Good Nuremberg Quote

[»SD>Big]

nt

[MonteZuma]

nice.

[Aileron]

I know that this a predictable arguement, but this guy was a huge Nazi.

 

I mean, I hate using the "I don't like you so I'll dismiss your arguement" tactic, but you people keep citing Nazis, Communists, criminals, and Baathists. These people are evil, and ofcourse in their opinion there is no difference between good and evil - its the only way their psychology can survive self scrutiny!! So, they will always try to make the universal claim.

 

I mean, you could have quoted John Paul II, and that would have been a lot more tricky for me.

 

I however agree that most leadership decisions are done in a top down fashion, because its simply impossible for them to occur in a bottom up fashion. That doesn't make it wrong. You would have to prove the War in Iraq was wrong in the first place before this quote means anything.

[»SD>Big]

well, whether a nazi said it, or if i would have seen anyone else say it, i would have posted it, regardless of who said it, it's true. sure his views are cynical, but yeah, it's realistic view i think.

 

as for the war in iraq, when i first saw this quote, i obviously thought of iraq and the US, but i didn't mention it on purpose cause i didn't want to !@#$%^&*ociate the quote with it, i think that quote applies to any country, any government.

[X`terrania]

I do not have any problems with nazis, they are just like you and me!

[»Ducky]

*Shrug* It's true regardless of who said it.

[Greased_Lightning]

I can think of a few countries this wouldn't apply to but won't list them cuz im too busy cussing out univeristy computer registration system... f'kin communist ASSS

[Aileron]

I hate to use the "he's a _____, ignore him" arguement, if abused it can lead to very stupid conclusions. But, in this case I'd say it might be the only sound one.

 

Suppose you were walking down the street, and somebody jumps out of the corner with a stick and starts beating you on the head with it. While he is doing this, he starts giving a speech on pacifism. Would you listen to the speech?

 

Actions speak louder than words. The only sane conclusion in this case is to assume this guy violent and to ignore whatever he says on pacifism. He would not even be a hyppocrite, for a hyppocrite atleast pretends to act in a righteous fashion. Odds are, this man only speaks peace to get fools to stand and listen to him so that he can smack him on the head again.

 

 

Goering wasn't the worst Nazi there. His job was primarily the military campaign. Still, he wasn't exactly the most competant general the world has ever seen, so you know Hitler kept him around because of loyalty to his cause, which was genocide.(Goering was a brown-nosing "yes-man" really)

 

The key here was the end of the European campaign. When the Nazi's goose was cooked and they knew their goose was cooked, instead of surrendering they decided to fight for every inch and do as much damage to the Allies and Germany as possible.

 

Similarly at the trial, Goering knew his goose was cooked. The entire population of London wanted a piece of him and had a pretty !@#$%^&* good reason to. So, Goering most likely attempted to do as much damage possible on the way down, just like he did at the end of the military campaign. Odds are everything he said had the sole purpose of confusing fools and weakening allied leadership.

 

 

I mean, there are so many people in the world to quote, and a lot of them have done positive things that greatly benefitted mankind. I mean, you could quote some religious text, some prophet, Nobel prize winners, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, some anchient Greek philosopher, or whoever...I'd reather listen to those people, who I know absolutely speak the truth, rather than some nazi who may or may not be lying through his teeth.

[»Ducky]

Nice speech. I would like to add

"Doesn't matter, it's true."

 

If I am on trial for murder and get a chance to speak and say "People are stupid," in my defense-- Who I am and what I have done doesn't matter one single bit.

 

People will always be stupid and someone out there will always agree with the statement when the context allows.

 

Doesn't matter if it was lying through his teeth. Whether you sat there and listened or not doesn't make his statement any more/less false.

 

You are just looking to argue about something when there isn't anything to argue about.

[Aileron]

No, I'm argueing because I'm getting sick of the pattern. Its the pattern of not trusting democratically elected officials, religious leaders, certain professionals and generally anyone contributing to society, and giving the benefit of the doubt to Nazis, criminals, murders, and the like - then wondering why the world seems upside down!

