NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, if somehow, someday, you were faced with the situation of living under these two dictators. Which one would you choose?

Stalin because he has a cooler mustache.

Can I pick neither, since I'll live under a rock until that time passes?

Maolin. Sounds like a fun disease.

Can I pick neither, since I'll live under a rock until that time passes?

But who would you rather be governing the field/ park/ forest etc... with the rock in?

Maolin, because they'd fight each other the entire time.

Maolin, because they'd fight each other the entire time.

I am pretty sure that Mao and Stalin were actually good freinds.

Stalin

But who would you rather be governing the field/ park/ forest etc... with the rock in?
How about... the big invisible guy in the sky since he can't do shit to me... :D

How about... the big invisible guy in the sky since he can't do shit to me... :D
You have a god-proof raincoat?

Neither. Long Live the Rebellion!

I am pretty sure that Mao and Stalin were actually good freinds.

Because they never talked to each other.

Probably Stalin, Mao killed more people, and he killed them far more randomly.

Because they never talked to each other.

I think they did.

I wouldn't want to be under Stalin, he mass murdered several people in my family during WWII and he starved people rather than just shooting them like Mao probably would.

Probably would do better under Mao. But like a Meglomaniacs everyone was a potential enemy. :headbang:

I think cyanide would be the better choice.

I am pretty sure that Mao and Stalin were actually good freinds.After Hitler, Stalin was too paranoid to have any other friends. He died afraid and alone.

I'd say Stalin his economic plans killed less and some actually worked, plus you could say your a Jehovah witness and get deported (and thus I move to England and the cycle repeats:) )

I vote Maolin because its a double negative and they cancel each other out---so theoretically it would be a Capitalist Utopia of of unprecedented civil and policital freedom...


I believe the previous poster is correct, Mao and Stalin were not fond of each other.

Depends.

Which one would sleep with me and be my sugar daddy?

Depends.

Which one would sleep with me and be my sugar daddy?

Well, Mao had VD, but if that doesn't bother you...

I'd say Stalin his economic plans killed less and some actually worked, plus you could say your a Jehovah witness and get deported (and thus I move to England and the cycle repeats:) )

It had a lot to do with the US dumping resources into the USSR during the war.

It had a lot to do with the US dumping resources into the USSR during the war.

but the 5 (?) year plan began way before then and actually managed to get the country industrialized enough to win the war

Well, Mao had VD, but if that doesn't bother you...

Hey, I just want to be above the peasants. If that means I have to get a nasty desiese, then I'm going to get a nasty desiese.

whichever would be easier to overthrow.

After Hitler, Stalin was too paranoid to have any other friends. He died afraid and alone.

Heh, loser.

I'd probably pick Mao, he seems easier to hide from.

Stalin and Mao both sucked. However, had I to choose, I'd pick Mao. As far as I know, Mao doesn't have a version of the KGB (I KNOW i used the wrong acryonym there. The Russian police force, dammit)...and China's warmer.

Frankly, I'd prefer to live under Hitler's rule.

Stalin, only so I could have the pleasure of shooting him myself in the name of Hungary.

Umm... Mao isn't cool because he killed all of the South Asian tigers.

Because they never talked to each other.

Mao and Stalin were relatively close. Mao and Khrushchev hated each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split

Stalin and Mao both sucked. However, had I to choose, I'd pick Mao. As far as I know, Mao doesn't have a version of the KGB (I KNOW i used the wrong acryonym there. The Russian police force, dammit)...and China's warmer.

Frankly, I'd prefer to live under Hitler's rule.

KGB is right. And China does have a version, it's called the Ministry of State Security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_State_Security

I'd say Stalin his economic plans killed less and some actually worked, plus you could say your a Jehovah witness and get deported (and thus I move to England and the cycle repeats:) )
Stalin did have fewer people to kill, though. I don't know what the percentages were, but they might be fairly similar.

I think personally I'd prefer to live under Mao. Difficult to judge, though. Stalin was far more random with his persecutions, and it was mainly peasants who died as a result of the famine in the late 50s in China. I think I'd have done better in Mao's China than Stalin's Soviet Union.

Stalin and Mao both sucked. However, had I to choose, I'd pick Mao. As far as I know, Mao doesn't have a version of the KGB (I KNOW i used the wrong acryonym there. The Russian police force, dammit)...and China's warmer.

Frankly, I'd prefer to live under Hitler's rule.

Of course Maoist China had a secret police force, you don't get very far in the dictatorial game without one.

And your last comment makes you seem like a bit of an idiot, the only thing Hitler offered his followers was destruction.

Of course Maoist China had a secret police force, you don't get very far in the dictatorial game without one.

Aaaah, ok. Still, China's warmer.

And your last comment makes you seem like a bit of an idiot, the only thing Hitler offered his followers was destruction.

Prove that Hitler's ideals were bad without appealing to the fact that he lost WWII. Frankly, I consider traditional societal values, the absense of foreign immigration, economic security, political security, and military security very good things.

Prove that Hitler's ideals were bad without appealing to the fact that he lost WWII.

You're right, the Holocaust wasn't bad. :rolleyes:

[/uber sarcasm]

You're right, the Holocaust wasn't bad. :rolleyes:

A) Prove that the holocaust was absolutely wrong without appealing to modern judicial principals and humanist philosophy.

B) The holocaust is only one minor portion of Hitler's ideals. That said, the holocaust wasn't even typical of all Fascist regimes.

You have a god-proof raincoat?
Yep! Of course. I'm a weasel, so, everything about me is god-proof!

A) Prove that the holocaust was absolutely wrong without appealing to modern judicial principals and humanist philosophy.

Justify it in any sense of the word.

You're right, the Holocaust wasn't bad. :rolleyes:

[/uber sarcasm]

:D

I'm Jewish so that's kinda out for me too. Oh well I hear Germany is cold in the winter.

On that basis I'd go for Mao - Stalin was paranoid about the Jews and disappeared us in our thousands.

*thinks*

That's wierd, I must be tired, I never answer any question based on my racial history. Ho hum.

Justify it in any sense of the word.

Hitler considered the Jews foreigners and subversives, didn't consider them citizens, and they didn't leave when he told them to.

Hitler considered the Jews foreigners and subversives, didn't consider them citizens, and they didn't leave when he told them to.

ROFL

ROFL

It's kinda like that drunk guy at a party who doesn't leave when the party's over.

Hitler considered the Jews foreigners and subversives, didn't consider them citizens, and they didn't leave when he told them to.
The fact that he was Austrian never occurred to him then?

It's kinda like that drunk guy at a party who doesn't leave when the party's over.

Or the guy who attempts to carry out genocide on an entire ethnicity in order to maintain power.

The fact that he was Austrian never occurred to him then?

Austria was part of the Reich as far as Hitler was considered.

