Was Hitler a evil person?
Was Hitler a evil person?
0
nzephier wrote...
maybe hitler did some good things for HIS people, but in the long run he killed thousands, and it was in the name of his greatness, and the greatness of germany. however i dont see germany's greatness. sure it was good intentioned, but for only the german people. its like this:if i took over fakku, becasue i wanted someone to have it better, and in the process i deleted countless peoples accounts, am i not too bad? i think when you compare what hitler did with what im talking about, there is no comparison. i think he was trying to be a great savior to his people, but ended up going too far.hitler has changed many peoples views on things. his moustache, a symbol of evil, the swastika, a symbol of racism, putting your hand out strait and flat, means swearing allegiance to hitler. you cant say what he did to otehr people was just an accident or an act of misguided judgment on others. if i erased asians from the world, jsut because i thought they were going to start another war, im pretty sure everyone would think i was either crazy, stear clear of me, or in some cases, even hit me or beat me.
In how many wars did people not die?
0
I'm not sure if he was "evil" but there is considerable evidence as to his seriously disturbed/demented writings, speeches, and actions. There can be little doubt as to his actions - which most right thinking people would find very disturbing.
His actions are mostly his decision but there's enough falt to go around. Many of the countries had tacit knowledge of his actions and chose to do nothing until it was almost too late.
His dementia and more concrete proof of his actions (carried out by others who may not have given the order certainly followed orders that would call into serious question their culpability) led to his demise.
Genocide continues, just with different leaders names and in different locations. And many world powers turn a blind eye to this, too.
His actions are mostly his decision but there's enough falt to go around. Many of the countries had tacit knowledge of his actions and chose to do nothing until it was almost too late.
His dementia and more concrete proof of his actions (carried out by others who may not have given the order certainly followed orders that would call into serious question their culpability) led to his demise.
Genocide continues, just with different leaders names and in different locations. And many world powers turn a blind eye to this, too.
0
To start off. I want access to any and all info you have on these topics. You have my interest.
What was the name of this "beast race"(For a moment there I got Cain & Abel mixed up with Romulus and Remus somehow linking Romans as the "beast race")?
Why the hate of Latin? If you were from Gaul I could understand considering the Romans raped the fuck out of you.
Also wasn't Cain black due to the curse or "mark" that God places on him (along with the destruction of his only skill which was cultivating crops)?
Don't you mean Abraham? Since the Hebrew Bible (the Book of Genesis) and the Quran. Give this account. Also Sarah was the niece of Abraham (which explains a lot).
Native Americans traveled to the Americas from Asian over the land bridge (Beringia) around the end of the last ice age. We belong to the "Mongoloid" or "Mongol-like" people. Which explains the similar traits shared between Asian people and Native Americans. Though all the -oid racial terms (e.g. Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, etc.) are deemed offensive now since it's a generic insult for idiot and it's also a synonym for people with Down Syndrome.
Elouj wrote...
His wife Lilith begat Cain, who's descendants were a beast race* which is mostly gone.What was the name of this "beast race"(For a moment there I got Cain & Abel mixed up with Romulus and Remus somehow linking Romans as the "beast race")?
Elouj wrote...
And because people hate latin (I do too, I consider it the devil's language.) People call them black now, or Africans which is where the land of Canaan is. The African's race has also come to be associated with Cain, probably due to the fact that Cain had black skin too.Why the hate of Latin? If you were from Gaul I could understand considering the Romans raped the fuck out of you.
Also wasn't Cain black due to the curse or "mark" that God places on him (along with the destruction of his only skill which was cultivating crops)?
Elouj wrote...
It was the older race because supposedly it was the race of Adam. His wife Sarah, begat the Asians.Don't you mean Abraham? Since the Hebrew Bible (the Book of Genesis) and the Quran. Give this account. Also Sarah was the niece of Abraham (which explains a lot).
Elouj wrote...
The Native American race came last and somewhere around 600 BC, but I'm not going to the trouble of looking it up. Native Americans traveled to the Americas from Asian over the land bridge (Beringia) around the end of the last ice age. We belong to the "Mongoloid" or "Mongol-like" people. Which explains the similar traits shared between Asian people and Native Americans. Though all the -oid racial terms (e.g. Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, etc.) are deemed offensive now since it's a generic insult for idiot and it's also a synonym for people with Down Syndrome.
0
サカ゠wrote...
not all bad guys are bad. aside from his racism and craziness,he's a great leader to his country. i'm impressed by his hard work to lead the germans. there's no leader as great as Hitler (at least now).Elouj wrote...