 

Its not that this guy is a nazi - its that this guy was a nazi, the last guy was a communist, and the guy before him was a serial killer!

 

 

This guy has zero credibility. He was an evil !@#$%^&*, and incompetant as well. You say this doesn't mean anything, but it does. ANYBODY can place pretty words together. Its easy. What counts are actions. The difference between words and actions is the difference between one of those preachers who annoy everyone in front of a building and a bona fide saint. The difference between words and actions is the difference between that noob who is using a kill macro and the veteran holding a 1000:100 win/loss ratio.

 

And its not like there's a shortage of quotes in the world...there are MANY sources to quote, made by individuals who did good things...how the !@#$%^&* did this !@#$%^&*hole make it to the top of the list?

[»Ducky]

His quote was found by someone and posted. That's how it was added to the top of the list.

 

I doubt SD typed "Good quotes from bad people" in google and this was the best match.

Him being a nazi or the pope doesn't matter AT ALL.

I understand what you are saying, but it's just added !@#$%^&* to the pot that doesn't need to be there.

 

For the most part, most of us aren't anti-semetic(sp); but we are moderately liberal. The quote directly relates to our view on how Bush got alot of backing for the war. SD could have searched 4 hours for a similar quote from a good person, but there was no reason to when there was a !@#$%^&* good one already found.

[Aileron]

IN YOUR OPINION, that's how Bush got support for the war in Iraq. I cannot speak for all supporters...but I support this war for my own reasons. Hussein's tyranny justifies the loss of life to remove him, and the new democracy will show the citizens of neighboring countries that they don't have to accept the !@#$%^&*ty tyrannys they live under. (In my opinion, this was Bush's true motive all along, but I have no way of proving this.)

 

And the point is that the fact that this guy was a nazi DOES mean !@#$%^&*. I mean, at first glance you see the word "nazi" and figure...aw !@#$%^&*, that doesn't dismiss the statement.

 

However, study it deeper and you can understand my thinking here. Its easy to see the word "nazi", its harder to understand what the !@#$%^&*le represents. This guy murdered thousands of innocents in a multi-million casualty war the only real objective of which was to spread genocide. Goering INVENTED the idea of using airplanes to intentionally bomb civilian cities (if I'm wrong here, then Goering was one of the first major implimentors.) At very least he was a man who put his career ahead of people's lives, and at very most he was a genocidal maniac just like Hitler.

 

He cerainly isn't wise enough to give sage advice, or righteous enough to be trustworthy. His thinking wasn't sound. Goering didn't know the difference between right and wrong and wisdom and folly, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten the "nazi" !@#$%^&*le in the first place. The only possibility of him giving correct advice is if he chanced upon it by accident, much like a monkey typing Shakespear on a typewriter. We certainly cannot assume this statement is one of the accidents. You would have to prove independantly that this statement is true, because the word of the guy who said it is worth dildo.

 

And "It fits what's happening now with Iraq" is a logical folly of ridiculous proportions. First and foremost, you are using the statement in its own proof, because you set Goering's quote and "the War in Iraq is wrong" to prove each other. Secondly, you are !@#$%^&*uming that the War in Iraq has no natural political support, a statement that is clearly false given how there were several conflicts (or one continuous conflict) before Bush ever took office. Third of all, you are !@#$%^&*uming that there is no difference between nazism and democracy, and it may seem to you that the perceived difference is nothing but propaganda, but there is infact a VERY good reason for the perceived difference, because they ARE different...the proof of which I can supply on request, I'm not going to make this post longer than it has to be.

 

You find that this quote aggrees with your political objectives, so you ignore the character of the man who said it and you also ignore it's mul!@#$%^&*ude of logical flaws.

[»Ducky]

Again, making nothing into something.

but we are moderately liberal. The quote directly relates toour view on how Bush got alot of backing for the war.

 

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Isn't that what !@#$%^&*ing happened?

He told us Iraq had WMD's and that we were beyond negotiation.

He infered quite clearly that we would be destroyed unless we attacked first.