Or the guy who attempts to carry out genocide on an entire ethnicity in order to maintain power.

Prove that the Jews are an ethnicity. I consider them a nationality. They have a language, a state religion, a terrestrial affiliation, and a law.

Prove that the Jews are an ethnicity. I consider them a nationality. They have a language, a state religion, a terrestrial affiliation, and a law.

Prove the sky is blue. Prove that ducks quack. Prove that I'm me.

I'll amend my statement:

"Or the guy who attempts to carry out genocide on an entire nationality in order to maintain power."

Now, please bring up the definition of "genocide", because I can see your arguments a mile away.

Prove that the Jews are an ethnicity. I consider them a nationality. They have a language, a state religion, a terrestrial affiliation, and a law.

I don't speak hebrew, am anti-Zionist and will suicide bomb anyone who calls me Israeli, I don't believe in God or any of the crap in the Torah and the Kosher laws as laid out in the Talmud make me wretch.

And yet I am Jewish. I call myself Jewish, my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents (some of whom died because, as you say, they didn't leave their countries in time) were Jewish.

Point proved.

Prove the sky is blue. Prove that ducks quack. Prove that I'm me.

All of those are obvious and sense perceptable. What's been previously said is not. An issue of morality is not the same as an issue of what color the sky is.

Now, please bring up the definition of "genocide", because I can see your arguments a mile away.

Genocide, from the words "Gene" and the Latin "occidere" meaning "to kill."

Strictly speaking, Genocide is the execution of all people possessing a genotype. IE, the execution based on race.

I don't think it applies to the execution based on nationality, otherwise we'd be condemning the Greeks, the Romans, the Spanish, etc.

Point proved.


http://www.jewfaq.org ,namely "who is a Jew" disagrees. A Jew is not based on race. There can be a black Jew. A jew cannot be considered an ethnicity. There is not necessarily a common ancestor. Again, there can be an Asian Jew. Jew is not based on religion. As you've shown, there can be an Atheist Jew.

That pretty much leaves only nationality.

http://www.jewfaq.org ,namely "who is a Jew" disagrees. A Jew is not based on race. There can be a black Jew. A jew cannot be considered an ethnicity. There is not necessarily a common ancestor. Again, there can be an Asian Jew. Jew is not based on religion. As you've shown, there can be an Atheist Jew.

That pretty much leaves only nationality.

And why are you so desperate to define the Jews as a nationality and not a race? Does it make a difference to anything at all?

All of those are obvious and sense perceptable. What's been previously said is not. An issue of morality is not the same as an issue of what color the sky is.

I would say that the issue of whether the purposeful deaths of millions is positive or negative is as obvious as those things were. But then again, I'm sane.



Genocide, from the words "Gene" and the Latin "occidere" meaning "to kill."

Strictly speaking, Genocide is the execution of all people possessing a genotype. IE, the execution based on race.

I don't think it applies to the execution based on nationality, otherwise we'd be condemning the Greeks, the Romans, the Spanish, etc.

Fine. We'll backtrack further. Note that, in your obsession over the semantics, the act itself we are describing hasn't changed in any way.

"Or the guy who attempts to carry out industrialized extermenation of an entire nationality in order to maintain power."

And why are you so desperate to define the Jews as a nationality and not a race? Does it make a difference to anything at all?

To dodge the word "genocide".

I would say that the issue of whether the purposeful deaths of millions is positive or negative is as obvious as those things were. But then again, I'm sane.

Are you pro "choice"? If so, you support the deaths of more human beings than Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Sadaam Housseein, etc. combined.

Fine. We'll backtrack further. Note that, in your obsession over the semantics, the act itself we are describing hasn't changed in any way.

"Or the guy who attempts to carry out industrialized extermenation of an entire nationality in order to maintain power."

A guy who attempts to carry out industrialized extermination of an entire nationality in order to maintain power? That presumes that he would have lost power had he not done the same. I doubt that would have had occured.

Again, you are dodging an essential point. The Greeks more or less attempted to obliterate an entire nation (The Trojans) for the good of their society. The Romans CRUSHED an entire nation, and salted their lands (The Carthagineans) for the good of their society. The US, while it didn't exactly kill them, certainly did put SEVERE restrictions on those of a nationality for the good of their society (The Japanese internments during WWII).

And the list really does go on, yet we don't condemn any of those people.

What's the difference with Adolf Hitler, aside from the fact that he lost the war?

Nationality - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality

Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state.

What Jewish state has any jurisdiction over me? I'm British. So Britain does, no Jewish state do I belong to...

What Jewish state has any jurisdiction over me?

If you didn't hold some idea of unity with Israel and those other people who call themselves Jews, and to some degree the Torah, then I doubt you'd be so eager to call yourself a Jew.

I'm British.

You are a Jew living in England.

Again, you are dodging an essential point. The Greeks more or less attempted to obliterate an entire nation (The Trojans) for the good of their society. The Romans CRUSHED an entire nation, and salted their lands (The Carthagineans) for the good of their society. The US, while it didn't exactly kill them, certainly did put SEVERE restrictions on those of a nationality for the good of their society (The Japanese internments during WWII).

And the list really does go on, yet we don't condemn any of those people.


We should try the Ancient Greeks and Romans for war crimes?

And yes I do condemn the Americans for their actions towards Japanese within their country in WWII; as I condem the British for inventing concentration camps in the Boer War.

If you didn't hold some idea of unity with Israel and those other people who call themselves Jews, and to some degree the Torah, then I doubt you'd be so eager to call yourself a Jew.

Don't tell me how I think. I don't believe in the Torah and I hate Israel. I am a member of Jews for Justice for Palestinians.


You are a Jew living in England.

No. I was born in Britain. My father is Polish. My mother is Hungarian. I am a British Jew of Polish and Hungarian descent - do you wish I didn't exist?

We should try the Ancient Greeks and Romans for war crimes?

You consider those war crimes?

And yes I do condemn the Americans for their actions towards Japanese within their country in WWII; as I condem the British for inventing concentration camps in the Boer War.

Dude, those are just a few examples. Such a practice has literally been going on since the beginning of the classical civilizations.

Are you pro "choice"? If so, you support the deaths of more human beings than Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Sadaam Housseein, etc. combined.

I am pro choice. This does not mean I support the deaths of a single human being. You would do good to learn medical terminology before you throw out such absurd attacks.


A guy who attempts to carry out industrialized extermination of an entire nationality in order to maintain power? That presumes that he would have lost power had he not done the same. I doubt that would have had occured.

Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats for Germany's ills and carried himself to power on how he would fix Germany and punish those responsible. He would have lost power before he could even instigate WWII had he not began the Final Solution.


