They elected him freely.
Come on Q, don’t be that nieve. Besides the fact that electing someone doesn’t mean you agree with everything that they do or for that matter that you even know what they stand for…The fact remains that not everyone elected him and the dissenting voices were quickly silenced.
Dude, he was widely hailed as a savior. Who’s being naive? The German people accepted the proposition that the collective could redefine what ‘rights’ were and who had them. Surely you have at some point in your life seen people go along with the crowd when the crowd was doing something morally wrong or just plain stupid? People are capable of astounding feats of denial and self delusion.
Know what else? I firmly believe it will happen right here in America in our lifetimes. Yours and mine. (assuming we live our full life expectancy. Thats basically within 25 years for me) And the moral framework you are embracing will make it possible.
Leaving only the “in” group to define both right and rights. How did that work out?
This is the very reason why your worldview on morality is unstable and unreliable.
That was Jazzhead’s argument for legalizing abortion. Should we also extend that toward what even the left acknowledges as murder? If not, where do you draw the line and why?
I think you’re blurring the line between government as authority on right and wrong, and government as enforcer. The latter is part of its constitutional duty.
What it seems like to him not withstanding, he made the assertion; he should defend it.
Alas, entirely possible; it’s well underway. And when the left leadership gets what they want, they won’t like it very much. And blame everyone but themselves for the fiasco.
In any dictatorship, there are ways to procure the approval of the masses. In Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels was the Reich Minister of Propaganda. He is one of the few Nazis who had an education. He had a doctorate in philosophy obtained in 1921 from University of Heidelberg. So, given the circumstances of Germany after WWII and the Versailles Treaty, it wouldn’t take much to convince the ordinary German that Hitler was the answer to their problems. Until 1933 Hitler and the Nazi party were unable to procure a political position of power. In 1933, with failing health and myriad national problems, President Hindenburg finally relented and offered Hitler the position of Chancellor. Propaganda is a powerful means to obtaining power. The German people were fed propaganda daily in their homes, at the movies, and on the streets. Given the violence perpetrated by the Nazis after Hitler became Fuhrer, it’s no wonder why the German people would not oppose him. Let’s face it, propaganda works anywhere. Look at how BO was elected!!
And the majority elected him and cheered on the oppression of the Jew, the homosexual, the communist, the socialist. The majority of the German voters may not have directly voted for the Holocaust, but they gladly and enthusiastically supported policies that led directly to other kinds of suffering for their former fellow citizens. Their failure came in invading another country.
Sure dissenters had no ability to speak up, but the majority of the voters did not need the approval of the dissenters to achieve a “better” society, one without those they rejected. Their failure was only in execution. By your criteria, they were justified. If outcomes are the measure for a valid moral code, then, but for military failure, these folks made it – a world without certain people – by enthusiastically unextending rights by majority vote to certain people. The dissenters are irrelevant in a democracy.
As far as I can see, by your line of reasoning, everything from Nazism to slavery is just in a society that wishes it – whether in ignorance they believe it creates better outcomes for the majority of society or if in fact, some atrocity actually does provide better outcomes for the majority of society despite the vast suffering of some minority group.
Except there is literally an innocent life at stake that is not voluntarily choosing to die.
Not blurring the lines. I think the majority of Americans now blur that line. That blurring of the lines is exactly what I’m talking about.
I’ll do it for him: Your god is not real. I do not accept that premise. You must prove he is, and then we can move on from there. I believe that you have made this god up or accepted him because it makes it easier to deal with your own mortality. Since god is a construct, any conclusion you draw from his existence and supposed word is a construct, a contrivance. You make the claim that God exists. It is your duty to substantiate that claim.
I want to make it clear this is not my position. The details may be off, but this is roughly the response I would expect in most discussions. That makes it hard to accept an objective, pre-existing framework derived from God’s Word. A nonbeliever is in a difficult place where morality must center on what’s good for the individual.
The individual is the center of morality for Objectivism and tries to claim rights pre-exist the state, making them highly politically compatible for me. For CSB, society is at the center of morality. Before you’re going to convince either of them they are wrong and that your moral code is not just a contrivance, you will have to convince them that God exists and what that God expects. You’ll also have to persuade them about why God’s law is our objective morality.
I sometimes feel sorry for the non-believers for a single reason. Not believing in God and God’s power, they CANNOT take Him into account when planning or plotting to erase him from our society and will therefore ALWAYS lose.
Okay, you put that a LOT better than I did. You’re makin’ me look bad, man…
Willful death of an innocent human being is an abomination whether it’s suicide or murder.
I think you are. Government enforcement of the protection of innocent life is enforcement, not appointing the government as our conscience.
I’ll agree except for the feeling-sorry-for-them part. I feel sorry that they’re fighting the God who’s good for them.
The Nazis did NOT “oppress socialists.” They WERE the socialists in that society. Contrary to popular belief, Nazis were never “right wing.” They were “National Socialists” and only differed from the Communists by who it was that actually OWNED the means of production. In both systems, the means of production are CONTROLLED by the government but in socialism, those means remain in private ownership beholden to the government instead of being taken over BY the government as in communism.
Duh, if you don’t support killing babies you are going to have a higher teen birth rate than states who love to kill innocent babies.
You think pointing the results of those on your side who lust for innocent blood condemns your opponents?
Hitler did not receive anything close to a majority of the vote, he won via a plurality in a HUGE field of candidates.
Hitler was a communist/socialist as long as the Fascist economic addendum was embraced and the “State benefits” were not offered universally but limited to those native to Germany.
The only communists/socialists that were oppressed by Hitler were those who rejected Nationalism or those who rejected the Fascist economic structure in the productive sector.
Hitler was not elected. He was appointed by President Hindenburg via the recommendation of Papen (the former Chancellor). The Nazi party took many seats in Parliament, but was still not a majority.
IDK but your argument seems to be falling a little flat. what the hell ever your argument is.
Northam has stated publicly that he would allow the intentional active killing of a child who survives an abortion attempt. White supremacy is a LEFTIST position. Just like with most such accusations, it’s PROJECTING to believe that conservatives are white supremacists…even a tiny portion thereof. All slave-holders in the early 1800’s were DEMOCRATS…even the black ones. No Democrats voted for the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments and damned few voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1965 Voting Rights Act, neither of which would have passed without GOP support. Jim Crow was a product of DEMOCRAT politicians and the KKK was historically organized and populated BY Democrats. Those were DEMOCRATS who sicced the dogs on and used fire hoses against the Selma civil rights marchers. Oh you can claim they were “conservatives” because they were, in theory, trying to “conserve” the institution of slavery, but that would be a perversion of what conservatism actually is.
Then why do white supremacists support Republican candidates?
Why are segregationist politicians all Republicans?
Why do self-avowed racists and white supremacists that run for office all Republicans?
That such a stupid thing to say. As if Democrats or Republican platforms haven’t changed over time.
I wouldn’t have been a Democrat in the 1800’s.
What an utterly IGNORANT post, CSB. White supremacists don’t “support” Republicans. ALL segregationist politicians were DEMOCRATS…and remain so. No Republican has ever “self-avowed” as a racist or white supremacist, but LOTS of Democrats have. Democrat Robert Byrd was a RECRUITER for the KKK, for God’s sake and Hillary Clinton was NOTORIOUS for throwing around the “N” word as was LBJ and Democrat George Wallace. The ONLY white supremacist to try and run as a Republican was the former Grand High Poobah of the KKK and the Louisiana State GOP repudiated him immediately and he got less than 1% of the vote so gave it up.
BS. You’d have embraced the Democrats wholeheartedly because what they wanted then is PRECISELY what they want today.