Adolf Hitler

[CrabHelmet]

*Ahem*

Adolf Hitler was a Vegetarian' date=' Enviornmentalist, Anti-Animal testing, ect ect ect. The reason he is considered "evil" is because he condemned 6 million people to death.

[/quote']

 

What, he was a mass murderer, but anyone who holds that against him is stupid because he didn't eat meat?

 

Yes' date=' he considered members of his [b']own species[/b] ut, I do concider him less evil than most "modern enviromentalists" due to the fact that his actions were to improve the human race (or, what he believed would be improvement), whereas environmentalists believe that humans are the worst thing to ever happen.

 

He wasn't interested in the human race. He was interested in the people with whom he aligned himself, and acted to the detriment of the species as a whole.

 

Also, I would love to hear how believing that humans have damaged the environment makes someone evil when mass murder does not. Go on. I'll wait.

 

Fine.

Hitler wanted to kill anyone that he did not determine as the "Master Race". This included Jews, Gypsies, and really anyone who wasn't blond with blue eyes. (that was his definition of an Aryan).

 

False. Hitler himself didn't have blond hair and blue eyes. Hair and eye colour were just two common traits of his master race; they were not inherent in his definition.

 

Despite the murder of millions' date=' Hitler honestly believed he was in the right.

[/quote']

 

And a belief that you are right makes everything fine? This is not necessarily entirely wrong, but it is certainly the epitome of moral subjectivism and does not stop him from being classified as a madman. (You will also find that such a definition generally classifies the most moral of people as the most "evil", since they judge themselves most harshly.)

 

Environmentalists on the other hand believe that the human race is the cause of all evil.

 

False. Straw man argument. Environmentalists only identify it as one major problem' date=' not as the single flaw in an otherwise perfect universe.

 

That the prosperity of humanity is bad for the world

 

False. Straw man argument. Environmentalists only identify certain actions as being detrimental to the environment; they aren't anti-success. For example, environmentalists are fine with you making money; what they aren't fine with is you melting polar icecaps in the process.

 

(which' date=' if you thought for yourself for once, it isn't)

[/quote']

 

Except, you know, when the actions taken to reach success damage the environment. Which they do in many cases.

 

and that humans have more influence in the planet than they truely do.

 

False. Straw man argument. Humans do have an extremely large effect on the planet - if you look at the rate at which rainforests are destroyed by human activity' date=' you must concede that point - and the majority of true environmentalists understand perfectly well the real extent of human activity.

 

In short, they want all of humanity to just drop dead. Nothing to help, just drop dead.

 

False. Straw man argument. I don't really have much else to say here; that's just a blatant lie.

 

I think the actual murder of 6 million is 1/1000th as bad as the want for the deaths of 6 billion' date=' don't you?

[/quote']

 

False. There are so many problems with this statement that I would normally conclude that you are joking.

 

First: Hitler killed far more than six million people. The Holocaust alone had a death toll of well over ten million, and if you think that the only deaths Hitler caused were those that took place during the Holocaust, then you are kidding yourself; remember, he was also one of the primary causes of the second world war - the deadliest conflict in human history, and one with a death toll exceeding seventy million in total.

 

Second: Hitler's actual death toll wasn't as high as his intended death toll. Remember, he planned to kill everyone in the entire world outside of his master race. That doesn't put his intended death toll very far at all below what your environmentalists would supposedly like.

 

Third: Environmentalists, I re-iterate, do not want all humans to suddenly drop dead. All they actually want are changes in public policy and individual behavior that will benefit the natural environment. And no, those changes do not include "everybody jumps off a bridge and dies". The closest to what you describe are the Dark Greens, but even they only seek radical political change, not omnicide.

 

Fourth: Feeling that it would be nice if something were to happen and actually doing it are two completely different things. You will observe that saying "I wish you were dead" to someone does not carry the same penalty as shooting that person in the face. Even if environmentalists thought humanity should drop dead (and they don't), they certainly aren't going around killing everyone.

