In defense of Hitler

[Melomaniacal]

And serioulsy don't say I've got a disorder for not thinking like you. I assure you I'm a sane and logical person with emotions. I think that even with are opposing view points we can get along.And about your last sentence: It's BECAUSE of the moral social construction that we have come this far!

I said people who think it's okay to murder have a disorder, and unless you believe it's morally sound to murder, than I don't believe you have a disorder.

I don't think we could have made it this far if at the start we believed it was okay to kill. Coupled with your theory that we all have urges to kill, I think we would have killed ourselves before we had the chance to develop at all.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

It isn't terror that powers the "what if this happened to me" mentality, it's not wanting to put other people through pain. For an elementary school example lets say I really want to get to the front of the lunch line. I may consider *gasp* cutting the line but then I might think to myself "why should I make everyone else wait longer? That'd sure suck" and not do it. I'm not afraid of other people cutting me, I just don't feel like being an asshat.

This is something purely in your self-interest, not for everyone else. If you could get away cutting to the front of the line and no one would care, I'm sure you'd be doing it every day. But if you do cut in line, everyone around you will see you do it and call you out on it, thus lowering your social position and putting you in a much worse place than before.

So yes, you can say that being nice is certainly in your own self interest if you want to put it a positive way. The negative way to put it is that if you did all these asshat things, they would conflict harshly with your self interest, so you don't do them.

 

[john!]

I said people who think it's okay to murder have a disorder, and unless you believe it's morally sound to murder, than I don't believe you have a disorder.

I don't think we could have made it this far if at the start we believed it was okay to kill. Coupled with your theory that we all have urges to kill, I think we would have killed ourselves before we had the chance to develop at all.

Let me repeat my previous question... is it okay to kill someone such as a mass murderer, if your act of murder would ultimately save lives? If so then murder is "okay" in that case.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Let me repeat my previous question... is it okay to kill someone such as a mass murderer, if your act of murder would ultimately save lives? If so then murder is "okay" in that case.

It's not murder in that case. It lacks malicious thoughts/hate, which is what distinguishes murder from killing. Most societies find killing in defense acceptable, while virtually none will approve of murder, except as revenge for murder (because some older societies believe/believed that it was the family's job to bring the murderer to justice, rather than the society's).

 

[sandwhale]

I said people who think it's okay to murder have a disorder, and unless you believe it's morally sound to murder, than I don't believe you have a disorder.

I don't think we could have made it this far if at the start we believed it was okay to kill. Coupled with your theory that we all have urges to kill, I think we would have killed ourselves before we had the chance to develop at all.

Survival instinct. It's our number one motor and if it conflicts with our destructive pulsions it always wins.

 

[john!]

Except it's not in self-defense, and there are malicious feelings. What if one of Hitler's top generals got sick of the regime and killed Hitler in cold blood, knowing full well he would be killed in retaliation as a result? I shouldn't have to make a bunch of scenarios to demonstrate that sometimes, when someone dies, it can ultimately turn out for the better. So it follows that murder sometimes makes things turn out for the better, and therefore (in those cases) is good.

Also did you just become a moderator GB?

 

[Skler]

This is something purely in your self-interest, not for everyone else. If you could get away cutting to the front of the line and no one would care, I'm sure you'd be doing it every day. But if you do cut in line, everyone around you will see you do it and call you out on it, thus lowering your social position and putting you in a much worse place than before.

So yes, you can say that being nice is certainly in your own self interest if you want to put it a positive way. The negative way to put it is that if you did all these asshat things, they would conflict harshly with your self interest, so you don't do them.

See, the thing is you don't know what's going on in the minds of people who aren't *******s. I've seen people return money that there was absolutely no way anyone would notice before it would be far too late. Hell, I've seen people return money they find on the ground unattended (he turned it in to a hotel desk, it was like $60). Surely this isn't because they believe people will think negatively of them should they not return it. As a matter of fact, most people encourage them to KEEP this money and they return it in spite of all that.