That fits PRETTY !@#$%^&* GOOD to the quote and was the whole reason it was posted.

You may have supported him for another reason, but I garauntee this is why he got the numbers he did. Fear. Do you think liberals make this !@#$%^&* up? We all knew what was happening when it started. I am not saying the concept is bad; fear as a control device has worked for hundreds of years.

 

However, study it deeper and you can understand my thinking here

No, that's the problem. There isn't one reason to study it deeper. I won't ever study it deeper because I know that they were just words.

Whether they were meant to be misleading words, false words, true words, words spoken from a pig, a demon, a stupid man or an intelligent woman doesn't matter. The words were true and they fit this context.

 

And....blah blah

No logical flaws, I demonstrated what the quote meant and its intention earlier in my reply. You not agreeing with the quote and attempting to paint 'What I see' is the flaw.

 

You find that this quote aggrees with your political objectives, so you ignore the character of the man who said it and you also ignore it's mul!@#$%^&*ude of logical flaws.

I don't ignore the man entirely. I know what he is and what he has done. That does not change his valid statement and my belief in it.

[SeVeR]

We try so hard to look like the innocent party by allying ourselves with the opposite of what appears to be wrong and evil. Afterall, without labels we don't know who to hate or how to express our hatred. Goering had the label nazi, therefore you hate him. If Goering was the pope then you might just read what he said and see great meaning in it. Your preconceptions of what is evil in this world shield you from a likely truth.

 

"Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual." -Nietzsche

 

People like to quote those who appear to be evil because its surprising when they say something that is good or profoundly true. Most of us like to question our opinions of what is good and evil, although i can see someone here has already set their beliefs in stone.

 

"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." -Nietzsche

[Aileron]

What part of m!@#$%^&* genocide is a "preconcieved notion" Sever? I DO have a right to judge this guy, because as of yet, I have not killed any innocent people! I'm not basing my judgements on notions of who is right and wrong, I am basing them on the Goering's ACTIONS. GOERING KILLED PEOPLE!!!! LOTS of people. He organized the bombing of London, and contributed to the deaths of 6 million jews and I don't know how many soldiers, both Allied and Axis. He wasn't some punk kid !@#$%^&*uming the !@#$%^&*le "nazi" to be intimidating...he got the !@#$%^&*le by the blood of millions.

 

The !@#$%^&*le does usually mean something - people are not elected pope by murdering jews. However, I am not judging Goering by his !@#$%^&*le, I don't have to. I am judging him by what he did. If Goering was a pope I'd still hate him, the only difference is I'd wonder which group of idiots made him pope in the first place.

 

The only preconcieved notion I am using is "murder is wrong". Everything beyond that is based on Goering's actions.

 

That's why I'd rather the quote be from the late pope John Paul II...he HELPED people. He SAVED lives where Goering killed people, he brought peace where Goering brought war, he advanced humanity and civilization where Goering was one of those who attempted to destroy it. John Paul II opposed the War in Iraq too, so I'm not asking you to sacrifice anything politically - I'm just asking that you look at a person's actions before you look at what they may speak, because putting some words together that sound like a correct statement is easy...but it takes a true person to speak the true truth, and you can only judge a person by his or her actions.

 

Words do indeed speak louder than preconcieved notions, but actions speak even louder than words. I don't judge this man by his political choices...I judge this man by his actions.

 

 

 

Nietzsche was wrong with the first quote...human beings don't even HAVE a herd instinct, because we are a predatory species. We have no more of a herd instinct that a pack of wolves or a pride of lions...they do form groups, but mostly to promote higher yields out of hunting. We may have a pack hunting instinct, indeed after seeing 17th pub, I'd say we absolutely have one...but no herd instinct.

 

And his second quote requires the first one.

 

 

 

 

PS: Don't try to compaire Goering with Bush either, Bush waged war to stop genocide and to stop a regime that itself was trying to set civilization back a few steps. Bush's actions did indeed lead to some deaths, but his actions also saved lives too...its hard to pin a "good" or "evil" label on him...which is probably why 3 years later we are still debating.

