rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 512
- 48
- Banned
- #61
So civil. Do libs really feel Hitler's main flaw was his ineffectiveness? Is that the crap story your sticking to?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
CivilLiberty said: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.
Bonnie said:I don't believe in judging people only actions.
rtwngAvngr said:So civil. Do libs really feel Hitler's main flaw was his ineffectiveness? Is that the crap story your sticking to?
Bonnie said:In order to have shades of gray you need black and white.
deaddude said: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?
CivilLiberty said: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 said:That's a quotable aphorism....
A
CivilLiberty said:Read the thread again, huh? You're missing it.
A
rtwngAvngr said:No, you're full of it.
You said libs hold up hitler because he was an ineffective tyrant. Are you sticking with this story?
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.
deaddude said: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.
deaddude said: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 said:"I had no choice"...etc still deosn't mean there is no black and white.
deaddude said: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 cant name those absolutes, nor can you provide proof that they exist. Grant it I cannot prove that they dont. That is what makes it faith. You have faith in your God; the Aztecs had faith in theirs.
freeandfun1 said:The Aztecs did not kill because they had faith, they killed because they were trying to appease their idols.
CivilLiberty said:Similar to the way the Israelites gave burnt offerings to god.
A
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 womans 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 Gods 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).
freeandfun1 said:Furthermore, they were not making offering to appease G-d they were making them as a sacrifice to G-d.
CivilLiberty said: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