Helmholtz Watson: She didn't have to use the word "all", she implied that when she typed that voting for a republican is contributing to "oppression and fear-mongering".
How is saying the Republican party is involved in oppression and fear-mongering the same as saying every Republican is?
She made is sound as if voting for any Republican is to contribute to fear mongering and impression.
You're missing the point. Regardless of the merits or flaws of the individual person you are voting for, support for them is support for their party, and all that implies. You cannot seperate the two.
How is saying the Republican party is involved in oppression and fear-mongering the same as saying every Republican is?
She made is sound as if voting for any Republican is to contribute to fear mongering and impression.
You're missing the point. Regardless of the merits or flaws of the individual person you are voting for, support for them is support for their party, and all that implies. You cannot separate the two.
I understand and while I agree that some people in the party push oppression and fear mongering, its wrong to attribute it to the whole party. For example, just because some second wave feminist[1] might have a hatred for men, that doesn't mean that the entire feminist movement has a hatred for men and that by supporting feminism overall, you support hatred for men. So going back to the Republican party, just because Gingrich might push fear mongering about Iran, doesn't mean that if I vote for Ron Paul I'm supporting fear mongering.
Helmholtz Watson: I understand and while I agree that some people in the party push oppression and fear mongering, its wrong to attribute it to the whole party. For example, just because some second wave feminist[1] might have a hatred for men, that doesn't mean that the entire feminist movement has a hatred for men and that by supporting feminism overall, you support hatred for men. So going back to the Republican party, just because Gingrich might push fear mongering about Iran, doesn't mean that if I vote for Ron Paul I'm supporting fear mongering.
If Ron Paul is able to seperate himself from the fear mongering of various others in the party, fair enough. If he is content to ignore it, not so much.
(As an aside, your analogy would work better if you swap "man-hating" with "racist". The man-hating section is a small fringe group much derided by the others, while the racist element is deeply entrenched with a lot of support, and people go to great lengths to try to distance themselves from it, or call out others who don't)
Helmholtz Watson: I understand and while I agree that some people in the party push oppression and fear mongering, its wrong to attribute it to the whole party. For example, just because some second wave feminist[1] might have a hatred for men, that doesn't mean that the entire feminist movement has a hatred for men and that by supporting feminism overall, you support hatred for men. So going back to the Republican party, just because Gingrich might push fear mongering about Iran, doesn't mean that if I vote for Ron Paul I'm supporting fear mongering.
If Ron Paul is able to seperate himself from the fear mongering of various others in the party, fair enough. If he is content to ignore it, not so much.
(As an aside, your analogy would work better if you swap "man-hating" with "racist". The man-hating section is a small fringe group much derided by the others, while the racist element is deeply entrenched with a lot of support, and people go to great lengths to try to distance themselves from it, or call out others who don't)
The point is, voting for Republican isn't voting for fear mongering and oppression because that doesn't represent the entire Republican party nor its candidates.
Helmholtz Watson: The point is, voting for Republican isn't voting for fear mongering and oppression because that doesn't represent the entire Republican party nor its candidates.
It doesn't need to. The Republican party as a whole is better off due to your vote unless the person you voted for made sure to distance themselves from those involved in that.
Danyal: A kind German, left-wing friend of mine stated that all Germans who were alive and mature during Hitler's regime and who didn't actively oppose Hitler's regime are responsible for the atrocities of the Nazi regime.
I thought this was way more complex. Those who supported the Nazi regime are of course kind of responsible, but only the people who knew about the atrocities and still supported the regime without any moral hesitation were 'fully' responsible. And seeing how Auschwitz wasn't exactly at everyone's doorstep, the amount of Nazis that did know about for example the Holocaust was probably rather small.
To most people in England the letters 'SS' symbolize everything that was most horrible in the Nazi regime; a gang of unmitigated ruffians whose main delight was the torture and murder of innocent people. Whilst it is true that most atrocities were committed under the banner of the SS, a large number of men who wore the SS uniform during the war had no sympathy for the Nazi party or its principles. They were muss soldaten, conscripts who had no illusions as to their status; in fact, they had been drafted for service at concentration camps merely because they were considered politically insecure. Some forty of these men were on duty in my cell at different times, and with the exception of three or four real party members, all were decent fellows, who certainly showed not the slightest inclination towards cruelty; the worst that I have to say of any them is that they were surly or untrustworthy. In the SS there were good men and bad just as in any other cross section of the population, and as always, the good predominated.
One page earlier he mentions Jehova's Witnesses.
All the menial work in the Bunker, and indeed in the whole camp, was performed by 'Trusties', called by the Germans 'Kalfaktors'. These were almost all 'Bible Students'; I believe that in England they are called 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. This sect was considered by the Nazis to be almost more dangerous to the regime than the Jews, for while no German could turn himself into a Jew, any German could become a Bible Student and, as such, refuse to take part in military service in any shape or form. The fortitude shown by these men was most remarkable and earned the grudging admiration even of their jailers. Most had been imprisoned in 1933 and their treatment had been the worst possible. They had been beaten, tortured and starved; one man had been publicly hung, but I was told that there had not been a single instance of one of these men forsaking his principles and buying liberty by entrance into the armed forces. I know nothing about the details of their belief except that they recognized only Jehovah as their deity, Saturday as their Sabbath, and placed their hope in a Judgment Day in the near future. All that I met were honest, kindly, and very brave men; fanatics, if you will, yet carrying with them something of that sacred flame which inspired the early Christians.
