Anything monarchy related or done by religious spearheads. If someone had a plan, gained political power and influence, while commiting atrocities to get in that place and later to secure it, that person is not evil, because they think they are in the right and just.
>>67456 Sometimes people commit actions that they believe have some purpose, but really have no purpose. For example, any sort of murder committed by an insane fanatic who believes God is talking to them or something.
>Or is there even no objective evil Your definition of "evil" seems like a good candidate for "objective evil" to me.
>>67456 Probably Hitler. Not only did he treat chunks of his citizens like shit, he also got his country ground into the dust and split up for four decades. He was just bad news for everybody in the end.
>>67565 So people can commit evil unknowingly? If they commit an evil action but are deluding into thinking that it is a good thing they are not evil people, just stupid. But even then, is the action objectively evil if the intent was good?
>>67575 Monarchies were born into power, but their power is still derived from their citizens. Same with religous establishments.
>>67244 >Could anything in history accurately be attributed to what we know as "evil"? It's hard to classify something as "good" or "evil", not because they don't exist, but because humans are entirely subjective in their view on what is good/evil.
>>67871 >So there is no objective definition of evil? I wouldn't say that. In my opinion humans are just incapable of processing good/evil objectively because the outcome will always be coloured by or various desires.
>>68001 No? the NSDAP party didn't want to convert any states, the NSDAP party was the peoples will disregarding this is what liberals do because they believe all peoples should be like them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9fEM-MfSiU
>>68034 >the NSDAP party didn't want to convert any states So they invaded other countries, enforced their racial ideologies and political beliefs but that's not converting the state. That's not them interferring with the will of the people of other states? I'm sure the French, Dutch, Belgians, Poles whoever didn't elect the Nazis and want to be invaded. You said you believe in peoples rights to choose what they wish for their people and state, so surely by that logic an invading nation who comes in, installs puppet governments who were not elected, deport and kill local citizens on laws, beliefs and whatever else of another country is evil then. That's evil by your definition.
>>68148 So where does the killing and cleansing of ethnic poles not fall under the definition of evil? This is still another nation going into another territory forcing their ideology upon them. Something you said was evil.
Should mention that Germans within the land they reclaimed were being persecuted, and that poland broke the treaty of Versailles by breaking the neutrality of Danzig. Poland wasn't aside from land that was German pre-WWI, they were kept under a separate government which would be handed over to the poles when the occupation was ended. When the war was over.
>>68233 >gears entire economy towards military production In 1943.
>invades other countries Retakes land stolen after WWI because ethnic Germans are being persecuted, preemptively attacks the Soviet Union which was planning to invade Europe.
>wants war That's why Hitler offered peace following the Franco-British declaration of war. Then again before invading France. Then again after invading France.
>>68294 It was either fight now or wait for soviet union and the allies to arm up to full capacity from their extensive reaches of colonies and resources while Germany was a small country with not enough resources to possibly remain independent, if everyone agreed to reduce arms instead of increase it, Hitler wouldn't have reason to suspect them of militancy and being anti German which they were.
>>67808 >He lifted His advisors and party took care of most matters. Hitler was an idiot. Originally he was a figurehead to t h e regime and was used to Inspire people to join the cause, but as WW2 commenced he was given more diplomatic power and military power which he used terribly.
>>68354 >That's why he offered Britain and France unconditional peace, right? You mean the deal he made with Chamberlain, that he never meant to uphold. It was pretty much another Ribbentrop-Molotov deal, just for the UK and France. He knew he needs more time to prepare for invasion into France.
>>68379 >/pol/ type subreddits >not banned You would know, as you probably new to 4chan because of them. So here's an advice: go back to /pol/.
>/pol/ once again destroys commie shills with facts He think those are facts. Oh god, you're an actual retard.
>>67456 >Evil would be devoid of any benefit to others, completely abhorrent actions, meant to make the lives of all people worse for no reason. Serial killers, maybe? Though depending on how you interpret "for no reason," they could arguably not be purely evil by this definition.
Anything that involves impulsive thinking or tries to destroy technological advancement is the closest to evil we have.
As humans we are motivated to escape the control of a brutal natural world, which means stability, progression and long-term planning is core to the survival of our humanity and anything in opposition should be treated as poisonous.
>>68616 Someone said Hitler was evil and we refuted, liberals can't stand giving nationalists equal ground because we are fundamentally different, liberals are actually marxists and their whole ideological pathways are destroyed by what we hold as true, race, and states.