 

Fifth: Your entire argument in favour of Hitler revolves around the fact that he believed he was doing the right thing. The problem is that environmentalists also feel that they are doing the right thing. (Except, under your ridiculous definition, they aren't even doing, they're wishing for the right thing. And in real life, they are doing in the form of lobbying.)

 

 

In conclusion: You are an ignorant fool whose words consist of naught but lies.

[PrometheusMFD]

*Ahem*

Adolf Hitler was a Vegetarian' date=' Enviornmentalist, Anti-Animal testing, ect ect ect. The reason he is considered "evil" is because he condemned 6 million people to death.

[/quote']

 

What, he was a mass murderer, but anyone who holds that against him is stupid because he didn't eat meat?

 

Yes' date=' he considered members of his [b']own species[/b] ut, I do concider him less evil than most "modern enviromentalists" due to the fact that his actions were to improve the human race (or, what he believed would be improvement), whereas environmentalists believe that humans are the worst thing to ever happen.

 

He wasn't interested in the human race. He was interested in the people with whom he aligned himself, and acted to the detriment of the species as a whole.

 

Also, I would love to hear how believing that humans have damaged the environment makes someone evil when mass murder does not. Go on. I'll wait.

 

Fine.

Hitler wanted to kill anyone that he did not determine as the "Master Race". This included Jews, Gypsies, and really anyone who wasn't blond with blue eyes. (that was his definition of an Aryan).

 

False. Hitler himself didn't have blond hair and blue eyes. Hair and eye colour were just two common traits of his master race; they were not inherent in his definition.

 

Despite the murder of millions' date=' Hitler honestly believed he was in the right.

[/quote']

 

And a belief that you are right makes everything fine? This is not necessarily entirely wrong, but it is certainly the epitome of moral subjectivism and does not stop him from being classified as a madman. (You will also find that such a definition generally classifies the most moral of people as the most "evil", since they judge themselves most harshly.)

 

Environmentalists on the other hand believe that the human race is the cause of all evil.

 

False. Straw man argument. Environmentalists only identify it as one major problem' date=' not as the single flaw in an otherwise perfect universe.

 

That the prosperity of humanity is bad for the world

 

False. Straw man argument. Environmentalists only identify certain actions as being detrimental to the environment; they aren't anti-success. For example, environmentalists are fine with you making money; what they aren't fine with is you melting polar icecaps in the process.

 

(which' date=' if you thought for yourself for once, it isn't)

[/quote']

 

Except, you know, when the actions taken to reach success damage the environment. Which they do in many cases.

 

and that humans have more influence in the planet than they truely do.

 

False. Straw man argument. Humans do have an extremely large effect on the planet - if you look at the rate at which rainforests are destroyed by human activity' date=' you must concede that point - and the majority of true environmentalists understand perfectly well the real extent of human activity.

 

In short, they want all of humanity to just drop dead. Nothing to help, just drop dead.

 

False. Straw man argument. I don't really have much else to say here; that's just a blatant lie.

 

I think the actual murder of 6 million is 1/1000th as bad as the want for the deaths of 6 billion' date=' don't you?

[/quote']

 

False. There are so many problems with this statement that I would normally conclude that you are joking.

 

First: Hitler killed far more than six million people. The Holocaust alone had a death toll of well over ten million, and if you think that the only deaths Hitler caused were those that took place during the Holocaust, then you are kidding yourself; remember, he was also one of the primary causes of the second world war - the deadliest conflict in human history, and one with a death toll exceeding seventy million in total.

 

Second: Hitler's actual death toll wasn't as high as his intended death toll. Remember, he planned to kill everyone in the entire world outside of his master race. That doesn't put his intended death toll very far at all below what your environmentalists would supposedly like.

 

Third: Environmentalists, I re-iterate, do not want all humans to suddenly drop dead. All they actually want are changes in public policy and individual behavior that will benefit the natural environment. And no, those changes do not include "everybody jumps off a bridge and dies". The closest to what you describe are the Dark Greens, but even they only seek radical political change, not omnicide.