Again, you are dodging an essential point. The Greeks more or less attempted to obliterate an entire nation (The Trojans) for the good of their society. The Romans CRUSHED an entire nation, and salted their lands (The Carthagineans) for the good of their society. The US, while it didn't exactly kill them, certainly did put SEVERE restrictions on those of a nationality for the good of their society (The Japanese internments during WWII).

And the list really does go on, yet we don't condemn any of those people.

What's the difference with Adolf Hitler, aside from the fact that he lost the war?

The difference between attempting to destroy your enemy in a war and the organized, systematic slaughter of a segment of your own citizenry? I don't need to point out the difference; it points itself out. Unless you're going to again bring up Hitler's lunatic views as justification for that.

I am pro choice. This does not mean I support the deaths of a single human being.

So you, much like Hitler, are saying that certain people are less than human. Hm...you would have gotten along with Mein Fuhrer, I think.

Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats for Germany's ills and carried himself to power on how he would fix Germany and punish those responsible. He would have lost power before he could even instigate WWII had he not began the Final Solution.

I don't think so. Mussolini, Franco, etc. didn't require such a thing.

The difference between attempting to destroy your enemy in a war and the organized, systematic slaughter of a segment of your own citizenry? I don't need to point out the difference; it points itself out. Unless you're going to again bring up Hitler's lunatic views as justification for that.

Hitler didn't consider Jews part of the citizenry. He did in fact consider them enemies.

So you, much like Hitler, are saying that certain clumps of cells are less than human.
I'm entering dangerous territory here, but fixed for accuracy. :p

I'm entering dangerous territory here, but fixed for accuracy. :p

Fetuses have souls. They are made in the image and likeness of God. They are designed so that they will eventually be apart from the carrier. They have a DNA sequence different from the carrier.

They are human beings.

So you, much like Hitler, are saying that certain people are less than human. Hm...you would have gotten along with Mein Fuhrer, I think.

No, though it is cute that you would think that. I am saying that people who are not medically and legally considered human beings are not human beings.


I don't think so. Mussolini, Franco, etc. didn't require such a thing.


No, they required Hitler and Germany.


Hitler didn't consider Jews part of the citizenry. He did in fact consider them enemies.

And again, it doesn't matter what he considered them. They were citizens. They were not enemies. His delusions do not make his attempt at extermination acceptable.

Fetuses have souls. They are made in the image and likeness of God. They are designed so that they will eventually be apart from the carrier. They have a DNA sequence different from the carrier.

They are human beings.

For someone who demands that the Jewish ethnicity be proven, you certainly have no qualms about accepting completely unproveable tenets without question.

No, though it is cute that you would think that. I am saying that people who are not medically and legally considered human beings are not human beings.

Prove they are not human beings.

No, they required Hitler and Germany.

Mussolini's leadership happened before Mein Fuhrer's, and Franco operated apart from Mein Fuhrer.

And again, it doesn't matter what he considered them.

He was the leader of Germany, and Germany at that time was under National Socialist leadership and authority. According to that authority, only Germanics were citizens, and Jews specifically were considered non citizens.

They were citizens.

Except, of course, they weren't.

They were not enemies.

Unless, of course, they were.

His delusions do not make his attempt at extermination acceptable.

Your delusions and left wing bullshit don't make his attempt at extermination unacceptable.

Prove they are not human beings.
Let's see... they don't have the power to plan ahead, they can't cognitively reason, they can't feel emotions, they can't create...

Mussolini's leadership happened before Mein Fuhrer's, and Franco operated apart from Mein Fuhrer.
Ever heard of a little thing called the Spanish Civil War? Like, when Hitler sent German troops to stop Franco from being overthrown?

Your delusions and left wing bullshit don't make his attempt at extermination unacceptable.

An attempt at extermination is unacceptable. That is simply so. I don't care to hear your pathetic excuses for why genocide is okay if someone is so paranoid and delusional to consider regular people to be the enemy. I've yet to hear any rational reasons to justify the Holocaust. However, the strain it placed on the German wartime economy is reason enough for it to be wrong, nevermind the moral qualms you seem to not have.

Let's see... they don't have the power to plan ahead, they can't cognitively reason, they can't feel emotions, they can't create...

Neither does a man when he is unconscious.

Ever heard of a little thing called the Spanish Civil War? Like, when Hitler sent German troops to stop Franco from being overthrown?

Hitler wasn't the only one who sent troops.

Neither does a man when he is unconscious.



Hitler wasn't the only one who sent troops.
An unconscious man has demonstrated these abilities previously.

An attempt at extermination is unacceptable.

You are begging the question. You have yet to show that Hitler did in fact commit genocide. As far as I can see, he eradicated people of a nationality whom he considered enemies of the state, just as has been done MANY times before by MANY different leaders of MANY different nations from MANY different eras, NONE of whom we consider genocidal.

However, the strain it placed on the German wartime economy is reason enough for it to be wrong, nevermind the moral qualms you seem to not have.

Right, because the Germans were having such an economic boom prior to Hitler's leadership. :rolleyes:

An unconscious man has demonstrated these abilities previously.

Being unconscious implies that one is not able to do any of those things. All of those things, as far as I know, require a level of consciousness.

Maoilin, sounds like a instrument... Personally i would choose neither and live in a democracy like canada (technically it is a constitutional monarchy but no one really cares) :p

You are begging the question. You have yet to show that Hitler did in fact commit genocide. As far as I can see, he eradicated people of a nationality whom he considered enemies of the state.



Right, because the Germans were having such an economic boom prior to Hitler's leadership. :rolleyes:
So massacring people who are 'enemies of the state' and were obviously completely innocent is acceptable? You are dodging the question. Call it genocide, call it mass murder. It's completely unacceptable in any shape or form.

Being unconscious implies that one is able to do any of those things. All of those things, as far as I know, require a level of consciousness.
Exactly, so a fetus is not a conscious being. Since an unconscious man has demonstrated those capabilties before, he is temporarily unconscious, but has been proved to be a conscious being and will become one with minimal fuss in the future. Presumably a man unconscious wants to become conscious again, which is why he is obviously not allowed to be killed, but a fetus cannot do such a thing.

You are an idiot. Mussolini and Franco had their own scapegoats, just they were communists/intellectuals/socialists/liberals/muslims etc. delete as applicable. The Jews, before and during WWII were considered an ethnic group or a nation,which you would know if you had ever studied political science at any level. Moron. Fetuses are not medically considered human beings, what more proof do you need? Because Hitler was a lunatic and stripped them of their citizenship that automatically made them enemies...right...even though many Jews fought and died for Germany in WWI. Dickhead. Your logic is flawed, and your futile attempts at creating a rational argument in favour of Hitler's government would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. There were NO good points to Hitlers regime, people often say 'at least he got the economy going', the entire economy was a WAR ECONOMY and as such would have constantly required Germany to continue expanding outwards indefinitely...until it eventually imploded unless they started colonising Mars or some shit. No matter what you try to say, you fucking wanker, extermination and genocide is NOT acceptable anywhere, at any point in history.

