In defense of Hitler

[Handorin]

Murder : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Learn it

 

[Jam Stunna]

Ha, I'm at work too. You can tell by my constant posting that it's been a pretty slow day here.

To answer your post quickly Jack (and let you get back to packing ): murder =/= killing. A lion does not muder an antelope, it kills it. We differentiate between different acts of taking life. Basically, what I said in my last post.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I appreciate exactly was I said I appreciated: him standing up for his views- instead of backing down and doing nothing like many, if not most Americans do for theirs- nothing more and nothing less.

If that wasn't clear enough, here: I appreciate the act of standing up for one's beliefs.

Is that so difficult to reason with?
It wasn't my intention to justify genocide.

Does this mean you appreciate/endorse the crusades as well :/?

 

[Jack Kieser]

And? What is the law? Whatever we say it is. The law is just as arbitrary as Jam's argument. We make the law what it is to suit our purposes. It's almost like... morality, isn't it?

Yep. That's pretty much what it is.

@ Jam: Thanks... I'm so terrible about being distracted for philosophical debate... *cries*

I'm sure you could gather it on your own, but the crux of my argument is that we, as humans, differentiate between different acts of killing, not some objective moral oversight committee. The universe, again, doesn't care why we kill, or even that we kill at all! As far as the universe is concerned, a kill is a kill is a kill. (I'm sorry for the abstract personification of the universe, btw; necessary evil I guess. )

 

[Handorin]

You can still take out "Unlawfully" and it would still make a huge difference in the definition of that and killing (in general). That's why there are so many synonyms.

 

[Skler]

Killing isn't murder. Murder is malicious, murder is not killing because you have to.

Humans define it, but since we're all humans it has everything to do with us. I don't care what the universe or anything else thinks of evil and murder. I'm not talking to the universe, so it can go ahead and stop reading my posts. I could care less what the alien superbeings of other galaxies think about evil.

Basic point: Humans communicate with humans, and while evil may not be universal it is something all humans understand. Murder isn't just killing, you know that and I know that.

This may be tough to understand, but I've got to go soon so I can't make a longer post.

 

[john!]

Yes it's wrong. What had Hitler done in 1930 that would justify his murder?

Now, if you rephrase the question to, "Supppose someone had murdered Hitler in 1944," now you have a more interesting topic, because then you can legitimately ask the question, was it murder? Germany is at war, so killing Hitler under certain circumstances is no longer murder.

I am not saying that all killing is absolutely wrong. There have been legal and moral precidents throughout time that recognize that all acts of taking life are not equal. What I am saying is that all people have defined certain kinds of killing as murder, and that those acts defined as such have always been wrong.

So during what year in between 1930 and 1944 would the killing of Hitler be justified? When war is declared? Suppose there were no governments to declare war on him, and he continued to slaughter. Would it still have been wrong to murder him?

As a thought experiment, consider natural selection. Nobody complains when strong animals kill weak animals, because it is the survival of the fittest, and the gene pool for future generations is improved. Why is it that you hold humans to a different standard? Note that animals don't just kill each other for food, they also kill for territory, social status, and even mates.

 

[Jim Morrison]

As a thought experiment, consider natural selection. Nobody complains when strong animals kill weak animals, because it is the survival of the fittest, and the gene pool for future generations is improved. Why is it that you hold humans to a different standard? Note that animals don't just kill each other for food, they also kill for territory, social status, and even mates.

Because animals don't have societies comparable to ours. There's no education, schools, roads, trade, technology and MUCH MUCH MUCH more (at least to a scale that humans have). You really can not compare animals and humans anymore. You're a few thousand years too late. Humans DO have morals and that's why we don't just kill (or murder if you will) someone who ****s your wife if you're not a complete monster.
And if you do, you are a complete monster with no morals and standard and that would be what Hitler was. Seeing it from his point of view makes you understand it, but really no more commendable for what he did (standing up for his beliefs).

 

[rvkevin]

As a thought experiment, consider natural selection. Nobody complains when strong animals kill weak animals, because it is the survival of the fittest, and the gene pool for future generations is improved. Why is it that you hold humans to a different standard?

A fit species has a lot of genetic variability (so that your species can withstand changes in environment). This is why it is illogical to eliminate a race of your species. It doesn't improve the gene pool.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Because animals don't have societies comparable to ours. There's no education, schools, roads, trade, technology and MUCH MUCH MUCH more (at least to a scale that humans have). You really can not compare animals and humans anymore. You're a few thousand years too late. Humans DO have morals and that's why we don't just kill (or murder if you will) someone who ****s your wife if you're not a complete monster.