>>67808 No I mean just the man. Put another Nazi in place and WWII may have only turned out into a minor scuffle with some Slavic nations like Poland instead of blowing up into a global clusterfuck. Hitler meanwhile was a good orator, but god damn insane and thought he could take on the world.
>>68640 Yeah whatever. If you read it you would realise he didn't hate everyone who wasn't german. He wanted to uplift the German population, not destroy others. He didn't believe they were better than other, but that they could be better than they were currently.
>>68737 Almost nobody on /pol/ denies that the Holocaust happened. They question certain aspects and numbers - because when you can prove to normise that the media is lying about parts of the Holocaust it's far easier to make them think for themselves.
Well let's put it this way. Tens of thousands of scholars have studied the Holocaust over decades and every single one of them with the slightest credibility as historians has come to the conclusion the Holocaust happened.
You denying this and claiming it is all a Jewish conspiracy to keep teh skinhead down is nothing but a conspiracy theory.
>>68889 And I am talking about history. You can anything I say a conspiracy theory when you explain why certain individuals in allied countries forbade the red cross from providing aid to the concentration camps or the civilian population of Germany. You can call me a tinfoil hat wearing madman when you explain how the jewish population increasing during the holocaust. You can say what I have spoken about belongs on /x/ when you explain why almost all banks and media organisations are owned or run by jews. You can tell me why American joined WWI right after the balfour declaration. Go ahead, try to explain that. And when you're done start denying the allied carpet bombing for every major german city using white phosphorous and the mass rape and slaughter the soviets engaged in.
Then let's work Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union and figure out just how many tens of millions of ethnic russians, ukrainians and other persons under the bolshevik regime were starved in engineered famines, for Germany was just the next step in the zionists' bid for total control.
Bringing this thread back on topic, I think the jews are certainly a force for evil, but even they have some good intentions - they try to uplift themselves and the jewish people and that is an admirable goal, albeit not one that is good the rest of us.
>>69305 You should try to find a subreddit about history.
>>69303 I wasn't saying they weren't ethnic germans, rather they lived after WWII. And that they didn't control what they wrote and if the allied powers occupying germany didn't like it, it wouldn't be published.
>>>>68517 Paul Virilio and other total accident proponents would argue that technological progress is both good and evil, and that the evil side is going a lot faster and is way better funded. Eventually, because science works through experimentation, accidents occur. The rapid expansion of war technology exponentially increases the chances of a "total accident" in which the technological progress we sought to save us actually is our doom.
>>69580 >military occupation >they don't control the press They do, until 2199. They have handed power to the German government which is their puppet. They have censorship laws so extreme they could arrest someone for saying only 5,999,999 jews died.
>>69774 >See, that's where you win. Whenever a historians says anything other than 6 million she or he loses all respect. Catch-22.
>They pulled their figures around the 50s and haven't said anything about the camps since. There are plenty of documents pre-dating that.
Actually they consistently said it was never ever their job to find out how many people died and that neo-Nazis have been misusing one tiny scrap of paperwork that was never intended as any sort of investigation into death count.
>>69837 >conspiracy theory It's not. Whether they are right or wrong, many good historians have lost their reputation after questioning the holocaust, or suggesting the numbers aren't accurate.
Of course the red cross have been saying that. It's illegal in many countries to say anything else, and the red cross aren't interested in ending up in a courtroom. That 'tiny scrap of paper' is the sum of the official records taken from the camps.
Hey, you wanna know anything funny about the numbers tattooed onto people's arms at auschwitz? There's only 5 digits.
>>70231 >It's not. Whether they are right or wrong, many good historians have lost their reputation after questioning the holocaust,
When you say many you can't name any except David Irving who has never contested the Holocaust happened in any of his scholarly works and tends to keep that shit to neo-Nazi rallies.
>Of course the red cross have been saying that.
They've never said anything else since long before any laws against Holocaust denial were put in place. You can't provide any citations for claims that the Red Cross, as an organisation, ever supported the idea the Holocaust never happened or merely tried to downplay it.
All you have is one tiny scrap of paper that they have consistently said since forever was not their position.
"The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating." In this sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things. Insomuch as something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strong-willed man values such things as 'good'. Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality.
Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is literally re-sentiment—revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on "intention". As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it vilifies its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility: the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction. Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery (viz., the will to power) are 'evil', as are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master.
Thread replies: 154 Thread images: 10
Thread DB ID: 69428
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.