CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Given that objective morality is just an illusory concept: Hitler did neither right or wrong- just a touch of realism: all Hitler did was commit, what English termed, 'genocide'. Did Hitler have a negative impact on an ethnic group, sure; did he have a positive impact on an ethnic group, of course- the entirety of The Fuher and his wrong-doings lies in the realm of subjectivism.
I admire him- that is, his influential power (and actual power) is/was very admirable. He may have used it for irrational reasons but he is still an inspiration in my (non-objective moral) view.
I admire him- that is, his influential power (and actual power) is/was very admirable. He may have used it for irrational reasons but he is still an inspiration in my (non-objective moral) view.
Instead of maturely coping and pasting with no clarification; and since I obviously I see no error in my argument, can you at least clarify what I said wrong...
Is this an emotional implication (i.e. how could you say that he is/was an inspiration, HE COMITTED GENOCIDE?!)?
You may be right that there was a bit of emotion in my response. Being a moral issue it is naturally an emotional topic. I sometimes forget that you are an evil genius who would prefer the destruction of humanity. Perhaps a quote indicating that position would have been more fitting. I’ll try to be clearer in my responses and exercise better form in the future.
Incidentally the error in your argument is in the moral premises. We have debated this before. Morality is complex issue and you lack the foundational knowledge required for this kind of debate. Fortunately for you, Jace holds the same position with knowledge, which you hold in ignorance. Furthermore, you have failed in the past to mount a decent argument where he has succeeded. The wise course would be to leave the moral debates to people who know what they are talking about. Regardless of your choice, I won’t waste my time rehashing a debate that inevitably devolves into how tiger kittens treat their pray or other such non-sense.
I sometimes forget that you are an evil genius who would prefer the destruction of humanity
Really... The use of a fallacies will not progress this issue. As for your strawman (me being evil; destruction): I have clearly stated that I wish for the eradication of humans- implying an immediate disappearance. To justify your reasons of emotive implications using this example as if I wish for humans to be eradicated by killings as that of Hitler's was extremely fallacious and unnecessary. I suppose I am evil for wanting a peaceful earth. Its also another fallacy to tacitly suggest my claim cannot truly be taken serious based on my conviction (human extinction) alone.
Morality is complex issue and you lack the foundational knowledge required for this kind of debate
I swear I burst out laughing in the library when I read this.
Fortunately for you, Jace holds the same position with knowledge, which you hold in ignorance. Furthermore, you have failed in the past to mount a decent argument where he has succeeded.
In your opinion; I don't know his position, but I do know yours is "there can be an objective moral and we may have not figured it out," and all I request is at least a hint towards an objective moral value.
Funny you keep stating Jace as if you are his advocate. How about you give a good argument for objective morals instead of irrelevantly attacking me with a user's argument that I have never even heard.
The wise course would be to leave the moral debates to people who know what they are talking about.
Surely I know what morality is and means- and the debate title is on the topic of Hitler- and I legitimately posted an argument of which you've only found being invalid based on a concept you still haven't even offered inclinations for being true.
Regardless of your choice [...]
My choice being that Hitler is an inspiration--his power and influence, not his actions--is entirely objective, valid, and irrefutable- unless you assert that he wasn't powerful, inspirational, and influential, then the only purpose I see for is disputation was to insult me- and it's funny that you insult me while using someone else's intelligence.
I won’t waste my time rehashing a debate that inevitably devolves into how tiger kittens treat their pray or other such non-sense.
So, you initiate a disputation with me on a moral basis all while not wanting to rehash debates about 'tigers and kittens' treat their prey.........
---
I will say that 'foundational knowledge' was actually funny (no matter how nonsensical it was).
I have clearly stated that I wish for the eradication of humans
You have stated this before. It is irrational given your humanity. I do think it's relevant to your position here, even if you don't wish violence on masses. Your official position was that he did neither right nor wrong, but you posted on this side. That, coupled with your admiration for the man is worth a little moral indignation, subjective or otherwise.
I have thoroughly explained my position on objective morality to both you and Jace. The difference is that he doesn't ignore selections of my position and then suggest I've never given a hint. As a result, he disagrees with me similarly to you, but he is better at it.
Hitler was an inspiration in that he inspired fools to slaughter and provided license for the sadistic. His power was in the fact that he was the focal point and director of malice. All of this is quite influential. If you overlook the quality of these, seeing only quantity, you may also overlook the fact that he destroyed his own nation and played a crucial role in the rise of Israel. In other words he was a total failure. Neither his means nor his ends leave anything to be admired.
Perhaps it's more rational for me to wish that humans continue to exist with that existence primarily being a factor in destroying themselves, wildlife, and nature? (Note: themselves)
I have thoroughly explained my position on objective morality to both you and Jace. The difference is that he doesn't ignore selections of my position and then suggest I've never given a hint. As a result, he disagrees with me similarly to you, but he is better at it.
This had nothing to do with my post... And--while you wont admit it--your post was mainly to insult me while using jace's intelligence as a tool. How can I assume this you may ask? Well, the irrelevancy of your comment was obvious, but it was puzzling when you further stated Jace was on my side but smarter...? That had nothing to do with my brief statement about morality; ha, then you say you wish not to rehash the debate, yet... you initiated it (maybe unintentional as your primary goal was not to debate about morality, rather, abase me by implying "you and him both have the same idea, but he's just smarter than you, therefore he can express his idea farrrr better than you can, so there!"
