Heil Hitler (2 Viewers)

[John The Great]

He killed millions of Jews without cause. That is morally wrong under any credible normative ethical theory.

And to say "Nietzsche would have been proud" or St Augustine said "violence transcends ethics when required to defend ones faith" does not support your argument (fallacy of appealling to authority). Utter rubbish. If you're a philosopher, as you seem to suggest, you should know better.

Are you blind, deaf, dumb and intellectually incapable. it would appear that you are with your claim 'without cause'. Have you not read what i wrote? Have you not read Mein Kampf? Philosophy? theology? books to war? Any credible books in the area? There was cause! His actions were justified! You know nothing of the area, so educate yourself, or never comment on it again! The Jews simply represented the destruction of incredible culture, and in particular German culture along with Christianity. He was defending this culture. He was nationalistic. Once again the words of St. Augustine must be remembered here. Thus that ISN'T morally wrong under 'ANY' credible normative ethical theory. It isnt wrong under christian doctrine. It isnt wrong under traditional western ethics, as expounded by the great Greek philosophers. It is interesting however that you term them normative. What exactly qualifies as normative, and then who judges what normative is?

By the way, i didn't quote St. Augustine, if you even know who he is, so don't attribute it to me. I mentioned his works, but i did not quote in the segment you mention. You are obviously ignorant if you believe quoting and mentioning the works of greatly influential and distinguished men does not support an argument. Your idea that it seemingly degrades an argument to mention these great men's works is ridiculous. It substantiates thought, with that of incredibly credible men's thoughts which have been widely acknowledged as brilliant. It's Absurdity to believe that the only 'correct' arguments are those that dont mention distinguished people and their thoughts. It is those arguments that are generally rubbish and have no success at all, due to lack of credibility and intellectual thought. Have you ever written a history or an english essay?All you are trying to achieve here is clandestinely covering the fact that you have no credible thought to attribute your beliefs to, hence their pathetic nature, and that you are afraid of the rationality and intellectual thought that supports Hitler and the Nazi's. Yes, your comment is utter rubbish. As you are lacking intelligence, you would have no idea what a philosopher would or wouldnt know. In fact that statement is truly ridiculous in itself, as you imply that all philosophers conform to a homogeneous line of thought.

 

[sunjet]

You don't even do Modern History, go back to your neo-nazi forums.

 

[John The Great]

Such people?
You make me sick.
Criticise what I don't understand? Of course I don't know everything, I know what's in the HSC course, I don't go around promoting Nazism and worshipping Hitler like you.
I'm taking it you know everything about Hitler and Nazism to comment on him. Moron.

Now here is a comment that is evidence of this person's subjective personality and attitude towards this issue. Now they are cowardly resorting to such comments due to the realisation that an objective approach to this issue reveals the justification behind the events and individuals. "You make me sick?" well the masses with their slave mentality and conformity often find it difficult to accept geniuses and intelligent thought. For example, Socrates, Jesus, Galileo etc.
"Of course i dont know everything!" I agree with you there. However you also dont know whats in the HSC course. Your complete neglect of context is evidence of that. I dont promote nazism and worship Hitler like you? what? Promoting? I have approached this issue objectively, possibly the only person to have done this so far on this thread. I have defended them from UNFOUNDED criticism. I have in No way worshipped Hitler. I have defended him, as the great individual he was, and shown him the deserved admiration, just like people should for any great individual, such as Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Da Vinci, Darwin etc. etc. I have not however worshipped him in the negative context you use, as that is against Christian doctrine.
How can one judge whether they know everything or not about a person or peoples. All we have are the records. So of course one can not say with any certainty that they know everything. However One can say that they have a sufficient knowledge to comment on such issues with accuracy and objectivity. I have evidently done this.
Once again this individual is obviously a subjective coward, evident from their last comment.

 

[John The Great]

You don't even do Modern History, go back to your neo-nazi forums.

If by you don't even do Modern history, you are refering to me not participating in the Preliminary or HSC courses, then you are correct. However i read and study evidently more modern history than any of you who comment here on it and presume like you that because you take the subject at school you are more able in the area. It is a testament to your failures, and to my successes that i can know so much more than you about this issue, despite your alleged 'advantage'.
By the way, his final comment is again evidence of this individuals cowardly and subjective personality, and attitude towards thes issues, personalities and events. For the record, i have not attended any Neo-Nazi forums.

