insanity is the result of Karma.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Perhaps insanity is the result of Karma.


That would suggest that all people who are insane brought it upon themselves, something I do not beleive is true.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
That would suggest that all people who are insane brought it upon themselves, something I do not beleive is true.

You have again taken it further then I would.

Insanity in many instances is living in a deluded reality of ones self and surroundings and could cause paranoia which makes one quite a bit different....Though it could also be a chemical imbalance or disease. I'm not sure Karma works like that, but I'm not an expert of Karma.

If Karma in ones last life was what? What would cause a person to be diseased in the next life?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Insanity in many instances is living in a deluded reality of ones self and surroundings and could cause paranoia which makes one quite a bit different....Though it could also be a chemical imbalance or disease. I'm not sure Karma works like that, but I'm not an expert of Karma.

If Karma in ones last life was what? What would cause a person to be diseased in the next life?

I believe Karma merely decides your station in the next life. Only your actions in life could lead to being infected by a disease.

Though to be born insane in this life would serve no learning purpose because there is no grip on reality to learn from. Am I missing something?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Though to be born insane in this life would serve no learning purpose because there is no grip on reality to learn from. Am I missing something?

Oh, I don't consider insanity to be a disease.

Why would Karma cause insanity? I have no idea. Possibly it could be seen as the ultimate punishment as it would seem to prevent the actions needed to advance. Alternately it could be said that people judged to be insane are in fact much closer to nirvana than anyone else.

Being that he killed alot of people and thought he was better then anyone else.Yea I think he was pretty evil.Read his life story "Hitler's dairy" pretty interesting stuff.
Use to be an alter boy when he was a boy and hated the jews because jesus is a jew.Jm

insanity isn't a disease, its a mental state of being but syphilis is a disease and he did have it, it affects the mind that doubled with influences he had while growing is what brought what happened around, thats the only reason D-day even succeeded, had he not had syphilis things probably would have come out much differently, and we might not have had to have a D-day ever happen then.

One only has to look at footage of the people who were tortured during the holocaust to see evil.No human being should ever have to suffer like those who did during the holocaust.However,if Hitler would have lived around 272 CE,he probably would be considered a saint today by the Christian church.A very sicking thought to consider.

There are some supports still out today of Hitler,On the news is heard that this guy made up a whole store in support of Hitler made of nazi gingerman and some pictures and so on.He is a skin head no doubt and how he was allowed to put something like that up is beyond me!
Why are you however saying that the christens would support him if he live during that time?jm

Because Hitler belived he was in the service of God.Early Christianity has a violent history and it's first emperor was Constatine who was born around that time.Here's a piece of a post I made on the religion forum.You can read more about this in 'The Dark Side Of Christian History' by Helen Ellerbe.


Take the words of Raymond of Aguilers into consideration.Writing of a band of crusaders who deystroyed Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem in the year 1099:

Wonderul things were to be seen.Numbers of the Saracens were beheaded.Others were shot with arrow,or forced to jump from the towers;Others were tortured for several days,then burned with flames.In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet.One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses.In the temple of Solomon,the horses waded in the blood up to their knees,nay,up to the bridle.It was a just and marvelous judgement of God,that this place should be filled with the blood on unbelievers.


Seeing as how Hitler thought of himself as a man of God,and looking at his gruesome legacy,it becomes pretty apparent in the more primitive days of the church he probably would have been considerd one of Gods warriors.

I don't see no matter what it is always the christens fault.That is abit unfair.Why can't it ever be the Muslims or whatever.Everything is always dump on the christens becaues of people who are judgemental.Blame someone else and they get flamed or insulted.I guess christens today are just a bunch of meat that people can just eat anytime they want or make fun of.That is just nice.jm

Here's a whole post I made about religious intolerance.I don't soley place all the worlds woes upon the Christians.

Thats when religion can get violent and scary.That very same kind of unswaying alligiance is why fundamentalist Christians persecuted many Muslims in the Crusades.Why the Pagans sought to kill out early Christians for their 'evil' belifes.Why Christians then administered gruesome tortures onto the Pagans once they came into power.Why fundamentalist Muslims crashed two plains into the world trade center on 9/11.

