hey, OP here.
I really, really don't think it's healthy, wise, or good parenting to teach kids (of any faith) that they are here to fight a war and that there are evil people out there out to get them.
Or to raise them in a manner that convinces them that at 5 they aren't getting enough out of life.
Jesus Camp!
Quote:Original post by davobrosia
I really, really don't think it's healthy, wise, or good parenting to teach kids (of any faith) that they are here to fight a war and that there are evil people out there out to get them.
I disagree that it's not healthy, wise, or good parenting to teach kids (of any faith) that there are evil people out there out to get them. My parents taught me at a young age not to, for example, get into a car with a stranger no matter what excuse they gave (e.g. "Your parents sent me to pick you up") because there are evil people out. I think this is healthy, wise, and good parenting.
Quote:Original post by LessBread
The fact is that both of us misused the word. Pacifist is a noun. You used it as an adjective and I followed suit.
Hitler was not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. He may have been pacifistic towards aryans, but that's still a very poor choice of words to describe his attitude towards them.Quote:
pac‧i‧fist
–noun
1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
2. a person whose personal belief in pacifism causes him or her to refuse being drafted into military service. Compare conscientious objector.
pac‧i‧fis‧tic
–adjective
of or pertaining to pacifism or pacifists.
[Origin: 1925–30; pacif(ic) + -istic]
—Related forms
pac‧i‧fis‧ti‧cal‧ly, adverb
pac·i·fism
n.
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
1. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
2. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
I don't see how any of those words apply to Hitler.
im affraid im missing the grammatical subtleties here, but is my meaning clear or is it not?
Quote:
The cost of your speculative "savings" is exhorbitant to the point of making the notion absurd. You're completely overlooking that Nazism was ultimately all about war and conquest. They could have conquered the world and that wouldn't have gone away.
no, it was about the spread of the aryan race by war and conquest. that should go away by definition once they had conquered the world, and my use of the word pacifism comes from the fact that such is how hitler uses it when referring to this situation: that such would be the right time for pacifism (as opposed to 1930).
as for the cost being exhorbitant and making it absurd: thats exactly the point im trying to make: it is the verdict of my mockup attempt at an absolute standard of moral poison. (if you have any better ones, id love to give them a try)
Quote:Original post by EelcoQuote:Original post by Dmytry
See, i'm not brainwashed to fly airplane into building or do something like that. Those muslim terrorist guys are. These christian guys almost are, ready to be used this way if there will be some christian OBL.
The cultural/moral relativism/"everyone is brainwashed" argument only goes so long before it gets rediculous, and Oluseyi's one is surely very rediculous. Of course everyone is educated in someway. Sure everyone eats some food. And sure there's different opinions on what food is the best, different preferences, etc. It doesn't anyhow mean there exist no poisons.
the thing is, poison has a well defined meaning: a lethal substance.
what is moral poison? aside from the fact that every definition of such would be a moral statement itself, even if we were to, for instance, assume that a moral system that has a high probability of leading to deaths is a moral poison, youre still nowhere. hitler was a pacifist towards aryans, so maybe after he would have killed off all non-aryans, the world would have become completely pacifist, and in the long run his ideas would have been the least morally poisoning?
there are no absolute morals, and if you pretend there are, thats just because you want to exploit the rethoric fact that 'this is wrong' is more persuasive than 'i think this is wrong'.
the thing is: you dont need absolute morality on your side to act. 'i think this is wrong and im going to kick your ass' is even more persuasive than 'this is wrong'. moral relativism does in no way imply that you cannot or shouldnt condemn or act on other peoples behavior.
Yep, i mostly agree with that. Still, the brainwashing for suicide attack is just as close to poison as it can get. It's better to define that as virus though. The system which spreads itself, and fights with competing systems. Infection may be short term acute, chronic, or lethal. Additionally there's people with special interests who benefit from such stuff.
It's obvious why nobody want somebody else to have his own zombies. Maybe we can define moral by consensus - immoral is what almost nobody want others to have or to do unto him. From there justice system follows - it makes sense to group together to stop those who do such things.
btw, speaking of natural selection. Animal killing other animal of same species is most often selected against because there is risk that such animal takes individually yet the reward (decrease in number of competitors) is spread to everyone in this region.
Suppose there's some gene that makes human fight for lebensraum fanatically (as opposed to having normal version with no fanatism). In virtually any population, there will be individuals with fanatism or normal gene, those with fanatism will reproduce less as the benefit is largely shared (sure ones who go to war might rape but those who stay will have surplus of women aswell) but the risk is not.
Consider one who persuades others to go to war, i'd think evolutionally such would be selected better.