 

 

Ducky, I've already replied to your last quote...if you would read more out of it than "blah blah", you'd be smart enough to see that, but you aren't...that's your loss, not mine.

[»Ducky]

I compared his quote to what happened with Bush.

I didn't compare the men.

You are just fishing for things to argue about, like I said in my very first reply to you. Due to that, this will most likely be one of my last replies. You waste too much of my time.

 

There isn't any failing on my part. You attempted to coerce me using !@#$%^&*umed details and things you "thought you read" from my post.

The fact that I explicitly said there was no underlined meaning to my support of the quote just tosses the rest of the bull!@#$%^&* you accused me of out into the trash.

 

You are correct, a mans actions will always speak louder than words.

But I garauntee that viewpoint is changed when someone who you refer to as 'good' says "I hope all ASSS die."

See how long it takes for that person to be disregarded by society. It doesn't matter if they cured cancer, because the statement is obviously stupid. Will you support that man then? Under your rules, you would be labeled as a racist you know. That goes the exact same for a murderer saying something true. Why can't I support something someone says and not support their actions. Not everyone good says good things, and not everyone bad says bad things. There is a line.

 

 

It would have been nice to agree with a quote from the late pope, but nothing he ever said was posted on this forum, and I am not spending the next 7 years looking at quotes from good people.

You come post some of those quotes here and see how many I agree and disagree with. Mix in a few sensible ones from Hitler too, see if I can tell them apart. Bet I can't.

 

Just wake the !@#$%^&* up and realize for once I am not attacking your !@#$%^&*ty political party or your !@#$%^&*ty religion or your !@#$%^&*ty country for one !@#$%^&*ed minute, suck it up and go flaunt whatever political prowess you obtain in another thread.

You obviously can't see what every other person on this topic has seen.

And that, unlike every other post created, can't be blamed on "Liberal media slant that is corrupting our very nature" or whatever the !@#$%^&* it is you advocate.

 

FYI, Herd Instict directly refers to the fact that despite having a seperate logically sound mind, you will forsake the thing you want just so it doesn't cause conflict with the majority or your reputation.

Have 5 people cry racist, and 3 others will join in just so that they aren't shunned for going against the majority.

Humans are like that in social situations; they go with the flow and will always be sheep.

I don't believe it was intended to be scientific 'Herd Instict' in any way.

[SeVeR]

Goerring probably thought we were evil and that the jews were all evil. Who is to say that what you think to be evil is correct? In all likelihood he probably was an evil person but thats not going to make me assume that everything he's said is wrong and not worthy of me reading. So what "he was a BIG nazi" the moment we stop listening to nazis is the moment we stop understanding them.. and when we fail to understand the reasoning behind what the nazis did we fail to learn the mistakes off history and are doomed to repeat them.

 

FYI, Herd Instict directly refers to the fact that despite having a seperate logically sound mind, you will forsake the thing you want just so it doesn't cause conflict with the majority or your reputation.

Have 5 people cry racist, and 3 others will join in just so that they aren't shunned for going against the majority.

Humans are like that in social situations; they go with the flow and will always be sheep.

I don't believe it was intended to be scientific 'Herd Instict' in any way.

Precisely, now i don't have to explain it.

 

How does my second Nietzsche quote require the first? There is no known correct way of doing anything. You'd have to be God to know what is correct, what is good, and... what is evil.

[Phyran]

Old men make wars, young men fight them

 

War does not determine who's right, it determines who's left

[Aileron]

Well, sorry...I'm not familiar with this "herd instinct", by virtue of the fact that I personally don't have one (if I did I would have stopped argueing here long ago). Maybe I'm just an anti-social rogue, in which case my sense of morality would disprove Neitzches' statement.

 

 

 

The point about it being difficult to tell the difference between a quote from s!@#$%^&* and a quote from someone worthwhile is infact essential to my reasoning. Its very difficult to tell the truth from a lie.