Now i'm in no way trying to put down your belief in Christ.I'm not trying to say all Christians are going to commit mass suicide or that all muslims are crazy martyrs.But when any system of belief claims their god,or whatever it is they worship,is supreme and above all other religious systems,that's when the world gets ugly and thats what causes intolerance in religion.

So you asked us if we can handle the truth.Well,the truth is very many different things to very many different people.No two people will answer this question exactly the same and that's a good thing.We don't need mindless zombies all conforming to one belife system.We need diversity in religion,and tolerance for the beliefs of others.So now I will ask you this.
Can you handle the consequence's of what you consider to be the truth?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I don't see no matter what it is always the christens fault.

Read that back.

Go on.

"fault christens the always is it what matter no see don't I"


I don't get it.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Insanity in many instances is living in a deluded reality of ones self and surroundings and could cause paranoia which makes one quite a bit different....Though it could also be a chemical imbalance or disease. I'm not sure Karma works like that, but I'm not an expert of Karma.

If Karma in ones last life was what? What would cause a person to be diseased in the next life?


I do not understand why a child would be born with HIV though, just to die a few years later. I do not see how Karma works here....

Originally posted by debbiejo
Insanity in many instances is living in a deluded reality of ones self and surroundings and could cause paranoia which makes one quite a bit different....

That does not require insanity. One could be simply sheltered or naive and this be the case.

I get what you mean but this is seems to almost include different sorts of generalizations one would have about the world.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"fault christens the always is it what matter no see don't I"


I don't get it.

T-technically should have reversed the letters.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
T-technically should have reversed the letters.

Too much trouble.

Lazy German

Oxymoron. Unless it's a laziness competition.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Oxymoron. Unless it's a laziness competition.

You're a moron.

Originally posted by BackFire
You're a moron.

If...a moron breathes, is that like, hahahah, chemically and that.

Cos oxy-gen.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If...a moron breathes, is that like, hahahah, chemically and that.

Cos oxy-gen.

Haha, you explained your joke, haha, and it wasn't funny.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha, you explained your joke, haha, and it wasn't funny. And he laughed at his own joke, haha.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Insanity in many instances is living in a deluded reality of ones self and surroundings and could cause paranoia which makes one quite a bit different....Though it could also be a chemical imbalance or disease. ...

Hitler was likely a textbook sociopath with a nice mix of paranoia and narcissism.

However, it may be important to remember that stress is a common cause to many psychological problems. Hitler, having the stress of ruling a nation and fighting in WW2, could have come of his disorders after having instituted many of the evil plans.

There is also the fact that anti-semitism was rampant in Europe at these times, and very likely if Hitler himself had not come to power, someone else who had similar anti-jew ideologies could have come in instead.

While it is nice to try and pass off the evil of Hitler's acts to psychological insanity, the fact remains that Hitler is likely more a product of hundreds of years of Jewish conspiracy theory and massive economic depression in Germany.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And he laughed at his own joke, haha.

Tool.

Originally posted by inimalist

While it is nice to try and pass off the evil of Hitler's acts to psychological insanity, the fact remains that Hitler is likely more a product of hundreds of years of Jewish conspiracy theory and massive economic depression in Germany.

i agree with that, but he also had syphilis which can and will affect the brain, though if he hadn't had it I'm sure he still would have done all the things he had done, but if he didn't have it he probably would have stopped D-day from happening, but yes his past as well as the present just brought his sociopathic "outburst" to happen, and this sparked a war that with the aid of syphilis would cause him to lose... but no i do not think he was evil, i think he was a sociopath with syphilis, as that is what he was.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
Here's a whole post I made about religious intolerance.I don't soley place all the worlds woes upon the Christians.

Thats when religion can get violent and scary.That very same kind of unswaying alligiance is why fundamentalist Christians persecuted many Muslims in the Crusades.Why the Pagans sought to kill out early Christians for their 'evil' belifes.Why Christians then administered gruesome tortures onto the Pagans once they came into power.Why fundamentalist Muslims crashed two plains into the world trade center on 9/11.