Yeah, basically this is why.

And Skler brought up a great point: the universe doesn't have to recognize our morality, because we're not talking to it. We're talking to each other. Our morality isn't absolute in "this is the way the universe works," but in how ALL people in ALL places in ALL times should treat each other.

 

[john!]

Because animals don't have societies comparable to ours. There's no education, schools, roads, trade, technology and MUCH MUCH MUCH more (at least to a scale that humans have). You really can not compare animals and humans anymore. You're a few thousand years too late. Humans DO have morals and that's why we don't just kill (or murder if you will) someone who ****s your wife if you're not a complete monster.

Don't understand where you're coming from here. What gives us these morals? Surely it's not the roads and schools themselves. What makes us human and not animal?

And if you do, you are a complete monster with no morals and standard and that would be what Hitler was. Seeing it from his point of view makes you understand it, but really no more commendable for what he did (standing up for his beliefs).

One thing that some here in UB are fond of is saying things like "humans are idiots", "people disgust me", etc. These kinds of posts are especially irritating because the hidden assumption is that the one posting is above such dirty behavior and has somehow transcended the masses. Who the hell are they to say that? We are kids, for Christ's sake. I don't give a crap if someone calls me a "monster" and considers themselves to be on a higher moral ground. At least I'm not imposing my moral standards on others.

Also I am playing the Darwinist relativist here but I don't necessarily agree with it. Just consider me a devil's advocate.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Don't understand where you're coming from here. What gives us these morals? Surely it's not the roads and schools themselves. What makes us human and not animal?

I thought it was quite obvious why humans are not comparable to animals. It's because we interact with each other in a way where it is false to say rules of animals could apply. We have advanced ways to communicate with each other, we can rationalize

One thing that some here in UB are fond of is saying things like "humans are idiots", "people disgust me", etc. These kinds of posts are especially irritating because the hidden assumption is that the one posting is above such dirty behavior and has somehow transcended the masses. Who the hell are they to say that? We are kids, for Christ's sake. I don't give a crap if someone calls me a "monster" and considers themselves to be on a higher moral ground. At least I'm not imposing my moral standards on others.

Devil's advocate or not, don't twist my post. I never said I was above the masses or that people disgust me. What does disgust me is a monster thinking it is justified to kill about 10 million people.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I appreciate exactly was I said I appreciated: him standing up for his views- instead of backing down and doing nothing like many, if not most Americans do for theirs- nothing more and nothing less.

If that wasn't clear enough, here: I appreciate the act of standing up for one's beliefs.

Is that so difficult to reason with?
It wasn't my intention to justify genocide.

I understand what you're saying, but I feel like no matter what someone's beliefs are, it's difficult for me to appreciate said person if their actions based on these beliefs involve slaughtering millions.

 

[Mewter]

He could have phrased it better. :\

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I thought it was quite obvious why humans are not comparable to animals. It's because we interact with each other in a way where it is false to say rules of animals could apply. We have advanced ways to communicate with each other, we can rationalize

We only have communication because it was a tool developed over centuries and passed down through generations.

In my opinion, it's comically obvious how small the evolutionary gap really is between us and them. Sure, we have our tools like communication, religion, law...but if you took out these learned tools that have been developed over generations and just left the man behind, it would be hard to tell the difference between him and the beasts.

Nature constantly mimics everything humans find so amazing about themselves, albeit to a lesser degree. We regularly attack each other whenever another opposing male threatens us, we constantly lack any semblance of empathy toward each other, we stake out our territories and kill anyone who crosses them, we restrict our resources and sympathy to those who are 'part of the pack'. Is it any coincidence that the alpha male has the most chicks in the animal world, as well as having the most chicks in the human world? We're prisoners of our sex drives, just like every other animal on the planet (don't even try to argue against this one). Ever wondered what a guy would look like if you just tossed him out in the wild to grow up, no society and no language and no education given to him at all? He'd probably be a hairy, disgusting mess who wanders around grunting at things and smashing anything he doesn't like.


We have our technology, but at the core we're still barely above monkeys. No, a race that was above the animals would also be above it's animalistic tendencies, in my opinion. 'Morals' are an evolutionary advantage. A species that evolves the ability to stop killing itself so much is more likely to survive, and here we are.

 

[Jim Morrison]

In my opinion, it's comically obvious how small the evolutionary gap really is between us and them. Sure, we have our tools like communication, religion, law...but if you took out these learned tools that have been developed over generations and just left the man behind, it would be hard to tell the difference between him and the beasts.

