God is necessary for morality to survive | Polichickster v Dante

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sincerity goes far in my world

It's hard to be at your level Dante, you are very worldly from what I gather reading your posts.

I love your intelligence.

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.

-----------------

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.

In that aspect, isn't the common factor the retributive actions of the "killers"
(regardless of whatever you see similar or dissimilar in the people they killed).

Are you going to assess and compare people by the motivations of those who killed them?
isn't that equally or more a reflection on the killers and why they acted as they did?

only in respect to replying to what you introduced above.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Human instinct.

OK human instinct: do you agree that by human instinct
the empathetic reactions to FEAR and the response to LOVE

can be shown to run parallel with
whatever SATAN and GOD represent?

ie if God represents love and Satan represents fear
then these values can be expressed consistently
in terms of "human instinct or empathy with others"
and still align in principle, or correlate or whatever.

if God represents love of truth
and Satan represents fear of the unknown
then again this aligns with natural patterns
of "human instinct or empathy"

Are you okay with aligning naturally
occurring concepts with the things symbolized in religion?

em·pa·thy
/ˈempəTHē/
Noun
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
Synonyms
sympathy

in·stinct
/ˈinstiNGkt/
Noun

An innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli: "predatory instincts".
A natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking: "rely on your instincts".

God and Satan are terms used to represent things. They refer to something. People confuse the name with what it refers to.

If I say "That thing over there." while pointing to a dog. People would probably starting calling the dog 'Thing' or 'That' instead of 'dog'

 

[Redbone]

Redbone is dismissed

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.



-----------------------

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.

They did not stand for the same rights of people to be free . Hitler was a mass murderer yet you link him with Gandhi to what end if not to attempt to give his life and actions greater validity? If it is an attempt to represents ends of an extreme suffering the same fate it still fails because the death of Hitler was by his own order and a coward's way out.
Gandhi's death was not.

I disagree about Hitler's sincerity in his presented political beliefs. His actions were that of a power mad dictator that use propaganda very effectively. So effectively that many to this day see him as a great leader of Germany merely following his dream of a nation fighting to address past wrongs. A very nice fantasy but far from the truth of the matter. Personal ambition and hate fueled the man. Madness consumed him and eventually fate delivered a just result.

Ignoratio elenchi jump to: navigation, search

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies. It is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.

How nice that you disagree about the sincerity of Hitler's political beliefs, yet agree with the sincerity of Gandhi's political beliefs. What does the how and why, of how people develop political beliefs, have to do with the sincerity of those beliefs?

Winston Churchill used to refer to Gandhi as a fakir, in a play on words. One fantasy you appear to connect very well with is Hitler as a one-dimensional stick figure. Hitler was a very complex individual of great presence and being.

I think fate was served well, but humanity was not. Better if Hitler had faced trial and judgement in an extra-judicial process. The man became a super-human myth that even his enemies are prone to give too much power to.

Myth and symbolism.

Mahatma Gandhi Album- Churchill on Gandhi "It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor." - Winston Churchill, 1930

Such an authoritative dismissal and fantasy you so foolishly decided to toss my way.
It is evident that you could not even start to grasp my conclusions and my criticism of your attempt to validate Hitler's madness by aligning it with Gandhi's winning method of change by way of peaceful protest.
If you insist on mixing dessert with horse apples I shall have to dismiss you entirely . I haven't time for such utter and dismal replies from you or anybody else for that matter.
Your three stooges act may impress others here but it truly bores me. Care to step it up and not attempt to be a real wise ass please continue and I will reply in kind.

 

[emilynghiem]

God and Satan are terms used to represent things. They refer to something. People confuse the name with what it refers to.