Now i'm in no way trying to put down your belief in Christ.I'm not trying to say all Christians are going to commit mass suicide or that all muslims are crazy martyrs.But when any system of belief claims their god,or whatever it is they worship,is supreme and above all other religious systems,that's when the world gets ugly and thats what causes intolerance in religion.

So you asked us if we can handle the truth.Well,the truth is very many different things to very many different people.No two people will answer this question exactly the same and that's a good thing.We don't need mindless zombies all conforming to one belife system.We need diversity in religion,and tolerance for the beliefs of others.So now I will ask you this.
Can you handle the consequence's of what you consider to be the truth?

I consider the truth being that dispite everyone always being against the christens (for no good reason at all)that they should stop putting them down.
Like other religion they are not the only ones who had made mistakes in the past.So why is it always pointed to them when something bad happens?
Why not the others as well?jm

Plenty of heat has been placed on the Muslim community.You probably don't see it as much though because you are not a Muslim.

Hitler was evil.

-end

How do you know I am not a muslim?I am not just wondering what your guess was!JM

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
How do you know I am not a muslim?I am not just wondering what your guess was!JM


You sound very much like a Christian to me.Or at least heavly in their favor.

JM you admitted you were Jewish long ago....

I am you are right about that.And I happen to me on there side most of the time.jm

Originally posted by zozo_yoyo_xoxo
Hitler was evil.

-end

Nooooo, the path he was on was evil.

I hardly think anyone born is inheritantly evil. Nor are paths evil, nor are choices evil, or for that matter...our actions. None of it is evil, or good. It just is. A choice. His right to do what he wanted to do, without regard to anyone else's benefit or lack thereof.

We do what we do because it's our choice to do them, or not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is only true if you do not live in a society. But is that the fault of society? Having been inundated with rules and regulations based on political, social, philosical(sp), moral and religious ideology?

I am me. Therefore you are you. I am what I am, and you are what you are. Based on what? My thoughts? Your thoughts?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We cannot survive without society, therefore, society is more important then the individual. However, this too can be taken too far.


But society is made up of individuals

They are equal.

hey do you get turned on my your penis?

Yes.

Originally posted by Tangible God
Yes.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
But society is made up of individuals

They are equal.

More like a struggle.

Originally posted by The big EH
hey do you get turned on my your penis?


Yes, my penis is sexy

although i have no pity for him i think he was insane but his ambition was immensely evil.

He was evil according to my personal views. Thats all anyone can say though, objective morality hasnt been established. I think we can all agree that pain = bad and pleasure = good, its self evident. Yet the real world application of causing another harm can be somewhat complicated, as it may be necessary to cause another harm in order to help yourself. Unnecessarily causing harm, as in the case of Hitler, would for most people be considered evil, though if somone wanted to be really anal about it they could come up with a justification for it. So its up to the individual to decide if a man like Hitler was 'evil', until perhaps some esoteric form of science and philosophy can lay the groundwork for objective morality.

Originally posted by LatinoStallion
But society is made up of individuals

They are equal.

Are they? Some people have more money then others. Are they still equal?

The thing is, Hitler legitimately wanted to improve Germany, to make it the best country in the world. Most of his ideas for improvement, however, were excessively flawed.

No.

without doubt

If Hitlers not evil I don't know what is.

He was evil

Evil.

Not as bad as ole Josef Mengele, but still evil.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
If Hitlers not evil I don't know what is.

Precisely. No one can be evil. Actions can be evil. People can't, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Precisely. No one can be evil. Actions can be evil. People can't, in my opinion.

Actions are still completely subjective to the opinion of the person who judges them

Hitler wasnt evil, what could possibly make him evil?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Hitler wasnt evil, what could possibly make him evil?

Holocaust much?

























I sure hope that you weren't being sarcastic. There's no way I could possibly have been able to tell.

I'm serious. I gave up the ability to identify sarcasm in order to better recognize irony.

Every nation-state established has used similar ideology at some point in it's history.