[...]then suggest I've never given a hint
You have NEVER given a hint, you just dance around the question and keep saying "I never said there is an objective moral, only, there could be one and we just don't know about it" I kept asking you over and over "can you at least exemplify one situation that could be objectively wrong" and I received, yet again, more salsa lessons.
Hitler was an inspiration in that he inspired fools to slaughter and provided license for the sadistic
Okay? I stated that it was an objective fact that he was/is an inspiration, influential, and admirable? So no matter how you view what he inspirationally did, nevertheless, he was inspirational...
His power was in the fact that he was the focal point and director of malice. All of this is quite influential. If you overlook the quality of these, seeing only quantity, you may also overlook the fact that he destroyed his own nation and played a crucial role in the rise of Israel.
Clearly I have suggested that his actions itself is not how he inspires me, it's the power that he held, and the influence of his character that inspires me. If I were to have it, I will strategically use it to help wildlife- including the environment.
In other words he was a total failure.
Actually, no, he wasn't. He may have failed in completion, but he gained followers and power and successfully executed his plan (as in him depopulating Jews still remains one of the biggest ethnic group depopulation ever, something the average person cannot do). He also started a movement- that just happened to be a bonus.
Neither his means nor his ends leave anything to be admired.
In your opinion... Not mine... which is why I stated my view was subjective. However, it is an objective fact that his continues to be an admiration to people. Just not you...
---
I honestly see no reason why you felt compelled to comment. I was clear on my subjective standpoint, and my objective standpoint...
The only refutable point was my objective moral statement; then you rehashed (unwittingly apparently) a debate on morality all while inserting Jace's intelligence being the reason he can give better arguments on something we both agree with (no objective morals)...??
Perhaps I am just to stupid to realize your intentions because in my view--albeit a incomprehensible one... right?--you have no relevant intentions... but of course my non-Harvard attending self-proclaimed view cannot be valid... I have yet to give a source... so you should feel disinclined to continue... continue what you did but did not want start...
You may not have noticed, but I am not rehashing any longer, I am talking about Hitler and your view of him.
Your premises for your irrational view (on humanity), have also been challenged by myself and others in other debates. My conclusion concerning your position is consistent with my conclusion concerning your premises.
Before I get back to Hitler, I want to be clear; I didn't imply the comparison between you and Jace, I stated it explicitly. Now back to Hitler.
In response to Hitlers failure you replied "Actually, no, he wasn't. He may have failed in completion". Is the guy who finishes half a race a good runner? If people end up liking the guy who failed, does that mean he accomplished any of his objectives? If the other runner that he pushes and trips ends up winning the race that he never even finished, does this count as a success?
The fact that he had power and influence isn't inspirational. Lots of people have had that. What he did with his power and influence is the only reason we remember him, and what he did was terrible. I must stress the point that your statement of admiration was placed on this side of the debate. This is more telling than your words of moral indifference which could have been placed on either side.
One last aside:
Oh but don't mind me... I'm no Harvard student... Only a keyboard typing stranger...
I won't...It wouldn't matter if you were...I'm glad we cleared this up...
Your premises for your irrational view (on humanity), have also been challenged by myself and others in other debates. My conclusion concerning your position is consistent with my conclusion concerning your premises.
Is the guy who finishes half a race a good runner? If people end up liking the guy who failed, does that mean he accomplished any of his objectives?
The interpretation of how he was successful is subjective. You view his success as being him dominating the world with the Arian race; my view of success is that he wanted power, got it; wanted followers, got them; and he still has followers plotting to carry out his task- and he could have potentially completed it himself if it were not for his betrayal.
The fact that he had power and influence isn't inspirational. Lots of people have had that.
You do know that someone projecting power and influence can have inspirational attributes? Hitler is my inspiration precisely because he was that powerful and influential...
lots of people have had that
sure, lots of inspirational ones..
What he did with his power and influence is the only reason we remember him, and what he did was terrible.
Bifurcation Fallacy; Appeal to Pity http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-pity/ and Subjectivist Fallacy: "giving far too much weight to the opinion of those who don’t accept the conclusion of the argument, failing to recognize that even an argument for a conclusion that many people don’t accept can be sound." -- "What he did with his power and influence is the only reason we remember him, and what he did was terrible." Those who still practice Hitlers convictions (albeit few, but its a fallacy to say most people believing genocide to Jews was terrible, means its terrible) don't believe so. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/subjectivist/
I must stress the point that your statement of admiration was placed on this side of the debate. This is more telling than your words of moral indifference which could have been placed on either side.
Me: Oh but don't mind me... I'm no Harvard student... Only a keyboard typing stranger...
You: I won't...It wouldn't matter if you were...I'm glad we cleared this up...
This was not even in my clarification... This was on another post- and I'll take this response as a tacit concession given that you never responded, rather, respond to the most irrelevant part on the wrong post...
Of course my interpretation of his success or failure is subjective. He may have inspired people to follow his lead, but do you really think they believe him to be a success? He failed, not only according to his enemies but according to his allies. The fact that he commanded so much power just makes his failure more embarrassing to his supporters. It's a subjective issue. But if his success or failure is really just a matter of opinion, then one is left with nothing but an appeal to popularity. In a matter of opinion, it's not even a fallacy.