If I say "That thing over there." while pointing to a dog. People would probably starting calling the dog 'Thing' or 'That' instead of 'dog'

Hey Dante let's not fall into this same trap.
Instead of arguing over what is meant by empathy or instinct,
I am asking to focus on the QUALITY of what is being sensed either by empathy
or by instinct or whatever.

if you do not delineate things in terms of
TRUTH vs FALSENESS
LOVE vs FEAR
KNOWLEDGE/WISDOM vs IGNORANCE

what do you call the two directions people can go with
their empathy/instincts

do you frame it as
PLEASURE/SATISFACTION/PEACE
vs.
PAIN/SUFFERING/CONFLICT

if so, we can talk about those two VALUES
which people sense with their [empathy/instinct/conscience fill in the blank]
and see if that can align with whatever [God/Satan/Whatever] symbolize.

Yes, I agree people can get caught up in terms such as "that thing"
instead of the dog itself. Please let's not do that with each other here.

Let's agree what IS the dog/cat/whatever "content' we want to compare
and not get caught up on calling it by "that thing" or whatever term.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Such an authoritative dismissal and fantasy you so foolishly decided to toss my way.

It is evident that you could not even start to grasp my conclusions and my criticism of your attempt to validate Hitler's madness by aligning it with Gandhi's winning method of change by way of peaceful protest.

If you insist on mixing dessert with horse apples I shall have to dismiss you entirely . I haven't time for such utter and dismal replies from you or anybody else for that matter.
Your three stooges act may impress others here but it truly bores me. Care to step it up and not attempt to be a real wise ass please continue and I will reply in kind.

you are delusional. reading and comprehension is in order. if you go back and follow the timeline of what was posted back and forth, I will condescend to another round of replies to you. or

you are dismissed for the last time
Dante

dD

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

God and Satan are terms used to represent things. They refer to something. People confuse the name with what it refers to.

If I say "That thing over there." while pointing to a dog. People would probably starting calling the dog 'Thing' or 'That' instead of 'dog'

Hey Dante let's not fall into this same trap.
Instead of arguing over what is meant by empathy or instinct..

sorry to disappoint you, but...

 

[Redbone]

Such an authoritative dismissal and fantasy you so foolishly decided to toss my way.

It is evident that you could not even start to grasp my conclusions and my criticism of your attempt to validate Hitler's madness by aligning it with Gandhi's winning method of change by way of peaceful protest.

If you insist on mixing dessert with horse apples I shall have to dismiss you entirely . I haven't time for such utter and dismal replies from you or anybody else for that matter.
Your three stooges act may impress others here but it truly bores me. Care to step it up and not attempt to be a real wise ass please continue and I will reply in kind.

you are delusional. reading and comprehension is in order. if you go back and follow the timeline of what was posted back and forth, I will condescend to another round of replies to you. or

you are dismissed for the last time
Dante

dD

We are at a Mexican stand-off or so it would appear. That is fine by me as I like Mexican.
Dated a few Senorita's back in the day. Always favored the slim ones that could cook very well.

Too bad that your lame dismissal was as impressive as badly broken record player.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Redbone is dismissed

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere.

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.



-----------------------

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.

They did not stand for the same rights of people to be free . Hitler was a mass murderer yet you link him with Gandhi to what end if not to attempt to give his life and actions greater validity? If it is an attempt to represents ends of an extreme suffering the same fate it still fails because the death of Hitler was by his own order and a coward's way out.
Gandhi's death was not.

I disagree about Hitler's sincerity in his presented political beliefs. His actions were that of a power mad dictator that use propaganda very effectively. So effectively that many to this day see him as a great leader of Germany merely following his dream of a nation fighting to address past wrongs. A very nice fantasy but far from the truth of the matter. Personal ambition and hate fueled the man. Madness consumed him and eventually fate delivered a just result.

Ignoratio elenchi jump to: navigation, search

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies. It is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.

How nice that you disagree about the sincerity of Hitler's political beliefs, yet agree with the sincerity of Gandhi's political beliefs. What does the how and why, of how people develop political beliefs, have to do with the sincerity of those beliefs?

