Heil Hitler (1 Viewer)

[xeuyrawp]

Moonlight, where the hell did you learn to do that! Now I wanna learn it.

There's a school of philosophy called Logic and Reason. It basically dictates how one should argue using a kind of scientific reasoning. If you've done this subject, it's easy to tear apart a shitty argument, although you don't have to do such a subject to do such a thing. Logic and Reason gives good names to all the fallacies, though

 

[fleepbasding]

John 'the great'- Alright, I can accept your claim that you are defending Hitler and Nazism from unfounded claims, but seriously, this is a forum- No one is going to source their passages, we aren't going to use a strict footnoting system, it's simply the way it is.

Why should one read Mein Kampf to understand Nazi Germany? Alright, fair enough, it probably should be read by students of history, but historically speaking, it's not the most important ducument (in my opinion). Firstly it was written well before Hitler came to power. To me that limits the extent to which it sheds light on the holocaust. Secondly, wouldn't you agree that it's a piece of propaganda? Doesn't this severely limit it's objectivity? Hitlers racial theories are surely not true, yet you seem to treat them so. Explain your position on this, without hiding behind the "I'm just debasing the unfounded comments of other posters" defence you rely on.



You say that the extermination of the jews was justified in the context, and that the Jew's constituted a significant threat to German and Christian culture. How so? This may've been Hitler's belief, along with many Europeans of the time, but do you really think it's true? I fear that you are a testament to Hitler's persuasiveness and spell-binding qualities.

I simply don't have time for this sort of debate, so I can't promise a reply to your next line of argument.

 

[Iron]

John is apart of a throng of high school history students who feel conflicted about Hitler. I think Hitler is really accessible to the male teen - much unresolved teen angst/blaming world/hate/uncompromised simplicity. Hitler admiration makes you feel like a real bad arse too.
Devil's advocacy/seeking a point of view/questioning what others appear to blindly believe is essential for the critical mind. Have fun John.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Moonlight, where the hell did you learn to do that! Now I wanna learn it.

Hahahah I love your sig.

 

[xeuyrawp]

He really loves Nietzsche doesn't he.

Look, the N-meister was a very cool man. His work is very confronting and makes a big splash. Unfortunately, he's very 'attack the current' without really providing any viable solutions.

 

[King of Helview]

Oh yeah, you are so permitted to criticise teenage high school students having been one only last year! Stop acting so hoier-than-thou

 

[John The Great]

My friend, with the greatest respect I think that you would benefit from taking a first-year philosophy course in reason and logic in order to improve your argumentative skills. ad hominem

95% of what you just wrote constitutes an extended ad hominem argument - perhaps one of the worst fallacies one can commit. The rest is just baseless. ad hominem

Allow me to demonstrate by showing how poorly your argument is constructed: ad hominem

Of additional note, I am not entirely impressed by your contribution on this forum. I don't think anyone really takes you seriously and you are causing some disturbance. ad hominem I would advise you to keep things civil and cease your relentless insults to people. Attack their arguments, not them. ad hominem Surely if there is something wrong with their argument you can find it rather than resorting to name calling. ad hominem Thankyou.

Your argument is indeed poorly constructed using the same reasoning.
However it is not a prosperous exercise to particpate in. fallacies of logic as raised by you, dont necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong. You havent proved the thesis and conclusion of my argument wrong. In fact you never even answered the question at the beginning. In fact your entire argument is based on your verboseness. Your first year philosophy course, is an appeal to authority.

“Um, no that was Hitler's rhetoric. Hitler was against Jews and communists and tried to associate the two by fusing them together as targets. Aside from that fact that his claims were false, in fact Jews living in Germany at the time and the communist ideology could not have been more inconsistent.” Yes that was Hitler’s thought. Have you read Mein Kampf? Since it appears you haven’t, then you obviously know nothing of his thesis behind such an argument. It was certainly justified though. This was not however just Hitler’s thought, it was a compilation of previous thoughts, along with contemporary thoughts. Hitler was against both Jews, and Bolsheviks, and he only ‘fused them together’ where it was possible, which it often was. Such as the Russian revolution, the attempted German revolution, and the general reasoning behind Jews wishes for Marxism is discussed. His claims were false? Any substantiation? Marxism and Jewish ideology however were not that different, as is discussed in Mein Kampf and other literature in the area, such as that by Historian D.C. Watt.