You are begging the question. You have yet to show that Hitler did in fact commit genocide. As far as I can see, he eradicated people of a nationality whom he considered enemies of the state.

I cannot prove he committed genocide in your eyes. You have redefined the Jewish from an ethnicity, which they are commonly considered, to a nationality. You have then proceeded to only consider the extermination of a race to be genocide, rather than the extermination of any national, ethnic, or racial group. You then continue to hold that they were enemies of the state, which is not based on any impression of fact but on the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic. You indicate that this delusion somehow justifies their deaths. I cannot prove he committed genocide in your eyes because we are not operating from the same sense of reality. I'm using the one we all exist in. Which one you are using I do not know.


Right, because the Germans were having such an economic boom prior to Hitler's leadership. :rolleyes:

Read my statement again, pay attention to the word "wartime", understand my meaning, then comment again.

So massacring people who are 'enemies of the state' and were obviously completely innocent is acceptable? You are dodging the question. Call it genocide, call it mass murder. It's completely unacceptable in any shape or form.

If he considered them enemies of the state, he CLEARLY didn't consider them innocent. His ideals were not your ideals.

Exactly, so a fetus is not a conscious being.

So it's perfectly ok to slaughter those who are in a persistant vegetative state, people in comas, people who were knocked out temporarily, people who are sleeping...etc.

Since an unconscious man has demonstrated those capabilties before, he is temporarily unconscious, but has been proved to be a conscious being and will become one with minimal fuss in the future.

A fetus will eventually become conscious, given the time.

I cannot prove he committed genocide.

Nuff said.

Nuff said.

Hilarious. Misquote me again.

If he considered them enemies of the state, he CLEARLY didn't consider them innocent. His ideals were not your ideals.
So if I think it's okay, it's okay? We should allow people to do whatever they like if it fits with their own personal morality? Right...
So it's perfectly ok to slaughter those who are in a persistant vegetative state, people in comas, people who were knocked out temporarily, people who are sleeping...etc.
Keep reading...
And it's perfectly okay to kill those in a persistant vegetative state, with their guardian's consent.
A fetus will eventually become conscious, given the time.
Like I said, it requires a previous demonstration of consciousness before it can be judged to be a being deserving of rights.

You are so stupid its not funny. Its like the old saying goes "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

Leave the lunatic to his own pathetic delusions, people.

Hilarious. Misquote me again.

That is, in essence, what you admitted. Your entire post was an Ad Hominem Abusive.

That is, in essence, what you admitted. Your entire post was an Ad Hominem Abusive.

The final sentence, yes. You have utterly redefined the meanings of every relevant word in the debate so that they suit your position. There is no debating with someone who is willing to disregard reality when it conflicts with their beliefs.

The final sentence, yes. You have utterly redefined the meanings of every relevant word in the debate so that they suit your position. There is no debating with someone who is willing to disregard reality when it conflicts with their beliefs.

Can you prove otherwise without commiting a fallacy? If not, then, so far as I can see, my "misquote" was entirely accurate.

You are so stupid its not funny. Its like the old saying goes "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

Leave the lunatic to his own pathetic delusions, people.
Um, yes, yes, that seems like a good idea. How embarassing. *straightens tie* I bid you good day, sirs.

Nuff said.

There are hundreds - maybe thousands - of volumes outlining, in sordid detail, Hitler's crimes against humanity. All the Holocaust deniers - 'scuse me, revisionists - have is flimsy evidence at best, crackpot conspiracy theories at worst. I'll go with the vast majority of historians (and sane people) who say the Holocaust did happen, thanks.

So massacring people who are 'enemies of the state' and were obviously completely innocent is acceptable? You are dodging the question. Call it genocide, call it mass murder. It's completely unacceptable in any shape or form.

But all he wants to do is justify the slaughter of innocents be they gay, Jewish, Gypsy or disabled by Hitler as acts against enemies of the state: he is clearly justifying the mass murder of people. Not worth trying to convince him otherwise...:D

Can you prove otherwise without commiting a fallacy? If not, then, so far as I can see, my "misquote" was entirely accurate.

Can I prove he attempted genocide on Jews if I used the common definitions of "Jew" and "genocide"? Yes. Can I using your definitions, which are not based on any majorly-held opinion? No. You make that impossible.

There are hundreds - maybe thousands - of volumes outlining, in sordid detail, Hitler's crimes against humanity. All the Holocaust deniers - 'scuse me, revisionists - have is flimsy evidence at best, crackpot conspiracy theories at worst. I'll go with the vast majority of historians (and sane people) who say the Holocaust did happen, thanks.

We're not debating the occurance of the Holocaust. We all agree that it happened. We are debating whether or not it was morally acceptable.

Um, yes, yes, that seems like a good idea. How embarassing. *straightens tie* I bid you good day, sirs.


Sorry Hamilay, I wasn't referring to you, I was talking about the guy spouting fascist rhetoric and expecting to be treated as an intellectual equal.

They're the Nazi records of the events. You tell us.

We're not debating the occurance of the Holocaust. We all agree that it happened. We are debating whether or not it was morally acceptable.

Ah, my mistake.

And IMO, only someone truly insane and/or heartless would agree that it was morally acceptable. :mad:

Can I prove he attempted genocide on Jews if I used the common definitions of "Jew" and "genocide"? Yes.

Well obviously, you can "prove" your point by appealing to popularity.

Well obviously, you can "prove" your point by appealing to popularity.

Appealing to reality. This isn't a matter of "well, the majority once considered slavery okay, does that make it right?" It's a definition of a word. You do not use the same one as the rest of us. Therefore, meaningful debate is impossible.

Appealing to reality. This isn't a matter of "well, the majority once considered slavery okay, does that make it right?" It's a definition of a word. You do not use the same one as the rest of us. Therefore, meaningful debate is impossible.

You are in fact appealing to popularity. "Everyone considers the Jews to be a race or ethnic group, therefore they are a race/ethnic group."

Well, once upon a time, the Irish in America were considered a seperate race. Does that mean that they were in fact a seperate race? No.

The Irish were, are, and will continue to be a separate ethnic group. Once again, do your study. Race is a widely discreditted term because of its unusefulness in describing groups such as said Irish-Americans.

The Irish were, are, and will continue to be a separate ethnic group. Once again, do your study. Race is a widely discreditted term because of its unusefulness in describing groups such as said Irish-Americans.

My point nonetheless stands. People said that they were a race. They are not a seperate race. A seperate ethnic group? Perhaps. But they are not a race. They people back then were wrong, even though they predominately held that opinion.