Concerning these other statements you think are fallacious:
I disagree with your premises, therefore I disagree with your conclusion. This is not a fallacy.
Clarification of terms (I did not imply, I stated explicitly), is not a fallacy. (Ad hominem? Really?)
Pointing out your position in a debate as being relevant to the debate is not a fallacy.
But if his success or failure is really just a matter of opinion, then one is left with nothing but an appeal to popularity. In a matter of opinion, it's not even a fallacy.
Logical contradiction: you cannot logically give an argument with an appeal to popularity; say that it must be used; then say that it is not what it clearly describes itself as, a fallacy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/ - no where does it say--as it does for other fallacies--that this fallacy can be sometimes used.
I disagree with your premises, therefore I disagree with your conclusion.
the fallaciousness was implied when you claimed the because of my convictions, my standpoint in my argument would advocate for immoral actions (e.g. my want for the eradication of humans would make my argument for this issue biased on the pretense that I wish for humans to be gone, therefore Hitler warranting genocide on humans would be appealing to me thus invalidating an unbiased argument)
Clarification of terms (I did not imply, I stated explicitly), is not a fallacy. (Ad hominem? Really?)
The irrelevant and direct attack on my ability to give a better argument than jace was the Ad Hominem.
Pointing out your position in a debate as being relevant to the debate is not a fallacy.
You brought in a response irrelative to my argument and replaced what I actually said with it, as if I said it in my post... which I clearly did not. That is a red-herring and a Straw Man
Red Herring- you seemingly lead this dispute to a different one instead of responding on that initial dispute in which contained the "oh but don't mind me[...]"
Straw Man- By doing what you did (see above "red herring"), you've misrepresented what I truly said in regards to this dispute. You made seem as though what I said ("oh don't mind me") was in regards to this disputation when it was clearly from another post.
The above is an appeal to popular opinion but is not a logical fallacy. There is no logical construct here, only statements of opinion. (In case you missed it, this argument is also a difference of opinion). But I did make a mistake, there is obviously more to support my opinion than simply its popularity. My last post covered those points as well.
When I said your opinion concerning eradication was irrational, you called upon your premises to indicate it was in fact rational. I simply stated that I disagree with your premises as well, whereupon you called it fallacious. You are now claiming that you were calling something else fallacious when the record is directly above. You should be better at this.
As for the other position you are here calling fallacious; I said that I am not surprised by your position on Hitler and find your other position on humanity relevant, even if you don’t wish violence on the masses. You are clearly misrepresenting my position and then attacking the misrepresentation, which is weird since the record is right there.
The irrelevant and direct attack on my ability to give a better argument than jace was the Ad Hominem
It was irrelevant to this subject, but not to the subject for which my statement was made. I said you are not good at arguing a topic that Jace is good at arguing; therefore I won’t bother with you. This is not ad Hominem and you must know that. Ad Hominem would be more like “you aren’t good at arguing a topic because your screen name is Harvard or you like Hitler or you’re blonde” etc. You should be better at this.
You brought in a response irrelative to my argument and replaced what I actually said with it, as if I said it in my post... which I clearly did not.
You clearly made a statement that could go on either side of this debate, yet you chose this side. The side you choose in a debate is relevant to the debate. This is why people sometimes say “hey you should have posted this on the other side”. Yours could have been put on either side. Perhaps you can clarify the issue by stating why you chose the side you chose.
That business about the “oh don’t mind me” quote was never presented as relevant to this argument. I put it under “one last side note”. There’s no fallacy here. I swear, if I said "Hello" you would call it a fallacy.
Your weird way of convoluting things and improperly asserting fallacies enlightens me as to why others attacked your reading comprehension in the past. Though I don’t really think you have an issue. I think you are like this on purpose (if you misrepresent this post I may think you have an issue). This whole post, for example, has nothing to do with Hitler. Maybe that’s because my opinion is more reasonable than yours.
I may continue to defend myself against your inaccurate assertions, but only for a while longer.
I simply stated that I disagree with your premises as well, whereupon you called it fallacious. You are now claiming that you were calling something else fallacious when the record is directly above. You should be better at this.
You: I sometimes forget that you are an evil genius who would prefer the destruction of humanity
Ad hominem- me being an evil genius is an attribute in my position.
Straw Man- You implicitly equating Hitlers human destruction with my eradication therefore implying how you can appreciate why he is my inspiration.
I said that I am not surprised by your position on Hitler and find your other position on humanity relevant, even if you don’t wish violence on the masses. is a fabrication of: I sometimes forget that you are an evil genius who would prefer the destruction of humanity
Am I still misrepresenting?
It was irrelevant to this subject, but not to the subject for which my statement was made. I said you are not good at arguing a topic that Jace is good at arguing; therefore I won’t bother with you. This is not ad Hominem and you must know that. Ad Hominem
the subject for which your statement was made was also irrelevant as I clearly was not talking about arguments, nor was the crux of my post a moral one, it was just a hint of realism...
And jace seemed to be the entirety of your post.
Me simply giving my view in a debate about Hitler: Given that objective morality is just an illusory concept: Hitler did neither right or wrong- just a touch of realism: all Hitler did was commit, what English termed, 'genocide'. Did Hitler have a negative impact on an ethnic group, sure; did he have a positive impact on an ethnic group, of course- the entirety of The Fuher and his wrong-doings lies in the realm of subjectivism.