(re: hitler. The "aryan" was quite flexible term, defined as whatever suits him politically, and only that. You can hardly say he was acting rationally though. Ditto for the purproses of war. Besides, he attacked other nordic nations.)
[Edited by - Dmytry on September 9, 2006 4:26:32 AM]
They view the Palestinians and Pakistanis in a negative light, but then try to be as much like them as Christianly possible. That has a ring of hypocrisy to it.
But, yeah, all the war talk is just a rallying cry for these kids to get organized and aggressive about Christianizing the US (and more specifically, the government). Nothing to do with violence.
The idea is to disenfranchise Americans who are not Christian enough (or as they see it to enfranchise themselves - a typical persecution complex). It is kind of conspiratorial. The idea is to manufacture Evangelical leader-bots out of these children, who will pave the way for further Evangelical leader-bots to occupy higher offices.
But, yeah, all the war talk is just a rallying cry for these kids to get organized and aggressive about Christianizing the US (and more specifically, the government). Nothing to do with violence.
The idea is to disenfranchise Americans who are not Christian enough (or as they see it to enfranchise themselves - a typical persecution complex). It is kind of conspiratorial. The idea is to manufacture Evangelical leader-bots out of these children, who will pave the way for further Evangelical leader-bots to occupy higher offices.
Quote:Original post by Way WalkerQuote:Original post by davobrosia
I really, really don't think it's healthy, wise, or good parenting to teach kids (of any faith) that they are here to fight a war and that there are evil people out there out to get them.
I disagree that it's not healthy, wise, or good parenting to teach kids (of any faith) that there are evil people out there out to get them. My parents taught me at a young age not to, for example, get into a car with a stranger no matter what excuse they gave (e.g. "Your parents sent me to pick you up") because there are evil people out. I think this is healthy, wise, and good parenting.
That's not quite what I meant.
"Evil people who we look down our noses at because they don't believe in God are coming to get you!"
or
"You have to grow up to fight against these evil atheists! This is a war!"
Quote:Original post by thundergunslinger
Thanks for Oluyesi and Eelco for injecting some much needed reality into this thread.
In Africa, one might imagine that one would name one's child "Righteous Sword of God" out of arrogance due to persecution. Hell, my name means "Who is like God" (a statement or a rhetorical question), but I don't think my parents meant anything by it.
Do you all realize all of you "scared" by the clip are contributing to some almost worthless hysteria? Do you realize that the documentary is targeted to your sensibilities? Have you ever seen videos of gangfights in Russia, or read Western Maoist documents? This threat is just another irrelevant but popular one to be played up, since there is a dollar to be made (hello, commercial release! Yes, I'll fund your totally neutral documentary, says no one) and word to be spread.
And I think the point about secular brainwashing is often missed. One reacts with his/her gut too often at "the other," and this is no different from that.
I went to a Jesus Camp as well. I learned to play guitar there. It was an excellent experience. Any language of "warfare" was couched in "spiritual" terms, which I imagine is the case here as well, but obviously edited out.
I'm sure the "Islamofascists" couch a lot of their "warfare" language in "spiritual terms" as well...
Quote:Original post by EelcoQuote:Original post by LessBread
The fact is that both of us misused the word. Pacifist is a noun. You used it as an adjective and I followed suit.
Hitler was not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. He may have been pacifistic towards aryans, but that's still a very poor choice of words to describe his attitude towards them.Quote:
pac‧i‧fist
–noun
1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
2. a person whose personal belief in pacifism causes him or her to refuse being drafted into military service. Compare conscientious objector.
pac‧i‧fis‧tic
–adjective
of or pertaining to pacifism or pacifists.
[Origin: 1925–30; pacif(ic) + -istic]
—Related forms
pac‧i‧fis‧ti‧cal‧ly, adverb
pac·i·fism
n.
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
1. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
2. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
I don't see how any of those words apply to Hitler.
im affraid im missing the grammatical subtleties here, but is my meaning clear or is it not?
No, it wasn't. Your meaning was confused. Pacifist is not a word that describes Hitler in any way.
Quote:Original post by EelcoQuote:
The cost of your speculative "savings" is exhorbitant to the point of making the notion absurd. You're completely overlooking that Nazism was ultimately all about war and conquest. They could have conquered the world and that wouldn't have gone away.
no, it was about the spread of the aryan race by war and conquest. that should go away by definition once they had conquered the world, and my use of the word pacifism comes from the fact that such is how hitler uses it when referring to this situation: that such would be the right time for pacifism (as opposed to 1930).
as for the cost being exhorbitant and making it absurd: thats exactly the point im trying to make: it is the verdict of my mockup attempt at an absolute standard of moral poison. (if you have any better ones, id love to give them a try)
And what was the Aryan race about? It was about war and conquest! War and conquest was a major part of their identity - the "Will to Power", "Triumph of the Will", Wagner's Ring, Myths of the Teutonic knights, all that. That wouldn't change if they had conquered the world. That Hitler used it that way confirms my condemnation. If you haven't figured it out by now, Hitler was a liar.
