- 30 Oct 2012 05:46
#14093881
My point is you ramble about there being no good guys or bad guys when it comes to your preferred side (in this case Nazi Germany) being the bad guys, but then use language that clearly shows that you see them as the good guys. Your attempt to dismiss moral questions is clearly a tactical move at best, and generally exceedingly phoney.
It's just as absurd as Andropov decrying the sadism of Wehrmacht troops while making excuses for the Soviet troops.
It's quite appropriate in highlighting that your claimed moral viewpoint is not one you generally hold. Alternatively we could chalk this up to you contradicting yourself again, you know like championing Prussian values while trying to champion the anti-old guard elements of the Nazi movement at the same time? I think this latter option is unlikely, as contradiction of that sort tends to be a question of confusion, where as I think you knew exactly what you are doing in this thread. The wonder is only that you think people are stupid enough to fall for something so obvious.
While we're on the topic of the Red Army etc. I might note you took Andropov to task for his moral stand, but when Preston Cole, your ideological fellow traveller, took a similar moral stand to which you're supposedly opposed, you said nothing. Again, this implies your stance is tactical rather than a sincerely held belief.
Having a desired outcome requires you to make a choice based on values ultimately, all you've done is create the good guys/bad guys strawman for those who have done the same. You clearly are not arguing on simple practicalities here, so it must be a question of certain belief systems being more in line with your own values than others. That you want (wishes are after all desires, not some inevitable outcome) opposing systems to be destroyed again speaks of a value judgement.
Scale and method make events unique, and unique events defy broad comparisons such as the one you wished to make. Would you place the murder of one in the small place as the murder of dozens? Of course not. Be serious.
As I had to point out to Rich recently, the Mongols actually got to where they were by co-opting subject peoples, not by wiping them all out.
Apparently you couldn't find anything even remotely similar (in terms of scale or otherwise) in a time even slightly contemporaneous to the Holocaust, hence why you've decided to argue the idiotic comparison of Hitler and Ghengis Khan
So first you want to draw parallels between events centuries apart, then you want to go on about historical figures being the product of their era? In this instance I can't tell if you're simply adopting an absurdly transparent tactical ruse, or if your really believe such a contradictory load of crap.
Fine, you want to talk about products of an era? Then I restate that you find me other similar examples from the era outside of the Soviet Union. After all France and Britain occupy the same era and you wanted to draw the parallel in the first place.
But you don't believe in good guys and bad guys, right? Perhaps only "glorious" guys and the "world order", "hordes" or "traitors". Instead of 'cowboys and injuns' I find you playing the same game, but with 'grown up' terms in place of the original players.
Far-Right Sage wrote:I'm not quite sure what your argument is here. The world runs on violence, which both sides commit. No, it's been a long time since I've believed in the puerile world of cowboys and Injuns, good guys and bad guys, pushed onto a population of infantile hysterics to serve a narrative. Again, what exactly is your point?
My point is you ramble about there being no good guys or bad guys when it comes to your preferred side (in this case Nazi Germany) being the bad guys, but then use language that clearly shows that you see them as the good guys. Your attempt to dismiss moral questions is clearly a tactical move at best, and generally exceedingly phoney.
It's just as absurd as Andropov decrying the sadism of Wehrmacht troops while making excuses for the Soviet troops.
Far-Right Sage wrote:nor have I obscured my sympathies for Qaddafi (who isn't germane to the topic of this discussion in any sense)
It's quite appropriate in highlighting that your claimed moral viewpoint is not one you generally hold. Alternatively we could chalk this up to you contradicting yourself again, you know like championing Prussian values while trying to champion the anti-old guard elements of the Nazi movement at the same time? I think this latter option is unlikely, as contradiction of that sort tends to be a question of confusion, where as I think you knew exactly what you are doing in this thread. The wonder is only that you think people are stupid enough to fall for something so obvious.
Far-Right Sage wrote:I have never accused our opponents, the Red Army or present-day benefactors of the liberal-capitalist order of being "evil" or "bad guys".
While we're on the topic of the Red Army etc. I might note you took Andropov to task for his moral stand, but when Preston Cole, your ideological fellow traveller, took a similar moral stand to which you're supposedly opposed, you said nothing. Again, this implies your stance is tactical rather than a sincerely held belief.
Far-Right Sage wrote:They are factions pushing their own economic and social interests wrapped in a belief system; it simply happens to be a belief system I oppose and wish to see eradicated. There is no contradiction in supporting any faction and having an opinion and ideological influences, as I do, and recognizing the inherent amorality and relativity of the course of history.
Having a desired outcome requires you to make a choice based on values ultimately, all you've done is create the good guys/bad guys strawman for those who have done the same. You clearly are not arguing on simple practicalities here, so it must be a question of certain belief systems being more in line with your own values than others. That you want (wishes are after all desires, not some inevitable outcome) opposing systems to be destroyed again speaks of a value judgement.
Far-Right Sage wrote:What the hell difference does scale make?
Scale and method make events unique, and unique events defy broad comparisons such as the one you wished to make. Would you place the murder of one in the small place as the murder of dozens? Of course not. Be serious.
Far-Right Sage wrote:If the Mongol Empire had Zyklon-B, there likely wouldn't be a nation of Iraq today.
As I had to point out to Rich recently, the Mongols actually got to where they were by co-opting subject peoples, not by wiping them all out.
Apparently you couldn't find anything even remotely similar (in terms of scale or otherwise) in a time even slightly contemporaneous to the Holocaust, hence why you've decided to argue the idiotic comparison of Hitler and Ghengis Khan
Far-Right Sage wrote:You have a fine mind for history and analysis, but you seem to lock yourself forever in some irrelevant moral narrative crafted by men who themselves are a product of the era.
So first you want to draw parallels between events centuries apart, then you want to go on about historical figures being the product of their era? In this instance I can't tell if you're simply adopting an absurdly transparent tactical ruse, or if your really believe such a contradictory load of crap.
Fine, you want to talk about products of an era? Then I restate that you find me other similar examples from the era outside of the Soviet Union. After all France and Britain occupy the same era and you wanted to draw the parallel in the first place.
Far-Right Sage wrote:German resistance to the world order engineered by England was the most fantastic and glorious act in the history of our people since Arminius stood defiant of the Roman hordes. It should never be apologized for. Anyone who presents the mere suggestion within Germany today is a traitor worthy of nothing but deprivation and extrajudicial execution.
But you don't believe in good guys and bad guys, right? Perhaps only "glorious" guys and the "world order", "hordes" or "traitors". Instead of 'cowboys and injuns' I find you playing the same game, but with 'grown up' terms in place of the original players.
[ Forum Rules ][ Newbie Guide ][ Mission Statement ][ FAQ ]