But we haven't and that's what distinguishes humans from animals. We pass things down, create tools and rationalize about things.
Humans possess the power of creation. If we want something we don't have, we try to make it to the best of our abilities. Us hummens aren't THAT bad. Of course, in our core we are still animals, but I really can not identify myself with any animal AT ALL. Can you?

 

[Ganonsburg]

But we haven't and that's what distinguishes humans from animals. We pass things down, create tools and rationalize about things.
Humans possess the power of creation. If we want something we don't have, we try to make it to the best of our abilities. Us hummens aren't THAT bad. Of course, in our core we are still animals, but I really can not identify myself with any animal AT ALL. Can you?

Yeah, I was going to say...he's basically telling us to take away everything that makes us different and then count how many differences there are between us and them, lol.

What makes us different? Our minds. Our innovation. Our goal of efficiency. Our ability to learn from the past. Our ability to plan for the future. Genetically, maybe we are similar. I recall learning in biology that we share 97 to 99% of our DNA with bananas. So are you saying we're practically no different from bananas? Because if you are, well, that's ridiculous.

What other animal creates medicines to prolong it's life? None. They're concerned only with the food that will keep them alive until tomorrow, and the mates that will keep the species alive to the next generation. And they don't even think about them. They act on impulses that they can't explain.

 

[Mewter]

What makes us different? Our minds. Our innovation. Our goal of efficiency. Our ability to learn from the past. Our ability to plan for the future. Genetically, maybe we are similar. I recall learning in biology that we share 97 to 99% of our DNA with bananas.

It's about 50% shared DNA, not 97-99%.

Sources:
http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_dna_do_humans_share_with_a_banana
and most importantly:
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=51513

Carry on.

 

[john!]

You guys are missing the point. We know what makes us different from animals, but how does that concern morality at all? Instead of looking at what makes us different to determine morality, why not look at what makes us the same? Because even humans have genetic variation.

The fact is that "morals" are subject to natural selection just like anything else. If a society is crippled by bad laws (laws are just societal mores written down) then they will change or perish. "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral that has been time-tested throughout all of human history, throughout most all human civilizations. And, like genetic traits, morals change based on the society they are in. This does not mean that the most successful society has the best morals, but it is very likely. Not even "thou shalt not kill" is necessarily ultimately good. We just call it a good moral because it suits our survival needs better. And even that can change too (like the example of killing Hitler).

Also, religion is subject to natural selection, but that's a whole new topic. lol

 

[Jim Morrison]

You guys are missing the point. We know what makes us different from animals, but how does that concern morality at all?

Someone brought up animals killing each other, marking their terroritory and just surviving on food on sex and asked why humans are no different.
Animals don't have morals, humans do because we think about the things we do. It's not easy to just kill someone and not think about the life you have just destroyed as a fellow human. Unless, of course, it's something you do more often, after which you became oblivious to other people's pain.

 

[Ganonsburg]

It's about 50% shared DNA, not 97-99%.

Sources:
http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_dna_do_humans_share_with_a_banana
and most importantly:
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=51513

Carry on.

Okay, my bad. Bio was a while ago for me. But still...50% is still an obscenely large amount, yes? At least for most practical applications 50% is large.

 

[john!]

Someone brought up animals killing each other, marking their terroritory and just surviving on food on sex and asked why humans are no different.
Animals don't have morals, humans do because we think about the things we do. It's not easy to just kill someone and not think about the life you have just destroyed as a fellow human. Unless, of course, it's something you do more often, after which you became oblivious to other people's pain.

So... animals can't think, and don't have reasoning capabilities? My pet bird sure does. He poops on my shirt -> he goes back into the cage. Guess what, he doesn't poop on my shirt anymore. Smart bird.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Well I know where IM like a banana

 

[Jim Morrison]

Do animals think about something after they've done it? (As humans do.)

Oh god Pink Reaper.

 

[john!]

Do animals think about something after they've done it? (As humans do.)

Probably... otherwise my bird wouldn't connect pooping -> cage.

Well I know where IM like a banana

This thread is making us all a little bit hard.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Probably... otherwise my bird wouldn't connect pooping -> cage.

Eh...laborate?
Also, that's Pavlov effect if it's a connection with something like that. He got into a habit.

 

[Mewter]

Okay, my bad. Bio was a while ago for me. But still...50% is still an obscenely large amount, yes? At least for most practical applications 50% is large.