Quote:Original post by LessBreadQuote:Original post by Eelco
im affraid im missing the grammatical subtleties here, but is my meaning clear or is it not?
No, it wasn't. Your meaning was confused. Pacifist is not a word that describes Hitler in any way.
answering a question about the present with a statement about the past... does not compute.
ignoring that, your answer suggest that you were able to infer my meaning perfectly well, as any todler would have been able to.
Quote:Quote:Original post by EelcoQuote:
The cost of your speculative "savings" is exhorbitant to the point of making the notion absurd. You're completely overlooking that Nazism was ultimately all about war and conquest. They could have conquered the world and that wouldn't have gone away.
no, it was about the spread of the aryan race by war and conquest. that should go away by definition once they had conquered the world, and my use of the word pacifism comes from the fact that such is how hitler uses it when referring to this situation: that such would be the right time for pacifism (as opposed to 1930).
as for the cost being exhorbitant and making it absurd: thats exactly the point im trying to make: it is the verdict of my mockup attempt at an absolute standard of moral poison. (if you have any better ones, id love to give them a try)
And what was the Aryan race about? It was about war and conquest! War and conquest was a major part of their identity - the "Will to Power", "Triumph of the Will", Wagner's Ring, Myths of the Teutonic knights, all that. That wouldn't change if they had conquered the world.
i dont claim to be a professor in hitlarism, but i think you are confusing two things about hitler: his goals and the means by which to archieve them. the imagery and the scrapegoating and all that were part of his propaganda effort to incite the masses. inciting the masses to war was not his goal however. the spread of the aryan race was.
Quote:
That Hitler used it that way confirms my condemnation.
?
Quote:If you haven't figured it out by now, Hitler was a liar.
aint we all.
either way, entertaining as this discussion is, it is pointless: you are missing the point again. this is not about me proving hitlers policies would have resulted in less deaths in the long run. its about me pointing out you are unable to prove the converse.
Quote:Original post by EelcoQuote:Original post by LessBreadQuote:Original post by Eelco
im affraid im missing the grammatical subtleties here, but is my meaning clear or is it not?
No, it wasn't. Your meaning was confused. Pacifist is not a word that describes Hitler in any way.
answering a question about the present with a statement about the past... does not compute.
Your meaning wasn't clear and is still quite confused. That's where poor word choice leads.
Quote:Original post by EelcoQuote:
And what was the Aryan race about? It was about war and conquest! War and conquest was a major part of their identity - the "Will to Power", "Triumph of the Will", Wagner's Ring, Myths of the Teutonic knights, all that. That wouldn't change if they had conquered the world.
i dont claim to be a professor in hitlarism, but i think you are confusing two things about hitler: his goals and the means by which to archieve them. the imagery and the scrapegoating and all that were part of his propaganda effort to incite the masses. inciting the masses to war was not his goal however. the spread of the aryan race was.
You don't claim to be a professor of Hitlarism, yet you do claim that you are repeating what Hitler said. If you're not an expert, maybe you should back away from your claim? And if you're not an expert, how can you say that his goal wasn't to incite the masses to war?
Quote:Original post by Eelco
either way, entertaining as this discussion is, it is pointless: you are missing the point again. this is not about me proving hitlers policies would have resulted in less deaths in the long run. its about me pointing out you are unable to prove the converse.
I'm not missing the point that you're attempting to rehabilitate Hitler by saying he was a pacifist when it came to his own people. That's patently absurd. At the end of the war he thought they should all die for having lost.
This is not about me, this about the silly point that you were trying to make.
Quote:
what is moral poison? aside from the fact that every definition of such would be a moral statement itself, even if we were to, for instance, assume that a moral system that has a high probability of leading to deaths is a moral poison, youre still nowhere. hitler was a pacifist towards aryans, so maybe after he would have killed off all non-aryans, the world would have become completely pacifist, and in the long run his ideas would have been the least morally poisoning?
I've removed a plank of your argument. Hitler was not pacifistic towards Aryans. Remove that and the rest of your argument collapses. To continue with the demolition. There are far more non-Aryans on the planet than Aryans. The moral poison that would flow from the slaughter of billions would have stained those ideas forever. To accomplish that would require complete nihilism. There could be no pacifism afterward.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