Winston Churchill used to refer to Gandhi as a fakir, in a play on words. One fantasy you appear to connect very well with is Hitler as a one-dimensional stick figure. Hitler was a very complex individual of great presence and being.

I think fate was served well, but humanity was not. Better if Hitler had faced trial and judgement in an extra-judicial process. The man became a super-human myth that even his enemies are prone to give too much power to.

Myth and symbolism.

Mahatma Gandhi Album- Churchill on Gandhi "It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor." - Winston Churchill, 1930

next

 

[emilynghiem]

God and Satan are terms used to represent things. They refer to something. People confuse the name with what it refers to.

If I say "That thing over there." while pointing to a dog. People would probably starting calling the dog 'Thing' or 'That' instead of 'dog'

Hey Dante let's not fall into this same trap.
Instead of arguing over what is meant by empathy or instinct..

sorry to disappoint you, but...

Not to worry if that is a dead end, let's pick up here,
I'd like to understand where you are coming from and how you see things:

Ignoratio elenchi jump to: navigation, search

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies. It is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.

How nice that you disagree about the sincerity of Hitler's political beliefs, yet agree with the sincerity of Gandhi's political beliefs. What does the how and why, of how people develop political beliefs, have to do with the sincerity of those beliefs?

Winston Churchill used to refer to Gandhi as a fakir, in a play on words. One fantasy you appear to connect very well with is Hitler as a one-dimensional stick figure. Hitler was a very complex individual of great presence and being.

I think fate was served well, but humanity was not. Better if Hitler had faced trial and judgement in an extra-judicial process. The man became a super-human myth that even his enemies are prone to give too much power to.

Myth and symbolism.

Mahatma Gandhi Album- Churchill on Gandhi "It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor." - Winston Churchill, 1930

Dear Dante: I applaud your willingness to objectively examine Hitler and Gandhi under the same microscope and try to avoid bias associated with these two figures.

1. I hope you will reply to my comment on why you expect to assess or compare these two men by the fact they were "both killed by others" since that action of killing them would reflect equally or more on the motivation of the "killers" and their reasons for acting, not so much on whatever their targets were doing which is their responsibility.

2. As for your showing the flip side, that Gandhi could also have been acting in insincere or negative ways and not always for the best interest of others, this reminds me of the question I had to answer for a philosophy essay in college on whether intentions or outcome were more important. I made a square that showed all the possibilities
1. good intent --> good outcome
2. good intent --> bad outcome
3. bad intent --> good outcome
4. bad intent --> bad outcome
Even though it was not a perfect argument, I basically said that if
someone started with a good intent, the WORST that could happen
is good intent/bad outcome (and the best scenario was still possible
of good intent/good outcome both but not the worst scenario of bad intent/bad outcome).
And if someone started out with
a bad intent, the BEST that could happen was bad intent/good outcome
(and the worst scenario could also happen, of bad intent/bad outcome but
not the best scenario of good intent/good outcome.
So I argued it was better to start out with good intent
because at worst you would "break even" if things still came out bad,
and be 50/50 with someone starting out with
bad intent that actually came out good unintentionally,
and also starting out with good intent was the only way to
get the best scenario of good intent/good outcome.

In your case you were saying both men could be sincere
and have different outcomes.

So can we talk about what QUALITY of their intentions
it was that made the difference in the outcomes?

To be fair could we consider Hitler's and Gandhi's
intentions as being 50/50 to be equal -- that they could have both
"sincerely intended" to do something they deemed necessary to solve problems,
and we can count them as having equal positive impact on their supporters
as negative impact on their opponents if you want to treat them as equal.

And you can even count that what followed both these men, good and bad, moved people historically in the future in positive ways to try to improve the human condition
(and others to be destructive and kill people, including them if you count that as equal).
Both inspired people to change the world to avoid the ills of the past as they saw it.

However, if you look at the WAY they inspired people to work,
and look at the actions and motivations of the people in the
actual movements around these men,
can you see the moral difference?