I fail to see the difference.

The Holocaust was not Hitlers design, if anything Hitler was perhaps "cruel" and "thoughtless" for not stopping it but to be fair, the Jews were considered the slime and vermin of society in not only Germany, but in Russia as well as England.

Hitler is not evil, hes just a man following social ideology to gain power and become populour to his people, althouh he didnt actually order the Holocaust. But as Chithappens has said, there have been cruel events across time, every nation has cruel tendancies, nations today for example are basically controlling the minds of people through diffrent types of propaganda and forms, I think destroying/breaking human freewill into an invisible slavery is nearly as bad as the Holocaust.

/sigh moral relativism

Embrace the inability to ever come to a conclusion about anything!

All I mean to say is don't act all high and mighty and as if your leaders and country were not based on the same principles.

Before "peace", there is blood.

Depends on who you ask.

Originally posted by chithappens
All I mean to say is don't act all high and mighty and as if your leaders and country were not based on the same principles.

Before "peace", there is blood.

there have been evil people of all nationalities?

I think I was addressing Burning Thought more than you...

Originally posted by chithappens
Every nation-state established has used similar ideology at some point in it's history.

I fail to see the difference.

Prove that Norway ever used a similar ideology.

Originally posted by Burning thought
The Holocaust was not Hitlers design, if anything Hitler was perhaps "cruel" and "thoughtless" for not stopping it but to be fair, the Jews were considered the slime and vermin of society in not only Germany, but in Russia as well as England.

Hitler is not evil, hes just a man following social ideology to gain power and become populour to his people, althouh he didnt actually order the Holocaust. But as Chithappens has said, there have been cruel events across time, every nation has cruel tendancies, nations today for example are basically controlling the minds of people through diffrent types of propaganda and forms, I think destroying/breaking human freewill into an invisible slavery is nearly as bad as the Holocaust.

Hitler was insane.

He was declared insane around WW1.

Originally posted by llagrok
Prove that Norway ever used a similar ideology.

The nation that didn't even recognize the idea of hate crimes until 2007? Hahahahahaha

Originally posted by llagrok
Hitler was insane.

He was declared insane around WW1.

Crazy =/= Evil

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Crazy =/= Evil

I never made that claim.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The nation that didn't even recognize the idea of hate crimes until 2007?

Eh, proof?

We've always had laws that guaranteed equality and forbade people from discriminating others because of gender, race, orientation and so on. Jens Storberget changed it in 2007, but it has always been dealt with, just in a different manner.

Originally posted by llagrok
I never made that claim.

Then why did you respond to the charge "Hitler wasn't evil." with "Hitler was insane."?



Originally posted by llagrok
Eh, proof?

We've always had laws that guaranteed equality and forbade people from discriminating others because of gender, race, orientation and so on. Jens Storberget changed it in 2007, but it has always been dealt with, just in a different manner.

Not much, I did a search for "norway hate crimes" and something came up with a quote from 2007 about how they were going to start prosecuting people for "so called hate crimes" that made it sound like they hadn't been doing that before.

Hate crimes obviously are a shit idea anyways.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Crazy =/= Evil

Oh obviously. I say we go and blow up the mental institutions before those freaks come and eat our babies...

If Hitler was declared insane and its true then he cannot be Evil although blowing up mental insituations is a good idea

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hate crimes obviously are a shit idea anyways.

Yeah, what the odds that someone might do something criminal out of hatred? Probably incalculable.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Oh obviously. I say we go and blow up the mental institutions before those freaks come and eat our babies...

How does that even begin to follow from what I said?

Originally posted by Burning thought
If Hitler was declared insane and its true then he cannot be Evil

explain plz?

one would think evil and sanity are not necessarily co-related variables

especially considering "sane" is a largely contextually defined category

(and the fact Hitler was capable of living a normal life, immediatly disqualifies him from any modern definition of mental disability)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hate crimes obviously are a shit idea anyways.


agreed

for another reason: they are totally ineffective and beuracratic anyways. A pair of men in the states sprayed a chemical into the nursery of a mosque while prayers were in session. Because the men didn't say something racist and didn't specifically, i dont know, like spray paint kkk stuff everywhere, the police couldn't call it a hate crime.

not that I think they need to be harder on hate crimes or anything, but if that doesn't qualify for one.... useless laws.