Likewise, merely because Jews are commonly considered a race/ethnic group does not make it true. Being a Jew doesn't necessarily require having Jewish parents/ancestors, nor even having a Jewish culture.

Stalin, thats easy. Mao was far crazier.

My point nonetheless stands. People said that they were a race. They are not a seperate race. A seperate ethnic group? Perhaps. But they are not a race. They people back then were wrong, even though they predominately held that opinion.

Likewise, merely because Jews are commonly considered a race/ethnic group does not make it true. Being a Jew doesn't necessarily require having Jewish parents/ancestors, nor even having a Jewish culture.

But it doesn't condone killing me for no reason. At least thats what I think:

If I consider you my enemy I'm not going to kill you and all others like you.

Listen to me. Read what I say and understand it. Jews are not a RACE. Aside from race being non-existent, the Jews did not conform to the typology associated with being a RACE. The Jews, pre-1948, DID meet the criteria for an ETHNIC group. No-one is saying they are a race. They are an ethnicity. Big difference.

But it doesn't condone killing me for no reason. At least thats what I think:

If you are in a state that isn't Israel, particularly one that tells you to get the fuck out, and you don't in fact get the fuck out...well...

They are an ethnicity. Big difference.

Except they are not, as I have shown multiple times.

If you are in a state that isn't Israel, particularly one that tells you to get the fuck out, and you don't in fact get the fuck out...well...

Ah. The old get the fuck out argument...what country do you live in? America? And if Homeland Security turn up at your door tomorrow and tell you to get the fuck out for absolutely no reason (NOTE: This whole point is historical revisionism but I'm answering you anyway) and you don't then they have the right to kill you? And would you go?

Ah. The old get the fuck out argument...what country do you live in? America? And if Homeland Security turn up at your door tomorrow and tell you to get the fuck out for absolutely no reason (NOTE: This whole point is historical revisionism but I'm answering you anyway) and you don't then they have the right to kill you? And would you go?

America is not Nazi Germany. If ever America adopts an anti Aryan totalitarian government, then yes, they would have the right to execute me, presuming I am defined a non citizen.

Except they are not, as I have shown multiple times.

I can't believe I am arguing with you. Listen to me. I know more about this than you. A lot more. I have degrees in this stuff. You have a vague knowledge of some of the events concerned here. You are wrong. You clearly don't know what the terminology of 'ethnie' means, maybe because you can't understand the big words in your pop-up book of genocidal hatred. You are wrong. Just plain, simple, wrong. The Jews pre-1948 were an ethnic group, and continue to be so. You are wrong.

I am pretty sure that Mao and Stalin were actually good freinds.

Nope. Not. Stalin was first Mao's patron, then his only rival.

I can't believe I am arguing with you. Listen to me. I know more about this than you. A lot more. I have degrees in this stuff.

Appeal to authority.

America is not Nazi Germany. If ever America adopts an anti Aryan totalitarian government, then yes, they would have the right to execute me, presuming I am defined a non citizen.

Too easy and dismissive.

And I'm glad you appear to have stated that you support Hitler's classification of Jews as non-citizens; it means I can just give up now and kill myself because I shouldn't exist.

*shoots self, misses and hits The Fourth Holy Reich....apologises profusely because he wouldn't kill The Fourth Holy Reich despite the fact that The Fourth Holy Reich would kill him...*

Dear Mr Reich

What exactly is your point? You quibble over the meaning of well-recognised terms, referring to their definitions as "popular," thus, as has been noted above, making meaningful debate impossible. Is it essentially your plan to show that the third reich did not commit genocide against the jewish people, or that to do so is not morally wrong? In either case you are obviously badly mistaken. You argue that, as Hitler considered the jewish people as enemies of the state they were no longer citizens, and thus you imply that they had no rights and that the reich was not committing a crime by attempting to exterminate them. For God's sake, man - this argument hold less water than an open-toed plastic sock. You argue that the jewish people are not an ethnicity so atrocities committed against them are nto genocide. It is irrelevant. They are still atrocities.

So I ask again - what is your point?

Tharkent

Let's end this.

I stumbled on what appeared to be a funny thread talking about which dictator you would rather be living under, which then degenerated into this.

Firstly, I would like to attack your Fuhrer. He was a chump, he got supremely lucky in all manner of things, such as his bluffs in annexing countries around him, in his gaining power (keep in mind he wasnt democratically elected and indeed was appointed, his power was actually waning as he was appointed), and many other things. It is clear that while he was an inspiring and charismatic leader, his actions were not governed by rationality (take his invasion of Russia, an action which went against all logic and spelt his doom).

You seem to idolize this man. You seem to think he was right in killing the Jews. Hitler, the delusional fool that he was, probably hated the Jews because he was a crappy artist in his young life, and all the better Jew artists probably mocked him for it. He was upset at their success, and this theme carried him through life apparently. He was really quite pathetic in that respect.

Your argument for the genocide not being condemnable is laughable. Firstly, countless times you try to put the burden of proof on the sane, because your argument cant stand on its own two legs. I dont know if you're just joking around or if you're actually serious, trying to use logic and reasoning to prove your foolish ideas, not the other way around.

Your argument is a priori because it follows a definition that you yourself make up. Furthermore, that definition is quite problematic. Jewish is not a nationality, it is a religious grouping, and ethnic to some extent. Most importantly, it cant be considered a nationality because while there is Israel, many Jews have been in the countries they live in since before Israel was created. They had to country, they were just a transient group of religious people that settled everywhere, like people of many other religions. It should have no relevance. Your argument that Hitler was killing a foreign nationality within Germany is idiotic. They were only threats to his power because thats the only thing he rode to power on, using them as a scapegoat!

And singlehandedly the most frustrating thing you pointed out was that ancient Rome and Greece committed genocides or whatever you want to call them. Let's just say for your sake that they're analogous. Fair enough. The killings that the Romans and the Greeks did happened over 2000 years ago! I mean, dont get me wrong, they were an advanced people, but you're thinking of what they did in terms of today, and you're colouring their actions with your own view, coming from the 21st century. The value of life, and the way things were done back in Roman times were far different than ours now. Since the Enlightenment at least, we in modern society are disturbed by actions such as these, whereas in Roman times, maybe they thought it had to be done.

The point is, you cant just pluck certain examples from any other time era and compare them, its ludicrous and not logical. They didnt have the knowledge of the value of a human life that we have (they had slavery..), they didnt have humanism or any other such thing. The advancements made in the Enlightenment and the modern period made what Hitler did sick and calculating, and completely not on-par with what the Romans and the Greeks did in terms of societal norms.

Finally, I noticed you're a good little Chrisitian. I'm not criticizing your faith, but just a warning: any sane religious person, regardless of faith, would be ashamed. I noticed you quoted a Pope of old... take your ideas to the Vatican or any mainstream church now, and they will be shocked. I wouldnt be surprised if they excommunicated you right then and there! You are whats wrong with religion... people that embrace it and completely misuse and understand it.

