People we see as "evil", are we being ignorant of their brilliance?

[Bulletinmybrain]

Yes I would codone genocide under a specific case, chavs take over the UK.

 

[s0denone]

Yes I would codone genocide under a specific case, chavs take over the UK.

I was talking about a specific example, Hitler, not some random fictional example

I can follow you, though: "Kill the French, or the planet dies" hold on "Kill all French, or one other non-French person".

Then we seem to agree after all I was making the point that Hitler was unjustifiably evil, as in his campaign of death (million dead) could not be justified.

So it does, I guess it was simply your wording, and eagerness to report people for their ideals that threw me into that fit.

Hangover was bad then, and I was extremely annoyed, can't blame you

 

[GunnerGraye]

Hitler.

Very true. He was a very great leader. Had he not gone totally insane with his whole holocaust bulls**t, he would've made a better leader. And anybody who starts with the "wow. racist." nonsense, they're being very ignorant and not seeing this from another view. I'm in no way a nazi, I oppose everything and I'm for total peace, so don't start any ridiculous s**t.

 

[s0denone]

Yes I would codone genocide under a specific case, chavs take over the UK.

I was talking about a specific example, Hitler, not some random fictional example

I can follow you, though: "Kill the French, or the planet dies" hold on "Kill all French, or one other non-French person".

Then we seem to agree after all I was making the point that Hitler was unjustifiably evil, as in his campaign of death (million dead) could not be justified.

So it does, I guess it was simply your wording, and eagerness to report people for their ideals that threw me into that fit.

Hangover was bad then, and I was extremely annoyed, can't blame you

From a fictional standpoint I could see genocide being justified, like eliminating the Chimera(Resistance 1 & 2), or one of those races that will stop at nothing for victory.

I can understand the annoyance.

Here's one for you then, to see if you are a cynic beyond my understand-capabilities.

On one side is your family, and all you friends, and all the people you have efter related to.

On the other side are people you don't know.

One of these sides will cause the death of the other sooner or later, but it will be up to you to decide their immediate fate.

Let both live, and let them kill eachother over time?
Kill your family/friends/all the people you have ever known.
Kill the people you don't know?

That case 1, there's exactly 1000 people in each group. Random number.

Case 2, however, your family/friends.. count 200, and the people you don't know count 20000 - What choice do you make?

This is meant to be more of a dilemamma rather then enticing this discussion farther, as it has gone on long enough

 

[falcontwin]

Was Hitler really a great leader?. I can see how people can watch the old footage of the rallies and correlate getting the german people to rise up against the world as being great. But He inspired people through hate and prejudice his speaches were all about instilling hatred for a supposed enemy .

He was not a great man and he could not run a country today. Bill O'riely has a huge following on fox based on pandering to peoples fears and pandering to peoples hatred and bigotry, You cannot say he would make a good world leader.

Hitler was a person who appealed to the lowest common denominator and gained a fanbase amougnst those who felt themselves to be oppressed by a certain sector of society (in this case the Jews)Hitler wasn't a great man he was a shock jock who was before his time.

Also yes evil exists, Evil is knowing something is going to cause pain and misery to a person/animal/a certain group of people and doing it simply because you want to and you can.

 

[s0denone]

For case 1:
Quite simply I'd let them all live, let them kill each other off, its not my place to kill either group, and I know that most of my family and friends wouldn't want me to kill the other people. And I wouldn't kill my family and friends because what do I have if they aren't around?

For case 2:
It would appear that I would let my friends and family kill the other group or I'd do it myself, because I wouldn't kill them, my beliefs on loyalty are strong and turning on them would be a breach of that loyalty.

I understand you a bit better now, I think, your views.

Personally:

Case one: Kill the "randoms"
Case two: Kill the "randoms"

Why? Because I don't know them, or their families, but if I killed or were the reason of the death of a loved one by being passive, I wouldn't be able to live with myself afterwards. The Faceless vs. Known faces.

Still, it is quite contradictory. You say you can find reasons to justify genocide, and those would most likely include protecting your family? (No?) And/Or the rest of earth.