“You have not explained why. Because St Augstine says so? Not very convincing.” You have made clear your lack of knowledge in relation to the Catholic Church. St. Augustine’s theology constituted the majority of Church Doctrine, until the time of St. thomas Aquinas, who then built upon much of this theology and other philosophy. St. Augustine’s works constitute much Canon Law, and hence our morality. Very convincing, when there are over 1 billion Catholics in the world today.

“pretty much all western ethical theories.” It was All ethics before, now its ‘pretty much all’, you are obviously questioning yourself.

“Utilitiarian: It certainly would not be maximising the greatest happiness for the greatest number to extermine that extraordinary number of Jews.” It certainly was for the greater benefit to execute that comparatively small number of Jews and others, which you conveniently forget about. That comparatively small number were endangering the existence of the others and their prosperity as expounded by the Nazi’s. Hence its justification under Utilitarian doctrine. Its justification under Christian doctrine has been discussed and established. Perhaps you could read the bible and then subsequent theology before quoting, misinterpreting and essentially butchering Christian doctrine.

“It does not advance your argument by citing someone's works, no. That is an appeal to authority.” It does advance your work by citing highly distinguished and acknowledged men’s works. If you had read any significant philosophy you would realize that was the case. Plato, cited Socrates, Aristotle cited Plato, almost all subsequent theologians and philosophers have cited one of these great Greeks. All theologians have cited Jesus, and it would be difficult to argue that citing Jesus does not further one’s argument. Historians cite past historians, and great figures, such as Caesar etc. etc. thus while there may be a train of philosophical thought that it DOESN”T advance an argument, there is also a contrasting line of thought that it DOES advance an argument. The latter would have to be considered the more appropriate.

“Additionally, utterly false, since I am majoring in philosophy.” Majoring in philosophy, if that is indeed what you’re doing, does not necessarily mean you know what a philosopher is thinking. Hence your argument there is somewhat lacking. However if we were to scrutinize your philosophical knowledge, we would find you are a somewhat limited philosopher, as demonstrated by your comment, “He killed millions of Jews without cause”. All philosophers would reject such a statement. There is some cause to such an action. In fact Nietzsche’s will to power, which is at the center of all actions would account for a cause. Hence there was a cause, using philosophical reasoning. Merely further evidence that this individual is limited to say the least in their knowledge of philosophy which they claim to be majoring in, and can apparently tell what philosophers think.

“Fallacy: Attacking the straw person. I never suggested or implied that.” Actually you did. You wrote that if I was a philosopher I would know that it is a fallacy to cite great men’s works. However not all philosophers or theologians think alike e.g. consubstantiation and transubstantiation. Not all philosophers believe in your rather abstract opinion. Hence, despite the fact that one may be philosopher, it does not mean they will conform to your belief, which you implied they would, hence your implication that all philosophy was homogeneous, hence the useless nature of your verbose straw man.

Your not impressed by contribution? I have approached this issue etc. objectively, unlike all you others. I am not insulting people necessarily. i have asked questions, i have made appropriate observations and inferences from the comments, however i have not sworn or labelled people with terms that automatically have negative connotations. I have attacked everybody's arguments here, as they have all been poor, subjective and unfounded, just like yours now, which i am attacking. So once again i have particpated in no name calling. Dont attribute such things to me.

 

[John The Great]

LIE? lol ok when you are doing the hsc let me know how you are going for time, thanks.
and i hate you because of your views and your arrogance.
it's the internet, deal with it, stop taking it so serious, i employ a lazy attitude because i obviously have other things to do.
As for the neo-nazi comment.. it was sarcasm at first in response to your replies in this thread.
I couldn't give a shit if you have greater knowledge than me in Modern History, firstly you don't do Modern History and you're not even in Year 12. I will write in the HSC what I have learnt, ie. how he came to power and how he consolidated it.

"Well if you DONT know these men and events in DETAIL, why do you criticise them? How can you criticise something you dont accurately know of."

- Please quote me on where I criticised Hitler/Nazism, the only post I made in this thread before you came was "Hitler was a good leader but had too much angst", which is undoubtedly slang/colloquial/sarcastic or you havn't been outside in a while, but as I said before: I'm taking it you know everything about Hitler and Nazism to comment on him.

Your very rash to hate people. You probably need to learn some more self control then that you have displayed so far. You are lazy, because you choose to be, dont try and excuse yourself. You could read outside of school with ease. You enjoy stating that i dont do modern history and im not in year 12, as thgough it benefits you. it doesnt however, it looks very bad for you. if all you want to do is write what little you know about him in the HSC, then dont comment on here about him, and your problem is solved. the same applies for all those who have also criticised him without sufficient knowledge.
As for criticising Hitler etc. without quoting you, which im sure is probably not difficult to, you were defending more than yourself. one can only interpet your comments as defence of all those who have commented here. Thus there should be no criticism due to lack of knowledge.
As i said before, how can you know EVERYTHING about a person, event etc. Your comment is evidence that you disregard previous comments made in reference to you.