If you actually think these ideas, and you think that Hitler wasnt such a bad guy really, you are a cancer, and are certainly governed by non-mainstream ideals. I weep for society, and I can only imagine your upbringing...

Whats teh difference? A little bit of both for extra deadliness.

Let's end this.

I stumbled on what appeared to be a funny thread talking about which dictator you would rather be living under, which then degenerated into this.

Firstly, I would like to attack your Fuhrer. He was a chump, he got supremely lucky in all manner of things, such as his bluffs in annexing countries around him, in his gaining power (keep in mind he wasnt democratically elected and indeed was appointed, his power was actually waning as he was appointed), and many other things. It is clear that while he was an inspiring and charismatic leader, his actions were not governed by rationality (take his invasion of Russia, an action which went against all logic and spelt his doom).

You seem to idolize this man. You seem to think he was right in killing the Jews. Hitler, the delusional fool that he was, probably hated the Jews because he was a crappy artist in his young life, and all the better Jew artists probably mocked him for it. He was upset at their success, and this theme carried him through life apparently. He was really quite pathetic in that respect.

Your argument for the genocide not being condemnable is laughable. Firstly, countless times you try to put the burden of proof on the sane, because your argument cant stand on its own two legs. I dont know if you're just joking around or if you're actually serious, trying to use logic and reasoning to prove your foolish ideas, not the other way around.

Your argument is a priori because it follows a definition that you yourself make up. Furthermore, that definition is quite problematic. Jewish is not a nationality, it is a religious grouping, and ethnic to some extent. Most importantly, it cant be considered a nationality because while there is Israel, many Jews have been in the countries they live in since before Israel was created. They had to country, they were just a transient group of religious people that settled everywhere, like people of many other religions. It should have no relevance. Your argument that Hitler was killing a foreign nationality within Germany is idiotic. They were only threats to his power because thats the only thing he rode to power on, using them as a scapegoat!

And singlehandedly the most frustrating thing you pointed out was that ancient Rome and Greece committed genocides or whatever you want to call them. Let's just say for your sake that they're analogous. Fair enough. The killings that the Romans and the Greeks did happened over 2000 years ago! I mean, dont get me wrong, they were an advanced people, but you're thinking of what they did in terms of today, and you're colouring their actions with your own view, coming from the 21st century. The value of life, and the way things were done back in Roman times were far different than ours now. Since the Enlightenment at least, we in modern society are disturbed by actions such as these, whereas in Roman times, maybe they thought it had to be done.

The point is, you cant just pluck certain examples from any other time era and compare them, its ludicrous and not logical. They didnt have the knowledge of the value of a human life that we have (they had slavery..), they didnt have humanism or any other such thing. The advancements made in the Enlightenment and the modern period made what Hitler did sick and calculating, and completely not on-par with what the Romans and the Greeks did in terms of societal norms.

Finally, I noticed you're a good little Chrisitian. I'm not criticizing your faith, but just a warning: any sane religious person, regardless of faith, would be ashamed. I noticed you quoted a Pope of old... take your ideas to the Vatican or any mainstream church now, and they will be shocked. I wouldnt be surprised if they excommunicated you right then and there! You are whats wrong with religion... people that embrace it and completely misuse and understand it.

If you actually think these ideas, and you think that Hitler wasnt such a bad guy really, you are a cancer, and are certainly governed by non-mainstream ideals. I weep for society, and I can only imagine your upbringing...

*claps*

Awesome first post...

Firstly, I would like to attack your Fuhrer. He was a chump, he got supremely lucky in all manner of things, such as his bluffs in annexing countries around him, in his gaining power (keep in mind he wasnt democratically elected and indeed was appointed, his power was actually waning as he was appointed), and many other things. It is clear that while he was an inspiring and charismatic leader,

Ad hominem abusive.

his actions were not governed by rationality

Have you read Mein Kampf?

You seem to idolize this man. You seem to think he was right in killing the Jews. Hitler, the delusional fool that he was, probably hated the Jews because he was a crappy artist in his young life, and all the better Jew artists probably mocked him for it. He was upset at their success, and this theme carried him through life apparently. He was really quite pathetic in that respect. Your argument for the genocide not being condemnable is laughable. Firstly, countless times you try to put the burden of proof on the sane, because your argument cant stand on its own two legs. I dont know if you're just joking around or if you're actually serious, trying to use logic and reasoning to prove your foolish ideas, not the other way around.

Ad hominem abusive...and circumstantial.

Your argument is a priori because it follows a definition that you yourself make up.

That I myself made up, what?

Furthermore, that definition is quite problematic. Jewish is not a nationality

Prove it.

it is a religious grouping, and ethnic to some extent.

I've already shown why both of those definitions are faulty.

They were only threats to his power because thats the only thing he rode to power on, using them as a scapegoat!

Ad Hominem Circumstantial.

Fair enough. The killings that the Romans and the Greeks did happened over 2000 years ago!

Appeal to Novelty.

Since the Enlightenment at least, we in modern society are disturbed by actions such as these

Appeal to popularity

They didnt have the knowledge of the value of a human life that we have

Pff. Your "knowledge" is no greater or less than theirs. Your philosophy differs from theirs. You can't prove your philosophy better than theirs.

The advancements made in the Enlightenment and the modern period made what Hitler did sick and calculating, and completely not on-par with what the Romans and the Greeks did in terms of societal norms.

Again, appeal to popularity, (and appeal to authority if you are using the Enlightenment philosophers as the basis of your argument)

I wouldnt be surprised if they excommunicated you right then and there!

Appeal to force.

You can carry on giving laconic answers to what I said, but it doesnt change the fact that you walk against the world and against history with what you say and "believe". I'm sorely disappointed..

Clearly it will take more than forum ranting to get you to see the folly of your thinking. I'm no socialist right-wing hater, in fact I'm libertarian in my beliefs, or at least when I write my beliefs out that is the label attributed to me.. however, I just think people like you, and people that believe in this sort of stuff and try to find the bad in everything, are terrible. You're what makes this world barely worth living in for some people.

You take people's views and you lie and manipulate and you paraphrase and you contort, until you finally find some semblance of logic that suits your purposes.. if you werent coloured by prejudice from the start, maybe you would follow logic first to end up at an opinion, rather than trying to use logic to justify your opinion.

I'm sorry that had to be my first post but my god man.. you should hang your head in shame. Not for just carrying those beliefs, but for giving people even more reason to hate the misguided right and religion. Personally I'm atheist and I feel people should be able to do whatever they want, but I don't want those that do carry religious views to be lumped in with you.. things.

Sigh.