Being a good person is about what you do when nobody is looking. Anonymous donations, random acts of kindness to brighten somebody's day, helping complete strangers whom you will probably never see again. People do these things. They do them whether people are watching or not. There is good in (at least some) people no matter what you may believe and it's a pity you can't see that.

I hate to sound like some "let's all be friends" hippy, but even though I'd drop the A bomb in WWII I know that people aren't all closet *******s.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Cutting in line was supposed to be a very light-hearted example of when we do want to act out of selfishness but choose not to, most of the time... *insert awkward *** smiley*

I guess I implied that we were all closeted douchebags though. I swear I really think most of us are good deep down, even Hitler!

 

[Melomaniacal]

Survival instinct. It's our number one motor and if it conflicts with our destructive pulsions it always wins.

Fair enough.
I still feel like if we had those urges like you explained, there would have been a point in time where we were all running around killing each other because we thought it was okay, and we had those urges. But I don't think we were ever like that. Ever.

Let me repeat my previous question... is it okay to kill someone such as a mass murderer, if your act of murder would ultimately save lives? If so then murder is "okay" in that case.

mur·der
–verb
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

In other words, I don't think what you're describing is the same as what I'm describing.
I wouldn't call what you're describing "inhumane" or "barbarous." What you're describing sounds like a necessary killing that is saving lives, not a murder. I know that's arguing semantics, but the semantics are important in what I'm talking about.

 

[john!]

mur·der
–verb
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

In other words, I don't think what you're describing is the same as what I'm describing.
I wouldn't call what you're describing "inhumane" or "barbarous." What you're describing sounds like a necessary killing that is saving lives, not a murder. I know that's arguing semantics, but the semantics are important in what I'm talking about.

So there is no objective true morality, it just depends entirely on the person and how they interpret things?

 

[Remzi]

Awesome post, mad props OP.

 

[Melomaniacal]

So there is no objective true morality, it just depends entirely on the person and how they interpret things?

To an extent, but there are cultural universals. There are things that exist in every single society. Some morals are universal. Murder being a bad thing is universal. Until you can find me a culture that accepts murder, this will be true.

 

[Skler]

Cutting in line was supposed to be a very light-hearted example of when we do want to act out of selfishness but choose not to, most of the time... *insert awkward *** smiley*

I guess I implied that we were all closeted douchebags though. I swear I really think most of us are good deep down, even Hitler!

Hitler was in no way, shape or form good deep down. He slaughtered 6 million people because he wanted power.

That's up there with...Hitler.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Hitler was in no way, shape or form good deep down. He slaughtered 6 million people because he wanted power.

That's up there with...Hitler.

All you're see is the surface though. Condemn first, ask questions later. Hitler's logic and rationality were just so ****ed up by his experiences that he perceived them to be the 'good' thing to do. It's not like he woke up in the morning and said, 'okay, I could do the bad thing and kill 6 million Jews or I could do the good thing and not kill 6 million Jews.' I'm telling you it just wasn't that black and white, in his mind.

We can stop this kind of thing from ever happening again if we know what made it work.

You remind me of those guys who said this: http://www.newser.com/story/14879/smith-too-jiggy-with-hitler-say-irate-jews.html




After they heard about this: http://www.rense.com/general79/smith.htm

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Experiences? That guy was just mentally ill is all.

 

[john!]

Melo, so you're saying that the majority decides what is right?

Skler, what separates a fundamentally good person from a fundamentally bad person? You seem to think that there is a discrete difference between you and Hitler.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Melo, so you're saying that the majority decides what is right?

Skler, what separates a fundamentally good person from a fundamentally bad person? You seem to think that there is a discrete difference between you and Hitler.

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

The entire world unconsciously knew that murder was wrong. It's not some kind of social construct we developed over time; the human race always knew murder was wrong. When we have people that think it's okay to murder, they are called sociopaths. There is literally something dysfunctional in their brains. It's not a matter of who's "deciding" what's right or wrong, I'm talking about murder. Murder is and always has been wrong. The "majority" didn't decide that, and the only "minority" who disagrees with it are sociopaths.

I think that you think I'm arguing something I'm not. Someone claimed that all human beings naturally have the urge to kill other humans beings. I'm arguing against that belief.