 

[sunjet]

Now here is a comment that is evidence of this person's subjective personality and attitude towards this issue. Now they are cowardly resorting to such comments due to the realisation that an objective approach to this issue reveals the justification behind the events and individuals. "You make me sick?" well the masses with their slave mentality and conformity often find it difficult to accept geniuses and intelligent thought. For example, Socrates, Jesus, Galileo etc.
"Of course i dont know everything!" I agree with you there. However you also dont know whats in the HSC course. Your complete neglect of context is evidence of that. I dont promote nazism and worship Hitler like you? what? Promoting? I have approached this issue objectively, possibly the only person to have done this so far on this thread. I have defended them from UNFOUNDED criticism. I have in No way worshipped Hitler. I have defended him, as the great individual he was, and shown him the deserved admiration, just like people should for any great individual, such as Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Da Vinci, Darwin etc. etc. I have not however worshipped him in the negative context you use, as that is against Christian doctrine.
How can one judge whether they know everything or not about a person or peoples. All we have are the records. So of course one can not say with any certainty that they know everything. However One can say that they have a sufficient knowledge to comment on such issues with accuracy and objectivity. I have evidently done this.
Once again this individual is obviously a subjective coward, evident from their last comment.

You argued that the Holocaust was justified and thus it should be accepted. Why do you keep referring to me in third person? Stop analysing me as a source. You have an advantage? Do you even know what's in the syllabus for Germany? Germany is only 20 marks as well, along with Speer, which is 20 marks. You might read more info than us, but that is because you're obsessed with Hitler/Nazism and their successes, whereas half of us are merely doing it for the HSC.

 

[King of Helview]

Playboy2njoy

Clearly by your exerpt you find the humanity of the Holocaust and its execution a terrible thought. I agree, the notion of a circle of crawling flesh and bones, skin bubbling slowly and the burning heat is not very appetising. In fact none of the methods of killing are. Claws marks on the walls of ovens, children bent over double as they choke on gas and men that appear to be more skeleton than man.

The pictures you see from the Holocaust are very real and it was humans that were being treated like this. They werent burning off old rubbish or fumigating a house. They were killing human beings.

However what I find that is terrible also is on this thread people are merely saying that John the Great is a neo-Nazi and shouldnt be listened to. This is completely unfounded and no doubt untrue.

All those criticising John for having what one called an obsession are slightly strange themselves. You have a strange view and interpretation of what John is syaing as he is not saying that "The Nazi's are the best" or "Nazi's should have killed more Jews". John is using his knowledge to rebuke the unjustified criticism of the Nazi party. Some of you have said the most ridiculous things! Hitler ordered the destruction of the German infrastructure! Klh, whatever were you thinking? His primary aim was not to kill Jews but to defend and improve the fatherland, Germany.

Hitler had seen Germany crippled by the Treaty of Versailles and the destruction of the German culture was becoming rampant. He wanted to protect and help his country and the German culture. It just so happened that he felt the Jews (And Marxists) were the greatest threat to the German culture. John and myself have provided countless examples between us (though mostly his, as is evident).

You all need to read up on the people John has talked about, not just say "Well, that isnt a part of my HSC so it doesnt matter to me". History, both Modern and Ancient, is about using sources and if you have extra sources and information to use more the better for your final mark.

Do not disregard what John is saying and stop massacring it with your flacid and simple interpretations. John is not saying the Holocaust was all flowers and rainbows, he is saying that Hitler was a great leader of his country and that there was precedent for his extermination of the Jews.

 

[sunjet]

Yes, I agree with some of that, but when you're doing the HSC with other subjects you don't have time to read into it alot, if you are not going to be tested on it.

Hitler ordered the destruction of the German infrastructure! Klh, whatever were you thinking? His primary aim was not to kill Jews but to defend and improve the fatherland, Germany.

He did order the destruction of German infrastructure...

