United States of America Still a Nation of Conservatives

Originally Posted by Ysionris

So, then, it would be unjust for Americans to say that the Nazis were "evil" because Erwin Rommel, a Nazi, wasn't?

I personally am undecided about my position on Rommel. He was still a benefactor to Hitler, even though he later tried to kill him. But then again, I don't know enough about him to say for sure.

It depends.

However, if he called himself a Nazi so perhaps, the Nazi ideology itself includes many things you could call evil.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I personally am undecided about my position on Rommel. He was still a benefactor to Hitler, even though he later tried to kill him. But then again, I don't know enough about him to say for sure.

It depends.

Then we've reached a dead end in our debate. XD

By the way, Rommel never actually tried to kill Hitler. The extent of his involvement was that the German resistance considered him to be a possible recruit. His enemies, however, learned of this, and used it against him after the famous July 20 plot. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Then we've reached a dead end in our debate. XD

By the way, Rommel never actually tried to kill Hitler. The extent of his involvement was that the German resistance considered him to be a possible recruit. His enemies, however, learned of this, and used it against him after the famous July 20 plot. ^_^;

That's a nice fun fact, history is great eh?

Originally Posted by Ysionris

So, then, it would be unjust for Americans to say that the Nazis were "evil" because Erwin Rommel, a Nazi, wasn't?

Nazis weren't evil... that's the scariest part of it all. People seem intent on making them into these inhuman, demonic xenomorphs. The fact that they were simply misguided humans, all too similar to you or I, is beyond most people's faculties, which is why I know it's a lesson that's bound to be repeated.

Originally Posted by Bravo

Nazis weren't evil... that's the scariest part of it all. People seem intent on making them into these inhuman, demonic xenomorphs. The fact that they were simply misguided humans, all too similar to you or I, is beyond most people's faculties, which is why I know it's a lesson that's bound to be repeated.

For the most part, I agree. People tend to forget that Hitler and the National Socialist Party were, in the end, humans, and not the utterly complete monster that everyone likes to portray them as. It's why I'm decidedly neutral and objective about them...something that I think may incur a lot of flame against me. XD

Then, again, "good" and "evil" ring hollow to me. XD

Originally Posted by Ysionris

For the most part, I agree. People tend to forget that Hitler and the National Socialist Party were, in the end, humans, and not the utterly complete monster that everyone likes to portray them as. It's why I'm decidedly neutral and objective about them...something that I think may incur a lot of flame against me. XD

the third reich is what happens when people care more about conquest and glory than healing a broken nations wounds.

the economically destitute people sought to imbibe new meaning and purpose into the broken nationalism of their past and did so under the banner of an insane man who was given the opportunity to change the world: and he did.

Who can blame them when it took a barrel full of pfennigs to buy a loaf of bread?

The jews became the scapegoat of hatred, hitler was perhaps some sort of christian who had serious problems with organized religion, (or maybe he was just an apathetic agnostic, hard to tell.) and he carried out the new-found "will of the people" by burning living corpses and conquering their neighboring countries.


Replace neighboring countries with the "threat of foreign islamic terrorism", third-reich with United States, and a talking bush on the pedestal and it sounds eerily similar.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Why? Both are issues of tolerance, I brought the issue up, and I never made it about civil rights, it doesn't have to be a civil right issue.

Civil rights issues trump gun control issues.

And by extension, your moral high ground, as you are an American, are you not?

As an individual? No, because I am, was, and will be against all gay marriage bans.

No one but you is making this over civil rights, I stated before, this is over the issue of tolerance, not civil rights.

Certain issues of tolerance are intrinsically linked to to civil rights.

That would be right.

No, it would be wrong. Slavery compromised the entire moral high ground of the nation.

As an impartial observer, may I suggest that the two of you agree upon what "compromised as a nation" means before arguing over it? I have a niggling feeling that you're operating under different definitions.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Lord Zero: And you're honestly gonna tell me that you don't favor liberals? Besides I meant i'm not prejudiced against a certain group of people. And if you don't belief me talk to my two asian friends, my arab friend, and my homosexual friend.

such flawed logic.