Over the internet I cant seem to penetrate that wall of ignorance you've put up. Again, you're trying to manipulate logic to justify your sad beliefs, rather than use logic to come up with the beliefs that make the most sense.

I'm really quite sad there are people like you still around, on political forums no less. You offend not only us, but everyone who knows you by saying these things, whether they know it or not. You offend your entire religion, for having to deal with this radical(ly wrong) part of their Church.

While personally I'm a atheist libertarian, I feel sorry for the Christians that deal with this negative stereotype I see before me.

You can keep picking apart little phrases of what I say without context to wrongly prove your point, and I have a feeling if I carry on talking about this then you probably will. The lengths that people will go to to justify their beliefs, however poorly conceived they are, is astonishing.

I'm sorry you were brought up in an environment that gave you these sorts of principles and morals. It's really sad. Sorry that had to be my first post, but something needed to be said.

Sigh.

Your "knowledge" is no greater or less than theirs. Your philosophy differs from theirs. You can't prove your philosophy better than theirs.


We proved it by destroying those evil bastards and reducing the glorious German empire to ruin and occupation...remember, the ideology that wins is the one that matters, and Nazism has been condemned to the dustbin of history like all of the other failures throughout history.

Nazism lost. That's all the proof I need for my philosophy to be better.

We proved it by destroying those evil bastards and reducing the glorious German empire to ruin and occupation...remember, the ideology that wins is the one that matters

Except, no, it isn't.

Except, no, it isn't.

Haven't you heard? He who wins, writes the history books. Given this simple truth, Hitler sucks, because Hitler is the loser. Had Hitler won the war (Which BTW was a possibility, on DDay we gave it a 50/50 split) then Jews would be considered enemies, evil, whatever. But he lost, and therefore, was deemed evil, a loser, jackass, etc.

I find it funny how you continually pull peoples arguments apart the same way, every time. Appeal to this, appeal to that. I wonder why you support Hitler? Do you think Jews are evil? Or that they are enemies of the state? Maybe they are? Hmm, well, the american media is jewish run...

The problem with your logic is not so much that its wrong, but rather that it can be applied to any race, ethnicity, nationality, etc...

Post 9/11 America is not so unlike Nazi Germany. Only a few steps from it really. It is, of course, impossible to argue with some people, so I won't bother with that. I am merely going to ask that you be perfectly honest. Do you truly believe in your heart that Jews should be killed? Or that Hitlers actions against Jews were justified? You don't have to answer me. I just want you to really think about it. Not just gloss it over like you have been. Think about that 6 million or so that were killed, and the circumstances surrounding them. Do you truly think it was fair and just? If you answer this today, then you haven't thought enough on it.

Also, I think this very much serves up your attitude:
http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?4&TheWolfandtheLamb

I never usually feel compelled to enter an argument such as this but the pretensious idiocy has propelled to a level unseen. Here's a little tidbit of advice Mr. Fourth Reich: We could not care less about all the logical fallacies you learned in Logic 101. If all you do is pick at the logical fallacies inscribed in a person's argument rather than actually replying to the points made, then it is assured that your argument has no merit. I'm sorry if this diatribe contains too many fallacies that your little souless logical mind cannot handle. I hope for all humanity that you are just trying to get people angry. If so, I can understand where you are coming from. I used to do that too...when I was 15. Going against popular opinion about mass murder does not make you edgy or sophisticated, it just makes you a very sad person.

I feel a little part of my dignity dying as I write this response to such a laughable argument. So since Hitler considered Jews (no matter how you classify them) enemies of the state, he has the right to kill them? If I consider a fetus a sub-human, does that mean I have the right to kill it? You have already demonstrated that the latter is wrong, so why do you feel righteous in justifying the first? Because that is what you are doing is justifying the mass murder of a group of people (how about that terminology semantasista) based upon absurd and irrational classifications. I don't care how rational or logical you thought Hitler was, in the scope of our objective and popular morality which you probably claim to adhere to, he was a soulless and evil human being. Have you any idea what it is like to be looked down upon and judged because of a census classification? I know the previous sentence is a logical fallacy, but it is a valid point to make. The Jews have been persecuted throughout history and are still persecuted today through "innocent" jokes and popular belief. Can't you leave them alone? Or do you still hang on to the childish and naive notion that they control the world and are trying to keep the Catholic/Protestant down?

To conclude, I do not care how many logical fallacies I have made. Step outside of logic into the real world and that's where you will find most of us waiting. I would have thought that mass murder being wrong is at least one thing that we could all agree on. Sadly, even if this clown is just a troll, that is not the case.

PS For right now, most of the world thinks you are a loony. This is a valid point. World opinion has been cited in Supreme Court cases. If the world ever turns a blind eye to basic human decency like you have done, I will gladly be the crazy in the corner arguing until my death. I guess for that one reason, I must have a small aiota of respect for you.

Except, no, it isn't.

It is. History and judgement are always passed by the winners.

I never usually feel compelled to enter an argument such as this but the pretensious idiocy has propelled to a level unseen. Here's a little tidbit of advice Mr. Fourth Reich: We could not care less about all the logical fallacies you learned in Logic 101. If all you do is pick at the logical fallacies inscribed in a person's argument rather than actually replying to the points made, then it is assured that your argument has no merit.

If the refutation made against my argument is fallacious, it has no merit. I refuted the arguments sufficiently by showing that they are fallacious. The opinion that Der Fuhrer was a lunatic has no merit on the discussion. That Hitler may or may not have needed to kill the Jews to maintain his authority has no merit on the discusion.

So since Hitler considered Jews (no matter how you classify them) enemies of the state, he has the right to kill them?

If the German legal authority defined Jews as non citizens, and the Jews refused to leave when Hitler told them to leave, then yes, I think he had every right to get rid of them in the most effective manner.

If I consider a fetus a sub-human, does that mean I have the right to kill it? You have already demonstrated that the latter is wrong, so why do you feel righteous in justifying the first?

One is innocent; the other isn't. One doesn't wills to be there; the other doesn't. One is defenseless; the other isn't.

Because that is what you are doing is justifying the mass murder of a group of people (how about that terminology semantasista) based upon absurd and irrational classifications.

So you say. I disagree.

I don't care how rational or logical you thought Hitler was, in the scope of our objective and popular morality which you probably claim to adhere to, he was a soulless and evil human being.

And how is that not appeal to popularity?

Have you any idea what it is like to be looked down upon and judged because of a census classification?

Appeal to pity.

I know the previous sentence is a logical fallacy, but it is a valid point to make.

If the previous statement is a logical fallacy, it is clearly not a sound point to make.

The Jews have been persecuted throughout history and are still persecuted today through "innocent" jokes and popular belief.

The Jews usually have caused their own persecution. In the case of the Babylonians and Romans, they just wouldn't stop fuckin with em, for example.

