Heil Hitler...?

Originally posted by siriuswriter
i'm saying that i'd rather live without things that have been discovered through appalling experiments.

and no, that is not just me wanting to present myself as 'moral.' that is a quite serious principle that i try to follow.

might want to get rid of hygiene products odds are they were discovered by experimenting on animals in a very unpleasant manner or were made from animal products.. might want to keep away from most medicines seeing as many derived from morally questionable experiments from infecting control groups or simply paying them to be experimented on.

hell, if it wasnt for a pouched polio vaccine ppl wouldnt have gotten aids in africa since pharmaceutical companies will first use experimental drugs or unproven drugs on the most exploitable group of ppl. even surgeries that ppl have today were done on animals first. governments experiment on their own ppl americans have bn used as guinea pigs for vaccinations and radioactive experiments with atom bombs just to see what radiation does to ppl.

to advance in science you cant be squeamish. 😈

Originally posted by siriuswriter
i'm saying that i'd rather live without things that have been discovered through appalling experiments.

and no, that is not just me wanting to present myself as 'moral.' that is a quite serious principle that i try to follow.

so now you're going to come at me with "well early americans did appalling things to the native americans; blah de blah did appalling things to blah de blah, at yet you live ____ which was once an native american territory."

there are some things, some necessary evils, that are and will be. i'm not happy about a lot of things, including a lot of american history; in fact i think that "we" or "They" or whoever knew what they were doing and that is was detestable yet they still did it.

instead of breezing over a horrifying experiment/treatment by saying "but it came out with so many good things!" uh-uh. i say "that was wrong, and i can't accept those means to get these ends.

No one's dismissing anything. However, the horrible means don't change that we actually ended up with those ends.

What are you doing about those evil means? Do you never use jets? Microwaves? Synthetic rubber?

Never, nope and no.

Originally posted by Mr. Revo
autistic . . . . his one ability: speaking

Worst piece of research ever.

[color=green]perhaps it would be better to say that i while i still use some things that have had "bad" backgrounds, i still try to keep any sacrifices or whatever in mind.

i also apologize for the capslock of rage. i was coming off of a similar discussion with someone like mr. revo, and so seeing it again straight after that discussion/argument, i clearly went overboard.

however, i still feel that things discovered/made through/created because of less than perfect circumstances make me angry, but of course the world in which everybody comes out with clean hands doesn't exist. that doesn't mean i have to like it, though.

Just throwing this out there: I can understand why as a nation, a unit so to speak, different countries would find Hitler evil; however, there are a load of times when similar circumstances have caused hardly no accusations as history looks back at them.

If one were to ask, "Were the U.S. politicians who spoke of Manifest Destiny ("We white Americans are chosen by God to take over the land to the West and screw those undeserving Native Americans"😉 in the 19th century evil? If we look now, Native Americans make up, I believe, somewhere between 3-4 % of the U.S. population (an estimate because I remember it being 4. - something in 2006) meaning that a people who were basically the entire population of a continent now make up only one-twenty fifth of one of the three countries of North America. I can understand why it is not seen the same, but I wonder if anyone actually considers those acts evil today.

Not to take away that the Natives got a thorough ass****ing of epic proportions, as they certainly were driven from their lands, robbed and slaughtered in mass. But their total poulation total may be simialr to what is what back then, them being only a fraction of the total population isn't necessarily an indicator of how many were killed back then.

It's more likely that they're only at a low percentage because their are so many other ethnic groups in America. I don't think there were a few hundred million of then pre-colonization days.

I could be wrong, as it's been a very long time since I read about Native histories.

But yes, people definitely view the U.S. governments approach and actions as a negative, though it's probably harder to label it as "evil" for people, since there isn't a single focal point, like Hitler and the Jewish holocaust.

The trail of tears and such are still seen as evil by pretty much everyone who thinks about them, kids just grow up being told it was "a tragedy" rather than "the worst thing ever done".

IIRC[history channel], 4k Cherokees died in that march. Is that the single biggest Indian death at one time?

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC[history channel], 4k Cherokees died in that march. Is that the single biggest Indian death at one time?

I'm not sure. But numbers are a statistic. The act of killing isn't what makes it so awful, IMO, it's that they forced them to sign a treaty then burned down their houses and starved them. Even if no one had died I would count that as cruel and horrific beyond reason.

Come on now, it's a ****ed matter from any angle, I agree. But the deaths/murder aspect tops the list.

Every time a soldier shoots to kill it's not evil, it likely won't top the list of evil things done during the war. It's when you do decide to do things like torture them to death that the chance of claiming morality has been lost. To me the killing is less important than the pointless, inhuman way in which they killed them.

I'm sure the military was responsible for the death of at least 4000 total Indians before the Trail(s) of Tears. That was war, not that that justifies it, not a death march of your almost totally powerless defeated enemies.

Think of it as the difference between killing a charging bear that you happened to provoke and gouging the eyes out of its babies.

Thank god that bastard got banned. Although, I would've enjoyed giving him some a** whooping.

Anyways, although a huge amount of people say that the German population back then is the main reason of what happened, not Hitler, I find that pretty false. We can't look at it form our angle, it didn't look so black and white to them back then. Or to anyone, really. They were doing what was needed for their country to expand, to get it's economy back. It started invading, and growing in territory. Most people were fed the propaganda that Hitler spread. And it went all the way up to the very high ranks, not just the normal citizens or the ordinary soldier. The way Hitler explained it, scientists or generals would find the idea appalling and be persuaded that it's what must be done. I think pretty much the only one who had a complete realization of the harm he was doing was Hitler himself, more or less.

I read a book a few years ago, how the highest ranks spread propaganda about taking elders into sheltering environments where they would be fed food and taken care of. Obviously, no one resisted and were in contrast happy that their government was doing such a thing. The elders were taken, killed, and experimented with. The only thing Hitler thought off was gain. Research, less medicine and supplies wasted on elders who didn't work in factories or serve in the armies. No matter what anyone sais Hitler WAS behind all of it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahah, no you dumb-ass, his obvious and totally unoriginal sock-tactics got the ban, really his fault. Should have been a more clever sock.

if he's a sock what were his other accounts?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if he's a sock what were his other accounts?

There's likely more than one person making all these sock accounts on these board, so I couldn't specifically say "this one and that one", but his new membership, posting style and point of topic is classic sock account.

you have a nose for that

I know who it was, but I shan't tell you, for you are mean.

so would any of you change the past and keep WW2 from happening or tried to do something different to effect the future?

ummm, yes?