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 xmarksthespotHitler was evil, to me. We deem evil, what displeases us. [/B]
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.
[i]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'.
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.
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 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.
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.
Re: Re: Was Hitler...EVIL?
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 [b]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..... 🙄 [/B]
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.
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 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 RobtardBy definition the targeting of civilians for a political purpose is terrorism.
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'.