 

 

Put it this way:

 

Suppose you were traveling by foot to a certain town, when suddenly you come to a fork in the road. The roadside has rotten away and you have no map, so you have no way of telling which way is the right way. Suddenly, a hooded figure with a gun leaps out of the bushes and points the gun at your face...demanding your money. He robs you of 50 dollars, but before he walks away you ask which way is the town. He says its to the left. A few minutes later, another man comes by. Upon hearing your story, he decides to give you 50 dollars out of his pocket, by the reasoning that you need it more than he does. Before you part ways, you ask him which way the town is, and he says its to the right. Based on that information, would you flip a coin, or would you give extra credibility to the man who helped you and go right?

 

Everyone has an agenda. The robber has agenda of putting himself before others. To that end, he gives you directions to where HE wants you to go. The saint on the other hand has only an agenda of serving others, and has no interest in giving you false directions. Now sometimes the person giving you money may have a more complicated selfish agenda, but even so, we KNOW the robber has a selfish agenda, so its safer to stick with the possibility than the certainty.

 

Note how that if you only knew the words and not the person who gave them to you, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If all you knew was that one man said 'left' and another said 'right', you would have no idea where to go. I don't know why Ducky pointed that out...because it proves my point. Ofcourse you can't tell the difference! Words don't have a convenient label of "true" or "false" on them, you have to judge the character of the person giving them to tell the difference. If they did (and sometimes they do), then a character judgement is unnecessary.

 

 

 

About Ducky's hypothetical situation, spreading racial profanities is in itself an action. By the definition of good that I am using, the wrong action of insulting by race removes the person from the definition.

 

Now, clearly what he means to say is that a person of good actions isn't ALWAYS right, and a person of evil actions isn't ALWAYS wrong...but just because there is some amount of water in the Sahara doesn't make it wise to try to move there to build a cantalope farm.

 

 

As for understanding nazis...you can get plenty of understanding by their actions, which are a much clearer window to a person's nature than whatever they may say.

 

 

 

There is a VERY good reason why I am bothering to argue here. Its good to be tolerant of others, but tolerance ironically requires a certain amount of intollerance as well. To go back to the civil rights issue, it wasn't really solved until the government became intolerant of racial predudices. World War II would not have happened if the League of Nations was intolerant of aggressive nations. And most importantly, Europe didn't become tolerant of Jews until they became intolerant of Nazis.

 

Tollerating everything is apathy. Apathy is not only a sin but one of the things that destroy democracies. If you wish to be right (and promote civilization in general), you have to unfortunatly judge right from wrong, and if you make the wrong decision it does do a lot of damage. Judging somebody by their actions is a practically no-fail approach.

 

To sum up why I am arguing, if you haven't noticed by now, I hate evil. I can't stand it, and the world would be paradise without it. I do indeed fear making wrong judgements and becoming what I hate, but I can't just sit on the sidelines and watch as it infects our world. Apathy is an evil...and if what I do here diminishes its influence, then the world will be that much of a better place.

[SeVeR]

Whatever Goerring's motives we are judging the truth of his claims from a position where we already having some knowledge on the matter. This is where your analogy falls down. We are not in total bewilderment like the man in your story. What he has said makes sense because it takes our own knowledge and experiences and draws a conclusion from them. It does not say something like "Theres buried treasure in an underground bunker in Berlin" because we would have no idea at all whether its true.

 

As someone once said in a previous post, you are making something out of nothing.

 

If you've talked to another human being before then you have the herd-instinct. Its in our nature and the way we develop requires us to mimic our parents and friends. You say you hate evil but hate achieves nothing, hate is the evil side of your morality, its your brain persuading you that in some cases its good to be bad. If a nazi shouted out in the middle of town that he thinks every jew should be gutted and burnt then i wouldn't hate him or her. The hate wouldn't get either of us anything. I would pity the nazi for having such a poor upbringing to warrant such beliefs, i would try to understand what made them think that way and i would try to protect anyone from coming to harm by their actions. Hate is a wasted emotion. I would say that hate and the product of that hate is apathy. Its the quick solution to a problem that doesn't completely solve it causing it to repeat over. Its like cutting a weed at the stem but not pulling out the root.

