Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because you need entirely subjective religious beliefs, as you ignored all my previous posts, which I'll expect a reply to.I'd expect a reply, but we know how hard it is to get a reply out of you when you've been proven wrong.
Anyway, what is and isn't evil is entirely subjective. There's no absolute evil.
-AC
bardock 42, well, he disagrees with me on this, but at least his posts are civil. he never assumes he is 100% correct like you do. he merely debates in an appropriate fashion.
ever consider the fact that maybe you dont know everything about everything?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your last sentence is right.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
look, i am not saying you are wrong or that bardock is wrong. i am merely disagreeing with you two guys. whats the prob here?
you have a habit of telling everyone they are wrong and that you are always right. then you come up with a smartass remark, trying to make someone who disagrees with you look foolish.
you are, without a doubt, the biggest know it all i have ever encountered.bardock 42, well, he disagrees with me on this, but at least his posts are civil. he never assumes he is 100% correct like you do. he merely debates in an appropriate fashion.
ever consider the fact that maybe you dont know everything about everything?
Better to be a big know-it-all than a huge know-nothing, that's my view. I'm well aware I don't know everything, but I'm well aware of what I do know, and when I'm right, like now. Me and Bardock are saying, essentially, the same thing. You just don't like it coming from me, is all.
Either way, you were the one who involved the pointless religious argument which was quickly dispelled. That's all I was pointing out.
-AC
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i just dont get how you guys think that pure evil does not exist. how do you explain all the bad things that happen in this world? what about serial killers removing babies from their mothers womb and eating it? what about sacrificing humans in the name of satan?
these things do happen, BTW.
What bad things?
That's subjective, you know.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i just dont get how you guys think that pure evil does not exist. how do you explain all the bad things that happen in this world? what about serial killers removing babies from their mothers womb and eating it? what about sacrificing humans in the name of satan?
these things do happen, BTW.
This is why you get problems in debates. You don't read posts or ideas properly.
A) As Bardock said, "Bad" is subjective.
B) I've never said pure evil doesn't exist, to me. I've said there is no worldwide, absolute definition of what evil is. Nothing is factually evil.
I think 9/11 was evil, but that's not a fact, no matter how obvious it is. Bin Laden could simply say "No, it wasn't evil.". As ridiculous as that sounds, nobody can prove him factually incorrect.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Better to be a big know-it-all than a huge know-nothing, that's my view. I'm well aware I don't know everything, but I'm well aware of what I do know, and when I'm right, like now. Me and Bardock are saying, essentially, the same thing. You just don't like it coming from me, is all.Either way, you were the one who involved the pointless religious argument which was quickly dispelled. That's all I was pointing out.
-AC
yes, you and bardock are saying the same thing. the difference is that he is not assuming to know everything. the difference is that he is a gentleman.
"better to be a big know it all than a big know nothing.".....i havent been insulted like that since grade school.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
see? again with the insults. you ALWAYS go back to that. sp just because i will not "admit" that you are right i am a know nothing?
Who said that? I never said YOU were a know-nothing. I simply said it's better to be a know-it-all than a know-nothing, and you implied I'm a know-it-all, not a know-nothing. To which I replied that I'd rather know it all, than know nothing. Stop being so insecure.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yes, you and bardock are saying the same thing. the difference is that he is not assuming to know everything. the difference is that he is a gentleman.
I'm not assuming I know everything either, as it's a fact I'm well aware of that I don't. You are the one calling me a know-it-all.
And you proved my point by calling him a gentleman. You simply like him more than me, and you assume, through text, that he is a gentleman.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
"better to be a big know it all than a big know nothing.".....i havent been insulted like that since grade school.
This is all under the assumption that I actually called you a know-nothing, and that I didn't say it as the view I hold in general, and have said before on KMC.
We all know what happens now. I tell you I didn't mean you, you tell me I did, in spite of it being a fact that I didn't etc. You try too hard, RJ. This is how you debate, you get proven wrong and then make it about the person.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who said that? I never said YOU were a know-nothing. I simply said it's better to be a know-it-all than a know-nothing, and you implied I'm a know-it-all, not a know-nothing. To which I replied that I'd rather know it all, than know nothing. Stop being so insecure.I'm not assuming I know everything either, as it's a fact I'm well aware of that I don't. You are the one calling me a know-it-all.