 

[sunjet]

 

[John The Great]

He really loves Nietzsche doesn't he.

Do you have a problem with Nietzsche? Do you even know who he is? Perhaps when you read him, which you probably never will, you can also quote him etc. and use him to support arguments. Until then, you should attempt to increase your own knowledge rather than mock others.

 

[King of Helview]

Sunjet, if you dont want to read his comment dont comment on it and dont ruin it for others who are trying to participate or view the discussion with ridiculous comments and assumptions that nobody cares or bad luck, we dont care. There are numerous people in here who are trying to explore different options and broaden there horizons and if you dont want to then nobody can make you but at least dont ruin it for everyone else.

By the way Moonlight Sonata you actually participated in your own falacy of logic, I believe it is called "tu touquoque". You assumed his arguement had no validity and couldnt be taken seriously as he fell victim to insulting others. Falling foul to a falacy of logic

 

[MoonlightSonata]

fallacies of logic as raised by you, dont necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong. You havent proved the thesis and conclusion of my argument wrong.

I didn't set out to prove the conclusion was wrong, I set out to prove that your argument is flawed. Which I did.

In fact you never even answered the question at the beginning. In fact your entire argument is based on your verboseness.

No, my argument is based on logic, which I carefuly explained.

Your first year philosophy course, is an appeal to authority.

Incorrect. I did not appeal to the course in support of my argument. I used reason and logic to prove my argument. If you want to prove that reason and logic is somehow "wrong", be my guest. No-one has come up with an argument for irrationality.

“Um, no that was Hitler's rhetoric. Hitler was against Jews and communists and tried to associate the two by fusing them together as targets. Aside from that fact that his claims were false, in fact Jews living in Germany at the time and the communist ideology could not have been more inconsistent.” Yes that was Hitler’s thought. Have you read Mein Kampf? Since it appears you haven’t, then you obviously know nothing of his thesis behind such an argument. It was certainly justified though. This was not however just Hitler’s thought, it was a compilation of previous thoughts, along with contemporary thoughts. Hitler was against both Jews, and Bolsheviks, and he only ‘fused them together’ where it was possible, which it often was. Such as the Russian revolution, the attempted German revolution, and the general reasoning behind Jews wishes for Marxism is discussed. His claims were false? Any substantiation? Marxism and Jewish ideology however were not that different, as is discussed in Mein Kampf and other literature in the area, such as that by Historian D.C. Watt.

You refer again to books without actually being able to explain them. You say Hitler's view was justified as written in "Mein Kampf". Yet you do not explain why.

“You have not explained why. Because St Augstine says so? Not very convincing.” You have made clear your lack of knowledge in relation to the Catholic Church. St. Augustine’s theology constituted the majority of Church Doctrine, until the time of St. thomas Aquinas, who then built upon much of this theology and other philosophy. St. Augustine’s works constitute much Canon Law, and hence our morality. Very convincing, when there are over 1 billion Catholics in the world today.

What you just did, again is a major logical fallacy called appealing to majority. Just because a number of people believe something does not make it true. To illustrate for you, a lot of people believed the world was flat once. Wasn't true, was it?

“pretty much all western ethical theories.” It was All ethics before, now its ‘pretty much all’, you are obviously questioning yourself.

I never said it was all ethics before. Read again.

“Utilitiarian: It certainly would not be maximising the greatest happiness for the greatest number to extermine that extraordinary number of Jews.” It certainly was for the greater benefit to execute that comparatively small number of Jews and others, which you conveniently forget about. That comparatively small number were endangering the existence of the others and their prosperity as expounded by the Nazi’s.

Um, endangering the existence of the Nazis? How so? Even if they were killing then, torturing them and locking them away in concentration camps would not have been the best option.

Hence its justification under Utilitarian doctrine.

No it hasn't. I am well read in Utilitarianism. If you are unsure about it, go read John Stuart Mill for the basic concepts and follow up with some of Peter Singer's works.

Its justification under Christian doctrine has been discussed and established. Perhaps you could read the bible and then subsequent theology before quoting, misinterpreting and essentially butchering Christian doctrine.