I'm not even sure what part of the genes they are talking about when they say "50% of the banana and human DNA is shared," honestly. It could include large amounts non-coding sectors or just focus on the coding sectors.
Whatever amount it is though, it's enough to keep them working similarly.

I think this quote from the page sums it up pretty well:

"Relatedness" can be determined by comparing the genomes of two species but that is a much more complex analysis than simply "we share 50% of our DNA with bananas." Any quote like "we share XX% of our DNA with {insert species name}" really has no significance, especially if you don't know what was actually being compared.

 

[Pink Reaper]

This thread is making us all a little bit hard.

Where art thou? Get thy rear end smitten!

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Someone brought up animals killing each other, marking their terroritory and just surviving on food on sex and asked why humans are no different.
Animals don't have morals, humans do because we think about the things we do. It's not easy to just kill someone and not think about the life you have just destroyed as a fellow human. Unless, of course, it's something you do more often, after which you became oblivious to other people's pain.

I assure you animals have core 'morals' of their own. They watch out for each other in small groups, defend each other and make sure the group is well cared for. Dolphins, wolves, monkeys, all exhibit these characteristics to each other regularly. Ever separated two dogs that have been around each other their entire life? They become frantic, scared, wondering what happened to their friend. You can say it's 'human' of them to do that, but I would argue that it's only natural. Sometimes animals show sorrow and sympathy when something close to them dies, just like humans do. And sometimes animals show NO sympathy when something dies, again, just like humans frequently do.

edit: It should also be noted that this 'pain' we feel when something separates from us is also another evolutionary advantage. Our brain knows that having a community/friend of some kind is a great advantage and makes us feel wonderful when we have it. If that advantage leaves us, out brain instantly produces a painful chemical to tell us we're doing something wrong, we need that person back, go get them back because you are nothing without them. We actually had to evolve the ability to make ourselves miserable, as an advantage.



Some of you guys may have read this article already, which I think illustrates very well just how limited we are by our mental networks the same way animals are.

 

[Jim Morrison]

As I understand you, Swastika, you think society doesn't really work and living in small communities (much like monkeys) would work better?
I only have to say that our life expectency is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than if we wouldn't live in great societies, thus we can enjoy our lives much longer. This would probably be the most important thing there is imo.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Yes, interesting, interesting...

But, animal is a human characterization. I wouldn't call us animals, but carrying out a mass genocide isn't right. I would, but I'm not gonna bring religion into this. (maybe)

WARNING: RELIGION BELOW

Spoiler

If you believe in the Bible, certainly killing a man is against God's will and his law regardless of your reasons, whether it be revenge or anything else. Except unless you are defending yourself, and/or going to war. In this sense, Hitler wasn't going to war for the right reasons; therefore, in my understanding, breaking God's law.

 

[Jim Morrison]

WARNING: I am urging everyone not to reply to the religious part of the above post, because I don't want another god**** religion debate here. The current debate about animals/humans is much more interesting.
However, this is impossible because people will still ignore this and reply, thus you already derailed the thread.

 

[Espy Rose]

I'm sad.

I came in here thinking that it'd be something funny.
Thanks for crushing my dreams, you evil people.

But in all seriousness, it was a good read.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Link to original post: [drupal=3210]In defense of Hitler[/drupal]



I am 20 years old. This means I have spent about 2 years trying to to unlearn the immense amount of bull**** I spent the first 18 years being indoctrinated into.

There's this one particular worldview we are brought up into, one that I detest - this idea that there is a real thing called evil.

When I say 'evil,' I'm not talking about that douchebag that breaks your car window so he can grab the 88 cents in your changebox. I'm talking about the mass organization of people doing unspeakably horrible things to each other, things we tell ourselves are so awful, only a real live supervillain could possibly have pulled them off. Someone who was busting their balls specifically to make the world an awful place.



Time for a little thought experiment.


Most of us will agree that the genocide of 6 million Jews was a bad thing. In my neverending quest to discover why us fleshbags think the way we do, we'll have to jump into the mind of Hitler the supervillain.

What started all this, Adolf? What were your motivations?

This is an actual quote from Mein Kampf: "For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others."

Yes, Hitler was disgusted with anti-semitism when he began. He refused to criticize the Jews, unlike the rest of Europe, which tends to see Jew-hatred as a national past-time.

So something pretty go****ded drastic happened here. That would be like me, a supporter of gay marriage, eventually turning into a guy who sent 7 million homos off to death camps.