 

[MajorMoses]

Good ****, Mr. Melo. I stand by everything you've been saying. And I agree with some people from earlier on that the beginning post seemed a bit anti-Semitic.

 

[Teran]

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

The entire world unconsciously knew that murder was wrong. It's not some kind of social construct we developed over time; the human race always knew murder was wrong. When we have people that think it's okay to murder, they are called sociopaths. There is literally something dysfunctional in their brains. It's not a matter of who's "deciding" what's right or wrong, I'm talking about murder. Murder is and always has been wrong. The "majority" didn't decide that, and the only "minority" who disagrees with it are sociopaths.

I think that you think I'm arguing something I'm not. Someone claimed that all human beings naturally have the urge to kill other humans beings. I'm arguing against that belief.

Then why is it that humanity has engaged in it en masse since the dawn of time?

Yes conquests of other countries = mass murder.

Americans going into Iraq and blowing people to pieces is ending life, but it's not murder because it's FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY.

See it's all a silly line. I don't get it, killing can just be justified with some cause. Thing is, murder is killing for the wrong reason. Since humanity is so good at complicating stuff and adding a billion points of view, there really is not real a wrong reason except for screwing with the survival of your species and your own genes.

I mean animals don't just go around killing their own species for lulz, but many times male lions will commit mass infanticide when taking over a new pride. It's the equivalent of the people from the other neighbourhood coming in, killing all the men or driving them out, slaughtering all the kids, and then taking all the women for themselves. That's wrong right? Incredibly wrong. Well nature doesn't think so, and lions don't seem to think so.

Unless you take the stance that killing another human being is never justifiable, then there is always some point of view that can be pushed to justify a killing. Morality isn't decided by genetics, it's what the people in power say it is, and what the culture deems acceptable.

It's sad but, it is true. I mean, America goes around pwning the living **** out of developing countries and says it's in the name of freedom and democracy (lol). I mean really, why can't they just be honest and say it's for natural resources or the fact that they just don't like them?

 

[Melomaniacal]

mur·der
–verb
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

In other words, I don't think what you're describing is the same as what I'm describing.
I wouldn't call what you're describing "inhumane" or "barbarous." What you're describing sounds like a necessary killing that is saving lives, not a murder. I know that's arguing semantics, but the semantics are important in what I'm talking about.

That.
I will add that I personally may believe that what you're describing is inhumane or barbarous - that would be my personal morals - but the definition of murder I'm using is killing in cold blood. What you're describing is not killing in cold blood. The universal moral is that murder is bad. Those who think that murder is not bad are sociopaths.

I'm going to stress this again:

"I think that you think I'm arguing something I'm not. Someone claimed that all human beings naturally have the urge to kill other humans beings. I'm arguing against that belief."

 

[Sucumbio]

>.> don't mean to butt in but ...

the human race always knew murder was wrong.

I disagree. Homo sapiens sapiens -maybe- but even that's pushing it. "murder" is a highly conceptual act, it requires points of view. One man's murder is another man's crusade, as Teran points out.

mur·der
–verb
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

That's the figurative definition. The best definition for any discussion on the act of a human killing human is this:

Main Entry: murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing \ˈmər-d(ə-)riŋ\
Date: 13th century

transitive verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

When we have people that think it's okay to murder, they are called sociopaths.

Actually not all murderers are sociopaths... and not all sociopaths are murderers. Sociopaths tend to have a high disregard for the feelings of others. Murderers tend to have a high disregard for the consequences of their actions.

"I think that you think I'm arguing something I'm not. Someone claimed that all human beings naturally have the urge to kill other humans beings. I'm arguing against that belief."

This.

And good, cause yeah that's definitely an incorrect assessment of human beings... people aren't born wanting to kill. In fact I'd argue (though less from empirical evidence and more from personal experience) that people do NOT want to kill, normally, they must be conditioned to do so (or have a brain anomaly as has been suggested.)

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Question: If America had lost the war even after dropping the atomic bombs, do you think we would have been prosecuted as war criminals?