His wife Lilith begat Cain, who's descendants were a beast race* which is mostly gone.from my limited knowledge,Lilith is a woman who mated with a demon who born the demons into this world
beast race only exist in myth,pal. if they were present here,i would marry Horo -_-a
There are several different versions of stories from the early days of man, and a lot of what we us leaves a good bit up to interpretation.
Religious books are made mostly of these interpretations. And that's why things like the differences between Christian Old Testament and Jewish Torah arise.
As I recall, Lilith was the first wife of Adam. And I've heard several different versions of what happened with them, including that Adam basically just didn't like her.
Elouj was referring to a different mythology, though, I think.
0
To: Fiery_penguin_of_doom
I don't know the name of the beast race, I have yet to find a place where it gives them a specific name, but I've often seem them called 'beasts of the field' or 'beasts with hands'.
I am aware that Abraham had a wife named Sarah, but there are also records of Adam having a third wife named Sarah, or maybe it was Sara, anyway, as far as I know thats pretty close to the same name.
I don't like Latin, because I think it sounds crappy, thus I don't like nearly all romantic languages.
I'll see if I can find some of the sources and pm you, but bear in mind you'll be getting works from tons of religious and non religious sources, ranging from apocraphal Judeaism, to some that are more modern. Perhaps some east indian too.
There are more than 4 recorded migrations to the americas, and I think the similarities between the Asians and the Native Americans is because of interracial marriage, not that they started the race.
I don't know the name of the beast race, I have yet to find a place where it gives them a specific name, but I've often seem them called 'beasts of the field' or 'beasts with hands'.
I am aware that Abraham had a wife named Sarah, but there are also records of Adam having a third wife named Sarah, or maybe it was Sara, anyway, as far as I know thats pretty close to the same name.
I don't like Latin, because I think it sounds crappy, thus I don't like nearly all romantic languages.
I'll see if I can find some of the sources and pm you, but bear in mind you'll be getting works from tons of religious and non religious sources, ranging from apocraphal Judeaism, to some that are more modern. Perhaps some east indian too.
There are more than 4 recorded migrations to the americas, and I think the similarities between the Asians and the Native Americans is because of interracial marriage, not that they started the race.
0
No, he's not evil. Some of his deeds might be evil(While i might say "some", i think the only evil deed that have a connection to him is Holocaust), but from what i know about him, his evil deed is not caused by an evil personality.
What is the cause of his evil deed, namely Holocaust?
It's that megalomaniacal and delusional personality of his, his opinion(delusion is more like it) that Germans is the most superior of all, and his fondness of "survival of the fittest" and "racial purity" concepts.
He thinks that the Jews, the retarded, and the destitutes is to blame for all the "impurities" of the Germans, and that they are in the way of the Germans' racial purity/superiority.
And thus happened the Holocaust. But is he really the only one to blame for that? I think no, Hitler is just the conceptor, the true executioner is Heinrich Himmler, who was one of Hitler's top aides.
And given Hitler's "I don't wanna know the details" nature he sometimes exibited, i think Hitler gave Himmler an OK without even knowing full well the outcome.
Hell, the man never even set his feet in a concentration camps.
So no, he is not evil. He's just a stubborn, megalomaniacal, sometimes delusional and (according to some sources)incestuous uronaglia-loving homosexual.
It's not like he goes "Kekekekekekeke, I think ima slaughter some kike before breakfast!!!!!". Now that's what you call evil.....or maybe even psycho.
On the contrary, i think he is a nationalist in its purest sense; A man who love his country more that anything, and is willing to do just about anything for what he thinks is best for his country and it's people.
He just went slightly over the top and out of control, that's all.
What is the cause of his evil deed, namely Holocaust?
It's that megalomaniacal and delusional personality of his, his opinion(delusion is more like it) that Germans is the most superior of all, and his fondness of "survival of the fittest" and "racial purity" concepts.
He thinks that the Jews, the retarded, and the destitutes is to blame for all the "impurities" of the Germans, and that they are in the way of the Germans' racial purity/superiority.
And thus happened the Holocaust. But is he really the only one to blame for that? I think no, Hitler is just the conceptor, the true executioner is Heinrich Himmler, who was one of Hitler's top aides.
And given Hitler's "I don't wanna know the details" nature he sometimes exibited, i think Hitler gave Himmler an OK without even knowing full well the outcome.
Hell, the man never even set his feet in a concentration camps.
So no, he is not evil. He's just a stubborn, megalomaniacal, sometimes delusional and (according to some sources)incestuous uronaglia-loving homosexual.
It's not like he goes "Kekekekekekeke, I think ima slaughter some kike before breakfast!!!!!". Now that's what you call evil.....or maybe even psycho.
On the contrary, i think he is a nationalist in its purest sense; A man who love his country more that anything, and is willing to do just about anything for what he thinks is best for his country and it's people.