Originally posted by inimalist
agreed

for another reason: they are totally ineffective and beuracratic anyways. A pair of men in the states sprayed a chemical into the nursery of a mosque while prayers were in session. Because the men didn't say something racist and didn't specifically, i dont know, like spray paint kkk stuff everywhere, the police couldn't call it a hate crime.

not that I think they need to be harder on hate crimes or anything, but if that doesn't qualify for one.... useless laws.

Actually that's just the system choosing when to implement the law. It is clearly a "hate" crime.

Originally posted by inimalist
explain plz?

one would think evil and sanity are not necessarily co-related variables

especially considering "sane" is a largely contextually defined category

(and the fact Hitler was capable of living a normal life, immediatly disqualifies him from any modern definition of mental disability)

If a man is truly mad, then he doesnt know much of what hes doing, he doesnt see thingsthe way soceity does, this doesnt make him evil though does it....no ofc not, if hes mad then he would be infact far less evil than a man who was 100% sane and doing these things.

Originally posted by Burning thought
If a man is truly mad, then he doesnt know much of what hes doing, he doesnt see thingsthe way soceity does, this doesnt make him evil though does it....no ofc not, if hes mad then he would be infact far less evil than a man who was 100% sane and doing these things.

so you get your definition of evil from cartoon super villainy?

obviously evil people will be called mad by society. Can you provide logic that shows they are mutually exclusive?

put simply, I don't believe intent is what defines evil, but in fact, knowable causation. Whether it is madness or personal whim that leads an individual to knowingly cause evil, it is still evil.

EDIT: this is all moot though, as Hitler fails any standard for insane except for moralistic ones, which are subjective at best.

Originally posted by chithappens
Actually that's just the system choosing when to implement the law. It is clearly a "hate" crime.

I dont think we are saying different things. If they aren't implemened when they should be, they are useless, in practice (though not in theory)

Well personally I dont belive in evil at all, its just a notion. And whats this to do with cartoon super villains?

If its madness, then a man isnt really all there in his mind, its not like hes really even deciding what he really wants to do from a social point of view, then again Evil is such a subjective term anyway since what defines evil is a beings beliefs, if in some random part of the world its not evil to eat your own young is simply a clever way of survivial yet to the eyes of the average modern women that would be both barbaric, sick and evil then evil is simply a view, an opinion.

If your mad then your view is bent and you cannot be considered evil by any unbias and educated view due to the fact your not actually all there to judge things from soceities point of view.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Well personally I dont belive in evil at all, its just a notion.

so what, in your opinon, is the moral argument in favor of slavery?

what about the oppression of gender/class/race/ethnicity?

if something is not evil, there must be a moral argument for it, that would pass the muster of basic philosophical analysis. If you cannot say why the murder of 6 million people could be morally good (or even neutral), then it is evil.

Imho, in the case of Hitler, unless we accept the nonsense position that Jews are less than human (ignoring the politically motivated deaths, etc), there is no possible moral argument for his actions.


Originally posted by Burning thought
If its madness, then a man isnt really all there in his mind,

see, this is very wonderful. You argue post-modern definitions of evil, yet claim to have an absolute claim for what is "sanity"?

"madness", like evil, is a contextually subjective idea (this does not, imho, disqualify absolutes from existing, especially in the case of evil). Hitler fails any objective/scientific definition of "insanity" on the specific fact that he was able to live within society.

The only definition of sanity you are using, is a moral one. In this case you prove my point, only use a different word to describe it. I don't really quibble semantics though

Originally posted by Burning thought
its not like hes really even deciding what he really wants to do from a social point of view,

sure he is. Unless you think that there are different descision making processes for things which are influenced by disordered thinking than things which are of a social influence. Unfortunatly, man is not dualistic in that nature, and the two are tied together.