You make claims like "it has been established" without saying why. Again, you do not back up your contentions with argument or evidence.

“It does not advance your argument by citing someone's works, no. That is an appeal to authority.” It does advance your work by citing highly distinguished and acknowledged men’s works.

No it does not. Logically, it adds nothing to your argument.

You think that if Einstein said that pink unicorns ruled the universe, that because Einstein was a genius, we should take him seriously? I implore you to read up on basic logic. Appealing to authority does not in any way prove your point because it does not rely on the validity of the argument, rather on the personal character of a person, which is irrelevant to the truth value of your contentions.

If you had read any significant philosophy you would realize that was the case. Plato, cited Socrates, Aristotle cited Plato, almost all subsequent theologians and philosophers have cited one of these great Greeks.

They cited their arguments and expounded, criticised and explored them. They did not just cite their names.

All theologians have cited Jesus, and it would be difficult to argue that citing Jesus does not further one’s argument.

1. Same thing as I previously said. Appeal to authority.

2. It is very easy if you are an atheist.

Historians cite past historians, and great figures, such as Caesar etc. etc. thus while there may be a train of philosophical thought that it DOESN”T advance an argument, there is also a contrasting line of thought that it DOES advance an argument. The latter would have to be considered the more appropriate.

You are confusing history and philosophy. History involves the recording of facts about the past. Philosophy deals with reason and truth about the world. Citing historians as observers and recorders of facts is one thing. Citing someone as proof that a concept is true is another, completely fallacious thing to do.

“Additionally, utterly false, since I am majoring in philosophy.” Majoring in philosophy, if that is indeed what you’re doing, does not necessarily mean you know what a philosopher is thinking. Hence your argument there is somewhat lacking.

Yes, I study lots of subjects that involve analysing philosophical arguments by philosophers and I don't have any clue as to what philosophers think

However if we were to scrutinize your philosophical knowledge, we would find you are a somewhat limited philosopher, as demonstrated by your comment, “He killed millions of Jews without cause”. All philosophers would reject such a statement. There is some cause to such an action.

No they would not. What I said was a general statement that obviously implied that I was talking about moral justification.

In fact Nietzsche’s will to power, which is at the center of all actions would account for a cause. Hence there was a cause, using philosophical reasoning.

Nietzsche's will to power is simply an argument. It does not mean that it is true.

[And by-the-by, I note your love of Nietzsche. This is for your own interest, but a significant number of philosophers consider Nietzsche's explanations of morality as immature and underdeveloped. I wonder if you have read anything other than Nietzsche? You seem to be obsessed with him.]

“Fallacy: Attacking the straw person. I never suggested or implied that.” Actually you did. You wrote that if I was a philosopher I would know that it is a fallacy to cite great men’s works. However not all philosophers or theologians think alike e.g. consubstantiation and transubstantiation. Not all philosophers believe in your rather abstract opinion.

All philosophers are concerned with using reason. My thinking on fallacies is not abstract, which you would know if you had any experience with the philosophical community. Ask any lecturer in philosophy in any university in this country about what it means to appeal to authority and they will tell you all about fallacies of argument. Enlightening learning which you would do well to examine should you choose to study reason or logic.

Hence, despite the fact that one may be philosopher, it does not mean they will conform to your belief, which you implied they would, hence your implication that all philosophy was homogeneous, hence the useless nature of your verbose straw man.

No, as I said, of course philosophers don't all believe the same thing. But they all use reason. Hence, the core application of reason is common. The edges are not exact, but the core tenets of reason are common.

Your not impressed by contribution? I have approached this issue etc. objectively, unlike all you others. I am not insulting people necessarily. i have asked questions, i have made appropriate observations and inferences from the comments, however i have not sworn or labelled people with terms that automatically have negative connotations. I have attacked everybody's arguments here, as they have all been poor, subjective and unfounded, just like yours now, which i am attacking. So once again i have particpated in no name calling. Dont attribute such things to me.

Oh no?

You are clearly a mentally incapable individual

Are you blind, deaf, dumb and intellectually incapable

Once again this individual is obviously a subjective coward, evident from their last comment.

It is those arguments that are generally rubbish and have no success at all, due to lack of credibility and intellectual thought.

etc. Unwarranted, repeated insults towards people regarding their intelligence, simply because they disagree with you. I think your arguments are completely flawed and illogical, but I do not call you names, I just attack your argument.

I have warned you. Please try to be civil.

 

[sunjet]

Moonlight sif waste your time on him :>

 

[MoonlightSonata]

True.