Your necessary response: Incidentally the error in your argument is in the moral premises. We have debated this before. Morality is complex issue and you lack the foundational knowledge required for this kind of debate. Fortunately for you, Jace holds the same position with knowledge, which you hold in ignorance. Furthermore, you have failed in the past to mount a decent argument where he has succeeded. The wise course would be to leave the moral debates to people who know what they are talking about. Regardless of your choice, I won’t waste my time rehashing a debate that inevitably devolves into how tiger kittens treat their pray or other such non-sense.
List of fallacies in order: Subjectivist fallacy; ad hominem; appeal to authority; another ad hominem; another appeal to authority; and a logical contradiction combined with a nonsensical straw man. (Note: a fallacy can be implicit.)
Ad Hominem would be more like “you aren’t good at arguing a topic because your screen name is Harvard or you like Hitler or you’re blonde” etc.
Or you could have said what you implicated: "because I believe you have no knowledge on morality; you are ignorant; therefore you are not good at arguing this topic-" which is also, coincidentally, another genetic fallacy and appeal to authority(i.e. since you think I give no good arguments, only jace, then I should not argue, only jace).
Perhaps you can clarify the issue by stating why you chose the side you chose.
What Hitler did caused him to gain an inspiratory body. As me being apart of this body, then I would suggest his actions causing inspiration and that inspiration, to me, being good, then I would be inclined to vote on this side.
That business about the “oh don’t mind me” quote was never presented as relevant to this argument. I put it under “one last side note”. There’s no fallacy here. I swear, if I said "Hello" you would call it a fallacy
You did not respond I the post that this statement was made on. You keep avoiding this issue the same way you avoided addressing the argument this was for. You keep inserting irrelevant statements to this argument. I called it a straw man because I had a similar statement for this post, which you've not only ignored, but inserted a replacement instead...
Though I don’t really think you have an issue. I think you are like this on purpose (if you misrepresent this post I may think you have an issue). This whole post, for example, has nothing to do with Hitler. Maybe that’s because my opinion is more reasonable than yours.
I feel as though you are hinting at something... I don't have what issue?
What opinion???? You have never really disputed how my statement is not valid. You only said the moral issue was an error (which, incidentally Jace would disagree) that you have still yet to explain... You have made it clear you don't want to debate morals... so how is you moral opinion better, but yet, you have not even listed one (maybe you implied it but still have given no substantiation.
No one has actually said anything about my reading and comprehension...I said something about theirs, then, as you creative people do, they repeat the remark back... like always (i.e. 'foundational knowledge'; which is still funny)
I feel as though you are hinting at something... I don't have what issue?
That was either funny because you meant it that way, funny because it’s genuine, or sad because it’s genuine. Did you really fail to connect the two sentences?
Anyway…
When you vomit fallacies, some of them stick and some of them don’t. Let me clear it up for you. The Ad Hominem was in the evil genius (though really, which geniuses want the destruction of humanity?), not when I compared you to Jace (I said he agrees with you), nor when I refused to discuss a topic on which you are ignorant. Refusing to debate is not the same as fallaciously attacking the debate. There isn’t one to attack. Neither red herrings nor ad hominems nor appeals to authority take place in a non-existent debate. The debate never gets to happen.
What I said was irrelevant as you said, but it was fun. None of it was an appeal to authority. I never said only Jace (who agrees with you) or I should argue that topic, just not you, and just not with me because I won’t. It may have been fallacious, but it was also mostly a mirror, which is apparent to most.
The comment I brought in from the other side was neither worth conceding nor defending, I’m not avoiding it. The only thing of note was that one little bit I drew out which was, again, irrelevant, but fun. Anyone who reads the post on the other side can see what it is; a perspective and a suggestion of a plausible reinterpretation, with no real argument to be made.
I did make a mistake early in this thread when I said that the error in your argument was in the moral premises. That seems to have forever derailed your ability to reply to my remarks that actually concern Hitler and reasonable opinion. You’re far too easily distracted with our petty back and forth. It is much more difficult to distract you back to anything relevant (Hitler arguments in this case).
If you are unable to return (I have tried to get you to a couple times now) from my admittedly irrelevant side notes and jabs, then I’ll have to wrap it up here.
I question how influential and powerful Hitler actually was. I think there is a tendency to explain away what happened under the Third Reich by ascribing events to the incredible talents and abilities of one individual, in order to avoid addressing the wider culpability the general population bore for the events that transpired. Antisemitism was quite widespread in the region at the time and Germany was politically unstable; in light of that, securing and retaining what power he did may not actually have been quite the feat it is often made out to be. That is not to say that what he did required no talent or effort (obviously it did), but rather that I find myself hard pressed to place him among historical figures worthy of admiration.
It was my presumption that his appointment as chancellor of the Third Reich--which, subsequently, that year, consolidated their power and governability under his rule (restricting basic rights; policy of "coordination", etc.)--was the cause of the Nazi's control epidemic. I understand that he wasn't the cause of Nazis per say, rather the reason for their growing to such power. For instance, say there was a civil rights movement, and it just persisted with no avail, no results; then MLK steps in and, all of a sudden, the movement gains triumph over their oppressors; I would appoint the benefactor as being MLK. Although the movement was spreading, its progression (beneficially) was nonexistent.