 

[King of Helview]

Ah yes, right you are

We all make mistakes, here is an example of another:

"You don't even do Modern History, go back to your neo-nazi forums"

You are all to unfair to John, who is clearly an intelligent and very competent human being

 

[John The Great]

"After a while a large group of SS officers arrived on motorcycles, Mengele among them. They drove into the yard and got off their motorcycles. Upon arriving they circled the flames; it (sic) burned horizontally. We watched to see what would follow. After a while trucks arrived, dump trucks, with children inside. There were about ten of these trucks. After they had entered the yard an officer gave an order and the trucks backed up to the fire and they started throwing those children right into the fire, into the pit. The children started to scream; some of them managed to crawl out of the burning pit. An officer walked around it with sticks and pushed back those who managed to get out. Hoess (the Auschwitz commandant) and Mengele were present and were giving orders."

Is this quote trying to appeal to the others slave mentality? You havent even sourced the quote, so it holds no credibility as of yet, and could well have been fabricated by you. If it is however a credible account of an event, then it is merely ONE interpretation of what happened. If we were to quote another individual, their interpretation would be different. Finally, it is not specified what the children had done to require such treatment. Of course this person would leave any objectivity out, however the killing of unfit, rebellious, or those who are dangerous to the saftey of the state, is not as debauch, and unique as you seemingly intend to portray with this quote. All successful Empires have quelled those who attempt to destroy it, such as Macedonia with Thebes and the Indian mercenaries, Rome with Corinth and Carthage and then later the Jews, Sparta, the Colonial powers, the Church etc. etc. It is in human nature to act in such a way, and indeed is present among all of nature. Have you not watched any animal kingdom documentaries?

 

[sunjet]

That's not a mistake. It's rather a comment, showing my hatred towards him, and I did not once call him un-intelligent.

 

[King of Helview]

With an attitude like yours Sunjet I hope I never find you waking my way, down Helview Lane

 

[sunjet]

Don't hurt me.

 

[King of Helview]

I wouldnt dream of it, not with fists at least but when you take a stroll down Helview Lane dont be suprised if 3 people all demand satisfaction of you at the same time

 

[sunjet]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I am over this conversation, goodbye.

 

[John The Great]

You argued that the Holocaust was justified and thus it should be accepted. Why do you keep referring to me in third person? Stop analysing me as a source. You have an advantage? Do you even know what's in the syllabus for Germany? Germany is only 20 marks as well, along with Speer, which is 20 marks. You might read more info than us, but that is because you're obsessed with Hitler/Nazism and their successes, whereas half of us are merely doing it for the HSC.

When one criticises without substantiation they should expect their comments and claims to come under intense scrutiny. Such is your case in relation to the Nazi's and Hitler. Hence all your comments are systematically scrutinised for the unfounded lies they contain.
As for you have an advantage? You alleged to have an advantage. A mere ploy on your behalf to try and stop this massacre of your subjective, unsubstantiated lies. it wont work though as i have stated, due, to my knowledge of modern history being greater than yours so far displayed, without studying the Board of Studies course.
So now you are trying to excuse yourself and others from your evident lack of knowledge. Well if you DONT know these men and events in DETAIL, why do you criticise them? How can you criticise something you dont accurately know of. You should have stated at the beginning of each of your comments, 'I have no real formal knowledge in this area'. Thus your attempt now to try and excuse your lack of knowledge does not suffice for your previous defamation of these little known individuals and events. Particularly when you employ such a lazy attitude, merely doing it for the HSC. what are you going to derive from life, if that is your attitude towards all knowledge?
Once again perhaps you should attain a dictionary before claiming that i am 'obsessed' with Hitler/Nazism. As my sentiments towards these do not fall under the definition of obsessed, and it would be exceedingly difficult for you to judge that from these few comments, in which I have merely defended individuals and events from speculative and unproven garbage. If i was considered to be 'obsessed' with these, then i would be considered to be 'obsessed' with almost all historical and contemporary personalities and events, along with much literature etc. and this would in itself defy the definition of the word. Hence your defamation of me now has been proven to be incorrect and unsubstantiated.

 

[John The Great]

Yes, I agree with some of that, but when you're doing the HSC with other subjects you don't have time to read into it alot, if you are not going to be tested on it.

Hitler ordered the destruction of the German infrastructure! Klh, whatever were you thinking? His primary aim was not to kill Jews but to defend and improve the fatherland, Germany.

He did order the destruction of German infrastructure...