And you proved my point by calling him a gentleman. You simply like him more than me, and you assume, through text, that he is a gentleman.
This is all under the assumption that I actually called you a know-nothing, and that I didn't say it as the view I hold in general, and have said before on KMC.
We all know what happens now. I tell you I didn't mean you, you tell me I did, in spite of it being a fact that I didn't etc. You try too hard, RJ. This is how you debate, you get proven wrong and then make it about the person.
-AC
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
you implied it, you know you did. you implied i knew nothing, now you are trying to weasel out of it and come off all superior.
No, quite simply you assumed. I wasn't referring to you at all, and that's a fact, not only because I've used that saying before, but because I'm the one who said it. You assumed it and now you're trying to pin your assumption on me.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yes, we DO all know what happens now. trust me, i am not the only one here who thinks that you are a chronic know it all who will not admit when he is wrong.
Let me just show you how hypocritical you are right now:
I don't think I am a know-it-all, so...where's the logic there? Let's run through the logic: You call me a know-it-all, I said "I'm not.", and then you accuse me of thinking that I know everything. You're the one calling me a know it all, and I'm the one saying "I don't.", which is obvious, as nobody knows everything. So...why would you say it? Do you think I know everything? No. Do I? No, because nobody does. So...what's the point?
Furthermore, you speak of not admitting when I'm wrong? You're the one who sits there telling me that I aimed that comment at you, despite me telling you I didn't. Instead of admitting you assumed wrong, you try to pin it on me. Why? Because in another twist of hypocricy, you simply want to argue with me.
The combination of hypocricy, contradiction and comedy is almost too much to bear.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
no, i never take it personal unless someone insults me or my intelligence first, which is what you constantly do.
Oh cry, moan, cry, moan. That is all you ever do. Victim syndrome to the max.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
you may not come out and say "hey, you are a big poohead", but you nevertheless twist peoples words around to suit your own needs, then you try to play it off.
I'll direct you to my previous counter. You do exactly what you claim I'm doing, then try to play it off...THEN try to play off the playing off.
You go around in so many circles that you end up debating me...because you've pinned your beliefs on me.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i have no need to try hard. i have my opinion about some things and will stick to them. if someone disagrees with me, fine, so be it. i do not make a habit of going around starting a fight with anyone who does not agree with me. this is what you do. i guess you have nothing better to do.
And yet here you are, starting an argument because you couldn't admit "Ok, you weren't referring to me, sorry.".
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
your last paragraph speaks volumes about you. you said "you get proven wrong and then you make it about the person." firstly, you are assuming that i am wrong.
No, you are wrong. If you're not wrong, then start proving, for the first time in human history, that there is such a thing as undeniable evil. If you can do this, I will concede that you aren't wrong.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
secondly, you are assuming to know my mindset, and how i react when i am "proven" wrong. the mere fact that you are stating these things shows your true colors.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
another example of how you ASSUME to know me, how i will react. i would probably respond back with a joke, try and end the argument, like i did before.
You've just confused yourself so much, ironically, in a try-hard attempt. You're just an insecure, self-convincing man, hyping yourself up for your own approval.
Sad really.
-AC
wow. you quoted me like ten times there. do you feel better? did you get it all out of your system? do you feel like you are better than me now?
you know, i have had someone talk so much smack to me only once, and that was a member named "edida." i am sure you remember him. other than you two, i have never, not in my 3 plus years here, had someone devote so much time trying to deball me or drag my name through the mud.
you call me insecure? i am the least insecure man on the planet. well, maybe not the most secure, but i am far from insecure. i have a beautiful woman who loves me, a good job, a loving family and friends. what more can a guy want?
i am done talking to you. i am done trying to debate you, because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. you need to seriously deflate your ego, AC. now i can just imagine what you are gonna post in response to this. it should be more drama, more self righteous BS you come up with in an attempt to look superior. to quote another member here, you are "an overly opinioned drama queen" who has been this way for as long as they can remember. they said this a while back to me, but i hardly knew you. now i see that they were right.
good luck and have a nice life, AC.
Re: Was Hitler...EVIL?
