What’s everyone got against Hitler? He wasn’t THAT evil. :booster:
Yeah, he only committed genocide. Jeez Louise, it wasn’t as if he was getting married to gays or something that REALLY threatens our society. :hint:
He was ONLY doing what most other Germans wanted him, too. The Nazis were democracy at it’s best! :victoly:
stop talking about <s>sin</s> hitler like that
You know I had a whole little rant typed out, but this is too sick that I doubt it would pursued him.
Here is a good read about the Nazi party and you’ll see that they were anything but democratic.
Who would have thought a Neo-Nazi would have found his way here.
I’m not entirely sure dvd’s being serious.
Elmo is hitlers reincarnet. Red, fluffy, has his own show, kids all over the world buy his stuff…he is obviously trying to take over the children. You know the saying, get control of the children, you control the future. But dont worry, me and the monkeys will kill him before he brain washes the little childrens mind.
I would at this point like to inform everyone about Godwin’s Law
According to aformentioned law, this thread is dead. RIP
Kind of like the Myspace guy >.>
At least they didn’t plagarize the Jargon File entry outright.
And no one’s actually demonized their opposition by calling them Hitler or a nazi. The thread stands.
I kinda like defectivesonydvd. Him and Uncie Adolf
As per the wiki link you didnt read
One common objection to the invocation of Godwin’s Law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is a perfectly apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says something like, “He’s a good leader, look at the way he’s improved the economy”, one could reply, “Just because he improved the economy doesn’t make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy.” Some would view this as a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is not universally true.
Some would argue, however, that Godwin’s Law applies especially to the situation mentioned above, as it portrays an inevitable appeal to emotion as well as holding an implied ad hominem attack on the subject being compared, both of which are fallacious in irrelevant contexts. Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a valid comparison to anything besides other despotic dictators. Thus, Godwin’s law holds even in making comparisons to normal leaders that, on the surface, would seem to be a reasonable comparison.
Godwin’s standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin’s Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact.
You just stole the words right out of my mouth
I thought so at first (which is why I didn’t say anything), but his second comment has cast my doubts.
Shalcar, actually I did read the link. However, considering how little I posted, I’m surprised you are willing to make such a bold assumption. Also, posting some guy’s theory and definition of something doesn’t have much weight. Hell, if you look at some ethical theories, an ection can be ethical by some standards and unethical by others. Such as slavery is ethical under the utilitarian approach, but other approaches (and our standards now) would say it is wrong. Theories are for the most part just ideas. They may have some strong basis, but they aren’t well supported and are mostly just one interpretation.
My initial use of Hilter as someone to possibly laugh at for committing suicide (which I never said was someting we should do) is that there is a certain satisfaction in his death. My laast comment was about dvd’s defense of Hitler. I won’t deny that Hitler was a good polititian and didn’t do a lot to get Germany back on its feet, but he did a lot of other things that are pretty bad and vastly outweigh the good. There was such a major effort to kill him and he ended up doing it himself. It is much like how when we hear about prison rape, we sometimes don’t mind since they are prisoners and we think of them as bad people and they are just getting justice (even more so if the person was put in prison for rape).
I wasn’t being surrious, just in case ya might like ter know. :B
I was more referring to dvd’s statement Info. There is little other way it could be taken then that of inflammatory, unlike yours.
To semi-quote Jon Stewart from the Daily Show (it was a piece on politicians throwing around Nazi and Hitler as an insult):
In the end, don’t use Hitler as an insult. It demeans your opponent, it demeans you, and it demeans Hitler. That man worked too hard to be that evil for his name to get thrown around over every petty political squabble.
I want to mention this again, because the word came up a few more times. This kid’s death was not tragic. Tragedy happens (roughly) when you are forced to take responsibility for the consequences of an action you performed, knowingly or not, regardless of the purity of your intentions or the cause of the action. This kid made a choice. He did not have to do what he did. He was not driven to kill himself. As far as we know, the only direct (emphasis) consequences to staying a live would have been to the person himself, and no one else.
I can not stomach the idea that we should all be respectful and solemn with regard to suicide and wary of scorning those who commit it. To treat the suicide of someone like this kid with that of, say, Adam Czerniakow, head of the Warsaw <i>Judenrat</i>, who took his own life rather than sign a deportation order that would have sent many Jews to their deaths, is nonsensical. One was a child who could not handle his own emotions, the other faced the potential of having hundreds of thousands of deaths on his hands. That speaks for itself.
But I wasn’t using his name that way.
RPT, I’m not saying his death is tragic. I’m just saying that it is fucked up to make-fun of him for it.
I don’t care. It just seemed appropriate to mention given the other Hitler comments.
A good politician???! Since when is someone who kills his political opponents and abuses a democratic institution to rise to dictatorship a good politician? Fuckin’, friedrich ebert was on the best way to get the economy up again on his own if he had ever had the chance. Hitler might have been one hell of a manipulator, but last time I checked a good politician is supposed to sit in his job and is aware of the responsibility he carries, the people he represents and feels it’s his duty to do the best for his country. If there’s one concept that totally fucking fails that, it’s facism.