Often when we're debating Islam here it is said that you shouldn't hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of terrorists. And that there is probably nothing wrong with Islam, because most Muslims are nice people and only the fanatics fuck up, but fanatics fuck up everything always everywhere.
So, I hope we can discuss ideology and responsibility here. Was my friend right when she said that all Germans were responsible? Are you responsible for the atrocities that are committed by people that follow your ideology?
I think you're responsible for anything that can be logically deduced from you're ideology, as long as you don't oppose it. Those who follow the Bible are responsible for the homophobia that is caused by certain verses in the book - unless you speak out against it, etcetera. If I wouldn't think this way, I couldn't condemn Germans who followed anti-semetic Hitler without knowing about or participating in later anti-semetic atrocities.
Click to read an irrelevant but amazing quote by 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
Ideology is not the same as religion. In religion, only God (wether he exists or not) knows if you're a believer. Ideologies have some nominal value in their beliefs. You can't say that Nazis are now actually nice people who care about the disabled and organize vegan picnics.
Cowpoo: Ideology is not the same as religion. In religion, only God (wether he exists or not) knows if you're a believer. Ideologies have some nominal value in their beliefs. You can't say that Nazis are now actually nice people who care about the disabled and organize vegan picnics.
Muhammad justified his ideology with Allah: Hitler also justified his ideology with God. I don't see a clear difference. (Of course, I see a difference in the ideology itself, but regarding whether it's an ideology or not, no)
An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things
Cowpoo: Ideology is not the same as religion. In religion, only God (wether he exists or not) knows if you're a believer. Ideologies have some nominal value in their beliefs. You can't say that Nazis are now actually nice people who care about the disabled and organize vegan picnics.
Muhammad justified his ideology with Allah: Hitler also justified his ideology with God. I don't see a clear difference. (Of course, I see a difference in the ideology itself, but regarding whether it's an ideology or not, no)
An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things
Cowpoo: Ideology is not the same as religion. In religion, only God (wether he exists or not) knows if you're a believer. Ideologies have some nominal value in their beliefs. You can't say that Nazis are now actually nice people who care about the disabled and organize vegan picnics.
Muhammad justified his ideology with Allah: Hitler also justified his ideology with God. I don't see a clear difference. (Of course, I see a difference in the ideology itself, but regarding whether it's an ideology or not, no)
An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things
ChairmanFluffy: Got any proof of his supposed vegetarianism? everywhere I look people say its bullshit.
Hitler followed a vegetarian diet.[348] At social events he sometimes gave graphic accounts of the slaughter of animals in an effort to make his dinner guests shun meat.[349] A fear of cancer (from which his mother died)[350] is the most widely cited reason for Hitler's dietary habits. An antivivisectionist, Hitler may have followed his selective diet out of a profound concern for animals.[351] Bormann had a greenhouse constructed near the Berghof (near Berchtesgaden) to ensure a steady supply of fresh fruit and vegetables for Hitler throughout the war. Hitler despised alcohol[352] and was a non-smoker. He promoted aggressive anti-smoking campaigns throughout Germany.[353] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
Do you know that your Führer is a vegetarian, and that he does not eat meat because of his general attitude toward life and his love for the world of animals? Do you know that your Führer is an exemplary friend of animals, and even as a chancellor, he is not separated from the animals he has kept for years?...The Führer is an ardent opponent of any torture of animals, in particular vivisection, and has declared to terminate those conditions...thus fulfilling his role as the savior of animals, from continuous and nameless torments and pain. -Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism
Well, very few German Nazis were actually aware of such things as the concentration camps. That was only a select few. Many of them were either scared and trying to protect themselves or their families, or thought they were doing good by serving their country.
Cowpoo: Ideology is not the same as religion. In religion, only God (wether he exists or not) knows if you're a believer. Ideologies have some nominal value in their beliefs. You can't say that Nazis are now actually nice people who care about the disabled and organize vegan picnics.
Muhammad justified his ideology with Allah: Hitler also justified his ideology with God. I don't see a clear difference. (Of course, I see a difference in the ideology itself, but regarding whether it's an ideology or not, no)
An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things
Cowpoo: You really need to take a philosophy class.
Why? You said that I couldn't say that Nazis were nice people who organized vegan picnics. I presented you the story of Captain Payne Best who said that even most SS personnel were good people, and I proofed that Hitler was a vegetarian. Why then do I need a philosophy class?
Cowpoo: You really need to take a philosophy class.
Why? You said that I couldn't say that Nazis were nice people who organized vegan picnics. I presented you the story of Captain Payne Best who said that even most SS personnel were good people, and I proofed that Hitler was a vegetarian. Why then do I need a philosophy class?