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 think he was evil, no matter which way you put it. Look at it like this. Everybody evil in history thought that he or she was doing the right thing, or they just couldn't comprehend what they were doing. Hitler didn't think that what he was doing was wrong. But does that make him less evil? No. Just because a severely retarded homeless guy who goes up to a baby carriage and starts jerking off in it is retarded doesn't make what he's doing more acceptable, nor does it make it somehow less sick. A thing to note is that because it's possible for someone to do something evil without knowing that it's evil tends to put things in perspective in terms of your understanding of what's right and wrong. It makes you wonder if everything considered to be humanly good is in fact evil, or if everything we think is wrong is actually right. But Hitler killed 12,000,000 ppl with no real reason for it, and there's no logical way to justify that. If they were 12,000,000 murderers or 12,000,000 pedophiles, then that would explain it, but I'm afraid that most of those folks probably weren't scum. And for your information, the Japanese were clearly worse than the Germans; they killed some 100,000,000 people throughout the course of the 1930s and the Second World War. That's over eight times the damage the Germans did. I'm not saying that the Germans weren't evil, but I think we tend to classify them as worse because they're white and white people are typically villified (though I admit that there is some serious basis behind such a motive), and because their motives were racist. But I don't think the Japanese were too friendly towards non-Japanese...
And last but not least, I hear that Hitler's father might actually have been part-Jewish. Yeah, pretty ironic, I know.
Re: Re: Was Hitler...EVIL?
Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
I think he was evil, no matter which way you put it. Look at it like this. Everybody evil in history thought that he or she was doing the right thing, or they just couldn't comprehend what they were doing. Hitler didn't think that what he was doing was wrong. But does that make him less evil? No. Just because a severely retarded homeless guy who goes up to a baby carriage and starts jerking off in it is retarded doesn't make what he's doing more acceptable, nor does it make it somehow less sick. A thing to note is that because it's possible for someone to do something evil without knowing that it's evil tends to put things in perspective in terms of your understanding of what's right and wrong. It makes you wonder if everything considered to be humanly good is in fact evil, or if everything we think is wrong is actually right. But Hitler killed 12,000,000 ppl with no real reason for it, and there's no logical way to justify that. If they were 12,000,000 murderers or 12,000,000 pedophiles, then that would explain it, but I'm afraid that most of those folks probably weren't scum. And for your information, the Japanese were clearly worse than the Germans; they killed some 100,000,000 people throughout the course of the 1930s and the Second World War. That's over eight times the damage the Germans did. I'm not saying that the Germans weren't evil, but I think we tend to classify them as worse because they're white and white people are typically villified (though I admit that there is some serious basis behind such a motive), and because their motives were racist. But I don't think the Japanese were too friendly towards non-Japanese...And last but not least, I hear that Hitler's father might actually have been part-Jewish. Yeah, pretty ironic, I know.
Re: Re: Was Hitler...EVIL?
Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
I think he was evil, no matter which way you put it. Look at it like this. Everybody evil in history thought that he or she was doing the right thing, or they just couldn't comprehend what they were doing. Hitler didn't think that what he was doing was wrong. But does that make him less evil? No. Just because a severely retarded homeless guy who goes up to a baby carriage and starts jerking off in it is retarded doesn't make what he's doing more acceptable, nor does it make it somehow less sick. A thing to note is that because it's possible for someone to do something evil without knowing that it's evil tends to put things in perspective in terms of your understanding of what's right and wrong. It makes you wonder if everything considered to be humanly good is in fact evil, or if everything we think is wrong is actually right. But Hitler killed 12,000,000 ppl with no real reason for it, and there's no logical way to justify that. If they were 12,000,000 murderers or 12,000,000 pedophiles, then that would explain it, but I'm afraid that most of those folks probably weren't scum. And for your information, the Japanese were clearly worse than the Germans; they killed some 100,000,000 people throughout the course of the 1930s and the Second World War. That's over eight times the damage the Germans did. I'm not saying that the Germans weren't evil, but I think we tend to classify them as worse because they're white and white people are typically villified (though I admit that there is some serious basis behind such a motive), and because their motives were racist. But I don't think the Japanese were too friendly towards non-Japanese...And last but not least, I hear that Hitler's father might actually have been part-Jewish. Yeah, pretty ironic, I know.
That's all very well and good, but none of that factually proves the man was evil. It just proves you have a very informed opinion of why you believe he is.
-AC