For clarification: Are you implying that Nazism would have accomplished as much as they did (taking over Germany; seizing Austria & Czechoslovakia; and launching WW2 with the invasion of Poland, etc.) without Hitler superseding the president and/or being appointed chancellor?
Obviously, we cannot know with certainty what would have happened had Hitler not assumed leadership of the Nazi party. I think it is a reasonable speculation, however, to presume that had he not done so it is unlikely that the Nazi party would have accomplished much of what it did. My point is not that Hitler was not an effectual leader, but that nothing strikes me as having been particularly remarkable about his ascension to power relative to other leaders.
For me, personally, originality and innovation are what mark an exceptional leader. Far from having invented antisemitism, however, Hitler was indoctrinated into the ideology and thus was controlled by the viewpoint more than I believe he was in control of the viewpoint. The political party he came to lead was not of his own devising, and came with a previously existing political support infrastructure without which I question whether he could have done much of what he did.
I am somewhat less certain how I stand with respect to MLK. Much as with antisemitism, his notions of peaceful protest existed previously in a global context. However, my impression is that those ideas were less evident within the domestic U.S. context than was antisemitism in the domestic German context. Unlike Hitler, MLK operated outside the political system to effect political change which strikes me as more original than Hitler's assumption of political power through politics. The additional implication is that while MLK stepped into a pre-existing movement, that movement lacked an equivalent organizational structure to that of the Nazi party Hitler stepped into.
Ultimately, though, MLK ranks roughly the same as Hitler for me in terms of exceptionality. Both MLK and Hitler played into the momentum of politics in their time, and while both influenced the direction of that momentum it is hard for me not to see them as having been a part of the narrative more than they were authoring it. Potentially, though, I set my standards too high for what constitutes a remarkable leader...
I agree, it was just my presumption that, because hitler came into the ongoing but weak political structure, hitler is the primal cause for the Jewish genocide--which is why his rulings left him to infamously inspirational.--And you've already addressed this. Though hitler continued and strengthened an ongoing movement, he did issue his own innovative policies--Invasion of Poland; invasion of Soviet Union--and his indoctrinated ideology resulted in his extreme aggressive influential political practices--which no one refuted--although, their was some treasonous actions stemming from disapproval.
That MLK comparison was perfectly explained--although MLK's dream came true.
What I don't understand is why, if hitlers pre-existing party was structured, did hitler's party not execute hitler's pre-existing ideas if said ideas were not intuitive insomuch as they were after his appointments? I don't know if this is much of an equivalent comparison, but it seems to me that hitler would be like MLK if, in his time, there were no rebellious citizens until he stepped in and inserted the idealized notion of blacks being more than what they are (Note: this is a hypothetical, I know MLK didn't actually start a movement). I say this because it did t seem like their political ideas were not as extreme as they were until hitler- and I'm sure they had the power to govern the same policies with or without him.
For me, personally, originality and innovation are what mark an exceptional leader.
I may be wrong, but doesn't hitler hold the title for being responsible in endangering an entire ethnic group?- if true, wouldn't you deem that as being a respectable leader? I know hitler got ahead of himself, but his successful invasions and acquisitions that were initially independent would suggest he infamy is well-deserved? I must stand on my belief that he himself issued well-planned actions that only he could've devised (sort of like Darwin, in a gross comparative sense). I understand he had an advantage based on the political structure, but that's the same as a pioneer taking advantage of the internet via social networking, with the pre-existing political party being the Internet, and hitler being Facebook?
---
Just out of curiosity, could you be equating him to Obama with him being responsible for ridding of those 2 terrorist? Basically, his accomplishment wasn't that praiseworthy because it, more than likely, still would have been done?
I agree, it was just my presumption that, because hitler came into the ongoing but weak political structure, hitler is the primal cause for the Jewish genocide [...] and I'm sure they had the power to govern the same policies with or without him.
Nationalist expansionism was hardly original to Hitler or even the Nazi party itself, and the same can certainly be said of antisemitism at the time. The reason the Nazi party did not implement them earlier was quite simply because it utterly lacked the political influence, authority, and power to do so (when Hitler first joined they did not even have a hundred members). What is notable is not that Hitler developed a new ideology (credit being owed more to Anton Drexler), but that he was able to capitalize on the political currency of that ideology so that it could be actualized.
I think the parallel to MLK holds strong in this respect, since the ideas that MLK capitalized upon also existed but lacked sufficient leadership to be actualized. Neither Hitler nor MLK can be credited with having originated the ideas they brought to power, but I think my earlier statements overly downplayed the significance of the latter in favor of the former (this is owing entirely to my personally possessing a greater interest in the ideological shifts that precede political shifts, but was in error nevertheless).
may be wrong, but doesn't hitler hold the title for being responsible in endangering an entire ethnic group? [...] and hitler being Facebook?
As indicated above, I think I rather underrated the remarkability of political aptitude. While neither genocide nor (initially) successful expansionism are unique to Hitler, neither is easy either. What Hitler did very few people would be capable of having done. Yet, again, I feel like this could be said of most political leaders which rather raises the question as to what makes some leaders actually stand out from among the rest?
With respect to the internet analogy, I see it more like this: the internet was the ideological basis, Facebook was the political party, and... I suppose that would make Hitler like a computer programmer who usurped Zuckerberg and made Facebook successful (if that were how that went down at all...).
Just out of curiosity, could you be equating him to Obama with him being responsible for ridding of those 2 terrorist? Basically, his accomplishment wasn't that praiseworthy because it, more than likely, still would have been done?