Can't you leave them alone? Or do you still hang on to the childish and naive notion that they control the world and are trying to keep the Catholic/Protestant down?

Complex question. You presume that such a notion is childish or naive.

To conclude, I do not care how many logical fallacies I have made. Step outside of logic

And I've been called childish and irrational. :rolleyes:

PS For right now, most of the world thinks you are a loony. This is a valid point.

Except, of course, that appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

World opinion has been cited in Supreme Court cases.

Appealing to authority?

I never usually feel compelled to enter an argument such as this but the pretensious idiocy has propelled to a level unseen. Here's a little tidbit of advice Mr. Fourth Reich: We could not care less about all the logical fallacies you learned in Logic 101. If all you do is pick at the logical fallacies inscribed in a person's argument rather than actually replying to the points made, then it is assured that your argument has no merit. I'm sorry if this diatribe contains too many fallacies that your little souless logical mind cannot handle. I hope for all humanity that you are just trying to get people angry. If so, I can understand where you are coming from. I used to do that too...when I was 15. Going against popular opinion about mass murder does not make you edgy or sophisticated, it just makes you a very sad person.

I feel a little part of my dignity dying as I write this response to such a laughable argument. So since Hitler considered Jews (no matter how you classify them) enemies of the state, he has the right to kill them? If I consider a fetus a sub-human, does that mean I have the right to kill it? You have already demonstrated that the latter is wrong, so why do you feel righteous in justifying the first? Because that is what you are doing is justifying the mass murder of a group of people (how about that terminology semantasista) based upon absurd and irrational classifications. I don't care how rational or logical you thought Hitler was, in the scope of our objective and popular morality which you probably claim to adhere to, he was a soulless and evil human being. Have you any idea what it is like to be looked down upon and judged because of a census classification? I know the previous sentence is a logical fallacy, but it is a valid point to make. The Jews have been persecuted throughout history and are still persecuted today through "innocent" jokes and popular belief. Can't you leave them alone? Or do you still hang on to the childish and naive notion that they control the world and are trying to keep the Catholic/Protestant down?

To conclude, I do not care how many logical fallacies I have made. Step outside of logic into the real world and that's where you will find most of us waiting. I would have thought that mass murder being wrong is at least one thing that we could all agree on. Sadly, even if this clown is just a troll, that is not the case.

PS For right now, most of the world thinks you are a loony. This is a valid point. World opinion has been cited in Supreme Court cases. If the world ever turns a blind eye to basic human decency like you have done, I will gladly be the crazy in the corner arguing until my death. I guess for that one reason, I must have a small aiota of respect for you.

(to fourth reich) Checkmate.

It is. History and judgement are always passed by the winners.

How is that not appeal to force and appeal to popularity?

"All of the winners think this, and you saw what happened to those who thought otherwise." :rolleyes:

How is that not appeal to force and appeal to popularity?

"All of the winners think this, and you saw what happened to those who thought otherwise." :rolleyes:

Logical fallacies mean nothing. All that matters is that your ideas are put in to practice.

Logical fallacies mean nothing.

How the fuck am I the one being called irrational?

How the fuck am I the one being called irrational?

I don't think you're irrational. Rationality is a joke when it comes to politics.

I don't think you're irrational. Rationality is a joke when it comes to politics.

I don't even know how to answer that. :(

I don't even know how to answer that. :(

People only have the pleasure of being rational after the fact...

But y'know, that really is the sum of the opposition's argument. "It doesn't matter whether it was ACTUALLY right or wrong, we don't like it."

Stalin. At least he doesn't force me to buy some stupid red book. Which I would probably never read, unless I was really out of toilet reading material.

Have you read Mein Kampf?
I have. It was essentially "z0mg, t3h eb1l j00z r conspiracying aginst us!!!11one!!" for several hundred pages. Lovely proof of Hitler's insanity.
If the German legal authority defined Jews as non citizens, and the Jews refused to leave when Hitler told them to leave, then yes, I think he had every right to get rid of them in the most effective manner.
Except that the Nazis DELIBERATELY made it all but impossible for Jews to leave the country. The Jews were perfectly happy to leave, unsurprisingly...
I leave you with this picture.
http://images.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/10-03-03-nazi/deviloki_hitler.jpg

But y'know, that really is the sum of the opposition's argument. "It doesn't matter whether it was ACTUALLY right or wrong, we don't like it."

God, you're stupid.

Its not as if the Nazis were freindly, nice happy guys, who just lost their patience with those ignorant jews because they wouldnt go home when they were asked. The Nazis actually imported jews from all over the world, besides making it impossible for those already in Germany to leave, with the express intention of killing them. So would it be ok then for me to have a bunch of Americans exported to Ireland so I could have them killed? Hows about the Japanese? The Swedish?

Probably Stalin, Mao killed more people, and he killed them far more randomly.

Stalin has killed more people than any other dictator in human history hasn't he?

Stalin has killed more people than any other dictator in human history hasn't he?

that would be intentionally Mao tended to just have batshit insane plans (cultural revolution and such)

And I’m almost tempted to jump in on the little side show about Nazis, throw away my political leanings and debate for Hitler…but I’m too lazy for that maybe later:p

I have. It was essentially "z0mg, t3h eb1l j00z r conspiracying aginst us!!!11one!!" for several hundred pages. Lovely proof of Hitler's insanity.

Not really. I think that Mein Kampf is perfectly coherent. Frankly, I challenge you to get someone with say...I dunno...down syndrome to write something like that.

Except that the Nazis DELIBERATELY made it all but impossible for Jews to leave the country. The Jews were perfectly happy to leave, unsurprisingly...

Give proof that from the moment Mein Kampf was issued, Jews tried leaving and were not able. Frankly, I don't care if Mein Fuhrer stopped them a few years later after he got in. He'd been warning them for a long time before then.

18 people picked Maolin, is NSG insane?

Wow, I didn't realise my thread would get hijacked by a crazy nazi!

First of all, genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."

You decided it only applied to 'racial', even against the facts. You are wrong.

And how could "Jews are teh evil" be the logical conclusion of any sane argument?

Stalin was a moron. He had no idea what socialism was. Mao Tse-Tung was a true revolutionary. He led his people to victory. He was by no means perfect, but then again, his actions weren't a fair reflection of his thoughts. Many of the deaths attributed to Mao's time were propaganda (yes, millions died in the Great Leap forward, but if China was so repressive, how would western observers get an accurate death count?). I can't completely blame Mao for the deaths during the Great Leap Forward. Local administrators who promised food they couldn't provide are to blame. Furthermore, the deaths attributed to Stalin were murder. Stalin committed genocide against the Ukrainians, and killed you based on social standing. He was no socialist, he was a fascist in disguise.

Stalin, because he was paranoid, Mao was just generally indifferent.