 

[adumbrodeus]

One point I always have to make, nobody believes that they are evil, yet that does not mean that evil doesn't exist. The fact that you don't believe you're evil doesn't mean that you're not necessarily evil, you could simply be wrong.


But of course this brings up the necessary question in terms of "what is evil?", which is a valid question, bit it's a bit more complex then I care to address at the moment.





One thing I do need to point out as far as the dropping of the Atomic bomb, the reason that it occurred was that the civilian population was being militarized. That was both the military reason why it happened (because it would make the battle to take Japan ridiculously bloody and essentially destroy the entire population) and the reason why it was justified.

The Geneva conventions specifically classify "civilians who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading force" as a class of combatants and therefore, viable targets in a military campaign, but they also have the rights and privilages of uniformed combatants.



Prosecuted for War Criminals? Doubtful, because they had a much more open-ended view in terms of what was acceptable practice during war and I doubt it would've even occurred to them.

 

[Sucumbio]

Question: If America had lost the war even after dropping the atomic bombs, do you think we would have been prosecuted as war criminals?

hard to say, really... The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and The Pacific War Crimes Trials were quite different in their approach. Where there was a lot of media fire over the trials at Nuremberg the Pacific trials had little to no coverage. Comparing the Nazi death camps to Japan's Unit 731 for instance, we see a fairly disproportionate example of "war crime" activity.

Now if we were to flip the coin and consider an Axis victory, there would no doubt be punishment against Allied nations ... namely for the atomic bombs, but also, for instance against the UK and US for the fire bombings of Dresden. We'd also not have seen the creation of the United Nations. Before the war was even concluded the Allies had discussed at various conferences a "post-war" world. The Japanese and Germans were not so allied in their efforts, and may have even gone to war with each other in theory.

Also we must consider the sheer size of force involved. For the Allies to occupy Germany and Japan it took the military of several nations. Had Germany and Japan been declared victors, they'd have been pretty much alone in having to occupy -everyone else- ... something I'm sure they didn't even think of. More than likely their goal would have been to simply wipe out the populations of opposing nations, once it were determined that a nation was unlikely to give in like so many of the European nations had.

So in short, yes. The Allies did in fact partake in some brutal operations that would have certainly qualified as war crime in the eyes of an Axis victor. Logistically, however I find it more plausible that we'd simply have been wiped out rather than expected to stand for those crimes, not to mention as Churchill put: "we shall never surrender."

 

[Pink Reaper]

I mean animals don't just go around killing their own species for lulz

Dolphins do.

 

[00000]

One thing I do need to point out as far as the dropping of the Atomic bomb, the reason that it occurred was that the civilian population was being militarized. That was both the military reason why it happened (because it would make the battle to take Japan ridiculously bloody and essentially destroy the entire population) and the reason why it was justified.

I can't think of a polite way to express doubt for this, other than with this sentence. That is, were they being militarized more than an average nation at war?

Dolphins do.

Not for lulz, though. Because, you see, Dolphins don't lul.

 

[jivegamer]

Dolphins do.

Very true. So do Chimps, our closest of relatives

 

[adumbrodeus]

I can't think of a polite way to express doubt for this, other than with this sentence. That is, were they being militarized more than an average nation at war?

Yes, as in the complete civilian population was being mobilized. Period.


Bushido ideal, and same reason why they resorted to suiciding ships, honorable death in battle, even of the entire civilization was far better then surrender.


Even after the atomic bomb, a lot of the generals intended to fight on, only the direct intervention of the Emperor allowed surrender (he basically overrode everyone). Even so, there was an attempted coup to prevent it.


Different cultural values.

 

[00000]

Bushido ideal, and same reason why they resorted to suiciding ships, honorable death in battle, even of the entire civilization was far better then surrender.

Suiciding ships? Do you mean planes?
Also, honorable death in battle is not a cultural value exclusive to Japan.

Even after the atomic bomb, a lot of the generals intended to fight on, only the direct intervention of the Emperor allowed surrender (he basically overrode everyone). Even so, there was an attempted coup to prevent it.