Please do not attempt to excuse your lack of willingness to attain new knowledge with the excuse 'dont have time'. There is of course time. you could very well attain books and read. You could extend your limited knowledge beyond the boundaries of the HSC course, as MANY people do. So dont LIE and say that there is lack of time to read during the HSC. Admit to your desire not to educate yourself and it would be acceptable.

 

[John The Great]

That's not a mistake. It's rather a comment, showing my hatred towards him, and I did not once call him un-intelligent.

Why dont you attain a dictionary?! This is absurd when you continue to BUTCHER the English language. That IS a mistake. You stated that i attend Neo-Nazi forums! Yet i dont! Hence the mistake. Are you sure you should be in year 12? Your increasingly obvious lack of intelligence and restraint would determine that year 7 or 8 would be more suited to your abilities.
Hatred towards me? What could possibly have caused such hatred. If you HATE people who approach events and personalities objectively rather than subjectively, you do have a problem. Of course, once again the insecure masses have always had great trouble accepting geniuses and intelligent thought, e.g. Socrates, Jesus, Galileo etc.
Not to mention "un-intelligent" is not a correct word. the correct English is 'unintelligent', so please rather than diregarding correct English any longer could you attain a dictionary, and improve your use of it. It must be a true displeasure for your markers when they have to read such poor use of correct English.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Are you blind, deaf, dumb and intellectually incapable. it would appear that you are with your claim 'without cause'. Have you not read what i wrote? Have you not read Mein Kampf? Philosophy? theology? books to war? Any credible books in the area? There was cause! His actions were justified! You know nothing of the area, so educate yourself, or never comment on it again! The Jews simply represented the destruction of incredible culture, and in particular German culture along with Christianity. He was defending this culture. He was nationalistic. Once again the words of St. Augustine must be remembered here. Thus that ISN'T morally wrong under 'ANY' credible normative ethical theory. It isnt wrong under christian doctrine. It isnt wrong under traditional western ethics, as expounded by the great Greek philosophers. It is interesting however that you term them normative. What exactly qualifies as normative, and then who judges what normative is?

By the way, i didn't quote St. Augustine, if you even know who he is, so don't attribute it to me. I mentioned his works, but i did not quote in the segment you mention. You are obviously ignorant if you believe quoting and mentioning the works of greatly influential and distinguished men does not support an argument. Your idea that it seemingly degrades an argument to mention these great men's works is ridiculous. It substantiates thought, with that of incredibly credible men's thoughts which have been widely acknowledged as brilliant. It's Absurdity to believe that the only 'correct' arguments are those that dont mention distinguished people and their thoughts. It is those arguments that are generally rubbish and have no success at all, due to lack of credibility and intellectual thought. Have you ever written a history or an english essay?All you are trying to achieve here is clandestinely covering the fact that you have no credible thought to attribute your beliefs to, hence their pathetic nature, and that you are afraid of the rationality and intellectual thought that supports Hitler and the Nazi's. Yes, your comment is utter rubbish. As you are lacking intelligence, you would have no idea what a philosopher would or wouldnt know. In fact that statement is truly ridiculous in itself, as you imply that all philosophers conform to a homogeneous line of thought.

My friend, with the greatest respect I think that you would benefit from taking a first-year philosophy course in reason and logic in order to improve your argumentative skills.

95% of what you just wrote constitutes an extended ad hominem argument - perhaps one of the worst fallacies one can commit. The rest is just baseless.

Allow me to demonstrate by showing how poorly your argument is constructed:

Are you blind, deaf, dumb and intellectually incapable. (Fallacy: ad hominem) it would appear that you are with your claim 'without cause'. Have you not read what i wrote? Have you not read Mein Kampf? Philosophy? theology? books to war? Any credible books in the area? There was cause! His actions were justified! You know nothing of the area, so educate yourself, or never comment on it again! (Fallacy: ad hominem) The Jews simply represented the destruction of incredible culture, and in particular German culture along with Christianity. He was defending this culture. He was nationalistic.(Um, no that was Hitler's rhetoric. Hitler was against Jews and communists and tried to associate the two by fusing them together as targets. Aside from that fact that his claims were false, in fact Jews living in Germany at the time and the communist ideology could not have been more inconsistent.) Once again the words of St. Augustine must be remembered here.(Fallacy: Appeal to authority.) Thus that ISN'T morally wrong under 'ANY' credible normative ethical theory.(You have not explained why. Because St Augstine says so? Not very convincing.) It isnt wrong under christian doctrine. It isnt wrong under traditional western ethics, as expounded by the great Greek philosophers. (Actually it is wrong, under pretty much all western ethical theories. For example -- Utilitiarian: It certainly would not be maximising the greatest happiness for the greatest number to extermine that extraordinary number of Jews. Kantian: Not universally maximisable. Christian (Divine Command Theory): Thou shalt not kill!) It is interesting however that you term them normative. What exactly qualifies as normative, and then who judges what normative is? (It depends on how strong the argument is for any particular ethical theory.)

