Has anyone else read Mein Kampf?

[Darcy88]

I fail to see why Hitler's own and his regime's acts would be less evil, if you will, if I were not to call the man himself evil. The Dalai Lama's acts do not become even better than 'good' if I call him 'good', do they?

This is the kind of mind-bending absurdity I keep talking about. Of course its legitimate to call the Dalai Lama "good." Of course its CORRECT to call the Dalai Lama "good." But the Dalia Lama is not "perfectly" good. Switch Dalai Lama with Hitler and good with evil and there you have your own claims.

I have to keep saying this - your requirement that a person be perfectly evil for them to be evil is your own and maybe a few others' opinion, but we're talking about a pretty basic word in evil that has a meaning across cultures which you, you great and wise Kiki, think is false.

I mean your response to my question with my aunt with grey hairs was truly pitiful Kiki, so pitiful I thought I would just let it go.

And why would I call her a brunette? What interest does it bring me? Does that define her character? I am sure if you had lived in the 19th century, you would have believed that, but we are not that deluded anymore.

Come on! Why would I call her brunette? Why call a leopard spotted? Do those spots define the character of the leopard? I call her brunette because her freaking hair is for all but a few grey strands dark brown. Do away with all the abjectives!

No, night is not dark - it has the dim light of the stars. Because, speaking technically, speaking about perfect absolute darkness - night really isn't dark, the Dalai Lama isn't good and Hitler was not evil.

[kiki1982]

This is the kind of mind-bending absurdity I keep talking about. Of course its legitimate to call the Dalai Lama "good." Of course its CORRECT to call the Dalai Lama "good." But the Dalia Lama is not "perfectly" good. Switch Dalai Lama with Hitler and good with evil and there you have your own claims.

That is not what I said. That is what I am talking about when I say you do not read.

I said, 'The Dalai Lama's acts do not become more "good" because I call him personally "good", do they?' Answer, no, surely. So, why is it necessary for me to call Hitler 'evil'? Because his acts are no longer evil if I refuse to call him that? Answer, no, they do not become any less evil. Then what are you on about?

I have to keep saying this - your requirement that a person be perfectly evil for them to be evil is your own and maybe a few others' opinion, but we're talking about a pretty basic word in evil that has a meaning across cultures which you, you great and wise Kiki, think is false.

It's a perfectly normal requirement and I believe millions hold it, actually, at least if they are religious. You may rave and rant as much as you like, I think the world would be better by using that characteristic than yours.

No, I do not think the meaning of the word is false, I think you and others employ it to stamp a person and not to stamp an act.

Stamping people does not resolve anything. On the contrary, it creates enmity which is something you do not want (look at the Holocaust for a good example of that).

I mean your response to my question with my aunt with grey hairs was truly pitiful Kiki, so pitiful I thought I would just let it go.

Come on! Why would I call her brunette? Why call a leopard spotted? Do those spots define the character of the leopard? I call her brunette because her freaking hair is for all but a few grey strands dark brown. Do away with all the abjectives!

As you used this as a metaphor for 'evil', I asked you a serious question: 'What does it bring me to call this person a brunette?' I.e. 'What does it bring me to call Hitler evil?' I could call your aunt a brunette to distinguish her from other people she is with (provided they are all blonde, you see even there it is relative ;D), but I could also say she was wearing a red sweater which would probably be more accurate, because the chance that anyone else is wearing a red sweater is smaller than them being a brunette. Does it fulfil me more to call her a brunette? I.e. does it fulfil me more to call Hitler evil?

Again, answer the question, 'What does it bring me to call her a brunette or to call Hitler evil?'

Actually I should have phrased the question better and asked you 'Why should I call her a brunette in favour of anything else?'

[edit] And never mind about the night. What I was actually referring to was Pliny the Elder's description of the eruption of Mt Vesuvius, 'not such as we have when the sky is cloudy, or when there is no moon, but that of a room when it is shut up, and all the lights put out.'

[Drkshadow03]

No, I do not think the meaning of the word is false, I think you and others employ it to stamp a person and not to stamp an act.

Stamping people does not resolve anything. On the contrary, it creates enmity which is something you do not want (look at the Holocaust for a good example of that).

So your argument is that people will feel enmity over someone calling Adolf Hitler evil? Who exactly? Neo-Nazis?

Again, answer the question, 'What does it bring me to call her a brunette or to call Hitler evil?'