Decidedly not; the two acts are of entirely different magnitude and circumstance. They would be comparable if Obama took a small political party, rose it to prominence, and then proceeded to exterminate the domestic Muslim population.
Ideological originality is a significant variable for me. I perhaps give it disproportionate weight, but it functions to differentiate politically apt leaders from one another in my mind. I personally find the rules of political ascendance to be fairly consistent across time, whereas ideological shifts are more interesting and less predictable. To master ascendency is remarkable, but to do so while driving an original ideological vision is especially so.
i agree, morality is somewhat an illusory concept, but it abides empathy. i do not punch people in the face because if i were to be punched in the face it would hurt, and i would not want to be hurt, so therefore it is likely they will not want to be hurt either.
personally i do no think i would enjoy being killed for an ideology, particularly such an aggressive one, so i do not think i can condone hitler ordering and supporting the deaths of those who died.
If you are defending your child and the only weapons you have is your body, so you punched for best option, then you justly did so. You didn't punch for no reason, it was well founded, and effective.
This is a reply to someone who used 'punching someone in the face' as an immoral--something wrong--example.
Is this a matter of lexical (hince 'just') semantics or syntactical semantics?
Ahhh of course the global Jewish conspiracy and what-not. Jesus if you're going to be an idiot and claim that "aah the Jews are evil!" then make links to things such as to how almost all majour banking/shopping outlets are Jewish owned, or something about Israel or something. But not just the perry Jewish shoemakers living in Warsaw and Dachau- what the hell did they do wrong 9 asides from MGM). (Sigh) but congrats for standing up to your views on such a controversial subject, even if I believe you're wrong.
The use of right and wrong is subjective. The question asked is all based on our morals and what we believe, not necessarily getting down to the root question: Did killing the Jews serve positively towards Hitler's goals? The answer is yes. Hitler wanted to rid of the inferiors, and he considered Jewish people inferiors, and by ridding of them all, he accomplished his goal, perhaps not to the fullest extent, however they are accomplished.
In the big scheme of things, it may end up being a net plus for the jews. The holocaust, in all its stark horror, also had the effect of creating a strong stigma against antisemitism in the developed world, such that ever since the holocaust, it's been exceedingly difficult for antisemitic movements and organizations to gain any kind of traction (again, in the developed world; I'm not saying that it's been eradicated, mind you- but it's certainly been reduced significantly).
This can be observed in the tack of antisemitism; holocaust denial is a thing because of the stigma I noted.
He did something terrible, even unforgivable, to a large number of people- but depending on how things play out and who ends up writing each generations history books, this indirect 'benefit' of the holocaust may well make it a net positive, eventually. I'd like to envision that, as well as Hitler rolling in his grave from the irony of it all.
Gee 1001 that sounds like too much to pay for a bit of recognition. An estimated six million lives in exchange for improved acceptance of an ethnic/religious group -------- really?
Hatred of Jews would seem to me to be alive and well. Without checking, I would venture to guess that there are a great many more Arabs who hate Jews than there are Jews.
I would disagree on the likelihood that historians who claim a net gain from the holocost for Jews, will someday be taken seriously.
An estimated six million lives in exchange for improved acceptance of an ethnic/religious group -------- really?
Yes, really. Sure, word it like that and it sounds bad, but you're treating it as an isolated event and significantly downplaying the 'improved acceptance' angle.
While possibly not always at the same severity of other groups, the jews have been a constant target of bigotry and oppression by others for more or less all of recorded history- more than any other ethnic/religious group, all told. There have been hundreds of millions of jews subjected to such over the course of history, and the holocaust marked the first significant decline in such treatment.
What is a life worth to you?
Is one life worth alleviating the suffer of another life? Probably not.
What about one life reducing the suffering of 2? There are currently ~12 million jews; If this is sufficient, they've already 'broken even.'
What about one life reducing the suffering of 3? In addition to the ~12 million jews, there is estimated to have been at least another 8 million who have died since the holocaust; this edges it out.
4 lives? 5 lives? 10 lives? These are all thresholds that will eventually be reached if antisemitism doesn't make a comeback.
Even if it's 100 lives, if the reduction in antisemitism in the developed world persists, it will eventually be reached.
Hatred of Jews would seem to me to be alive and well. Without checking, I would venture to guess that there are a great many more Arabs who hate Jews than there are Jews.
I specifically referred to the developed world. The idea that bigotry against any group can be completely eradicated is ridiculous, especially in the third world.
I would disagree on the likelihood that historians who claim a net gain from the holocost for Jews, will someday be taken seriously.
I never claimed anything regarding historians, and I fully agree that it is unlikely that the public will ever accept the idea of the holocaust being a net gain, precisely because of the stigma. Slavery will never be accepted as a net gain either, despite it giving the US the economic boost early on that it needed to compete in the world, and despite the descendants of slaves enjoying a significantly better standard of living than they would have in modern day Africa or Ireland- and that's IF their ancestors managed to survive the various famines and conflicts since they would have been enslaved.
I should clarify: Calling something a net gain does not excuse it, unless one believes that the ends justify the means- I don't. But ignoring the unexpected 'benefits' of a bad thing is every bit as shortsighted as ignoring the unexpected 'drawbacks' of a good thing.
but you're treating it as an isolated event and significantly downplaying the 'improved acceptance' angle.