This view of history also patently de-emphasizes the role of the individual. The easiest example is that people are affected by society in different ways. If what you are saying is true, there are no black men making it out of the ghetto.

Originally posted by Burning thought
then again Evil is such a subjective term anyway since what defines evil is a beings beliefs,

indeed. subjective does not mean there are no absolutes.

Originally posted by Burning thought
if in some random part of the world its not evil to eat your own young is simply a clever way of survivial

oh, the mind of the post-modern thinker!

but wait, you have made a logical fallacy!

benefit =/= moral

to begin with, I don't think what you have described has ever happened in human civilization (there are huge overlaps in morals between cultures). Secondly, you have, in your statement, provided practical reasons for these people to act immorally (ie: WW2, while being immoral, was necessary. sometimes evil must be done in order for survival). Finally, because it is a cultural practice, does not make it moral. Morality is not defined by popularity.

Originally posted by Burning thought
yet to the eyes of the average modern women that would be both barbaric, sick and evil then evil is simply a view, an opinion.

taking the life of another is immoral. Sometimes it is necessary (like in self defence) or even practical (like in abortion), but there is no ethical argument that can be made for that action, unless you conflate morality with benefit to society, which is a logical fallacy, I think I'm even channeling Bentham on that one.

Originally posted by Burning thought
If your mad then your view is bent and you cannot be considered evil by any unbias and educated view due to the fact your not actually all there to judge things from soceities point of view.

you have a very biased and uneducated view of what mental illness is.

and as I mentioned above, the definition you use proves my argument correct, as it is defined by morality, and not by empirical evidence.

Originally posted by Burning thought
And whats this to do with cartoon super villains?

Easy, you define evil by intent. As if evil people sit around schemeing how to bring down good, honest people. As if they know they are evil and are going to do things that are against the will of normal people.

Its like, only Doc Oc is evil, because he has no regard for others. But oh, give him some justification for stealing and murdering, and it is cool, because he is just misunderstood by society at large.

No matter how far you want to break it down, evil is simply based on the perspective.

Is it evil to run over a country on false pretense? Well, I guess it should be, but that's what the U.S. did and most citizens were all for it, initially. If there were few deaths for U.S. soldiers and somehow we could have taken the economic hit, no one would even consider the "immoral/illegal" issues with going to Iraq in the first place. Of course, from the point of view of the Iraqi citizens it was bullshit/evil(?) who lost plenty in the process (this is of course bearing in mind that the entire point of going to Iraq didn't have shit to do with bringing democracy to Iraq as a humanitarian mission).

All I'm saying is that it changes with the times to suit whatever people want to feel "ok" about.

In Metal Gear Solid 3, The Boss said that you are never fighting a nation but an idea because the ideas of a nation will change over time and the enemy might become a friend and vice versa.

I have my own standard of how I live and what I decide to do, but that in no way makes it universal for all people.

Originally posted by chithappens
No matter how far you want to break it down, evil is simply based on the perspective.

so what is the moral argument in favor of slavery?

Originally posted by chithappens
Is it evil to run over a country on false pretense?

not all moral issues are black and white. I would say yes to the question above, but reasonable people can disagree. Whether there are nobel lies, however, is a much more complicated question than whether Hitler was evil or not.

Like above, can you provide moral justification for the camps, the ghettos, the gassing of people in the streets, starting a war with Europe and Russia?

Originally posted by chithappens
Well, I guess it should be, but that's what the U.S. did and most citizens were all for it, initially. If there were few deaths for U.S. soldiers and somehow we could have taken the economic hit, no one would even consider the "immoral/illegal" issues with going to Iraq in the first place.

I'd agree that many, if not most, people are moral hypocrites. But as your point insinuates, we both agree on the immorality of war.

imho war is one of the very few things where practicallity can outweigh morality, but that is a very subjective line.

Originally posted by chithappens
Of course, from the point of view of the Iraqi citizens it was bullshit/evil(?) who lost plenty in the process (this is of course bearing in mind that the entire point of going to Iraq didn't have shit to do with bringing democracy to Iraq as a humanitarian mission).

again, I agree. I was not trying to imply that Hitler is immoral as opposed to the current American administration.