Keep in mind that half of the Big Six (the generals I presume you speak of) agreed to more or less surrender unconditionally – not a negligible amount. The other three also agreed to surrendering, they only differed on the conditions in which they did so. Also, the emperor did not exactly override everyone, he gave his opinion, and the cabinet unanimously ratified his wishes. Lastly, the fact that the coup failed shows that the will to negate surrender was not widespread enough to overthrow the government.

Different cultural values.

But perhaps not as different as you portray.

Yes, as in the complete civilian population was being mobilized. Period.

Strange that I can find no record of this. Do you have an online source you could link me to?

Very true. So do Chimps, our closest of relatives

Because they are territorial. Not for the lulz.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Very true. So do Chimps, our closest of relatives

It's sickeningly obvious how related to them we are. It makes me sad too. Tons of animals kill for sport guys, look it up. There are also tons of cases of animal altruism too.

So adumbrodeus you do agree then, that if Japan had dropped a bomb on New York or Malibu or whatever where tons of our production facilities were located, and killed 1.2 million people, we wouldn't have prosecuted them for war crimes afterward because of the time period we were in?

edit: The civilian population was being mobilized, but it was almost entirely a propaganda effort, the Japanese were already trying to negotiate a way to end the war on favorable terms for them before the Soviets invaded and surprise sex'd them. Unfortunately, America demanded 'prompt and unconditional surrender,' of japan's emperor and all of it's territories, which was kind of like asking America to give up texas and california and the lousiana purchase and make our president literally bend over and kiss his own *** in front of the entire world. They dismissed it as something like the Cairo Declaration because of the vague nature of the threat and crazy asking price, something Douglas MacArthur and Chester Nimitz knew was absolutely ******** to ask of Japan. The war would have ended with or without the big boomer.

 

[Teran]

Dolphins do.

Dolphins are irl trolls though, not animals.

 

[Skler]

Melo, so you're saying that the majority decides what is right?

Skler, what separates a fundamentally good person from a fundamentally bad person? You seem to think that there is a discrete difference between you and Hitler.

There is a fundamental difference between me and Hitler. I wouldn't kill 6 million people to secure a position of power. Good people are generally unwilling to harm people. Bad people couldn't give two ****s.

No amount of life experience can lead somebody to thinking "I should end a ton of human lives so I can live comfortably." Any society that believes in that is wiped out by itself or others very quickly.

 

[john!]

There is a fundamental difference between me and Hitler. I wouldn't kill 6 million people to secure a position of power. Good people are generally unwilling to harm people. Bad people couldn't give two ****s.

No amount of life experience can lead somebody to thinking "I should end a ton of human lives so I can live comfortably." Any society that believes in that is wiped out by itself or others very quickly.

Nothing personal, but I highly doubt that you would be able to resist eliminating the people you see as responsible for the repression of your ethnic group, if you rose to become a potential ruler of the entire world. How can you predict how you would act in these circumstances?

 

[Skler]

How can you predict how you would act in these circumstances?

I could ask you the same question.

Besides, Hitler was not oppressed by the Jews and he knew it. He just used them as a scapegoat because hating Jews was the norm in Europe.

 

[john!]

I could ask you the same question.

Besides, Hitler was not oppressed by the Jews and he knew it. He just used them as a scapegoat because hating Jews was the norm in Europe.

I couldn't, and I never said I could. Again, how exactly could you identify with Hitler's feelings against the Jews? It's presumptuous to assume that he didn't actually hate them and was just using them as an excuse. Do you even realize Hitler had feelings?

 

[Skler]

He had feelings, and he was very pissed off at the French, Russians and British. Strange how the Jews are not the French, Russians or British. He was angry at how Germany was ruined by those three countries, the Jews were just a sort of unifying theme that the Germans had easy access to. He also hated the communists a whole lot, but they didn't have enough stuff to steal so they weren't that desirable of a target.

It's almost like he targeted a universally hated, semi-wealthy minority to give his political campaign steam.

 

[Teran]

I couldn't, and I never said I could. Again, how exactly could you identify with Hitler's feelings against the Jews? It's presumptuous to assume that he didn't actually hate them and was just using them as an excuse. Do you even realize Hitler had feelings?

