Re: Re: Was Hitler Evil?
Originally posted by UKR
Hitler was the nicest, kindest, jolliest, heartiest old fellow who ever lived. If all white people were like him, the world would be a better place.
Well actually if everyone held Hitler's ideologies the world would be a very peaceful place. Then again if everyone held Barney or Ayn Rand's ideologies the world would be equally happy.
hitler was note evil. Evil is just a label that ppl put on others whose views are completely different from others that cant achieved.
he was a firm believer of perfection in genetics, something that we should all strife for, his only mistake that he made was the believed that one single race held the that potential.
Originally posted by UKR
Hitler was the nicest, kindest, jolliest, heartiest old fellow who ever lived. If all white people were like him, the world would be a better place.
🤨
Who the heck is this guy?
Originally posted by Toku King
Hitler is evil at one of its purist states: Completely sick, insane, ambitious, and unaware that what he is doing is wrong. People talk about point of view, but when that point of view murders millions, it's 100% evil.
When I mentioned Hitler's perspective (which obviously means squat to...apparently everyone but UKR), it was just to show that being considered 'evil' really just matters on perspective 😬
And SC, I apologize if my first comment offended you or anything.
Originally posted by Toku King
Hitler is evil at one of its purist states: Completely sick, insane, ambitious, and unaware that what he is doing is wrong. People talk about point of view, but when that point of view murders millions, it's 100% evil.
But when we drop a bomb(s) on Japan killing more than 200,000 people we are 'good'?
I don't see how this is even an argument. Here are what the German troops did under orders from Hitler. Theres also all the experiments he authorized to be conducted which were just sickening. To say there is no such thing as good and evil is an ignorant statement. No matter what your morals are it can be considered wrong to kill babies, and to torture people for the pure purpose of pleasing yourself. I'm not saying Hitler was the devil because i believe that idea is false. But he was evil. He did cruel and monstrous things for no other reason than to please his own insane views. Here are some of the few atrocities committed while under Hitlers command:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
I don't see how this is even an argument. Here are what the German troops did under orders from Hitler.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Theres also all the experiments he authorized to be conducted which were just sickening.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
To say there is no such thing as good and evil is an ignorant statement.
(According to you. I'm not arguing with Inimalist right now. (I know, I know, the 'i' isn't capitalized. Proper nouns are capitalized. Get used to it.) I'd like to know your positions.)
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
No matter what your morals are it can be considered wrong to kill babies, and to torture people for the pure purpose of pleasing yourself.
And anyway, your statement is false: Objectivist morals would not have a problem with torture, nor would a philosophy based on conflict (the subjugation of the weak by the strong) or one that praises sadism (or the opposite?) as the highest good.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
I'm not saying Hitler was the devil because i believe that idea is false. But he was evil.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
He did cruel and monstrous things for no other reason than to please his own insane views. Here are some of the few atrocities committed while under Hitlers command:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html
Anyway the second: He did 'cruel and monstrous things' in order to rescue Germany from economic and social collapse brought about by the harsh penalties for WWI. Not simply because he thought it'd be fun to kill people.
Originally posted by Red NemesisYes we all know about the Holocaust.
Yes we all know about the Holocaust. (Are one doctor's experiments Hitler's fault, though?)
What are good and evil?
(According to you. I'm not arguing with Inimalist right now. (I know, I know, the 'i' isn't capitalized. Proper nouns are capitalized. Get used to it.) I'd like to know your positions.)
What if that baby was the antichrist? What if the baby was in terrible pain and that pain would simply grow (exponentially?) the longer it lived?
And anyway, your statement is false: Objectivist morals would not have a problem with torture, nor would a philosophy based on conflict (the subjugation of the weak by the strong) or one that praises sadism (or the opposite?) as the highest good.
He was evil... because you say so? What makes your opinion any more valid than Hitler's of himself?
I'm confused. If he had done those monstrous things for a better reason then he wouldn't have been evil? Anyway, why are your perceptions of 'monstrous' more valid than his?
Anyway the second: He did 'cruel and monstrous things' in order to rescue Germany from economic and social collapse brought about by the harsh penalties for WWI. Not simply because he thought it'd be fun to kill people. [/B]