But it's so satisfying quashing his puny arguments

 

[gonnagetya!]

John the Great has been, in my opininon, been getting a hard time on this forum. People are constantly accusing him of committing logical fallacies. One fallacy he is constantly accused of committing is "appealling to authority." I think we all have to remember, there is a difference between RELYING on someone's work to prove your point, and citing someone's work to add creedance to your claims, which could be proved even without that person's help. John does not rely on Augustine's works to prove his point, but he does show that his arguments run in tandem to Augustine's, giving creedance to his claims. There is a difference.

Moonlight Sonyata, you said that "all philosophers are concerned with using reason." I don't understand exactly what you mean. Reason is defined by wikipedia (a site I know you are fond of as)

to reason (reasons, reasoned, reasoning)

the process of applying values (axioms)

I ask you, do all philosophers seek to apply values to life and existence? Is there not a difference between applying values to the world, and seeking to explain the way the world functions?

You also said

"Nietzsche's will to power is simply an argument. It does not mean that it is true.

[And by-the-by, I note your love of Nietzsche. This is for your own interest, but a significant number of philosophers consider Nietzsche's explanations of morality as immature and underdeveloped. I wonder if you have read anything other than Nietzsche? You seem to be obsessed with him.]"

Do you care to mention any sources here? Or should we just take what you say as the truth? Anyhow I don't see the relevance as to what John has read, all he is doing is using Nietzsche to support, but not prove his argument. Why would you care what he has read? Some people might think you were sneakily trying to attack John through questioning his reading habits, and not attacking his arguments (some people might, but I certainly am not one).

You also refuted John's claims about utilitarianism, becauase you've read alot of it. Now I believe you on that, but some people reading your comments might not, as you've not really given a solid definition in your last post of what it is and how it applies to Hitler.

"No it hasn't. I am well read in Utilitarianism. If you are unsure about it, go read John Stuart Mill for the basic concepts and follow up with some of Peter Singer's works."

Come to think of it, you criticised John for doing much the same thing.

"Again, you do not back up your contentions with argument or evidence."

What John was saying was (correct me if I'm wrong John) Hitler used utilitarian prinicples to make his decisions regarding the holocaust. He did what he believed would be of most benefit, for the most people in Germany. Although the outcomes of his actions may not have conformed to utilitarian philosophy, the intent certainly did.

To finish, I'd like to clear up something said about Nietzsche.

PwarYuex said

"Look, the N-meister (Nietzsche I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) was a very cool man. His work is very confronting and makes a big splash. Unfortunately, he's very 'attack the current' without really providing any viable solutions."

The overman was his solution, it was what he saw the solution to humanity was. "Humanity must be overcome," lets give the very cool "N-meister" the credit he deserves. Lets give John a break.

 

[John The Great]

John the Great has been, in my opininon, been getting a hard time on this forum. People are constantly accusing him of committing logical fallacies. One fallacy he is constantly accused of committing is "appealling to authority." I think we all have to remember, there is a difference between RELYING on someone's work to prove your point, and citing someone's work to add creedance to your claims, which could be proved even without that person's help. John does not rely on Augustine's works to prove his point, but he does show that his arguments run in tandem to Augustine's, giving creedance to his claims. There is a difference.

Moonlight Sonyata, you said that "all philosophers are concerned with using reason." I don't understand exactly what you mean. Reason is defined by wikipedia (a site I know you are fond of as)

to reason (reasons, reasoned, reasoning)

the process of applying values (axioms)

I ask you, do all philosophers seek to apply values to life and existence? Is there not a difference between applying values to the world, and seeking to explain the way the world functions?

You also said

"Nietzsche's will to power is simply an argument. It does not mean that it is true.

[And by-the-by, I note your love of Nietzsche. This is for your own interest, but a significant number of philosophers consider Nietzsche's explanations of morality as immature and underdeveloped. I wonder if you have read anything other than Nietzsche? You seem to be obsessed with him.]"

Do you care to mention any sources here? Or should we just take what you say as the truth? Anyhow I don't see the relevance as to what John has read, all he is doing is using Nietzsche to support, but not prove his argument. Why would you care what he has read? Some people might think you were sneakily trying to attack John through questioning his reading habits, and not attacking his arguments (some people might, but I certainly am not one).

You also refuted John's claims about utilitarianism, becauase you've read alot of it. Now I believe you on that, but some people reading your comments might not, as you've not really given a solid definition in your last post of what it is and how it applies to Hitler.