Well the topic is the holocaust right, so that's the isolated event we are commenting on. I thick we can agree that the treatment of the Jews during Hitler's holocaust produced a wave of sympathy within the developed world, that resulted in the creation of Israel.
BUT "In the big scheme of things" refers to the larger, long term view. In this view we see that the wave subsided. Leaving the Jews in an undeveloped part of the world, surrounded by murderous enemies and completely dependent, for their lives, on allies back in the developed world. The "net plus" evaporated. Decades of violence and open WAR followed and continue until today with NO sign of relenting. The "net plus" was more than offset by the net loss brought about by unrest that has not only consumed the middle east, but spread terror into the developed world as well.
Counting corpses to find a break even point where theoretical future lives are somehow saved, ignores the ancient conflict that has been reignited and promises to consume us all. No gain in the big scheme of things is either seen now or portended for the future. No brightening future awaits Israel.
So I can firmly assert with confidence and clear evidence that Hitler's holocaust of the Jews produced NO benefit for the Jews nor for Germany nor for the big scheme of things. But rather Hitler's holocaust of the Jews can be causally linked to a ever growing pile of corpses around the world both today and tomorrow.
Sure, I understand wanting to find some good in what happen in the holocaust, but frankly its just not there. :-/
Well the topic is the holocaust right, so that's the isolated event we are commenting on. I thick we can agree that the treatment of the Jews during Hitler's holocaust produced a wave of sympathy within the developed world, that resulted in the creation of Israel.
Treated as an isolated event it is obviously a negative- the creation of Israel is not the sole benefit here; reduction in localized violence and oppression within the developed world is also a major factor.
BUT "In the big scheme of things" refers to the larger, long term view. In this view we see that the wave subsided. Leaving the Jews in an undeveloped part of the world, surrounded by murderous enemies and completely dependent, for their lives, on allies back in the developed world. The "net plus" evaporated. Decades of violence and open WAR followed and continue until today with NO sign of relenting. The "net plus" was more than offset by the net loss brought about by unrest that has not only consumed the middle east, but spread terror into the developed world as well.
Again. Developed world. Are you ignoring my usage of it previously intentionally? The wave didn't subside. It just didn't effect Islam. Fair enough on the problems with Israel- but Israel accounts for less than half of the Jewish population, most of which live elsewhere. The violence in the middle east is nothing new. This did not start after the holocaust, but has been ongoing for all of recorded history, as I've noted. The consolidated position of Israel is actually better for them than being scattered amongst numerous areas controlled by Islam; even Israelis freely acknowledge this. The current violence against Israel is LESS HARMFUL to the jews in that region than their previous existence within various Islamic States. Even if this scenario could be said to not have been improved at all in the wake of the holocaust, it does not offset any gains because this would not represent a loss- merely a continuation of the status quo.
Counting corpses to find a break even point where theoretical future lives are somehow saved, ignores the ancient conflict that has been reignited and promises to consume us all. No gain in the big scheme of things is either seen now or portended for the future. No brightening future awaits Israel.
Ancient conflict reignited? You act as if it has ever ceased for more than a brief period. Promises to consume us all? Hyperbole much? The gains have already happened, and are continuing to happen. The mere existence of Israel is a huge step forward for jews in that region. I'm not sure how you cannot see that.
So I can firmly assert with confidence and clear evidence that Hitler's holocaust of the Jews produced NO benefit for the Jews nor for Germany nor for the big scheme of things. But rather Hitler's holocaust of the Jews can be causally linked to a ever growing pile of corpses around the world both today and tomorrow.
And I can firmly dissent from your assertion, because the benefits to the jews are clear- the only thing under dispute is whether said benefits are/were worth the cost. That ever growing pile of corpses is more strongly linked to Islam than anything Hitler ever did- and trust me, Hitler may have killed the most jews at once, but historically Muslims have killed more jews than any other group.
Sure, I understand wanting to find some good in what happen in the holocaust, but frankly its just not there. :-/
It's not specifically about looking for good in the holocaust, more being pleased at the idea of Hitler rolling in his grave due to his efforts completely backfiring. My interests are definitely not altruistic here.
I get your point here. An act must be taken in the context of its own time and intention to be judged properly.
It's similar to explaining to a Christian the benefit brought by the Pharisees and Romans crucifying Jesus. If not for this event they mourn, they would not be saved. It's a bit emotionally conflicting.
If you asked an Israeli today if they would forego the Holocaust, if it meant an absence of Israel, what do you suppose they would say?
If you asked an Israeli today if they would forego the Holocaust, if it meant an absence of Israel, what do you suppose they would say?
If I asked them that question, I imagine that they all would say yes, but many of them would only be giving it lip service and would prefer to keep Israel. That's just speculation though...
While I agree what Hitler did was wrong, unforgivable, etc. you do raise an interesting point. I pondered the point you brought up about how there may be a possibility that somehow the Jewish people may have received a net benefit by what they received post Hitler vs. the loss they received at the hands of Hitler.
I tried to compare Hitler to other similar world leaders who tried to exterminate a category of people. There were no examples on the scale of Hitler and of course no instances where there was any real or significant benefit to the harmed party.
Since I couldn't find a reasonable example, I have to go on what I know. Six million lives (est.) terminated with prejudice vs. a piece of land that it constantly being contested and extreme polarization around the world over their support. Some people fully support the Jewish people and some are their sworn enemy.