Why did you grow to hate those Jews so much, H-dog?


Let's try and gain some perspective here.

You have just spent 4 years on the front lines of World War 1. You've passionately believed in victory, so much that you became a message carrier, one of the most likely to die. And then the war ends, and your country throws in the towel and is forced to bend over and take it up the *** from the Soviets, the Americans, the French, etc. Russia decides to saddle you with a 38 billion dollar debt to repay, which is about the same as asking a McDonald's cashier to pay for the McLaren you want. The country is forced into an economic apocalypse. People carry wheelbarrows of cash to the supermarket due to hyperinflation. Your employers agree to pay you in the morning instead of the end of a shift, because prices will have raised again by nighttime. Widespread starvation and economic collapse have ravaged your country.

But one group isn't doing so bad.

The bankers. In fact, they're ****ing rich. And almost all of them are Jews. In fact, they're doing even better after the war, which has brought a good deal of business and prosperity to them.

As you watch people starve in the streets around you, it would be hard not to look up at those bankers and think, "That's pretty ****ing selfish of you guys."

How hard is it to provoke outrage against the rich? Not very. Oh, and don't forget to check at the list of those AIG Bankers and see how many of their last names sound like Weinstein or Rosenburg. (Jews even take the coolest names, *******s)

Wrong? Of course. Of course it's wrong now, after we've been bombarded with images of Jews being roasted on barbwire spits and tossed into trains like sheep to be herded off and slaughtered.

But if we hadn't seen any of the torture, and we hadn't seen the massacres, and all we were given was Hitler's struggle against the mighty banking industry, all for the good of his people...
...it's hard not to see that as heroic.


But maybe that example is a little too far out.

Let's think of something a little closer to home.


3,000 Americans were killed about 9 years ago. Remember how shocked and horrified the nation was? Remember the tears, the rage, the resolute anger to catch and destroy whoever did this? (coincidentally, he's still out there wandering around)

We threw a pretty massive *****fit after this attack. And why shouldn't we? They attacked thousands of innocent civilians who had done nothing wrong.

But instead of just a couple of planes, let's up the numbers a little bit.

Let's say there were ten 9/11's, all over America in one day. 30,000 people, dead. Imagine how devastating that would be.

Now imagine a hundred 9/11's.

300,000 people dead. Thankfully, this imaginary scenario has never taken place.

Oh wait, it did. Because of us.

Imagine how catastrophic it would be if 300,000 Americans were vaporized instantly, and then the rest were slowly poisoned to death. Oh, and since Japan has less than half of our population, to really even it out, we'd have to double our casualties up to 600,000 vaporized Americans, leaving thousands more to bleed out over time. Oh, and since it happened TWICE, we'll have to up it again to at least 1,000,000 vaporized, in order to experience what Japan went through.

So yeah, imagine two hundred 9/11's at once, and you'll get an idea of what Japan went through back then. Back when we were the supervillains (fighting patriotically for the good guys to prevail, of course).

The most modern supervillain we have is Osama Bin Laden.

Why did Osama bomb those towers? Because he ****ing hates America, god dammit! He wants to kill Americans, he hates our way of life, he hates freedom! It's us, the noble defenders, against him, the supervillain.

Was that his motivation?

Or was it because America consistently supports the state of Israel?

Israel, by the way, continues to march into Palestine and set up shop wherever it **** well pleases. Much like America did to the Native Americans back in the day. (another one of those things we try not to think about too much).

Naturally, Osama thinks he is fighting for the oppressed masses. From the article: The al-Qaeda leader said the Western media had spent decades brainwashing people by “portraying the Jewish invaders, the occupiers of our land, as the victims while it portrayed us as the terrorists”.


Now we're jumping into the mind of Osama.

You already live in one of the poorest countries on Earth. A rich, sexy nation of Jews choose to start building their homes in your borders. By the way, these Jews recently kicked your ***, and all of your neighbor's *****, in a war that didn't even last a week. After they've found a good spot, they carve out a chunk of your land and choose to settle in.

Would you be cool with that?

Would you be cool with the person giving billions and billions of dollars to the ******* that did this to you?

The only way 'evil' can actually happen is if people believe it is genuinely the right thing to do, a better way to help everyone. Which hardly makes them see evil at all.

Of course, these ****ers deserve a third eye for all the things they did, but it's important that we don't turn them into 2-bit caricatures of what they were. Because that's how they got started -by transforming their enemies into mindless villains, they became the villains themselves.