He just went slightly over the top and out of control, that's all.
0
Do actions dictate whether a man is evil, or is intent all that matters?
If I kill a person in cold blood, am I not evil? What if I killed a person in cold blood because he was the leader of a nation and was planning to go to war? What if the war was for the nation's independence? What if the war was for monetary gain?
Morality is one hell of a complicated issue.
If I kill a person in cold blood, am I not evil? What if I killed a person in cold blood because he was the leader of a nation and was planning to go to war? What if the war was for the nation's independence? What if the war was for monetary gain?
Morality is one hell of a complicated issue.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Surprisingly (even to myself), I put "I admit to nothing" after giving it some thought. I don't know much about Hitler, but I assume that he and people like him are misunderstood and at the same time misunderstand the environment around them. His ideals are a byproduct of the horseshit fed to him and lack of appropriate moral guidance. He wasn't the first person to think that way, but he played a major role later in life reinforcing such ideals and warped values.
0
I'd say no he wasnt evil, mentally ill/disturbed...very likely.
I studied hitlers life for a year at school and personally i think it was fairly situational, and although people may disagree with this, i came to view hitler as a genius in a sense. His ability to manipulate people was truly impressive, his exploitation of the german peoples desperation/need to blame someone else for their problems was very well executed. Yes he did numerous horrible things, yet he also did numerous beneficial things for his people. His extremist views were brought about by the way his life turned out in combination with a disturbed mind and although his hate for the jews was well known etc, it is entirely possible that he didnt have knowledge of many things which occured during his regime. He was known for not getting up and attending meetings till well after noon, and even then he apparently spent most of his time ignoring the majority of what was said.
My main point is that i dont truly believe that people in themselves can be good or evil, i think peoples acts are capable of it, but "evil acts" are usually the result of a disturbed mindset and so the person should be regarded as ill rather than evil.
I studied hitlers life for a year at school and personally i think it was fairly situational, and although people may disagree with this, i came to view hitler as a genius in a sense. His ability to manipulate people was truly impressive, his exploitation of the german peoples desperation/need to blame someone else for their problems was very well executed. Yes he did numerous horrible things, yet he also did numerous beneficial things for his people. His extremist views were brought about by the way his life turned out in combination with a disturbed mind and although his hate for the jews was well known etc, it is entirely possible that he didnt have knowledge of many things which occured during his regime. He was known for not getting up and attending meetings till well after noon, and even then he apparently spent most of his time ignoring the majority of what was said.
My main point is that i dont truly believe that people in themselves can be good or evil, i think peoples acts are capable of it, but "evil acts" are usually the result of a disturbed mindset and so the person should be regarded as ill rather than evil.
0
ChaoticHeart wrote...
My main point is that i dont truly believe that people in themselves can be good or evil, i think peoples acts are capable of it, but "evil acts" are usually the result of a disturbed mindset and so the person should be regarded as ill rather than evil.So, we should pity serial killers instead of putting them in jail?
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
ChaoticHeart wrote...
My main point is that i dont truly believe that people in themselves can be good or evil, i think peoples acts are capable of it, but "evil acts" are usually the result of a disturbed mindset and so the person should be regarded as ill rather than evil.So, we should pity serial killers instead of putting them in jail?
no we should pity them and put them in jail, for they are still a threat to society, they shouldnt however be labled evil or hated for their illness
0
ChaoticHeart wrote...
no we should pity them and put them in jail, for they are still a threat to society, they shouldnt however be labled evil or hated for their illness
I think that we should kill them, and pity them. I however do not view death as anywhere near as much of a punishment as other people. I believe that after they were pushed out of their physical bodies, their illness would be removed from over their minds, and then they could evaluate what they did, and if they choose to do so, they could atone for it completely. Thereby giving them a clear concience, and a blemishless history for the next life, or the ressurection.
0
ChaoticHeart wrote...
ShaggyJebus wrote...
ChaoticHeart wrote...
My main point is that i dont truly believe that people in themselves can be good or evil, i think peoples acts are capable of it, but "evil acts" are usually the result of a disturbed mindset and so the person should be regarded as ill rather than evil.So, we should pity serial killers instead of putting them in jail?
no we should pity them and put them in jail, for they are still a threat to society, they shouldnt however be labled evil or hated for their illness
Good answer.
If more people believed that, and acted accordingly, the world would be a better place. Well, maybe it'd only matter if more judges believed that.
0
Elouj wrote...
I'll see if I can find some of the sources and pm you, but bear in mind you'll be getting works from tons of religious and non religious sources, ranging from apocraphal Judeaism, to some that are more modern. Perhaps some east indian too.I'm used to it. I was a Church every Sunday, bible reading, cross/crucifix carrying, on my knees praying Christian before.