Based on the above, I believe that Jewish people were done a great injustuice and have not been compensated appropriately for their loss.
But hey, look at what we Americans have done to the Native American population...did we do the same thing Hitler did?
For a more recent example of a marginally similar event, if much smaller scale, have you considered the ethnic cleansing of the Albanian population by Serbians in Kosovo? Large scale ethnic cleansing movements were made against them by a subset of the Serbian population in the late 90s and again in the early 2000's, if you recall- but the 2004 event sparked a significant crackdown and backlash that has since left Kosovo Albanians more prosperous than ever- though admittedly this has been far too short a timeframe to draw long term conclusions from.
I do not see how any person can agree that what Hitler did was right.
His reason for culling the Jews was because he felt as if they were taking over Germany and were doing better than most Germans, it did not help that in this time the German economy was failing. Hitler decided that this was due to the Jews coming over to Germany and being much more successful than the actual citizens of the country. Hitler wanted Germany it to be full German again and agreed that the best way to do that was to exterminate the Jews - even though Hitler was not German himself, he was, in fact, Austrian. He also believed that Germans were superior to any other people of different nationalities.
In my opinions, Hitler was a controlling, selfish man who was trying to make Germany 'perfect' just to say he was successful by doing something with his life. How any human can go through with the heartless orders that Hitler sentenced is beyond me. It is one thing actually thinking about murdering an entire race, actually going through with it is just proof that Hitler was a weak and unhappy man. Eventually committing suicide is just evidence that he is a coward and could not take any of the pain or suffering that he put others through.
hitler killed himself because he lost and his bunker was being stormed, not because he couldnt live with himself. put yourself in his shoes: what if you were captured, interrogated and tortured? you would be punished harshly (for significant differences of understanding in aspects of human life from the majority no less). take your false-psychology back to criminal minds.
If he wished to avoid interrogation and torture, isn't that another way of saying he couldn't take the suffering he put others through? Not that he felt bad, but was afraid of the physical punishment, regardless of the punishments he inflicted.
Anyway, did you realize that by clicking the dispute button rather than the clarify button, you are making a statement on the side of Hitler being right? Just letting you know.
isn't that another way of saying he couldn't take the suffering he put others through?
Ha, more red-herrings: he was implying, obviously, that the other user was wrong in his psychological standpoint. That other guy stated Hitler killed himself as if he were saying "what have I done? I'm a terrible person-" which is false- which am sure you knew (well, I hope you did as it was blatantly obvious).
Oh but don't mind me... I'm no Harvard student... Only a keyboard typing stranger...
I do not see how any person can agree that what Hitler did was right.
Your incapacity to do so does not negate the fact that there were and still are people who agree with Hitler's ideology and actions. This is the primary problem with morality: it is entirely subjective.
His reason for culling the Jews was because he felt as if they were taking over Germany and were doing better than most Germans [...] He also believed that Germans were superior to any other people of different nationalities.
Ideologically this is not far removed from fairly prevalent attitudes regarding immigrant populations in the United States and most other nations. The United States even employed incarceration camps for persons of Japanese ethnicity. Quite recently conservative pundits have advocated putting all the queers into concentration camps. The distinguishing feature with the Third Reich is not that Hitler ultimately used his ideology to justify his genocide against Jews and other "undesirables", but rather that Hitler was successful in securing the power necessary to do so. His ideology is hardly original or unique, nor necessarily uncommon (merely relatively infrequent in implementation).
In my opinions[...] just evidence that he is a coward and could not take any of the pain or suffering that he put others through.
Your opinion is rather unfounded. Although his ideology diverges from the politicians you likely support, there is little to suggest he was any more controlling or selfish in his political pursuits as they are. He pursued his ideology, and repugnant though you may find that, this alone is not enough to conclude that he did it for purely or even predominantly selfish reasons (nor even that that itself is morally bad). Oh, and do you find Seppuku just as cowardly, weak, and indicative of unhappiness as you do Hitler's suicide?
With respect to those who carried out the orders, there is no simple or uniform answer. It is well established that political dissidence was just as punishable as being Jewish was, so some simply may have thought they had little choice. Others obviously were anti-Semitic themselves and endorsed the ideology and actions; there are numerous accounts of pogroms during the war by local communities which preceded the arrival of Nazi troops. Hitler was not an isolated individual operating on a radical ideology; his views had support or he could not have secured the power and influence he did. Bearing that in mind, from whence do you actually derive your moral superiority over that group of people?
Yes? Not sure why this got downvoted? His actions did not increase utility, I personally disagree with him on moral absolutionism grounds as well. Did you downvote me?
I did not downvote your comment; that was someone else. There was nothing particularly downvote worthy about your post, and I was genuinely interested in your elaboration or I would not have asked.
Is it accurate to say that you think moral absolutes exist, and that they are derived from utility analysis? If so, what makes your perception of what is of utility more or less valid than that of anyone else (including Hitler)? I do not understand how you arrive at the existence of moral absolutes, let alone how you begin to determine what they actually are better than any other person.
Also, as I thought the question was trolling I simply stated my opinion and moved on as it had a high chance of getting deleted. I posted my arguments on the other argument.
Pretty sure the debate creator intended to offend. We took it at face value and answered dispassionately. No need to be offended by any given question.