By the way, i didn't quote St. Augustine, if you even know who he is, so don't attribute it to me. I mentioned his works, but i did not quote in the segment you mention. You are obviously ignorant if you believe quoting and mentioning the works of greatly influential and distinguished men does not support an argument. (Fallacy: ad hominem; Appeal to authority.) It does not advance your argument by citing someone's works, no. That is an appeal to authority. Your idea that it seemingly degrades an argument to mention these great men's works is ridiculous. (It does not degrade them, it just does not advance your argument.) It substantiates thought, with that of incredibly credible men's thoughts which have been widely acknowledged as brilliant. (Fallacy: Appeal to authority.) It's Absurdity to believe that the only 'correct' arguments are those that dont mention distinguished people and their thoughts. (As I said, take a course in logic and reason.) It is those arguments that are generally rubbish and have no success at all, due to lack of credibility and intellectual thought. Have you ever written a history or an english essay? (Fallacy: ad hominem). Incidentally yes. All you are trying to achieve here is clandestinely covering the fact that you have no credible thought to attribute your beliefs to, hence their pathetic nature, and that you are afraid of the rationality and intellectual thought that supports Hitler and the Nazi's. (Fallacy: ad hominem) Yes, your comment is utter rubbish. As you are lacking intelligence, you would have no idea what a philosopher would or wouldnt know. (Fallacy: ad hominem) Additionally, utterly false, since I am majoring in philosophy. In fact that statement is truly ridiculous in itself, as you imply that all philosophers conform to a homogeneous line of thought. (Fallacy: Attacking the straw person. I never suggested or implied that.)

Of additional note, I am not entirely impressed by your contribution on this forum. I don't think anyone really takes you seriously and you are causing some disturbance. I would advise you to keep things civil and cease your relentless insults to people. Attack their arguments, not them. Surely if there is something wrong with their argument you can find it rather than resorting to name calling. Thankyou.

 

[xeuyrawp]

My friend, with the greatest respect I think that you would benefit from taking a first-year philosophy course in reason and logic in order to improve your argumentative skills.

95% of what you just wrote constitutes an extended ad hominem argument - perhaps one of the worst fallacies one can commit. The rest is just baseless.

Allow me to demonstrate by showing how poorly your argument is constructed:

Of additional note, I am not entirely impressed by your contribution on this forum. I don't think anyone really takes you seriously and you are causing some disturbance. I would advise you to keep things civil and cease your relentless insults to people. Attack their arguments, not them. Surely if there is something wrong with their argument you can find it rather than resorting to name calling. Thankyou.

<3 moonlight.

 

[sunjet]

LIE? lol ok when you are doing the hsc let me know how you are going for time, thanks.
and i hate you because of your views and your arrogance.
it's the internet, deal with it, stop taking it so serious, i employ a lazy attitude because i obviously have other things to do.
As for the neo-nazi comment.. it was sarcasm at first in response to your replies in this thread.
I couldn't give a shit if you have greater knowledge than me in Modern History, firstly you don't do Modern History and you're not even in Year 12. I will write in the HSC what I have learnt, ie. how he came to power and how he consolidated it.

"Well if you DONT know these men and events in DETAIL, why do you criticise them? How can you criticise something you dont accurately know of."

- Please quote me on where I criticised Hitler/Nazism, the only post I made in this thread before you came was "Hitler was a good leader but had too much angst", which is undoubtedly slang/colloquial/sarcastic or you havn't been outside in a while, but as I said before: I'm taking it you know everything about Hitler and Nazism to comment on him.