"No it hasn't. I am well read in Utilitarianism. If you are unsure about it, go read John Stuart Mill for the basic concepts and follow up with some of Peter Singer's works."

Come to think of it, you criticised John for doing much the same thing.

"Again, you do not back up your contentions with argument or evidence."

What John was saying was (correct me if I'm wrong John) Hitler used utilitarian prinicples to make his decisions regarding the holocaust. He did what he believed would be of most benefit, for the most people in Germany. Although the outcomes of his actions may not have conformed to utilitarian philosophy, the intent certainly did.

To finish, I'd like to clear up something said about Nietzsche.

PwarYuex said

"Look, the N-meister (Nietzsche I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) was a very cool man. His work is very confronting and makes a big splash. Unfortunately, he's very 'attack the current' without really providing any viable solutions."

The overman was his solution, it was what he saw the solution to humanity was. "Humanity must be overcome," lets give the very cool "N-meister" the credit he deserves. Lets give John a break.

Very, very good gonnagetya. You truly are the intelligent individual I have been looking for on this site. Your the only other person, with the exception of King, to actually understand significant thoughts in philosophy and you have read Nietzsche, how nice someone else has read him and then commented rather than just criticisng etc. with no formal knowledge of his works. We must discuss more. Not to mention, I can even give you the reference point in Mein kampf, for Hitler's philosophy in relation to the good of Gremany, with the solution of the Jewish(bolshevik) question.

by the way he was right with your appealing to authority. You are now contradicting your own arguments. if you cant counter opposition arguments without contradicting everything you say, then how can you be taken seriously? By the way explain these peoples views? Do you realise how long it would take to explain on this site the different theories of each person mentioned. it is rather more prosperous to mention a similar line of thought to yours, and thus if people wish they can attain that source, e.g. Beyond good and evil, and then read the philosphy themselves. Not to mention this appealing to authority does appear to be a difficult philosophical concept, as if appealing to authority is a fallacy and doesnt further an argument, then nothing could be listened to, as everything has some authority to it. Your word alone, has authority to it, and thus you are appealing to your own authority, science has authority, hence justify a work with maths etc. is appealing to authority. It would seem appealing to authority is very hard term to use effectively, as it doesnt just falcify one particular point, but all points, and leaves no room for anything, period.
Just thought id raise it, since you claimed to enjoying squashing my arguments, however you were appealing to authority, at the time, as well as ad hominem.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Moonlight- I saw your pre-edit. Care to justify?

 

[braindrainedAsh]

Argh I feel I should step in here for a moment. I am have been umming and ahhing about whether to close this thread or not and I have recieved a couple of complaints about it, but in the name of free speech and the fact that I think Hitler's abilities as a leader is an interesting topic for debate, I have left it open.

It is starting to go way off topic. Also some people are using personal insults and attacking each other instead of attacking arguments alone.

If you want this thread to stay open and the debate to continue then please, revert back to the topic and stop the personal mudslinging. If it continues I will close the thread. If you have any questions or have an opinion about this send me a PM and I will be only too happy to respond.

So please, back on the topic, and as Moonlight said earlier, stop the personal attacks or the thread will be closed.

 

[John The Great]

I didn't set out to prove the conclusion was wrong, I set out to prove that your argument is flawed. Which I did.
No, my argument is based on logic, which I carefuly explained.Incorrect. I did not appeal to the course in support of my argument. I used reason and logic to prove my argument. If you want to prove that reason and logic is somehow "wrong", be my guest. No-one has come up with an argument for irrationality.You refer again to books without actually being able to explain them. You say Hitler's view was justified as written in "Mein Kampf". Yet you do not explain why.What you just did, again is a major logical fallacy called appealing to majority. Just because a number of people believe something does not make it true. To illustrate for you, a lot of people believed the world was flat once. Wasn't true, was it?

I never said it was all ethics before. Read again.Um, endangering the existence of the Nazis? How so? Even if they were killing then, torturing them and locking them away in concentration camps would not have been the best option.No it hasn't. I am well read in Utilitarianism. If you are unsure about it, go read John Stuart Mill for the basic concepts and follow up with some of Peter Singer's works.You make claims like "it has been established" without saying why. Again, you do not back up your contentions with argument or evidence.

No it does not. Logically, it adds nothing to your argument.

You think that if Einstein said that pink unicorns ruled the universe, that because Einstein was a genius, we should take him seriously? I implore you to read up on basic logic. Appealing to authority does not in any way prove your point because it does not rely on the validity of the argument, rather on the personal character of a person, which is irrelevant to the truth value of your contentions.They cited their arguments and expounded, criticised and explored them. They did not just cite their names.1. Same thing as I previously said. Appeal to authority.