 

As for understanding nazis...you can get plenty of understanding by their actions

Are you serious? Think about this for a minute please. If i looked at what nazis did i would say that they were very nationalistic, quite racist and a buncha murderers! But why? They weren't born evil. Reading a quote from someone with the common image of being evil and seeing truth in it allows us to question our own opinions of what is good and evil. It also allows us to see a little into their minds and how they came to justify their evil acts. By learning about the motives and reasonings of "the evil people" we learn how to stop the evil reoccuring. What we don't do is say "I hate all nazis, everything they say is lies, lets ignore it" because like hate that would get us nowhere.

[Aileron]

You just changed your definition of the herd instict! At first, you define it as a synanym to the term "groupthink", and now you changed it to virtually any adaptation to an evironment with atleast one other person in it.

 

 

 

As for the first part...are you sure you have other proof of his statement and that he isn't telling you what you want to hear?

 

However, the better approach to your statement is that if you had independant proof of his statement, you would rely on that proof instead of the word of s!@#$%^&*, and quoting the s!@#$%^&* would be unessesary and probably a negative in your arguement.

 

 

You would pity the nazi in your example because he is pathetic and annoying and really of little harm to anybody. Supposing said nazi took your family to the gas chambers and murdered them, I'm pretty sure you would do more than pity him. Granted I have been fortunate to have suffered no such loss, but I do feel something even when a stranger suffers.

 

Imagine crowds of London's populace hiding in the subway tunnels during the Battle of Britain...night after night of bombardment of civilian targets. Millions dead. All because some pig was egotistical enough to feel that he deserved a reich to worship him, and if people suffered and died for it that was too bad. Goering oversaw those bombings and was a weak lapdog of that pig. Goering should have been crammed into the gas chambers his cohorts were using and buried beneath a sidewalk, so that everyone can walk all over his cold corpse. He certainly does NOT deserve to be ressurected in the form of a quote next to Goering's best picture with a beutiful countryside in the background.

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, I said "I hate evil", not "I hate nazis"...there's a difference.

 

 

 

 

 

About judging nazis by their actions...yes, said interpretation would be imprecise, but only because you made an imprecise interpretation of their actions. You have to study ALL of their actions on a person by person basis to get a perfectly precise estimate. If you only use the fact that they murdered jews, you do indeed come to a pretty crude !@#$%^&*essment. You came to a sloppy conclusion because you took a sloppy !@#$%^&*essment of their actions. Don't blame the method...it works...you just didn't use it right.

 

 

For a proper example of how to judge someone by actions: Goering wasn't exactly the greatest military mind the world has ever seen. He showed repeated failures throughout the war...the greatest of which was allowing the British forces to evacuate after France's surrender. Frankly, Hitler kept him around because he was a bit of a brown-noser.

 

Now, you can judge the fact that he fought for people who were commiting genocide and come to a crude conclusion. However, if you enter in Goering's brown nosing, you come to the conclusion that he put priority to his career over the lives of civilians. This is still a pretty crude !@#$%^&*essment, but you can understand his nature a lot better than the last one.

 

Goering's career was his number one priority. It didn't matter to him if the jews were being gased. It didn't matter to him that civilians in London were having bombs dropped on their heads...all that mattered to him was that at the end of the day he was Reich-Marshall. He didn't regret the war, or dislike Hitler for starting it, or atleast not enough to risk his precious position over it. He didn't do it for Germany like some of the other axis commanders did either, otherwise he wouldn't have weaseled himself into a job he wasn't capable of doing. Goering just supported his career above all else.

 

Now, I could make an even better conclusion if I studied his biography, but I don't have time. The point is that if you learn of his actions, you understand the man, and if you understand the man, you can tell whether you should bother with his quote or should fish out for a better one.

[SeVeR]

Um.. no, on just about everything you said. I don't have time to quote every sentence and tell you why, because its plain to see. If i get sufficiently bored over the next few days i will make a long post of it but i see this discussion as little more than an argument with a child who will say anything not to concede a point.

 

But...

