The Holocaust.

Originally posted by Wonderer
Killing one or more makes no difference. Who told you it's bad to kill?

Animals kill you survive, they don't kill for fun or for some sense of pride like man does. If anything man has proven itself on many occassions to be worse then an animal though they proclaim to be better. But if you think you're no better then an animal, then what the hell are you doing on the computer spouting stupid incoherent messages that don't apply to real life instead of hunting an elk or something? Go run naked in the woods, see how long you survive.

If you can't survive long, you've proven you're a human.
Now being human, you're going to accept the responsibilities of being sentinent and responsible. Thus, you're going to accept morality. Capish?

Thus, you're going to accept morality. Capish?

Originally posted by finti
morality according to whom? a christian view on it a muslim view on it or others view on morality?

It's well established murder is wrong.
It's well establised rejection of God and all His incarnations is wrong.

You claim to know about those religons and yet you've probably never even read ANYTHING about them. If you did, you'd know they speak of the same basic princaples.

Yes, one says God "Allah" and the other "Jehova", but sacla-blu, you still get the same damn cat/dog issue..

It's not going to work that whole "question morality" thing, because when you start to question morality, you start to question people, and when you have to question people, what's to stop you from killing them wether out of fear or lack of any sortof restraint?

Which creates anarchy, which would be Hell on Earth. It's that sortof thinking that creates the devil and all that mess. Not God, not Allah, that stupid idea that morality is relative..

everyone accepts the laws of the land?...i didn't realise the jews accepted the laws which got them wiped out

in fact i didn't even realise that there were written laws allowing the slaughter of the jews and other minorities (11 million in the camps alone)

It's well establised rejection of God and all His incarnations is wrong

It's not going to work that whole "question morality" thing, because when you start to question morality, you start to question people, and when you have to question people, what's to stop you from killing them wether out of fear or lack of any sortof restraint?

Originally posted by finti
and the death penalty comes in under what moral motto then

Be realistic will you? Oh wait you can't or else we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place!

You know what? Forget it. I don't know who you're trying to convince that you or any other hyporitical person who thinks like that is a preserver of life. Unless it's yourself. You try to tell me that you love life, yet you find another way to kill life.

Wether it's conservatives with thier funding of goverment weapons, finding new ways to sorround us with bombs and paranoia.

Or with liberals trying to blur the lines of right and wrong so we can kill children and gut them for some sortof sck pleasure that we disguise as science.

It's the same wrong cat no matter how you slice it. And frankly, I've said before I am not pro-death penalty. I believe all prisoners should be sent to a island seperate from us, where they can live and fend for themself. All they need is basic supplies, trust me, if you had to farm and plow fields, you'd learn mighty quickly to respect God's work. And I don't mean God as in, Lord Jehova or Allah, as you seem to enjoy accusing me of, I mean God, The Great Spirit. Which resides in all matter. Damnit man, even doped up heavy metal artists have more sense then internet posters sometimes..

Oh yes cause soooo many people die on capital punishment.. : \

.And I don't mean God as in, Lord Jehova or Allah, as you seem to enjoy accusing me of, I mean God, The Great Spirit. Which resides in all matter. Damnit man, even doped up heavy metal artists have more sense then internet posters sometimes

Originally posted by Spelljammer
It's well establised rejection of God and all His incarnations is wrong.

The American Natives were given false hope and tricked...they sold their land for beads and thought they got the better deal, cause "Who could own the land?"...Like owning the sky....It can't be owned...little did they know what they were up against...some conformed and still were sent off to new reservations...others fought back and died...It was a kind of Holocaust, but really quite different...very different...The white man just wanted the land...though yes they were referred to as savages because of their beliefs, but many did convert also...Still they were hated my many..They could of all lived together...The Cherokees tried...

The difference for much of the deaths is that the Natives fought back...They were proud people...The Jews didn't..They prayed and hoped....

For the Jews it wasn't about the land at all...It was because of Hatred of their race....and trying to wipe them out all together...and not just the jews, but inferior races also...only leaving the pure race....sometimes it was even an eye color thing...

Originally posted by Wonderer
Survival of the fittest and exercise of power is a natural thing without which nothing would have existed - eat or be eaten is the law of nature - it can't be evil or bad, because everything functions according to that.

I don't look at people in this way...

The American Natives were given false hope and tricked...they sold their land for beads and thought they got the better deal, cause "Who could own the land?"...Like owning the sky....It can't be owned...little did they know what they were up against...some conformed and still were sent off to new reservations...others fought back and died...It was a kind of Holocaust, but really quite different...very different...The white man just wanted the land...though yes they were referred to as savages because of their beliefs, but many did convert also...Still they were hated my many..They could of all lived together...The Cherokees tried...

you have been miseducated in the subject debbiejo.....but then again, what can one expect from public school systems, history is written by the winners.

I'm not simply talking about American settlers heading west.......making war with the people to secure land. I'm talking from 1492 onward. Not one European expedition to the "new world" happened without the slaughter of natives. Christopher Columbus was so great wasn't he........how many natives did he kill on his first trek? It didn't matter which nation or tribe Europeans came across.........they were different so they were killed. Even those who helped European explorers and later settlers were killed.

you seem to be referring to the expansion in the 1800s........overlooking 400 years of genocide.