Even if Hitler had equal "sincerity" and even just intentions
behind the destruction he preached and/or
forced on people if you blame him for that and not the people who followed him,
and Gandhi had some negative drawbacks with his positive teachings
and influence, can you see that the work done by others around these
men WAS different morally due to the SPIRIT of how they worked?

That Hitler worked with the idea of retribution by killing off relations with people
but Gandhi was focused on restoration by rebuilding relations with people.

Gandhi never preached any kind of problem solving by blaming
others much less killing off such persons, but promoted the idea
of changing the world globally by changing oneself locally to influence others.

Do you acknowledge that the difference in spirit of approach
makes one morally uplifting toward sustainable growth and solutions
while the other is problematic and incites more backlash and self-destruction?

In your own objective terms, what do you call this difference?

Do you see one approach as FEAR based and one as LOVE based?
What terms do you use, and we can try to use those to show alignment.

 

[Redbone]

Redbone is dismissed

Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence
and overcoming division not exploiting it?

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for.



-----------------------

They did not stand for the same rights of people to be free . Hitler was a mass murderer yet you link him with Gandhi to what end if not to attempt to give his life and actions greater validity? If it is an attempt to represents ends of an extreme suffering the same fate it still fails because the death of Hitler was by his own order and a coward's way out.
Gandhi's death was not.

I disagree about Hitler's sincerity in his presented political beliefs. His actions were that of a power mad dictator that use propaganda very effectively. So effectively that many to this day see him as a great leader of Germany merely following his dream of a nation fighting to address past wrongs. A very nice fantasy but far from the truth of the matter. Personal ambition and hate fueled the man. Madness consumed him and eventually fate delivered a just result.

Ignoratio elenchi jump to: navigation, search

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies. It is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.

How nice that you disagree about the sincerity of Hitler's political beliefs, yet agree with the sincerity of Gandhi's political beliefs. What does the how and why, of how people develop political beliefs, have to do with the sincerity of those beliefs?

Winston Churchill used to refer to Gandhi as a fakir, in a play on words. One fantasy you appear to connect very well with is Hitler as a one-dimensional stick figure. Hitler was a very complex individual of great presence and being.

I think fate was served well, but humanity was not. Better if Hitler had faced trial and judgement in an extra-judicial process. The man became a super-human myth that even his enemies are prone to give too much power to.

Myth and symbolism.

Mahatma Gandhi Album- Churchill on Gandhi "It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor." - Winston Churchill, 1930

next

"next", he declares as he flees from the "imbecile" that just shut his garbage down with one very simple observation.
You are not very good at this ,are you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

redbone = delusional

Dear Dante: I applaud your willingness to objectively examine Hitler and Gandhi under the same microscope and try to avoid bias associated with these two figures.

that is not what I did. Somebody posted in a thread about morality and needing a god, that Dante was sincere. I pointed out that both Gandhi and Hitler were sincere. Sincerity has nothing to do with it.


you asked "Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence and overcoming division not exploiting it?" as if that had anything to do with being sincere in ones views and beliefs.

Dante replied "They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for." in addressing your comment.

The imbecile otherwise known as redbone added some inanity about "They did not stand for the same rights of people to be free" sincerity and fighting for people to be free as opposed to something

you piled on with "actions of the "killers""

you both can sidetrack a thread but to what purpose?

 

[Redbone]

redbone = delusional

Dear Dante: I applaud your willingness to objectively examine Hitler and Gandhi under the same microscope and try to avoid bias associated with these two figures.

that is not what I did. Somebody posted in a thread about morality and needing a god, that Dante was sincere. I pointed out that both Gandhi and Hitler were sincere. Sincerity has nothing to do with it.


you asked "Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence and overcoming division not exploiting it?" as if that had anything to do with being sincere in ones views and beliefs.

Dante replied "They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for." in addressing your comment.