Originally Posted by Bravo

Nazis weren't evil... that's the scariest part of it all. People seem intent on making them into these inhuman, demonic xenomorphs. The fact that they were simply misguided humans, all too similar to you or I, is beyond most people's faculties, which is why I know it's a lesson that's bound to be repeated.

Joseph Mengele was indeed evil, Hitler was evil, Goebbels was evil, Himmler was evil and so was the SS.

Show me anything remdeemable about them.

Originally Posted by Young Old Man

Joseph Mengele was indeed evil, Hitler was evil, Goebbels was evil, Himmler was evil and so was the SS.

Show me anything remdeemable about them.

At the peak of the Nazi regime virtually everyone in Germany was a member of the party, they certainly weren't all evil.

Originally Posted by John Henry Eden

At the peak of the Nazi regime virtually everyone in Germany was a member of the party, they certainly weren't all evil.

The head honchos were.

and yes I am aware of the many attempts on Hitler's life, including the July 20th plot,a nd Rommel was a decent person

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Civil rights issues trump gun control issues.

Can you please realize civil rights are COMPLETELY irrelevant here? This is about nothing more than tolerance.

As an individual? No, because I am, was, and will be against all gay marriage bans.

You are an American citizen are you not? If so, then you are what you claim the whole country is. If you disagree, then you agree with my position.

Certain issues of tolerance are intrinsically linked to to civil rights.

For example?

No, it would be wrong. Slavery compromised the entire moral high ground of the nation.

How?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Can you please realize civil rights are COMPLETELY irrelevant here? This is about nothing more than tolerance.

You compared the United States' intolerance of gay marriage to the United Kingdom's intolerance of gun ownership. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Being intolerant of civil rights means more then being intolerant of weapons ownership.

You are an American citizen are you not? If so, then you are what you claim the whole country is. If you disagree, then you agree with my position.

What I said it the same as saying "The people of the United States elected Barack Obama in 2008." There were some people who voted against Barack Obama and there were some people that did not vote to restrict the civil rights of African Americans. The United States, as a whole, still did both.

For example?

Ever heard of gay rights? I'm sure you have, seeing as I already brought it up in this thread.

How?

Because slavery was a racist institution that disrespected human dignity and was supported by a majority of Americans. That compromised the nation's moral high ground.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

You compared the United States' intolerance of gay marriage to the United Kingdom's intolerance of gun ownership. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Being intolerant of civil rights means more then being intolerant of weapons ownership.

Why? Besides, weapons owner ship is a Civil Liberty and to some a Civil Right.

What I said it the same as saying "The people of the United States elected Barack Obama in 2008." There were some people who voted against Barack Obama and there were some people that did not vote to restrict the civil rights of African Americans. The United States, as a whole, still did both.

Right, except to say the COUNTRY voted for Obama is a contradiction in itself as you just stated people voted for and against him. So, if you are an American citizen, which you refuse to answer, then you are included in being intolerant, going by what you are saying.

Because slavery was a racist institution that disrespected human dignity and was supported by a majority of Americans. That compromised the nation's moral high ground.

Um, what? Slavery has no racial boundaries. Need I remind you that the Portuguese slave traders bought many of their slaves from African slave owners?

So, again, you are claiming that the majority dictates the views of the minority. By suggesting an ENTIRE countries moral high ground is compromised simply on the basis of majority rule, you effectively unfairly categorize the minority under the insulting blanket of the majorities intolerance.

The fact of the matter is no country is ever fully compromised, to claim so would be ignorant of the minority, whom you seem to carelessly overlook.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

The fact of the matter is no country is ever fully compromised, to claim so would be ignorant of the minority, whom you seem to carelessly overlook.