Because you're trying to show some kind of reason, but use words rather profanely, loosely. The fact that you don't know what an ideology is and how it is different from belief proves that you need some education to be able to read and comprehend philosophical text, which is often written in it's own strict unambiguous language.
Also...you use wikipedia. The bane of anything related to philosophy.
Hitler followed a vegetarian diet.[348] At social events he sometimes gave graphic accounts of the slaughter of animals in an effort to make his dinner guests shun meat.[349] A fear of cancer (from which his mother died)[350] is the most widely cited reason for Hitler's dietary habits. An antivivisectionist, Hitler may have followed his selective diet out of a profound concern for animals.[351] Bormann had a greenhouse constructed near the Berghof (near Berchtesgaden) to ensure a steady supply of fresh fruit and vegetables for Hitler throughout the war. Hitler despised alcohol[352] and was a non-smoker. He promoted aggressive anti-smoking campaigns throughout Germany.[353] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
Do you know that your Führer is a vegetarian, and that he does not eat meat because of his general attitude toward life and his love for the world of animals? Do you know that your Führer is an exemplary friend of animals, and even as a chancellor, he is not separated from the animals he has kept for years?...The Führer is an ardent opponent of any torture of animals, in particular vivisection, and has declared to terminate those conditions...thus fulfilling his role as the savior of animals, from continuous and nameless torments and pain. -Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism
I'm quite sure Hitler was a vegetarian.
Oh my god... does this mean that the phrase "Do you know who else thought animals should be set free in favour of human testing? HILTER" is actually backed up by some sort of evidence...
Excuse me I need to go sign up to some other forums
ChairmanFluffy: Got any proof of his supposed vegetarianism? everywhere I look people say its bullshit.
Hitler followed a vegetarian diet.[348] At social events he sometimes gave graphic accounts of the slaughter of animals in an effort to make his dinner guests shun meat.[349] A fear of cancer (from which his mother died)[350] is the most widely cited reason for Hitler's dietary habits. An antivivisectionist, Hitler may have followed his selective diet out of a profound concern for animals.[351] Bormann had a greenhouse constructed near the Berghof (near Berchtesgaden) to ensure a steady supply of fresh fruit and vegetables for Hitler throughout the war. Hitler despised alcohol[352] and was a non-smoker. He promoted aggressive anti-smoking campaigns throughout Germany.[353] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
Do you know that your Führer is a vegetarian, and that he does not eat meat because of his general attitude toward life and his love for the world of animals? Do you know that your Führer is an exemplary friend of animals, and even as a chancellor, he is not separated from the animals he has kept for years?...The Führer is an ardent opponent of any torture of animals, in particular vivisection, and has declared to terminate those conditions...thus fulfilling his role as the savior of animals, from continuous and nameless torments and pain. -Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism
theonewhois3: As if it would change the fact they committed genocide.
'They'? The ordinary Nazi (where are we talking about actually? German WWII-era Nazis?) had as much to do with the Holocaust as the ordinary Muslim had to do with 9/11.
theonewhois3: As if it would change the fact they committed genocide.
'They'? The average Nazi (where are we talking about actually? German WWII-era Nazis?) had as much to do with the Holocaust as the average Muslim had to do with 9/11.
Oh. We're really doing this are we? Fine, only the 'evil' Nazi's committed genocide. Happy?
Danyal: 'They'? The ordinary Nazi (where are we talking about actually? German WWII-era Nazis?) had as much to do with the Holocaust as the ordinary Muslim had to do with 9/11.
Except even the "ordinary" Nazi was deeply antisemitic, warmongering, and viciously authoritarian. Have you ever read Mein Kampf? It's impossible to encounter Hitler's statements without seeing a completely untethered hatred of Jews, homosexuals, Romas, and trade unionists. The basic tenants of Nazism are, in and of themselves, completely hideous. More importantly, their logical conclusion is almost certainly genocide and mass destruction.
I don't know where the fuck this desire to exonerate Nazis and SS members comes from, but it's absurd. The public, broadcasted opinions of Hitler were evil enough as to make any allegiance with him or his party completely unacceptable, even under threat of political disgrace or imprisonment.
To paraphrase some miserable Serbian mercenary "War is where the rich and powerful trick the young and stupid into killing each other." Soldiers are often people who have to fight, and the whole "You're with me or against me" stance just pisses me off because frankly i have never met a person with such a narrow view who wasn't a waste of flesh. Not all SS soldiers were anti-Semites who worshiped Hitler, they just for one reason or another had to take their ques from a disgusting lowlife. Not all U.S soldiers support Bush's pointless war, not all Catholics support the stupid pope, and not all Democrats are socialists. ...in fact i sometimes have problems believing i'm not the only Democratic Socialist alive when i see Jay fucking Nixon. I need to get out of Missouri.
You're missing the point. Regardless of the merits or flaws of the individual person you are voting for, support for them is support for their party, and all that implies. You cannot seperate the two.