 

Fourth: Feeling that it would be nice if something were to happen and actually doing it are two completely different things. You will observe that saying "I wish you were dead" to someone does not carry the same penalty as shooting that person in the face. Even if environmentalists thought humanity should drop dead (and they don't), they certainly aren't going around killing everyone.

 

Fifth: Your entire argument in favour of Hitler revolves around the fact that he believed he was doing the right thing. The problem is that environmentalists also feel that they are doing the right thing. (Except, under your ridiculous definition, they aren't even doing, they're wishing for the right thing. And in real life, they are doing in the form of lobbying.)

 

 

In conclusion: You are an ignorant fool whose words consist of naught but lies.

And you are a stead fast prick who insults those who have done you no wrong.

[CrabHelmet]

*Ahem*

Adolf Hitler was a Vegetarian' date=' Enviornmentalist, Anti-Animal testing, ect ect ect. The reason he is considered "evil" is because he condemned 6 million people to death.

[/quote']

 

What, he was a mass murderer, but anyone who holds that against him is stupid because he didn't eat meat?

 

Yes' date=' he considered members of his [b']own species[/b] ut, I do concider him less evil than most "modern enviromentalists" due to the fact that his actions were to improve the human race (or, what he believed would be improvement), whereas environmentalists believe that humans are the worst thing to ever happen.

 

He wasn't interested in the human race. He was interested in the people with whom he aligned himself, and acted to the detriment of the species as a whole.

 

Also, I would love to hear how believing that humans have damaged the environment makes someone evil when mass murder does not. Go on. I'll wait.

 

Fine.

Hitler wanted to kill anyone that he did not determine as the "Master Race". This included Jews, Gypsies, and really anyone who wasn't blond with blue eyes. (that was his definition of an Aryan).

 

False. Hitler himself didn't have blond hair and blue eyes. Hair and eye colour were just two common traits of his master race; they were not inherent in his definition.

 

Despite the murder of millions' date=' Hitler honestly believed he was in the right.

[/quote']

 

And a belief that you are right makes everything fine? This is not necessarily entirely wrong, but it is certainly the epitome of moral subjectivism and does not stop him from being classified as a madman. (You will also find that such a definition generally classifies the most moral of people as the most "evil", since they judge themselves most harshly.)

 

Environmentalists on the other hand believe that the human race is the cause of all evil.

 

False. Straw man argument. Environmentalists only identify it as one major problem' date=' not as the single flaw in an otherwise perfect universe.

 

That the prosperity of humanity is bad for the world

 

False. Straw man argument. Environmentalists only identify certain actions as being detrimental to the environment; they aren't anti-success. For example, environmentalists are fine with you making money; what they aren't fine with is you melting polar icecaps in the process.

 

(which' date=' if you thought for yourself for once, it isn't)

[/quote']

 

Except, you know, when the actions taken to reach success damage the environment. Which they do in many cases.

 

and that humans have more influence in the planet than they truely do.

 

False. Straw man argument. Humans do have an extremely large effect on the planet - if you look at the rate at which rainforests are destroyed by human activity' date=' you must concede that point - and the majority of true environmentalists understand perfectly well the real extent of human activity.

 

In short, they want all of humanity to just drop dead. Nothing to help, just drop dead.

 

False. Straw man argument. I don't really have much else to say here; that's just a blatant lie.

 

I think the actual murder of 6 million is 1/1000th as bad as the want for the deaths of 6 billion' date=' don't you?

[/quote']

 

False. There are so many problems with this statement that I would normally conclude that you are joking.

 

First: Hitler killed far more than six million people. The Holocaust alone had a death toll of well over ten million, and if you think that the only deaths Hitler caused were those that took place during the Holocaust, then you are kidding yourself; remember, he was also one of the primary causes of the second world war - the deadliest conflict in human history, and one with a death toll exceeding seventy million in total.