 

Just so you don't think i'm getting all high and mighty heres a little taster

 

I mean, I hate using the "I don't like you so I'll dismiss your arguement" tactic, but you people keep citing Nazis, Communists, criminals, and Baathists. These people are evil,

Besides, I said "I hate evil", not "I hate nazis"...there's a difference.

 

According to you there was no difference a week ago or whenever you wrote that first sentence i've quoted.

 

Coupled with the fact that i refered to you hating evil in my last post well before i quoted what someone might say if they hate nazis.

 

The problem with this discussion, if you can call it that, is you will say anything not to concede a point even if its complete bollocks...

 

I know this post doesn't contribute much either but i hope it brings a few things to your attention so we can carry on this discussion in a way where you don't contradict yourself in order to try and ridicule my responses to what YOU have already said.

[MonteZuma]

Well, sorry...I'm not familiar with this "herd instinct", by virtue of the fact that I personally don't have one (if I did I would have stopped argueing here long ago).

We're social animals. Most of us have a herd mentality. I'd argue that you are just following a different herd.

 

I like to think that I make up my own mind, but I am open-minded enough to realise that my views on many topics are influenced by the views, words and actions of others. A trivial example: I think it is rude to slurp soup because everyone around me thinks that it is rude to slurp soup. No other reason. Herd mentality.

 

Its very difficult to tell the truth from a lie.

Sometimes there is no truth. Sometimes there is only a perspective.

 

Everyone has an agenda.  The robber has agenda of putting himself before others.  To that end, he gives you directions to where HE wants you to go.  The saint on the other hand has only an agenda of serving others, and has no interest in giving you false directions.  Now sometimes the person giving you money may have a more complicated selfish agenda, but even so, we KNOW the robber has a selfish agenda, so its safer to stick with the possibility than the certainty.

There are so many !@#$%^&*umptions in that analogy that it becomes meaningless. For example, perhaps the robber was the most needy of all the three people in your story? Perhaps he was the most desperate?

 

As for understanding nazis...you can get plenty of understanding by their actions, which are a much clearer window to a person's nature than whatever they may say.

The only difference between the nazis, the jews and everbody else is social conditioning. The clearest window comes from looking at social conditioning.

[MonteZuma]

Imagine crowds of London's populace hiding in the subway tunnels during the Battle of Britain...night after night of bombardment of civilian targets.  Millions dead.  All because some pig was egotistical enough to feel that he deserved a reich to worship him, and if people suffered and died for it that was too bad.  Goering oversaw those bombings and was a weak lapdog of that pig.  Goering should have been crammed into the gas chambers his cohorts were using and buried beneath a sidewalk, so that everyone can walk all over his cold corpse.  He certainly does NOT deserve to be ressurected in the form of a quote next to Goering's best picture with a beutiful countryside in the background.

 

It is interesting that you use this kind of language in reference to the blitz (40,000 civilian deaths over 36 weeks), but when it comes to Chinese anger about the Nanjing massacre (200,000 civilian deaths over 6 weeks) you blow it off and say that the Chinese viewpoint "is, was, and always will be a crock of crap".

 

Perhaps that is because you are part of the white anglo herd?

[Phyran]

QUOTE(Aileron @ Apr 25 2005, 01:54 AM)

Imagine crowds of London's populace hiding in the subway tunnels during the Battle of Britain...night after night of bombardment of civilian targets.  Millions dead.  All because some pig was egotistical enough to feel that he deserved a reich to worship him, and if people suffered and died for it that was too bad.  Goering oversaw those bombings and was a weak lapdog of that pig.  Goering should have been crammed into the gas chambers his cohorts were using and buried beneath a sidewalk, so that everyone can walk all over his cold corpse.  He certainly does NOT deserve to be ressurected in the form of a quote next to Goering's best picture with a beutiful countryside in the background.

 

I also like to note that before the mid to late parts of WW2, carpet bombing was considered so atrocious that even Hitler won't do it. However as the war prolonged, carpet bombing became "desensitized" and considered an acceptable tactic; its the same with U-boat attacks.