I personally am inclined to believe that all gvt is evil, but I'm certainly not arguing that as an absolute.

Originally posted by chithappens
All I'm saying is that it changes with the times to suit whatever people want to feel "ok" about.

In Metal Gear Solid 3, The Boss said that you are never fighting a nation but an idea because the ideas of a nation will change over time and the enemy might become a friend and vice versa.

indeed. Those in power will use the language of morality to lead and mislead the public.

I don't think this addresses the fact that there are some things that have no moral justification.

Originally posted by chithappens
I have my own standard of how I live and what I decide to do, but that in no way makes it universal for all people.

most personal preferences and morals are subjective, though they are more or less variances along a spectrum (either for or against a particular action). For some issues there is no spectrum.

Originally posted by inimalist
so what is the moral argument in favor of slavery?



not all moral issues are black and white. I would say yes to the question above, but reasonable people can disagree. Whether there are nobel lies, however, is a much more complicated question than whether Hitler was evil or not.

Like above, can you provide moral justification for the camps, the ghettos, the gassing of people in the streets, starting a war with Europe and Russia?



I'd agree that many, if not most, people are moral hypocrites. But as your point insinuates, we both agree on the immorality of war.

imho war is one of the very few things where practicallity can outweigh morality, but that is a very subjective line.



again, I agree. I was not trying to imply that Hitler is immoral as opposed to the current American administration.

I personally am inclined to believe that all gvt is evil, but I'm certainly not arguing that as an absolute.



indeed. Those in power will use the language of morality to lead and mislead the public.

I don't think this addresses the fact that there are some things that have no moral justification.



most personal preferences and morals are subjective, though they are more or less variances along a spectrum (either for or against a particular action). For some issues there is no spectrum.

All moral preference are subjective. You still have to account for the fact that something can only be completely morally wrong if you allow yourself to believe so.

I'm not trying to say make comparisons between Hitler and the current U.S administration (if I wanted to go U.S. politics, I would go more into Big Stick "Latin American" policy, or Iran-Contra, or colonization).

I'm not trying to make moral arguments for stuff like slavery. Obviously, (in the case of U.S. slavery) ******* are animal-like and you can treat them like property, similar to a pet. No one says the rationale has to make sense. You can believe it with all your soul and it does not make it "fair/moral."

Originally posted by chithappens
All moral preference are subjective. You still have to account for the fact that something can only be completely morally wrong if you allow yourself to believe so.

I'm not trying to say make comparisons between Hitler and the current U.S administration (if I wanted to go U.S. politics, I would go more into Big Stick "Latin American" policy, or Iran-Contra, or colonization).

I'm not trying to make moral arguments for stuff like slavery. Obviously, (in the case of U.S. slavery) ******* are animal-like and you can treat them like property, similar to a pet. No one says the rationale has to make sense. You can believe it with all your soul and it does not make it "fair/moral."

I understand what you are saying. Obviously there is my subjective belief that an absolute line can be drawn for immoral behaviour.

However, I feel a lot of that is a cop out from actually taking the charge of my position. Rationally defend something that I have said clearly crosses the line into immorlity, rather than claiming that line can't be drawn.

We both know that "******* as pets" really doesn't hold water. I guess I will concede that what is known empirically can change over time, and has cultural bias, however I feel we are getting closer to knowing objectivity than farther.

I don't believe morality is democratic. Just because some people are ignorant doesn't mean something isn't morally right. The oppression of women in the Victorian era was morally wrong. Those who participated in it were acting immorally. They may not have known any better, nor do I think we should condemn them as a people for those actions, lets just call a spade a spade. There was no justifiable reason for them to do so, aside from the fact that their culture was still dominated by our innate patriarchies.

Hitler was pure concentrated evil, like the villain in Time Bandits; it's a fact.