On the other hand you say that the end can easily justify the means, but you still choose not to kill the strangers in case 1.

I say the end doesn't justify the means, yet I kill the strangers in a heartbeat in each scenario. I suppose it proves that no-one view the world in black and white

 

[ffxfriek]

id have to say it depends on every person for every reason

 

[Lyiat]

I think the ultimate factor if this thread is whether or not one believes "The ends justify the means"

If one believes that qoute, and Hitler had won World War II and achieved his goals, then to said person Hitler would be perhaps the best person in the entire world. Hitler would have made lasting peace across the entire planet through military force and socialism, and he would have silenced all open opposition to his rules and regulations. If he had succeeded in his goals, he ultimately would have made a better world. "The ends justify the means" would clear him of any guilt he had over killing any of the other "inferior races".

However, Hitler did not win. And so his ends were that he was utterly unsuccessful in "saving" the world, and none of his goals became accomplished. So, ultimately, Hitler did much more bad and all his possible good was undone. Even if one believes in said qoute, his ends do not fill the means that he made to get to where he did.

Further more, I will say Hitler was a -very- christmatic man and a very intelligent man... But he was also very unwise and misguided. He was a brilliant strategist and a bold leader of the people, and he managed to unite an entire nation behind him. He fought tooth and claw for his country and his ideal of a perfect world... But he went about it the wrong way and, for lack of a better word, pissed off the wrong people.

I personally find Hitler to be a bad person, but one must take note that there were people in Hitler's army that were FAR more sick and deprived then the Fuhrer himself. I will also end this with a final quote:

"Those that win the wars write the history of the world".

Note: I, in no way, shape, or form support or advocate what Hitler did or lead. I will denounce his actions at every turn. I, for one, know that the worst of things have happened with the best intentions in mind.

 

[Lyiat]

He was not a great man and he could not run a country today. Bill O'riely has a huge following on fox based on pandering to peoples fears and pandering to peoples hatred and bigotry, You cannot say he would make a good world leader.

Then explain any of the other Dictators alive today. Do they not do the same thing as Hitler did on a smaller scale? Further more, Fox is the most one-sided channel in existence and I advice you to stop looking at them for any moral quandary, because they will -only- show their own arguments.

 

[cyber_andyy]

Interesting thread.

To quote/paraphrase Kratos Aurion of Tales of Symphonia upon his opinion of the war: "Which came first; the chicken or the egg?" (This will appear in context for those who have played the game)

In my opinion, how you view evil really depends upon whose side you are on.

Oh, and I must say that your response to the leader thread was beyond profound. While I disagree entirely with all that Hitler stood for, I must admit that the man was flawless when it came to grasping the support of the populace. Few people peer that deep into a situation.

Coming from the keyboard of a Christian, (feel free to groan or roll your eyes; I honestly do not care), I believe that the only TRUE evil exists in Satan and his subordinates. The world never was, and never shall be, black and white. Before I am attacked by Satanists, I would like to say that they may very well view my God and I as evil. It is in human nature to do so.

So, would you say that the true evil of satan can filter into people, not true evil, but enough to do damage?

 

[cyber_andyy]

He was not a great man and he could not run a country today. Bill O'riely has a huge following on fox based on pandering to peoples fears and pandering to peoples hatred and bigotry, You cannot say he would make a good world leader.

Although i doubt i can change your opinion, and im not gonna force mine upon you but do you not see why i use the word brilliant when we describe how he rebuilt germany. You say he could not run a country today, infact (IMO) with the current economic situation he would- with out the whole physco racist bit - do quite a good job, as it is the same situation (sorta) as germany when he was around.

sorry for double post

 

[Syntax Error]

History is always written by the winners. I have not read any historical achievement that wasn't preceded by war (or winning a war is used as a motive, or discoveries that became instruments of war). A select few exceptions would probably be from the time of conquests and exploration, but even then, conquered lands often get turned into military outposts.

Had Hitler won the war, what do you think we would be discussing right now?

 

[s0denone]

...

Great exchange of opinion, glad to see the discussion ended happily ever after.