I think this guy understands the mechanics of IRL Risk.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I have a theory











skler is secretly hitler

 

[sandwhale]

This.

And good, cause yeah that's definitely an incorrect assessment of human beings... people aren't born wanting to kill. In fact I'd argue (though less from empirical evidence and more from personal experience) that people do NOT want to kill, normally, they must be conditioned to do so (or have a brain anomaly as has been suggested.)

This goes for melo too: you're really sure of yourself for a guy that bases his opinions on his personal experience. I mean seriously you know that people don't have natural murderess pulsions because nobody's ever tried to kill you unless they were brainwashed? Please...Instead of telling everyone how the human mind works why don't you actually take a look at what the greatest psychologists have said on the subject, read JUNG and you'll see that he believes (maybe the first to realize?) in the subconscient part of your mind that contains your desctructive pulsions.

 

[Sucumbio]

>.> let's take my words precisely and perhaps it'll become clear what I was saying:

"people aren't born wanting to kill."

As in, people are not born with the desire to kill. We are born with very few desires, actually. We are born wanting to eat (and cry tons if we can't... also this is usually by way of our mother's nourishment, and we can go into what happens to people if they -don't- get that bonding experience, but that's another subject), we are born wanting to sleep when necessary (and cry tons if we can't), to urinate and defecate when necessary (and cry tons if we can't, or if we do and aren't cleansed afterward cause of how uncomfortable it feels)... so, yeah, eat, sleep, ****. That's 'bout it. Notice there's no room for Killing. Anywhere. Besides I dunno about you, but I've yet to read about or meet a baby who was capable of taking down another human being.

"people do NOT want to kill, normally, they must be conditioned to do so"

As babies grow into more developed versions of themselves, their desires either adapt, change or likewise grow. It's not enough to just eat. People want to eat specific things. We want to sleep specific amounts of time, and in specific ways (I prefer my bed, but some people prefer the lawn hammock, for instance, or maybe the sofa...) People still piss and **** but now they're older they wish to utilize specific products to aid in this... perhaps a moist wipe, or extra-soft bathroom tissue. People also develop new desires, like recreation (time to go play in the sandbox), education (the thirst for knowledge either through example, or mediums - television, the internet, or *cough* books .. heh), a work ethic (building things, planning daily schedules, chores, etc) ... and ... the most difficult of all human desires: social construct.

Now in this one, the social construct, there is room for killing (murder). I never said it was impossible for people to kill, I said that people do not normally WANT to kill. Murder is a choice, always (and usually a difficult one). To reason this we simply must look at various examples:

1.) The Gang Member - this person is at war, thus he is conditioned. The world is his enemy. To -not- kill means certain death (in their view). There's little room for choice here; when presented with a situation that calls for a killing, killing will be chosen.

2.) The Peace Officer - this person has elected to protect the innocent. In so doing they may find themselves in a position requiring them to take a life or lives. Their training (conditioning) allows them to do so quickly, efficiently, and safely (so as not to harm themselves in the process).

3.) The Soldier - this person has been trained (conditioned) to fight in war. In war, it's either kill or be killed, so there's little choice in the matter.

4.) The Provider - this person has a family to protect. when threatened, they may elect to either take the risk themselves (requires conditioning from upbringing/experience) or rely on a Peace Officer to do it for them (the recommended choice). In either case, killing may be necessary, but again both situations lead back to a form of conditioning.

5.) The Criminal - this person believes their needs/wants are more important than those they wish to take advantage of. They may kill in an attempt to gain their desires. This choice stems from several conditions, including poverty, gang methodology, war methodology, and even a highly warped sense of provider methodology.

There are other examples, other types or categories of people, but as you can see ALL of these people, who may decide to Kill, all first receive some type of conditioning that allows for that choice to enter into their minds. My point was simple. A person who has no conditioning, will not choose to kill. The thought may not even enter their minds, as it is so foreign to them. Witnessing murder or depictions of murder, may allow for them to conceive of killing, and murder, but it's still a far cry from doing it themselves.