Elouj wrote...
I think that we should kill them, and pity them. What makes you any different from them? They took a life and in return you took a life. While the circumstances were different isn't still the same thing? You know the old saying "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
I used to support capital punishment until I reconsidered the American Declaration of Independence. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are considered unalienable rights. So it would be hypocritical to say you have rights while taking away the rights of someone else.
0
People clearly have different opinions on what defines evil.
Most people think killing a dude is evil, hence killing lots of dudes is very evil. By this rational Hitler was one evil mother fucker.
If you don't think killing people, or rather killing millions of people is evil then Hitler wasn't evil.
If you do think killing millions of largely defenceless people, even for a set of justifiable goals, is evil then Hitler is evil. Obviously I have a slight bias against mass murder.
I think if millions of people are going to die then millions more had best be saved. While Hitler may have thought this if he hadn't invaded Poland then millions wouldn't have had to die.
Most people think killing a dude is evil, hence killing lots of dudes is very evil. By this rational Hitler was one evil mother fucker.
If you don't think killing people, or rather killing millions of people is evil then Hitler wasn't evil.
If you do think killing millions of largely defenceless people, even for a set of justifiable goals, is evil then Hitler is evil. Obviously I have a slight bias against mass murder.
I think if millions of people are going to die then millions more had best be saved. While Hitler may have thought this if he hadn't invaded Poland then millions wouldn't have had to die.
0
Elouj wrote...
There are more than 4 recorded migrations to the americas, and I think the similarities between the Asians and the Native Americans is because of interracial marriage, not that they started the race.Could you clarify how interracial marriages explain why two different peoples from two different continents can look so similar before we had any form of oceanic travel?
Traversing the land bridge in the Bering straight 10,000+ years ago seems like a good start. Then the early humans who settled here divided into tribes,etc. Developed their distinctive cultures and societies. Having a common ancestor (mongoloid) sounds like a more logical explanation than interracial marriage of people who lost contact for several thousand years.
0
-_-
First chance I've had to check this topic since it started, and I find out I've been -rep'd. Was it my jewgolds joke? Somebody man up, why'd you -rep the guy already at 0?
Yeah, off topic, but having no rep to start with and no explanation sucks nuts.
First chance I've had to check this topic since it started, and I find out I've been -rep'd. Was it my jewgolds joke? Somebody man up, why'd you -rep the guy already at 0?
Yeah, off topic, but having no rep to start with and no explanation sucks nuts.
0
It's in the middle of neutral but a little more to the evil side
He did things for his country,But killed millions in the process.
He did things for his country,But killed millions in the process.
0
Yes because I don't fit into his ridiculous profile of being blond, blue eyes and tall. If german was to win in europe and manage to invade usa like 20 years later and taking names.
I'd be in trouble right there. It's simply in my best interests to kill him.
That or before usa is about to lose in german in war if it happened, I'd support nuking the beejezsus out of german. That's assuming the war drags on for other 20 years because by 44 or 45 usa only had like 2-3 atom bombs.
Dun wanna him interferencing with my fun so ... <_<
I'd be in trouble right there. It's simply in my best interests to kill him.
That or before usa is about to lose in german in war if it happened, I'd support nuking the beejezsus out of german. That's assuming the war drags on for other 20 years because by 44 or 45 usa only had like 2-3 atom bombs.
Dun wanna him interferencing with my fun so ... <_<
0
I've always been interested in the possibilities that arise from Hitler winning the war. I doubt it would have been anything I'd happily be a part of but since if everything went his way the whole world would've been Nazi by the early 80s so I wouldn't know different.
Wherever this topic went, the response to the original premise is pretty obvious. Even taking a "there is no good/evil" point of view Hitler's actions were mindlessly aggressive and sadistic and even playing an extreme devil's advocate of "improving humanity" the question would come to what constitutes an ultimate race given that natural selection created different races on the basis of optimising people for their environments. Ultimately, success by the Nazis wouldn't have resulted in a net gain for humanity solely based on their achievement of goals but it might've had some sort of unintended side-effect that was a gain.
Wherever this topic went, the response to the original premise is pretty obvious. Even taking a "there is no good/evil" point of view Hitler's actions were mindlessly aggressive and sadistic and even playing an extreme devil's advocate of "improving humanity" the question would come to what constitutes an ultimate race given that natural selection created different races on the basis of optimising people for their environments. Ultimately, success by the Nazis wouldn't have resulted in a net gain for humanity solely based on their achievement of goals but it might've had some sort of unintended side-effect that was a gain.