The imbecile otherwise known as redbone added some inanity about "They did not stand for the same rights of people to be free" sincerity and fighting for people to be free as opposed to something

you piled on with "actions of the "killers""

you both can sidetrack a thread but to what purpose?

That you call demolishing your little mud pie fantasy sidetracking a thread is laughable. You can not even be honest with yourself. Your insecure need to start hurling insults at me will not read well with your attempted projection of being so superior. I marvel only at your blindness in taking such pathetic actions .

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Gandhi and Hitler were both sincere

They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for

 

[yidnar]

Most of the time the state religion have different duties. Ethics and morals as human constructs evolved out of the minds of man. Societies develop codes and laws in order to survive and flourish. Putting lipstick on a pig or putting human ideas on a god...same thing

in ancient times it was kill or be killed .the fear of an angry gods wrath was critical in enforcing laws and legitimizing the authority of a king or chief Pharaoh ect.. and having a moral system helped to insure cohesion amongst the people to work together to help insure the survival of the tribe or kingdom.

Your knowledge and understanding of the histories of culture, civilizations and human beings is woefully lacking

it is a fact that many of the leaders of ancient peoples were divine in the eyes of the populace.

 

[editec]

Morality is much like rights.

Both are man-made concepts.

 

[emilynghiem]

OK let's get this straight.
do we both agree you can be sincerely X Y or Z and that is not the determining factor.
neither is citing if people are killed for their beliefs which is external.

redbone seemed to point out the differentiating factor that gandhi stood for all people to be free while hitler in comparison defended one group against others and not all equally

I pointed out he used retributive means of justice while gandhi sought restorative means

The question remains Dante what do YOU call the determining factor in morality

it's NOT sincerity, if you can be sincerely mad or nuts with nothing to do with morality

it's NOT if other people kill you for what you stand for, we are clear on that

what is it then, how do you describe it using your relative terminology independent of religion or notion of God?

and it is perfectly fine to keep answering no it's not that until we eliminate all the things it is not and narrow it down to what you recognize as key factors

I offered to compare views of justice. how about: what approaches to justice
are effective or not, will that help? if we frame it in terms of what is effective sustainable and lawful in solving social ills or problems, vs, what is a failure? is that how you frame it?

redbone = delusional

Dear Dante: I applaud your willingness to objectively examine Hitler and Gandhi under the same microscope and try to avoid bias associated with these two figures.

that is not what I did. Somebody posted in a thread about morality and needing a god, that Dante was sincere. I pointed out that both Gandhi and Hitler were sincere. Sincerity has nothing to do with it.


you asked "Which one sought to invoke change by nonviolence and overcoming division not exploiting it?" as if that had anything to do with being sincere in ones views and beliefs.

Dante replied "They were both killed by enemies who opposed everything they stood for." in addressing your comment.

The imbecile otherwise known as redbone added some inanity about "They did not stand for the same rights of people to be free" sincerity and fighting for people to be free as opposed to something

you piled on with "actions of the "killers""

you both can sidetrack a thread but to what purpose?

to find the needle in the haystack where we do agree or align in values
that's what! are we close yet, dante, or still being relative trolls to each other?

thanks for helping get us back on track here, d
hope this helps also!

 

[emilynghiem]

Morality is much like rights.

Both are man-made concepts.

I don't think people can always help what they believe is true/false
or just/unjust. as Dante called it human instinct.
some things based on false or incomplete information may change of course,
but the parts based on correct consistent data is not something we can control.

We do influence and affect each other's ways of perception or expression of our beliefs.
That part is relative but people's internal beliefs built into their conscience are not always
something that can be changed, just reconciled with others that are equally unchanged if that is the way they are.
It's the external expressions and perceptions that can shift with changing input
and experiences.

For rights, whatever you call people's ability to follow as they believe up to the point of not imposing unfairly on the same ability of others, whether you call it
rights, freedom, responsibility, whatever.