2. It is very easy if you are an atheist.
You are confusing history and philosophy. History involves the recording of facts about the past. Philosophy deals with reason and truth about the world. Citing historians as observers and recorders of facts is one thing. Citing someone as proof that a concept is true is another, completely fallacious thing to do.
Yes, I study lots of subjects that involve analysing philosophical arguments by philosophers and I don't have any clue as to what philosophers think

No they would not. What I said was a general statement that obviously implied that I was talking about moral justification.
Nietzsche's will to power is simply an argument. It does not mean that it is true.

[And by-the-by, I note your love of Nietzsche. This is for your own interest, but a significant number of philosophers consider Nietzsche's explanations of morality as immature and underdeveloped. I wonder if you have read anything other than Nietzsche? You seem to be obsessed with him.]
All philosophers are concerned with using reason. My thinking on fallacies is not abstract, which you would know if you had any experience with the philosophical community. Ask any lecturer in philosophy in any university in this country about what it means to appeal to authority and they will tell you all about fallacies of argument. Enlightening learning which you would do well to examine should you choose to study reason or logic.

No, as I said, of course philosophers don't all believe the same thing. But they all use reason. Hence, the core application of reason is common. The edges are not exact, but the core tenets of reason are common.Oh no?






etc. Unwarranted, repeated insults towards people regarding their intelligence, simply because they disagree with you. I think your arguments are completely flawed and illogical, but I do not call you names, I just attack your argument.

I have warned you. Please try to be civil.

Just some other problems with what he has written. He stated he hasnt set out to disprove my thesis or argument, however he clearly has. He has tried to argue that points werent substantiated thus they were wrong, and he has argued several times that there was no cause for the holocaust etc. Thus he has set out to disprove my thesis, he just cant seem to get around to it.

he claims his argument is based in logic, however one would say that is an appeal to authority, which we must remember, is a branch of philosophy, and as he wrote, it is simply a theory, not a truth.

yes he did appeal to his philosophy course in his last comment. He in fact mentioned it more than once, and it was this appeal to authority, that he hoped would get everyone on side, as they would feel there was some authority to his claims.

The straw man theory is evident here. He argued it was unacceptable under any major ethical system and mentioned specifically christianity, and 'thou shall not kill'(appeal to authority). i then mentioned that it was accepted under Catholic Docrtine, thus his claim was false, and that there are indeed over 1 billion catholics, so it is obvioulsy a considerably large ethical following. his analogy of the world being flat is ad hominem.

He did mention all ethics before(appeal to the majority), and this has been proven wrong with the catholic morality.

"Um, endangering the existence of the Nazis? How so? Even if they were killing then, torturing them and locking them away in concentration camps would not have been the best option." A baseless comment. It is of course, only his interpreatation, and yet again it appeals to authority. If you wish to know how so, then read Mein Kampf yourself.

"No it hasn't. I am well read in Utilitarianism. If you are unsure about it, go read John Stuart Mill for the basic concepts and follow up with some of Peter Singer's works." appealing to authority as stated hitherto.

"You make claims like "it has been established" without saying why. Again, you do not back up your contentions with argument or evidence." Sorry there. i thought I had made this very clear, it was expounded by St. Augustine and subsequently became Christian Doctrine, Canon Law. That is how it has been established.

"Appealing to authority does not in any way prove your point because it does not rely on the validity of the argument, rather on the personal character of a person, which is irrelevant to the truth value of your contentions." Perhaps you can clarify. If this person's character is only established because of the validity of their arguments, such as Aristotle, who is remembered for his philosophy, then surely it adds credibilty to an argument to cite the works and resoning of this great person. As the fame, has only arisen due to the thruthful value of his arguments.

"They cited their arguments and expounded, criticised and explored them. They did not just cite their names." ohhh. im sorry but you havent read st. Augustines City Of God evidently. He only briefly cited the argument of Aristotle, as i have here, and then used it to support his arguments, as did Martin Luther and Zwingli. He did not expound, criticise or explore the arguments. Parhaps you can read Aristotle's metaphysics, then read the City of God, and you will understand my point.

"It is very easy if you are an atheist." If you are an atheist, you will deny Jesus' divinity, but not his importance as a great man and contributer to ethics etc. hence its not so very easy.