Actually I should have phrased the question better and asked you 'Why should I call her a brunette in favour of anything else?'

Is it that you do (not) know the answer to the question?

I think I addressed this point already. At the very least labeling an action or a person evil states to future generations: "What this guy did was immoral and went against every basic ethical code. Don't be like him and don't do what he did."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, let me get this straight? We shouldn't bother labeling Hitler evil because it doesn't matter what we label him, he was what he was, be it evil or no. So, why should we bother labeling anything from the past, then?

[KCurtis]

Look, I am not going to show you the way to basic facts that anyone should know. Google 'mourning process' and then read.
[/QUOTE]


I can google anything I want, what comes up is ambiguous regarding this topic. The mourning process as defined by who? Psychobabblists? I guess your definition of basic facts is different.

[kiki1982]

So your argument is that people will feel enmity over someone calling Adolf Hitler evil? Who exactly? Neo-Nazis?

No, not that. I said, like Rosenberg, that the danger of labelling someone, anyone, evil is that you create enmity towards those people. Look at the Holocaust: Jews are evil, they are treacherous, they are dangerous. And cue what happened.

Labelling anyone person evil is not going to do anything at all, in fact you are copying those you despise.

I think I addressed this point already. At the very least labeling an action or a person evil states to future generations: "What this guy did was immoral and went against every basic ethical code. Don't be like him and don't do what he did."

And let me guess, if we do not label this person evil, people will not find what he did despicable? Be honest with yourself. Is it absolutely necessary to brand him 'evil' to discern that what he did was wrong?

And we see that, really, branding this person evil has done a lot to prevent these things from happening... 'It shall not happen again.' Ok, that is true, no-one has yet authorised the killing of 6 million more, but genocide has definitely happened since. So, has that label 'evil' helped at all, then? Clearly not.

So, let me get this straight? We shouldn't bother labeling Hitler evil because it doesn't matter what we label him, he was what he was, be it evil or no. So, why should we bother labeling anything from the past, then?

The question is what use labelling people is, yes. Now or in history.

I can google anything I want, what comes up is ambiguous regarding this topic. The mourning process as defined by who? Psychobabblists? I guess your definition of basic facts is different.

And you are doing it again, straight copy from the much-thing. Don't be so childish.

[Paulclem]

Regarding the question of evil, I think it is overly simplistic to label someone evil, and leave it at that. It creates the impression that these people with the potential to commit evil acts and wield terrible power are like Bwahahahahaaaaa cartoon villains.

A real person may have this evil potential about them, but they are not just this. Hitler committed evil acts, and is labelled evil. He was also brilliant in his own way, a shrewd politician, charming, cunning, a dog lover, someone who was polite to his staff, a good administrator and planner, a good recruiter of talent, someone who managed through the competition of his subordinates, a motivational speaker.

I'm not bigging him up because I like him. The real lesson of this history is that a cartoon villain would be easy to spot, and no-one would take them seriously. they would very quickly engineer their own downfall.

But how do you spot someone who has this perrible potential? They'll be talented, charming, clever, and with other impressive attributes. Nut jobs don't easily make friends. That's the real thing about this. Hitler was a real person, who loved and was loved by others at the time. If you remove the human qualities of history's monsters, then you stop looking at the potential monsters that are possibly out there now - the humans who may develop that terrible potential for power and destruction.

[KCurtis]

And you are doing it again, straight copy from the much-thing. Don't be so childish.

People resort to name calling when they cannot think of a response that matters, oh well.

[kiki1982]

I can't respond to something meaningless in a meaningful way, can I.

That's the very first constructive contribution you have made in this thread. Congratulations.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The question is what use labelling people is, yes. Now or in history.

Oh. Well, then the answer is yes. Labeling serves a purpose. We can over-label, yes, but no labeling at all would be a mistake. The reasons seem self-evident.

[Drkshadow03]

No, not that. I said, like Rosenberg, that the danger of labelling someone, anyone, evil is that you create enmity towards those people. Look at the Holocaust: Jews are evil, they are treacherous, they are dangerous. And cue what happened.

There is a difference between ascribing an adjective to accurately describe an individual based on their actual actions and persecuting an entire ethnic-religious group based on stereotypes.

Calling Hitler evil in no way assigns said characteristics to all Germans, hence my previous comment who exactly is going to take offense to labeling Adolf Hitler evil? Neo-Nazis?