For morals and ethics it is a matter of being consistent with whatever principles or standards you claim to follow, you preach to others, or even judge or criticize/condemn others. whatever you call that consistency. or our friend dante may be more geared to see it in terms of effectiveness or failure which i agree is a more objective way to frame things.

i hope dante sees it that way because that is uber cool.
and yes i believe that can be reconciled with how religions can be taught
in order to be more effective and serve a consistent purpose instead of failing!

if we can reach an agreement on principles
i would say we have a right and responsibility to teach religions more effectively that way.
that would also meet any moral or ethical code people want to make up and impose.
what do you say, gentlemen, are we closer?

 

[Redbone]

OK let's get this straight.
do we both agree you can be sincerely X Y or Z and that is not the determining factor.
neither is citing if people are killed for their beliefs which is external.

redbone seemed to point out the differentiating factor that gandhi stood for all people to be free while hitler in comparison defended one group against others and not all equally

I pointed out he used retributive means of justice while gandhi sought restorative means

The question remains Dante what do YOU call the determining factor in morality

Very nice to see that you understood my main point . Dante failed to get even that. I also pointed out that Hitler was not wrapped in a " holy cloak of sincerity". His propaganda was a tool. Dante so impressed with Hitler's sincerity dared to attempt to legitimize it further by associating it with Gandhi's true sincerity and just cause. My pointing this out to Dante was returned by his condescending and diverting replies which were in essence his avoiding the truth. Instead of discussing that validity of that truth he chose to belittle it by assuming his Godlike status and giving his dismissal ploy.
Such tactics play well with lesser lights but fail to impress those not so dim.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

OK let's get this straight.
do we both agree you can be sincerely X Y or Z and that is not the determining factor.
neither is citing if people are killed for their beliefs which is external.

redbone seemed to point out the differentiating factor that gandhi stood for all people to be free while hitler in comparison defendhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=6836429ed one group against others and not all equally

I pointed out he used retributive means of justice while gandhi sought restorative means

The question remains Dante what do YOU call the determining factor in morality

Very nice to see that you understood my main point . Dante failed to get even that. I also pointed out that Hitler was not wrapped in a " holy cloak of sincerity". His propaganda was a tool. Dante so impressed with Hitler's sincerity dared to attempt to legitimize it further by associating it with Gandhi's true sincerity and just cause. My pointing this out to Dante was returned by his condescending and diverting replies which were in essence his avoiding the truth. Instead of discussing that validity of that truth he chose to belittle it by assuming his Godlike status and giving his dismissal ploy.
Such tactics play well with lesser lights but fail to impress those not so dim.

Stating facts without morality as a barrier.

True sincerity and just causes? A cause is just to those who believe in it. Hitler believed in the justness of his cause as much as Gandhi did, maybe even more so.

I will post the definition AGAIN

sin·cere
/sinˈsi(&#601r/
Adjective

1) Free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.
2) (of a person) Saying what they genuinely feel or believe; not dishonest or hypocritical.

Synonyms
candid - genuine - honest - frank - straightforward

If you all want to argue that Hitler's feelings weren't genuine, go for it.

-------

Dante even gave people credit at times:
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.

 

[emilynghiem]

OK let's get this straight.
do we both agree you can be sincerely X Y or Z and that is not the determining factor.
neither is citing if people are killed for their beliefs which is external.

redbone seemed to point out the differentiating factor that gandhi stood for all people to be free while hitler in comparison defendhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=6836429ed one group against others and not all equally

I pointed out he used retributive means of justice while gandhi sought restorative means

The question remains Dante what do YOU call the determining factor in morality

Very nice to see that you understood my main point . Dante failed to get even that. I also pointed out that Hitler was not wrapped in a " holy cloak of sincerity". His propaganda was a tool. Dante so impressed with Hitler's sincerity dared to attempt to legitimize it further by associating it with Gandhi's true sincerity and just cause. My pointing this out to Dante was returned by his condescending and diverting replies which were in essence his avoiding the truth. Instead of discussing that validity of that truth he chose to belittle it by assuming his Godlike status and giving his dismissal ploy.
Such tactics play well with lesser lights but fail to impress those not so dim.