"You are confusing history and philosophy. History involves the recording of facts about the past. Philosophy deals with reason and truth about the world. Citing historians as observers and recorders of facts is one thing. Citing someone as proof that a concept is true is another, completely fallacious thing to do." Sorry again there. you were very vague with your original arguing, that this applied to all arguments. Now we can see it doesnt apply to historical debates, just to philosophy. So why are you involving it here, in relation to Hitler. That is historical, as are the records of the justifications. If you believe they involve ethical questions etc. then once again this would apply to all historical debates, as they all involve philosophical aspects.

"Yes, I study lots of subjects that involve analysing philosophical arguments by philosophers and I don't have any clue as to what philosophers think" Interesting, as before you were studying a major in philosophy and you apparently did know what philosophers think.

"No they would not. What I said was a general statement that obviously implied that I was talking about moral justification." It was obvious was it? Actually it was anything but, if you really believe that is what you meant. Of course, the moral justification has been discussed previously, and you said there was no cause, not there was no justification. They are different.

"Nietzsche's will to power is simply an argument. It does not mean that it is true." Well, Ill leave it to you to read Nietzsche's work and his justifications for such a thought. Of course, the same theory applies to this ridiculous 'reasoning' you use.

"I wonder if you have read anything other than Nietzsche? You seem to be obsessed with him" i think that quote and this quote really match,etc. Unwarranted, repeated insults towards people regarding their intelligence, simply because they disagree with you. I think your arguments are completely flawed and illogical, but I do not call you names, I just attack your argument.

I have warned you. Please try to be civil." I hope you do take your own advice.

"any experience with the philosophical community. Ask any lecturer in philosophy in any university in this country about what it means to appeal to authority and they will tell you all about fallacies of argument. Enlightening learning which you would do well to examine should you choose to study reason or logic." well, I evidently have experience with the 'philosophical community' merely by my reading of such philosophy, and yes, I have had discussions with University lecturers in regards to philosophy. Your asking lecturers is both appealing to the majority, and appealing to authority, with no justification. I hope your lecturer doesnt read this site. Your last comment is ad hominem and baseless, as of course you cant really know that can you.

"But they all use reason" appealing to majority. Not to mention, you cant be sure that all do, so its baseless. In fact people are beginning to criticise that aspect of Nietzsche's work here for lacking reason.

Oh no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John The Great
You are clearly a mentally incapable individual (once again, a judgement from comments, as stated, thus warranted)

Quote:
Originally Posted by John The Great
Are you blind, deaf, dumb and intellectually incapable (question, with pending answer, can hardly be considered an insult, one can say "no")

Quote:
Originally Posted by John The Great
Once again this individual is obviously a subjective coward, evident from their last comment. (evident from comment, thus NOT unwarranted)

Quote:
Originally Posted by John The Great
It is those arguments that are generally rubbish and have no success at all, due to lack of credibility and intellectual thought. (attacking the argument, not person!!!)

etc. Unwarranted, repeated insults towards people regarding their intelligence, simply because they disagree with you.(i have not attacked them for disagreeing, as evident but for the lack of intelligence as shown by their comments, you are attacking me here with unwarranted claims, one is a question and one an attack of an argument.) I think your arguments are completely flawed and illogical,(the feelings mutual) but I do not call you names, I just attack your argument.(you have indeed called me 'names' and attacked me personally, such as not having read anything other than nietzsche etc. etc. with no warrant, you are now lying to me, and once again insulting me)

I have warned you. Please try to be civil. (I certainly hope you read this and all those others who have sworn at me many times so far, and certainly name called, with terms such as stupid, retard, sick, Neo-Nazi, idiot, moron etc. etc., but good to see that you are warning the right people, one could question whether you are telling me this and not others as some kind of unfounded discrimination)

 

[John The Great]

Argh I feel I should step in here for a moment. I am have been umming and ahhing about whether to close this thread or not and I have recieved a couple of complaints about it, but in the name of free speech and the fact that I think Hitler's abilities as a leader is an interesting topic for debate, I have left it open.

It is starting to go way off topic. Also some people are using personal insults and attacking each other instead of attacking arguments alone.

If you want this thread to stay open and the debate to continue then please, revert back to the topic and stop the personal mudslinging. If it continues I will close the thread. If you have any questions or have an opinion about this send me a PM and I will be only too happy to respond.

So please, back on the topic, and as Moonlight said earlier, stop the personal attacks or the thread will be closed.

I commened you for your decision to keep this open and your evident acknowledgement of Hitler's abilties.

May I second that motion to stop the personal insults, without warrant and justification, particularly the outright swearing.