 

Second: Hitler's actual death toll wasn't as high as his intended death toll. Remember, he planned to kill everyone in the entire world outside of his master race. That doesn't put his intended death toll very far at all below what your environmentalists would supposedly like.

 

Third: Environmentalists, I re-iterate, do not want all humans to suddenly drop dead. All they actually want are changes in public policy and individual behavior that will benefit the natural environment. And no, those changes do not include "everybody jumps off a bridge and dies". The closest to what you describe are the Dark Greens, but even they only seek radical political change, not omnicide.

 

Fourth: Feeling that it would be nice if something were to happen and actually doing it are two completely different things. You will observe that saying "I wish you were dead" to someone does not carry the same penalty as shooting that person in the face. Even if environmentalists thought humanity should drop dead (and they don't), they certainly aren't going around killing everyone.

 

Fifth: Your entire argument in favour of Hitler revolves around the fact that he believed he was doing the right thing. The problem is that environmentalists also feel that they are doing the right thing. (Except, under your ridiculous definition, they aren't even doing, they're wishing for the right thing. And in real life, they are doing in the form of lobbying.)

 

 

In conclusion: You are an ignorant fool whose words consist of naught but lies.

And you are a stead fast prick who insults those who have done you no wrong.

 

You have polluted the minds of those foolish enough to believe you with your ignorance and lies, and respond to disproofs of your ludicrous claims with childish whining that amounts to "you meaniehead!!!1".

 

Kindly take your falsehoods elsewhere.

[Shadowwolf17]

I want this thread locked and no one to talk about Adolf Hitler again. I am jewish and am glad people like hitler arn't around today. He killed blacks and gays to you know. Your friend could be black for all I know. Sorry. Don't like hitler.

[Dweller of Parables]

Crab is correct for the most part... ;)

[RickiMinaj]

BAKA!

 

Hitler, he had no good sides. All he did was ebil, with a capitol B!

[End Of The Abyss]

I want this thread locked and no one to talk about Adolf Hitler again. I am jewish and am glad people like hitler arn't around today. He killed blacks and gays to you know. Your friend could be black for all I know. Sorry. Don't like hitler.

 

 

HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

 

 

Immaturity gone.

 

 

Hitler was a good man. His intentions were good' date=' to make a world better for everyone. What I don't understand is whhy he killed the jews in the first place. Where they stopping him from persuing his dreams of a world for all equality to all people?

 

I want this thread locked and no one to talk about Adolf Hitler again. I am jewish and am glad people like hitler arn't around today. He killed blacks and gays to you know. Your friend could be black for all I know. Sorry. Don't like hitler.

 

Lrn2spell and Lrn2grammar

 

HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Dweller of Parables]

I want this thread locked and no one to talk about Adolf Hitler again. I am jewish and am glad people like hitler arn't around today. He killed blacks and gays to you know. Your friend could be black for all I know. Sorry. Don't like hitler.

 

 

HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

 

 

Immaturity gone.

 

 

Hitler was a good man. His intentions were good' date=' to make a world better for everyone. What I don't understand is whhy he killed the jews in the first place. Where they stopping him from persuing his dreams of a world for all equality to all people?

 

I want this thread locked and no one to talk about Adolf Hitler again. I am jewish and am glad people like hitler arn't around today. He killed blacks and gays to you know. Your friend could be black for all I know. Sorry. Don't like hitler.

 

Lrn2spell and Lrn2grammar

 

HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

1. Lrn2type ntehloveley internet :P

2. Read a book, not the internetz.

[Static]

What I don't understand is whhy he killed the jews in the first place. Where they stopping him from persuing his dreams of a world for all equality to all people?

 

Many reasons:

 

1. Being of partial Jewish descent, let me tell you, Jews are not the most open people in the world. Albeit, some of them are, but many families are so secluded in their own business that their children never get a chance to live or grow up. I personally tend to think that it is more common of Ashkanaz (white/European) Jews and that Sephardic (Arab/Israeli) Jews are generally much more open and welcoming people, but I won't call that a fact.