Animals kill you survive, they don't kill for fun or for some sense of pride like man does.

get off your horse and read up on the subject. Animals kill for many reasons. They kill for food. They kill for territory. They kill for breeding rights.

you said it yourself, man is no better than other animals. Man is an animal iteslf. There is no wrong reason to kill. Every animal that exist on this earth survives to procreate. Every other animal of the same species that lives lessens the chance of it's procreation......many animals kills simply to increase the odds that their seed will be passed on to the next generation instead of another animal's of the same species.

the most obvious example would be a lion. Lion's live together in families consisting of several females and one or two males. Any other male that crosses their path they attempt to kill. That's one less male lion to breed with females..........increasing the dominant lion's chances of passing on his seed.

since man is no better, why would it not be just as appropriate for any man to kill any other man on sight..........simply to decrease the competition? That's natural selection........survival of the fittest. The strong live on to pass their genes to the next generation while the weaker die.

There is naturally no wrong reason to kill. "wrong" itself is a man-made concept.......a bi-product civilization which is anything but natural. Any reason "wrong" or "right" to do anything is simple hogwash made up by man in attempt for a peaceful society. This is why man will never get along with each other. It's not natural. We are animals with animal instincts. Killing is one of those instincts......it is as natural as eating or procreating.

Originally posted by Evil Dead

you seem to be referring to the expansion in the 1800s........overlooking 400 years of genocide.

You're right...that is what I was referring to....

So what do you guys think? Could it be that the holocaust was acceptable?

Originally posted by TheQuincy
So what do you guys think? Could it be that the holocaust was acceptable?

No, not any of the holocausts that have ever happened. All it does is set the human race back. We loose so much, so many talented people who could have made this world a better place to live.

NO NO NO NO.....What if I had lived at that time....I have brown eyes.

Not the pure race... 🙁

To those discussing morals, nothing is really wrong in this world...theft is just the stealing of ones material possessions that one will lose when he/she dies anyways, abuse is demeaning/painful to the victim but this is again just negative sensory input...over the years how many organisms have faced pain? Countless beings have been brutalized by eachother but wounds heal, it matters not. Even murder has no meaning, all things die why does it matter if you die now or later? People are spoiled, they think natural things to be "tragedies". Still, being a moral person makes it easier for everyone, if you have to do something you might as well be moral. That is why mankind should structure itself to overcome nature and be rid of unmoral tendencies. Although I realize the unimportance of such things, Im not going to kid myself into thinking I wouldnt rather live a life of ease living with morally good people than all the pain and suffering of say a slaves life. We are intelligent beings and as such our goal should be that no one has to experience the negative things in life...So in other words we should use our intelligence to make life conform to us instead of us conforming to life. Our founding fathers realized this and made our wonderful government of freedom and equality, which is ofcourse by no stretch of the imagination perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.

Disregard that last post...it sounds kinda retarded after I reread it...I wont edit it out incase somone wants to read it though.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Disregard that last post...it sounds kinda retarded after I reread it...I wont edit it out incase somone wants to read it though.

Your statement is relevant. It's that kind of thinking; taken to its logical conclusion that has allowed people to kill millions. We have a choice, we can say that life is meaningless, or we can realize that we are the judge of the value life has.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
we are the judge of the value life has.

Very good point.

I know my point is relevent, its just that I havent myself experienced the horrors some people have experienced, so it is foolish for me to judge these people without first hand experience.

Originally posted by TheQuincy
An interesting question came up today when I was debating with my global perspectives teacher. I was questioning him about how if someone was to find an island, and mark it as their own country. Then they would have their own government and people. They would make their own laws and do whatever, and stay out of every other countries business. But what would happen If the leader of the country was too murder everyone for a crime they all commited. It was here my teacher said that the united nations would have to put a stop to your crimes against humanity. and I said "well its my own country, and everyone agreed to my laws. It's acceptable" and then he said "So was the Holocaust acceptable in your eyes?"

So what do you guys think? We all know the Holocaust was TERRIBLE. It was indeed a crime against humanity, but was it technically acceptable? I don't know if I'm stepping on any toes here, and I am DEFINITELY not siding with Hitler. But what do u all think?

There is a problem in what you say over here:

First you say "If someone found a country" then you add that they would have the're own country and laws.

Who are 'THEY' ?

Where do you get 'THEM' from ? Is it like it was in Australia when there was a call for people to inhabit the land?

If So you are involving people from other nations there, doing that, you will be required by the country that is AIDING with your development to make a protocol.

Now as soon as you involve others in your country's affairs, you automatically involve other countries cause their own citizens have contributed to the Islands welfare.

You need these foreigners to have them to build, to grow/import food, to make the laws, to organise an infrastructre that is suitable to host and maintain them as well as the founder or discoverer of the self-proclaimed country otherwise the only way i see people living there is by Adam and Eve distribution.

Firstly, no-one is going to live there if the Discoverer made a law that he can create a holocaust.

Secondly, when you have people from other countries in that Island, the discoverer cannot simply decide to Holocaust every single being on that Island cause he will surely face a retaliation from a country that has contributed to that Islands civil infrastructure.

Thirdly, its a bit difficult to keep the people living on that Island there if they know that they are going to be killed 'for a crime they commited' which frankly i can see no connection with 'Holocaust'