How Does the Left Know Hitler Was Bad??

[rtwngAvngr]

So civil. Do libs really feel Hitler's main flaw was his ineffectiveness? Is that the crap story your sticking to?

 

[Bonnie]

Unless you were doing it because you were hoping to be a hero, or because the person you were saving was personally important to you.

This is assuming that pure altruism is the opposite of pure evil.

That really would not be hard assumption to make though


Okay then the shades of gray come into it. In order to have shades of gray you need black and white.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I don't believe in judging people only actions.

This is the foundation of moral relativism. This is where gray enters the picture.

Al Capone thought he was a nice decent guy. So did Hitler. McVeigh thought he was doing the right thing too.

That does not make them right, but it does bring gray to their actions.

A

 

[CivilLiberty]

So civil. Do libs really feel Hitler's main flaw was his ineffectiveness? Is that the crap story your sticking to?

Read the thread again, huh? You're missing it.

A

 

[CivilLiberty]

In order to have shades of gray you need black and white.

That's a quotable aphorism....



A

 

[Bonnie]

Very well, then let us reverse it, let us take a serial killer, kills a whole lot of people. In his/her deluded world s/he whole heartedly believes is killing incarnations of the antichrist in order to prevent the apocalypse. Pure of intent? Yep. But is it pure in action?

If that person were truly deluded then even God would not judge them as harshly. Still the act was evil. If someone were to save a life and they did not know that person, but did it just to do it, and the person went on to kill many people it still doesn't taint the good deed as the person saving the life could have no knowledge of what's to come, and the person who eventually becomes the serial killer could change that destiny by making a choice not to.

 

[Bonnie]

This is the foundation of moral relativism. This is where gray enters the picture.

Al Capone thought he was a nice decent guy. So did Hitler. McVeigh thought he was doing the right thing too.

That does not make them right, but it does bring gray to their actions.

A

No it doens't, just because in their minds their actions were justifiable it doesn't mean the actions themsleves were nor does it mean society deems them okay or applies shades of gray.

 

[deaddude]

So pure intent absolves one person from the responsiblities of an action but not the other. Jeez morality is confusing as hell. So many rules and loopholes.

 

[Bonnie]

That's a quotable aphorism....



A

Truly if there is not black or white, where does gray come from? You cant' build a house without a foundation or a hammer?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Read the thread again, huh? You're missing it.

A

No, you're full of it.

You said libs hold up hitler because he was an ineffective tyrant. Are you sticking with this story?

 

[CivilLiberty]

No, you're full of it.

You said libs hold up hitler because he was an ineffective tyrant. Are you sticking with this story?

I never said that.

Gee, and I just took you off ignore today. Okay, back on.

Bye!



A

 

[deaddude]

he didn't say that Hitler wasn't evil, what he said RWA is that there were men who were as evil as Hitler who get away with it because the were successful.

You can easily make the case that Stalin (who is actually credited with 20 million dead, not 11), Pol Pot, and Mau are all "bad/evil". But they were not brought to justice - in other words, they were successful.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

he didn't say that Hitler wasn't evil, what he said RWA is that there were men who were as evil as Hitler who get away with it because the were successful.

he said the left villifies hitler for his INEFFECTIVENESS. In retrospect, knowing what we know now, leftist should hold all tyrants to the light of day. Stalin's dream has failed too. I guess he's ineffective. Yet the left loves him.

the truth is that the left loves communists. Hitler's poster boy tyrant status is due mostly to the pressure of jewish groups in academia. Stalin killed 20 million plus.

 

[Bonnie]

So pure intent absolves one person from the responsiblities of an action but not the other. Jeez morality is confusing as hell. So many rules and loopholes.

Point is in order to have Gray there needs to be black and white as a starting point. In all religions and even secular ideals there is always ethical dimensions, meaning there is always a point at which we start to judge an action as wrong and where we judge actions as good. Religion holds higher standards in these ethics, but they are present every where because that's how society functions, we need something to go on that sets our moral compass. Just because there is disparity as to the degree, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. One person says killing is wrong period, another says only malicious muder is wrong, they are both setting a standard for pure wrong. Even in secular thoughts, there is a standard for being aware that some actions are wrong as should not be done. We as a society are fantastic at justifying our actions by watering them down to shades of gray, "I had to do it because", "I had no choice"...etc still deosn't mean there is no black and white.

 

[CivilLiberty]

"I had no choice"...etc still deosn't mean there is no black and white.

The theoretical black and white is fine, as long as one understands that going from black to white entails infinite gray.