Originally posted by inimalist


I don't believe morality is democratic. Just because some people are ignorant doesn't mean something isn't morally right. The oppression of women in the Victorian era was morally wrong. Those who participated in it were acting immorally. They may not have known any better, nor do I think we should condemn them as a people for those actions, lets just call a spade a spade. There was no justifiable reason for them to do so, aside from the fact that their culture was still dominated by our innate patriarchies.

I don't disagree but my question would be to you is how do you know your ways are not immoral now?

Certainly you would be considered a fool but nearly everyone of that time period. Would you be able to stick your ground if no one else believed as you did?

Originally posted by inimalist
so what, in your opinon, is the moral argument in favor of slavery?

what about the oppression of gender/class/race/ethnicity?

if something is not evil, there must be a moral argument for it, that would pass the muster of basic philosophical analysis. If you cannot say why the murder of 6 million people could be morally good (or even neutral), then it is evil.

Imho, in the case of Hitler, unless we accept the nonsense position that Jews are less than human (ignoring the politically motivated deaths, etc), there is no possible moral argument for his actions.




see, this is very wonderful. You argue post-modern definitions of evil, yet claim to have an absolute claim for what is "sanity"?

"madness", like evil, is a contextually subjective idea (this does not, imho, disqualify absolutes from existing, especially in the case of evil). Hitler fails any objective/scientific definition of "insanity" on the specific fact that he was able to live within society.

The only definition of sanity you are using, is a moral one. In this case you prove my point, only use a different word to describe it. I don't really quibble semantics though



sure he is. Unless you think that there are different descision making processes for things which are influenced by disordered thinking than things which are of a social influence. Unfortunatly, man is not dualistic in that nature, and the two are tied together.

This view of history also patently de-emphasizes the role of the individual. The easiest example is that people are affected by society in different ways. If what you are saying is true, there are no black men making it out of the ghetto.



indeed. subjective does not mean there are no absolutes.



oh, the mind of the post-modern thinker!

but wait, you have made a logical fallacy!

benefit =/= moral

to begin with, I don't think what you have described has ever happened in human civilization (there are huge overlaps in morals between cultures). Secondly, you have, in your statement, provided practical reasons for these people to act immorally (ie: WW2, while being immoral, was necessary. sometimes evil must be done in order for survival). Finally, because it is a cultural practice, does not make it moral. Morality is not defined by popularity.



taking the life of another is immoral. Sometimes it is necessary (like in self defence) or even practical (like in abortion), but there is no ethical argument that can be made for that action, unless you conflate morality with benefit to society, which is a logical fallacy, I think I'm even channeling Bentham on that one.



you have a very biased and uneducated view of what mental illness is.

and as I mentioned above, the definition you use proves my argument correct, as it is defined by morality, and not by empirical evidence.



Easy, you define evil by intent. As if evil people sit around schemeing how to bring down good, honest people. As if they know they are evil and are going to do things that are against the will of normal people.

Its like, only Doc Oc is evil, because he has no regard for others. But oh, give him some justification for stealing and murdering, and it is cool, because he is just misunderstood by society at large.

Slavery makes no sense because the average black guy is as intelligent and deserving as a place in the world as the average white guy, same with anyone really, any person. There is no reason to belive Slavery is worthwhile.

If something is not evil it only requires knowledge of the fact the being causing the so called "evil" is not understanding what it is really doing. Hitler did not actually "kill" the Jews, infact we dont know if he even gave the order, all we know is it happened under his authority.

Ime curious what do you call evil? since to me its a base religious term used for the supernatural entities that imo dont excist. In real life you only have things that are accepted by a person, or simply not, butchery of a young child just because a guy is bored would be considered evil by many, but what right do a few random people have to judge this action? just because the majority of these people think so?



True madness is absolute, when I talk of insanity, I talk of what I think it means in truth, when a man is insane he does not know what he is doing, otherwise it is simply a label a group of people slap on a guy for doing something which is not the norm or is agains the ideas of that soceity.

I woudlnt say a bias and uneducated view, how so?

A man who is mentally ill, simply has not his own mind...he does not understand what he is doing, if a man was mentally ill and jumped off a building in fitfull laughter, he is not of his own mind.