Has anyone else read Mein Kampf?

[Drkshadow03]

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 read what PaulClem wrote, but the problem is no one is using that definition of evil, except for you and apparently him. The irony here is I began to write the same point a little while ago in an earlier post, but as an attack against your position; however, I decided to remove it before my final post. This suggests to me Paul hasn't read all the positions of those involved in this conversation very carefully.

Darcy offered a definition of evil as "conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing "unnecessary" pain or suffering and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence." None of these paint a cartoon villain, but instead portrays the actions of the person as utterly human.

I would be more than happy to use a simpler dictionary definition:

1. Morally wrong or bad.

2. harmful; injurious.

4. Due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character.

None of these necessarily paint some cartoon villain. All of them I think can define Hitler and his actions.

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.

Repeating it excessively doesn't make it correct. It's just a sign of obstinacy and a desire to be tiresome.

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

You're the only one using that definition.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

I agree with everything you said.

[kiki1982]

Darcy offered a definition of evil as "conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing "unnecessary" pain or suffering and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence." None of these paint a cartoon villain, but instead portrays the actions of the person as utterly human.

That is the definition of the noun. I can agree with that, but I do not call a man the adjective. Again, I find it simplistic.

None of these necessarily paint some cartoon villain. All of them I think can define Hitler and his actions.

As Rosenberg also said, the labelling of people mainly depends on the labellers' thoughts of what people are.

I personally consider people as people, also people who are deranged and people like him. Man is never 100% one or the other, hence he cannot be labelled 'good' or 'evil' because he is not wholly that.

As PaulClem said, he was loved by others (obviously) and he was not an obnoxious man, judging from videos, whatever he did when he put his signature under that extermination plan. You cannot hold him personally accountable for all that the army did as there were other people involved in this, not least Himmler. They were inspired by Hitler, but they were also acting independently. So who is responsible?

Indeed, his actions could be called 'evil', but the man himself gave many people in Germany bread on their table and recreational activity (Kraft durch Freude). Cruises even. You may call that propaganda and disgusting, but the people themselves did not see it that way. Where they had been living in a violent society where socialists and extreme right groups literally lynched each other on the streets (hence The Night of the Long Knives, but that was the very worst and most notorious of it), they now got peace and tranquility. They did not realise what they voted for in 1933, only that this man could keep order and was going to bring change (as they all promise these days).

The Enabling Act was as much his party's doing as his own and the Christian Democrats' as the parliament achieved a 2/3 majority. They were maybe intimidated and socialists were on the run, but all those in the coalition who made up the 2/3 majority willfully signed away democracy. How someone who has been in the parliament for a considerable amount of time can vote for something like that is beyond me.

Calling Hitler evil would make him 'morally wrong or bad'; 'harmful and injurious'; 'of bad character'. I am sure all those in his direct environment did not think so.

I would maybe call him a bad man, but not evil.

You're the only one using that definition.

Not the only one using that definition. Maybe here in this thread. Do not confuse it with the rest of the world.

[KCurtis]

originally posted by kiki
[/QUOTE]
I would maybe call him a bad man, but not evil.
[/QUOTE]

Well that's encouraging.

[G L Wilson]

If I want to read a lunatic's work, I'll read Sade.

[Darcy88]

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.

What on God's earth does "fulfillment" have to do with correct description? Nothing, that's what. You apply an adjective to something in order to represent its qualities with words, not in order to "fulfill" yourself. Koo-koo.

Why can you not call him something else? You do, as do I. I call him a man because he was a man, I call him a passionate speaker because he was just that, and I call him an evil person because, and this is so painfully obvious my typewriter might explode now as I press its keys - HE WAS AN EVIL PERSON!

And you would scrap all adjectives. In scrapping evil and in scrapping brunette you open up the scrapping of all them all.

[Darcy88]

[COLOR="Navy"]originally posted by kiki

Well that's encouraging.

No kidding. "Maybe a bad man?"

[kiki1982]

My question was why it is necessary to call him evil. Obviously you despise me because I do not call people evil and most notably, do not wish to call Hitler evil. I ask you why and what your motivation is for calling a man evil.

I showed you that perceptions of evil can vary, so I showed you a person cannot be 'evil' for everyone and at any time. Yet you refuse to accept it.

Fulfilment comes in when it comes to the merits of knowledge and here of labelling. The question is that it is better to call someone evil and what I (or you) would get out of that as opposed to not calling him evil.

As there is no difference to us personally in all likelihood, your argument amounts to nothing but preference and is then essentially equal to mine.

[Darcy88]

My question was why it is necessary to call him evil. Obviously you despise me because I do not call people evil and most notably, do not wish to call Hitler evil. I ask you why and what your motivation is for calling a man evil.

I showed you that perceptions of evil can vary, so I showed you a person cannot be 'evil' for everyone and at any time. Yet you refuse to accept it.

Fulfilment comes in when it comes to the merits of knowledge and here of labelling. The question is that it is better to call someone evil and what I (or you) would get out of that as opposed to not calling him evil.

As there is no difference to us personally in all likelihood, your argument amounts to nothing but preference and is then essentially equal to mine.

After seeing you say you'd "maybe call Hitler a bad man" its really really hard to take what you say seriously. But you say someone is "evil" in order to accurately describe them. I get nothing personally from calling the sun bright, nor winter cold. They are simply descriptive facts. You don't like adjectives because they don't personally fulfill you. That's fine. I happen to find them USEFUL.

[Darcy88]

Calling Hitler evil would make him 'morally wrong or bad'; 'harmful and injurious'; 'of bad character'. I am sure all those in his direct environment did not think so.

If you do not think Hitler was all of those things in spades then I don't know what to say to you. Worse than my head-splitting hangover is reading such lame, absurd, almost depressing opinions. And you are obviously hinting that he wasn't, since you would only "maybe" call him a "bad" man.

And in that larger post you said Hitler cannot be held "personally accountable for all that his army did." You ask the question "who was responsible?" That's what I'm talking about. You confirm my suspicion that you Kiki do not hold Hitler responsible. A reverse Nuremburg defence. I suppose you would argue that those beneath Hitler weren't responsible because they were only following orders.

Here it is in all its shining glory:

As PaulClem said, he was loved by others (obviously) and he was not an obnoxious man, judging from videos, whatever he did when he put his signature under that extermination plan. You cannot hold him personally accountable for all that the army did as there were other people involved in this, not least Himmler. They were inspired by Hitler, but they were also acting independently. So who is responsible?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

'Evil' as in 'that which is the opposite of good' is too absolute to call a man . . . It is too simplistic.

No it's not.

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?

So, why is it so important to you that we don't call Hitler evil? How does that fulfill you?

Not the only one using that definition. Maybe here in this thread. Do not confuse it with the rest of the world.

Possibly the most inane statement in this thread so far. As if anyone suggested, or even thought, otherwise.

[Darcy88]

Possibly the most inane statement in this thread so far. As if anyone suggested, or even thought, otherwise.

To be fair, I recall saying it earlier somewhere. I believe her definition of evil is a very strange uncommon one. She may not be the only person to hold it, but its rare and its rare because it makes no sense.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's kind of funny when you think about it. This whole time you've been using different definitions for what evil means, so of course you're going to disagree.

[mona amon]

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. - Kiki

For some reason this reminds me of the story of the man who killed his mother and father with an axe, and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.

[Judith57]

I have read parts of Das Kapital, and that is as boring.