Stating facts without morality as a barrier.

True sincerity and just causes? A cause is just to those who believe in it. Hitler believed in the justness of his cause as much as Gandhi did, maybe even more so.

I will post the definition AGAIN

sin·cere
/sinˈsi(&#601r/
Adjective

1) Free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.
2) (of a person) Saying what they genuinely feel or believe; not dishonest or hypocritical.

Synonyms
candid - genuine - honest - frank - straightforward

If you all want to argue that Hitler's feelings weren't genuine, go for it.

-------

Dante even gave people credit at times:
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.

Hi Dante and Redbone:
Yes and no.
From Hitler's perception, of course he was sincere.

From a larger perspective what I am arguing at least is there was self-deceit and denial involved in order to harness that viewpoint and energy AGAINST one group.
That is not sustainable over the big picture.

How Redbone stated it was that Gandhi based his motivations on what was serving all humanity equally to be free.

The way a Jewish-Buddhist peace and justice organizer stated it, from his experience bringing together people of all backgrounds to heal in their own ways at workshops he holds at Auschwitz and other sites, was that:
as long as a person or group holds onto an ideology divided in ANY way as "them vs. us"
then it will self-destruct at some point due to divisive energy, the delusion that we can separate ourselves from the whole of humanity will contradict itself and not last.
He even cited Occupy as divisive, even by the 1% and the 99% was not enough for unity.
And I fully agree and was glad to hear someone finally say this!

Dante as for proof of sincerity on one level but not the other, most of this is by experience.
You can look at political parties and religions: the people who divided themselves from some other person or group and start splitting their energy to work for themselves while against the other group/ideology are not as unified and consistent as those who can work ACROSS religious political or personal lines to COMBINE their energies and solve problems together. Mediation has been shown to save relationships and resources, while litigation has a history of abuse to destroy people and relations as well as consume or waste time and resources that could have gone into solving problems.

So Dante I would say you are right on a local level, that of course Hitler was sincere; and I might even point out he was more concentrated and effective in what he sought to do because of that vs. Gandhi who in being universal and open to consensual/nonviolence instead of coercive methods is going to take longer to achieve that and in the short term is not as immediately effective in the bigger goal as Hitler in his short term impact he had.

But on the larger level that Redbone and I are addressing,
Gandhi was more effective and sincere
and Hitler was self-defeating. Because his methods are not sustainable, in achieving
a long term effect only short term until his regime implodes, then he is not sincere
in terms of what is the best method of promoting what he wants and sustaining it longterm.
But Gandhi's are sincere to this end. So when we are sincere in our efforts to be effective
and to avoid failure over the longterm (not just short term political gain), eventually we learn to trust and work with the
all-inclusive noncoersive means of working with others toward justice
and not using divisive means for local or temporary political power
that is not sustainable and falls apart in the long run because of the division it is based on that cannot maintain cohesiveness
with part of the human energy involved used against itself.

Is this fair:
To say that for the local short term impact,
Hitler "could be viewed" as being equally or even more sincere
or even more effective in his goals and impact
because of his higher concentration of energy on a more limited goal or group

And for the global longer term goal of what it takes to bring justice and peace
and freedom for all humanity,
then Gandhi is more sincere or consistent or effective or whatever
because he was more inclusive and used noncoercive means
that ALL people can use and participate in freely and equally (unlike Hitler's political
methods) where this is also more sustainable.

Are you okay with that, to distinguish
the two levels of sincerity.

I understand we may not be able to establish
PROOF of the difference with the global context
that Hitler was not as sincere as Gandhi,
but are you okay with framing the difference
between the two perspectives this way?

proving it would be a different matter.
This is just to explain how you and Redbone and me
can both be right in what we are all saying, by
distinguishing these two levels of perception and focus.