I would also indicate that theoretical black and white is not something we ever see in reality.

A related question is, is there a universal "right" and "wrong".

The answer is no, unless you have an omnipotent supreme being with judgmental powers (such as the God of Abraham, which Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are based). With a "god" that god can define the limits of right and wrong.


Without an omnipotent supreme being with judgmental powers, then you only have relative right and wrong, i.e. moral relativism.



Regards,


Andy

 

[freeandfun1]

Very well take the point and time. There is a story in the Bible (I can't remember the names at present, you will probably recognize it) where a father is willing to kill his son in a sacrifice to God, this sign of devotion is praised by many Christians. Why look down on the Aztecs just because their gods demanded actual sacrifice rather than just the willingness to commit it?

It was a religious. It was there morality, for all you can prove the Aztecs might have been right. For all of your talk of moral absolutes, you can’t name those absolutes, nor can you provide proof that they exist. Grant it I cannot prove that they don’t. That is what makes it faith. You have faith in your God; the Aztecs had faith in theirs.

The Aztecs did not kill because they had faith, they killed because they were trying to appease their idols.

The story you are referring to is the one of Abraham. Abraham had so much faith, that he knew that G-d would either resurrect his son or he would show him WHY he had to do it. This was a test of Abraham’s faith by G-d. The Aztecs were attempting to “appease” their G-ds. Faith had nothing to do with it. G-d asked Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test of his faith. Just as Abraham started to kills his son as instructed, G-d stopped him. I am not at all sure how you can even attempt to compare the two situations.

 

[CivilLiberty]

The Aztecs did not kill because they had faith, they killed because they were trying to appease their idols.

Similar to the way the Israelites gave burnt offerings to god.

With the Aztecs, what's interesting, is that the human who gave himself to sacrifice, actually had to WIN in a competitive game in order to be chosen for the sacrifice.

This is no too unlike Islamic terrorists who look forward to blowing themselves up for allah to get to paradise.

A

 

[freeandfun1]

Similar to the way the Israelites gave burnt offerings to god.

A

Not really, there were many reasons for burnt offerings.

A burnt offering was often offered in conjunction with another sacrifice. Among these were the guilt offering (Lev. 5:7, 10, 17-18), the sin offering (cf. Lev. 5:7; 6:25; 9:2-3, 7; 12:6, 8), the votive or freewill offering (Lev. 22:18), the sheaf offering (Lev. 23:12), and the new grain offering (Lev. 23:15-22, esp. v. 18).

There were a number of occasions when a sacrifice was required for cleansing, of which the burnt offering was one of the sacrifices offered. The burnt offering was required in the cleansing of a woman’s uncleanness as a result of child-bearing (sin and burnt offering required, Lev. 12:6-8), of a leper (Lev. 14:19-20), of a man with a discharge (with a sin offering, Lev. 15:14-15), of a woman with an abnormal discharge (with a sin offering, Lev. 15:30), and of a Nazarite who was unintentionally defiled by contact with a dead body (Num. 6:11, 14). When the congregation unwittingly failed to observe one of God’s commands, and was thereby defiled, a burnt offering was required for the purification of the congregation (Num. 15:22-26). A burnt offering was required for the purification and consecration of Aaron (Lev. 16:3, 5, 24), as well as the Levites (Num. 8:12).

The Israelites were not sacrificing each other. There is a difference between a man and a lamb, heifer, etc. Furthermore, they were not making offering to appease G-d they were making them as a sacrifice to G-d.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Furthermore, they were not making offering to appease G-d they were making them as a sacrifice to G-d.

Hmmm. Having just read Leviticus and Deuteronomy, god seemed pretty demanding of these "offerings", in fact, bad things could happen if you didn't do it. That sounds like "appeasement" to me...


Cheers


A

 

[freeandfun1]

Hmmm. Having just read Leviticus and Deuteronomy, god seemed pretty demanding of these "offerings", in fact, bad things could happen if you didn't do it. That sounds like "appeasement" to me...


Cheers


A

You referred to Burnt Offerings.

Sin Offerings are demanded by G-d if you want to receive atonement for a sin committed. Some burnt offerings were obligatory if you wanted to show your praise of G-d. Others were voluntary.

You say that bad things would happen if you did not make burnt offerings. Well, you say you read the scriptures, so tell me, what terrible things does G-d say will befall those that don't make their prescribed offerings?

The Aztecs sacrificed living humans in an attempt to appease their "Gods". Israelites made offerings of clean animals to praise G-d.

There is a HUGE difference.