To mirror Bravo, I really, really think we need to agree on the definition of "compromised". XD

Originally Posted by Young Old Man

Joseph Mengele was indeed evil, Hitler was evil, Goebbels was evil, Himmler was evil and so was the SS.

Show me anything remdeemable about them.

Show me anything redeemable about yourself.

Originally Posted by Young Old Man

Joseph Mengele was indeed evil, Hitler was evil, Goebbels was evil, Himmler was evil and so was the SS.

Evil is a very loaded and subjective term; by whose morals do we define "evil" and judge others? ^_^;

I'd like to think that we can arrive at the universal consensus that they broke all kinds of international law, but using the word "evil" can be a bit...well. Subjective. Even if it's the National Socialist Party. ^_^;

...Yeah, I kinda of neutral like that. XD

Back to the argument, though. Again, I use the example of the famous Erwin Rommel, a very highly-ranked Nazi who showed many admirable traits. I feel he certainly is redeemable.

As for Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler? All three men patriotically loved Germany (or their version of Germany), they helped bring Germany out of a recession the entire world was suffering from. Himmler himself was actually a bureaucrat, and, to this day, I have no idea why he was placed in the position of head of SS when he neither had the competence or the stomach for such a job - he was known to have vomited quite violently when he actually saw what the SS did.

Originally Posted by Bravo

Show me anything redeemable about yourself.

That can be a bit extreme. XD

Originally Posted by Young Old Man

Joseph Mengele was indeed evil, Hitler was evil, Goebbels was evil, Himmler was evil and so was the SS.

I'll start by saying that Hitler was more of a complete nutcase than he was "pure evil." As for the other head honchos, they probably believed that what they were doing was justified, and believed that they were leading their people to greatness. "Evil," in the traditional sense of the word, does not exist, for no individual is consciously malevolent because they enjoy it.

Of course what they did was still very, very, very wrong. I mean, you could call them "evil" if you define "evil" as just doing something in the wrong even if you think you're doing something that's right, but then again, even while that definition of the word "evil" may be technically correct, it would pretty much contradict the common usage and connotations the word has held since the beginning of time.

Insanity certainly does exist, but "pure evil?" Don't think so.

Show me anything remdeemable about them.

It would be hard to do so; history labeled them as complete monsters, and all we knew about them were their political/government significance. If we were able to somehow take a look at their personal lives, however, I'm sure we would find that they were, above all else, human; as in having families and goals and hopes and dreams and whatever else that makes a person a person.

With that said, the atrocities that they assisted in commiting were terrible, and some of the worst the world has ever seen. But that doesn't mean that they were nothing but complete monsters; that's just the only way history ever showed them.

Then again, heck, I could be wrong; maybe "evil" does exist and these people were rotten-to-the-heart complete monsters. I just find it to be highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

That can be a bit extreme. XD

I'm not saying that he's irredeemable, I'm saying that the light of judgment can be harsh. In years to come, will our descendants consider us to be evil monsters for eating our fellow animals? And when I swat a fly simply for being a nuisance, will I be judged evil by generations to come? Hitler, admittedly, did not live up to the moral minimum standards to which I would have liked to hold him, but to categorise him as irredeemable is to erode the basis on which we value human life and freedom.

It is worth remembering that then-recent discoveries in science (such as Darwin's discovery of evolution) confused a great many people on the ideas of right and wrong. In fact, "so convinced were the staff of the clinic at Kaufbeuren-Irsee in Bavaria that they were acting rationally that, even after Germany's surrender in 1945, they carried on killing handicapped people under the American occupation, until a US officer led a squad of GIs to the hospital an ordered them to desist" (Sewell, 2009). People at the time genuinely believed that they were doing the world a service by eliminating weakness from the gene pool. With ideas such as these being prevalent among the culture at the time, futilely trying to grasp the implications of evolution, it is little wonder that some people were led astray.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

To mirror Bravo, I really, really think we need to agree on the definition of "compromised". XD

What's not to agree on?