 

2. For the same reason that he killed blacks, Catholics, and Gypsy's,They were different. In Europe during the early 20th century, almost all Jews dressed the same; black overcoats, yamaka's, the "mini-top hats," and the "jewfro's," while women always dressed in long skirts and (generally) white collared shirts. They stood out like tanlines.

 

3. Scapegoats. Blaming the Jews for the fall of the Second Reich and the 20 years of crap economy that followed made Germans proud to be German and made them much more malleable for the Nazi Party.

 

4. Monetary benefit. Jews own half the world and then some; they were a large majority of Germany's doctors and took up many high wage jobs. Taking away their possessions would make much more revenue than taking away the belongings of almost every other group per expended capital.

 

5. To create a Socialist society (the ultimate goal of the Nazi Party: A Nationalist Socialist Society), there are many things that must be amended in the world.

 

a. There can only be one country, and it must account of all people and land. If there is opposition, the Capitalists will always inevitably conquer the Socialist foundation.

 

b. There cannot be many differences between the people of the country. If people are hateful and prideful towards indifference, the society will have a lot of civil problems. There are too many ignorant people alive in any and every group of people for indifference to invalidate the problems that indifferences could cause. In Hitler's case, it would be a lot easier to make proud, hateful Germans and make a perfect society for the ignorant.

 

c. Equality:

 

i. There needs to be adequate resources for things such as rations and commodities.

ii. The leader needs to be able to make sure that anyone (short the closest members of his council and the party; and with some secrecy on their prerogative) are actually getting even rations.

iii. Everyone needs to do about the same amount of work, or a system of equality for work and rest needs to be established.

iv. Communities need to remain strong.

 

 

Basically, allowing Jews to exist would make a peaceful socialist society much more difficult to achieve.

 

 

So there you go, 5 reasons why the Jews were persecuted.

 

And Remember:

 

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

[Frunk]

In conclusion: You are an ignorant fool whose words consist of naught but lies.

And you are a stead fast prick who insults those who have done you no wrong.

 

It would seem that Ad hominen affects YCM too.

[CrabHelmet]

In conclusion: You are an ignorant fool whose words consist of naught but lies.

And you are a stead fast prick who insults those who have done you no wrong.

 

It would seem that Ad hominen affects YCM too.

 

My post is about two and a half times as tall as my computer screen. Of it, only one line attacks the other participant in the discussion. And it is a conclusion drawn from the argument stated rather than an argument itself.

[Frunk]

In conclusion: You are an ignorant fool whose words consist of naught but lies.

And you are a stead fast prick who insults those who have done you no wrong.

 

It would seem that Ad hominen affects YCM too.

 

My post is about two and a half times as tall as my computer screen. Of it' date=' only one line attacks the other participant in the discussion. And it is a conclusion drawn from the argument stated rather than an argument itself.

[/quote']

 

... I was referring to your counterpart, hence I quoted him, not you.

[muffinblobbster.webs.com]

hitler is good when it doesn't c0ome to race but i kbow who is better BARRACK OBAMA

[Shadowwolf17]

I want this thread locked and no one to talk about Adolf Hitler again. I am jewish and am glad people like hitler arn't around today. He killed blacks and gays to you know. Your friend could be black for all I know. Sorry. Don't like hitler.

 

 

HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

 

 

Immaturity gone.

 

 

Hitler was a good man. His intentions were good' date=' to make a world better for everyone. What I don't understand is whhy he killed the jews in the first place. Where they stopping him from persuing his dreams of a world for all equality to all people?

 

I want this thread locked and no one to talk about Adolf Hitler again. I am jewish and am glad people like hitler arn't around today. He killed blacks and gays to you know. Your friend could be black for all I know. Sorry. Don't like hitler.

 

Lrn2spell and Lrn2grammar

 

HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

Hitler only wanted people like himself alive. He killed blacks, then gays, then jews, then cathlics, and I don't know what else. but He killed more jews. It is just wrong.

[Man0waR]

 

thats more than anti-semitic. thats just plain funked up in the MIND!!! D: