For what it's worth, I once saw a picture of Hitler patting a dog on the head.
He was also a snazzy dancer.

Look at him go!
For what it's worth, I once saw a picture of Hitler patting a dog on the head.
I've heard different things, but I've read Hitler's favorite film was King Kong. a man of good taste.
I've heard different things, but I've read Hitler's favorite film was King Kong. a man of good taste.
I wonder what Hitler would have thought of Peter Jackson's remake?![]()
I'm not sure I agree. Mussolini was certainly a strong-man politician, and his predatory, dictatorial rule over Italy was the lowest point in our history in many centuries.I'm not sure Hitler was a sociopath, but Mussolini almost certainly was.
Good God, your posts are so stale it physically makes me sick to read them.
So far, nobody has proclaimed Hitler a "wonderful, jolly guy who was just misunderstood". His evils have been named, condemned and opposed. So you can take your accuses and, well, you know the rest. If anything, trying to understand where he came from, and why he did the things he did is the best way to make sure something similar doesn't happen again. Nazism, for all its undeniable evil, was a product of its time and social environment, and it must be understood in those terms if you want to recognize the symptoms early and eradicate it before it is too late. If you fail to recognize the difference between understanding the reasons for an action and finding excuses for said action, you live in a very limited and dogmatic world which has a really flimsy connection with actual reality.All I can say is, if you've seen some of the whack jobs in the DS9 forum who try to claim Dukat's just this wonderful, jolly guy who was SO misunderstood by the Bajorans and just wanted to make it ALL better for them during the Occupation...well, the excuses I'm seeing for Hitler here are no better. If relativism cannot even condemn those who MOST deserve condemnation in our history, then it is worthless. Period. Evil MUST be named, condemned, and opposed.
You utterly misunderstand relativism, and you completely fail to understand its principle: that actions are to be praised or condemned over their consequences, not over some preconceived notions that you hold true just because. Relativism is not about excusing evil: it's about recognizing evil case-by-case, instead of just some sweeping generalization that most often doesn't hold true upon inspection. But I guess you are less interested in understanding than in condemning everybody who disagrees with you. As usual, I can say.
Nobody's saying he's Santa with a funny mustache. But I think cultural relativism is problematic. Moral laws are moral laws, and they don't change just because. Human sacrifice is wrong, not just because it brings about an evil, but because it IS evil. No amount of excuse making can make it OK to murder someone in cold blood. Not even if you think that this will bring about a good for hundreds or thousands of others.
Besides which, I think cultural relativism is somewhat racist. We can't hold people to standards because their culture is incapable of such things? Only if you believe that cultures never change, or that Aztecs were geneticly predisposed to think that murdering thousands of people would bring back the sun. If it's wrong for me to kill, it should be wrong for you to kill as well.
No problem. Being born in 1935 my dad grew up in WWII Germany. Between scrounging for food, forced from city to city dodging bombs and finally escaping East Berlin under gunfire I think we can call that a hardship.Would you mind clarifying this?Yes, he was evil. My family is among those harmed by his implementation of the Progressive ideals started in the US, proving just how dangerous those ideals are.
Actually quite a few people have compared Obama to Mao not to mention Che.
No amount of excuse making can make it OK to murder someone in cold blood. Not even if you think that this will bring about a good for hundreds or thousands of others.
No amount of excuse making can make it OK to murder someone in cold blood. Not even if you think that this will bring about a good for hundreds or thousands of others.
Does that mean you are opposed to sending soldiers to die? Or sending them to kill other people?
No amount of excuse making can make it OK to murder someone in cold blood. Not even if you think that this will bring about a good for hundreds or thousands of others.
Does that mean you are opposed to sending soldiers to die? Or sending them to kill other people?
Yes. That's the same thing as killing people who've done nothing to deserve it.
There's a universe of difference between soldiers killing soldiers in the name of protecting nations or ideals and killing people because you don't want their genes to taint you ideal vision of humanity.
Your point is almost self defeating. Stalin and Mao and Saddam all had purges inw hich they killed many many people. What makes Hitler different? Started WW2 (In Europe). And lost.If Hitler had ignored the Jews and other "undesirables" and never established concentration camps, history would be far kinder to him. Whenever people think of Hitler they immediately think "Holocaust" "6 million Jews" "auswhitz", not invaded Poland, France and Russia.
Look at Stalin and Mao. They killed more of their own people than Hitler did, but rarely will you find people using them as a comparison to someone the person doesnt like. The tea baggers are perfect examples. They will equate Obama to Hitler, but I dont recall seeing any posters equating him to Stalin or Mao or even Saddam Hussein.
Actually quite a few people have compared Obama to Mao, not to mention Che.
Your point is almost self defeating. Stalin and Mao and Saddam all had purges inw hich they killed many many people. What makes Hitler different? Started WW2 (In Europe). And lost.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.