Labelling anyone person evil is not going to do anything at all, in fact you are copying those you despise.

And let me guess, if we do not label this person evil, people will not find what he did despicable? Be honest with yourself. Is it absolutely necessary to brand him 'evil' to discern that what he did was wrong?

Since we all agree that what he did was despicable I see no reason why we can't call it or him evil. It seems to me this is merely a quibbling over the choice of adjective. We don't need to label him evil to discern what he did was wrong, but once we realize what he did was wrong why is it so problematic to label him evil? It is merely an adjective like any other, which serves a purpose. Otherwise, we would have no need for adjectives in our languages. And yes, I do think in certain cases labeling someone brunette, blonde, fat, tall, short, petite, good-hearted, despicable, evil can be useful.

[Darcy88]

Drkshadow has stated what I would have stated in a clearer more rational way. Saved me the trouble.

Asking why we would bother to call someone a brunette is just a strange question to me. From evil I went to brunette and I could go from there to a thousand other adjectives which if removed from the language would erase or substantially cripple much of the poetry and novels and in general all the literature we read and love and write.

[kiki1982]

There is a difference between ascribing an adjective to accurately describe an individual based on their actual actions and persecuting an entire ethnic-religious group based on stereotypes.

Calling Hitler evil in no way assigns said characteristics to all Germans, hence my previous comment who exactly is going to take offense to labeling Adolf Hitler evil? Neo-Nazis?

You have not understood his thesis, have you. Labelling him evil creates enmity towards him. And now you may say that is just, but as PaulClem said, you make him this cartoon figure who is not more than 'bad' or 'evil' and he becomes the very personification of it, which takes away the responsibility of all of us or all of those who out of 'free will' at that time kind of chose to do this. I put free will between speech marks because it was not really free, but all those who harrassed Jews in the 1920s and early 1930s and hence made it more acceptable, could have been anti-semitic in their own homes and did not necessarily have to bring it out into the street as well.

I say it again, in that, you become like those who you despise. It makes no difference whether this is one man or a group of people.

Since we all agree that what he did was despicable I see no reason why we can't call it or him evil. It seems to me this is merely a quibbling over the choice of adjective. We don't need to label him evil to discern what he did was wrong, but once we realize what he did was wrong why is it so problematic to label him evil? It is merely an adjective like any other, which serves a purpose. Otherwise, we would have no need for adjectives in our languages. And yes, I do think in certain cases labeling someone brunette, blonde, fat, tall, short, petite, good-hearted, despicable, evil can be useful.

'Evil' as in 'that which is the opposite of good' is too absolute to call a man. Yes, even one like Hitler.

As I consider Himmler, upon reading some of his biography, even more dangerous than Hitler, certainly more deranged, I could not call those two the same adjective. I cannot call Hitler the same adjective as your average murderer who should also be labelled 'evil'.

It is too simplistic. If you cannot see that, then there is something wrong with you.

[kiki1982]

Drkshadow has stated what I would have stated in a clearer more rational way. Saved me the trouble.

Asking why we would bother to call someone a brunette is just a strange question to me. From evil I went to brunette and I could go from there to a thousand other adjectives which if removed from the language would erase or substantially cripple much of the poetry and novels and in general all the literature we read and love and write.

Look, if you use an analogy, I will build on it.

I asked you a question, but you did not answer it (again):

'Why should I call her a brunette?'

I will explain this question to you:

Why is it important for me to call her a brunette? Why can I not call her something else? Will it fulfil me more to call her brunette?

I.e. Why is it important for me to call Hitler evil? Why can I not call him something else? Will it fulfil me more to call Hitler evil?

Surely, you can answer that. I do not care about the brunette and we are not talking about scrapping adjectives in poetry or novels or altogether here, we are talking about my opinion and yours. Do not involve other things in the debate.

[mortalterror]

When people build the case for Hitler's evil, a great deal of stress is placed upon his persecution and genocide of the Jews. The systematic destruction of 6 million people is pretty horrific, but not enough is made about the other 6 million Pols, homosexuals, communists, political dissidents, and handicapped that were murdered in the concentration camps with them. It's kind of weird how we divvy up, parse, and categorize his crimes into differing sections. Meanwhile, for sheer enormity of scale, the murder of 26 million Russians in the Eastern Front seems to trump everything, and from what I've read about what happened there it could be just as grim.