There's no way to defend Hitler. Sorry, dropping the A bomb doesn't compare to what Hitler did. Also let's not forget we we're attacked first at pearl harbor. So dropping the A bomb in time of war . It also doesn't compare to 9/11 TBH I think we let them off to early. This is America land of the free home of the brave. If anyone dares try to tamper with this the need to be dealt with. It's also funny that Swastika Pyle is make a thread defending hitler.

 

[Jim Morrison]

There's no way to defend Hitler. Sorry, dropping the A bomb doesn't compare to what Hitler did. Also let's not forget we we're attacked first at pearl harbor. So dropping the A bomb in time of war . It also doesn't compare to 9/11 TBH I think we let them off to early. This is America land of the free home of the brave. If anyone dares try to tamper with this the need to be dealt with. It's also funny that Swastika Pyle is make a thread defending hitler.

You troll you completely missed the whole thread. This isn't about defending Hitler, it's just the title, not his intention. He wants you to look from this in another PoV

Also, you think 9/11 really outweighs dropping an atomic bomb? Because the lives lost were American instead of Japanese? Or because these were 3000 civilians killed in a time of terror in contrast to 200000 at time of war?

AMERICA HOME OF THE BRAVE AND FREE WHERE EVERYTHING FOREIGN IS BAD AND A COUNTRY WITH OTHER BELIEVES IS BAD AND COMMUNIST AND SHOULD NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH AMERICA WHATSOEVER AMIRITE?

P.S. Everything you brought up was kind of already discussed.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

You troll you completely missed the whole thread. This isn't about defending Hitler, it's just the title, not his intention. He wants you to look from this in another PoV

Also, you think 9/11 really outweighs dropping an atomic bomb? Because the lives lost were American instead of Japanese? Or because these were 3000 civilians killed in a time of terror in contrast to 200000 at time of war?

AMERICA HOME OF THE BRAVE AND FREE WHERE EVERYTHING FOREIGN IS BAD AND A COUNTRY WITH OTHER BELIEVES IS BAD AND COMMUNIST AND SHOULD NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH AMERICA WHATSOEVER AMIRITE?

P.S. Everything you brought up was kind of already discussed.

There isn't any other point of view I can look at it. There's no sugar coating it there's no excuse justification or reasong behind what Hitler did.

Yes I do believe it does 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The atom bomb was used to force the Japanese into submission. I'm not saying America lives weight more then American lives either. It's just to me the Atom bomb was neccassary.

I never said everything foregin is bad. I also don't think a country with different beliefs is bad. I do not think we should associate with communist countries though. Countries like China North Korea USSR Cuba and Irag when Saddam is in power. The fact that you even have th audacity to try to defend any nation like this is sickening. Look it up look at what they do to their own people things like that is not acceptable.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I wasn't defending them, I was trying to mimic you patriotism by how great America is supposed so to be in contrast with other countries. The glorious country of the free, of hopes and dreams. Really, get out

Also, your post is exactly what was constantly discussed with Swastika and others in this thread. You don't even look at the point of view from the communist countries. To them, we're the evil ones with horrendous beliefs, etc. For you to just write them off as evil and call it sickening to mention associating with those countries goes totally against what this thread is trying to make everyone aware of.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

I wasn't defending them, I was trying to mimic you patriotism by how great America is supposed so to be in contrast with other countries. The glorious country of the free, of hopes and dreams. Really, get out

Also, your post is exactly what was constantly discussed with Swastika and others in this thread. You don't even look at the point of view from the communist countries. To them, we're the evil ones with horrendous beliefs, etc. For you to just write them off as evil and call it sickening to mention associating with those countries goes totally against what this thread is trying to make everyone aware of.

There's nothing to view or learn or gain from the communist point of view.

 

[PassWurD]

It also doesn't compare to 9/11 TBH I think we let them off to early. This is America land of the free home of the brave. If anyone dares try to tamper with this the need to be dealt with. .

I'm mad,
Really bad,
But don't tell my mom and dad,
Pucker up,
Kiss my butt,
'Cause I'm bloody ****ing nut. ♪

 

[SwastikaPyle]

As I understand you, Swastika, you think society doesn't really work and living in small communities (much like monkeys) would work better?
I only have to say that our life expectency is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than if we wouldn't live in great societies, thus we can enjoy our lives much longer. This would probably be the most important thing there is imo.

No, I am a supporter of social-capitalism and representative democracy. Where did I say I was an anarchist lol.

Also, this name was decided a long long time before I thought of this essay. It's purely coincidental.