Campaign Creations

Irrational?

Is it irrational to hate Nazism?  Exactly how many bodies have to pile up before it's okay to dislike something?

12 billion

mAc Chaos wrote: Irrational?

Is it irrational to hate Nazism?  Exactly how many bodies have to pile up before it's okay to dislike something?

All emotion is subjective bias, therefore hatred is irrational. You can't rationally hate something.

In other words, yes, it is irrational to hate Nazism.

Mucky wrote:

mAc Chaos wrote: Irrational?

Is it irrational to hate Nazism?  Exactly how many bodies have to pile up before it's okay to dislike something?

All emotion is subjective bias, therefore hatred is irrational. You can't rationally hate something.

In other words, yes, it is irrational to hate Nazism.

Yes you can, because your emotions don't have to be based on nothing.  If I don't like someone because he's a dick to me all the time, is it irrational?  No, it's a perfectly logical response to the behavior I'm being presented with.

Pseudonym wrote: I do not know who you are.

So, what you're implying is that the nym I know is in fact a colossal asshole who jumps ship at the slightest provocation, hiding under his bed and squeeling like a pig as it bursts out of someone's chest at the end of its swine flu incubation period? That all of his cherry-topped promises of progress and dedication were in fact seething lies hidden beneath a layer of child-like plush skin and rosy cheeks? That the man can't even give me the slightest notice of his unwillingness to adhere to his quest, a quest given to him by God and his merry men, and instead took a shit all over all that is just and right in the world?

About all that other stuff; yeah, whatever.

wtf kind of thread is this?

I mean, come on, seriously -- I mean, really, who cares, right?

Politics schmolitics. I want my MTV.

Negi wrote:

Rocco wrote: And what ethnicity might you be sir?

JEW

Oh damn, I'll just leave it at that.

Actually, Krazy, the point I was trying to make is that Communism had no silver lining or benefit while capitalism (and imperialism to an extent) in the West and around the world has helped to create all this stuff around us. 

Anyway, since Pseudonym has given ground on the details of Communist China, I will as well.  Communism wasn't the only malevolent force in China's history from the 1830's on.  The British certainly didn't provide the most hospitable example of being more progressive or modern except for perhaps "Being stronger means you can return to the glory days of China being stronger".  Chiang wasn't even close to the model of a democratic or wide leader.  (Eleanor Roosevelt said as such and Chiang spent more time killing Chinese than Japanese until the latter fully invaded China.) The Western powers (including the Soviets) engaged in a game of divide and conquer well into 1945, when they tried to force both Mao and Chiang to make peace and failed.

So I can understand why the debate is always so soured and why Communism seemed to provide a source of pride and sovereignty after a century of Taiping rebellions, foreign invasions, and the failures of those who tried to emulate the West.  However, my problem with it has been simple; whereas imperialism caused damage to the world, Communism tended to target its own people for death and created a body count that was not just staggering but also irrational.

Due to Cold War politics, the West found China in a position where they wanted to help it to play against Moscow (China's closer ties to the West forced the Soviets to post half a million extra troops on the Soviet-Chinese border which reduced their grip on the oppressed Eastern European satellites.) and the rest is history. 

You can post as many links as you like but I haven't responded in kind not because I think history will vindicate my position but because it already has since the reforms of the 1980's.  What simply makes me believe that the Communist regime before that time so indefensible is that there are far too many for whom those changes were far too late, whether they be dead, murdered, disillusioned, or in refuge in other lands holding onto their heritage.

Krazy wrote: This jump to naziism from communism serves my point.  The crux of the argument so far has been something like, "communism killed 2001 people, american and western imperialism only killed 1999!  This difference clearly makes one the blessed virgin mary and the other satan."  According to the own argumenative logic, it *is* irrational to hate nazism, actually.  Because the logic of this argument is "whoever has the biggest body count is *the only* evil entity.". If american imperialism has not killed as many people, it is only because the people it has chosen to commit genocide on had less people there for the killing.  That doesn't make them better, that just makes them less ambitious.

If you want to hate both nazism and communism you must also therefore hate the west; otherwise, you can only hate one or the other.

None of that made sense.

What?  I said that nothing good came out of COMMUNISM, not China, and that everything good happening for China NOW is due to reforms that made it more capitalist and democratic, Krazy.

mAc Chaos wrote:

Krazy wrote: This jump to naziism from communism serves my point.  The crux of the argument so far has been something like, "communism killed 2001 people, american and western imperialism only killed 1999!  This difference clearly makes one the blessed virgin mary and the other satan."  According to the own argumenative logic, it *is* irrational to hate nazism, actually.  Because the logic of this argument is "whoever has the biggest body count is *the only* evil entity.". If american imperialism has not killed as many people, it is only because the people it has chosen to commit genocide on had less people there for the killing.  That doesn't make them better, that just makes them less ambitious.

If you want to hate both nazism and communism you must also therefore hate the west; otherwise, you can only hate one or the other.

None of that made sense.

That is because he was taking up your mode of thought.

DrumsofWar wrote: What?  I said that nothing good came out of COMMUNISM, not China, and that everything good happening for China NOW is due to reforms that made it more capitalist and democratic, Krazy.

Actually, you argue that the only progress that has occurred in China has Western origins, which implies that nothing good has come out of China herself, at least not in the last 200 years. That is quite arrogant; in fact, you sound like a Qing official who says that his civilization is not only the best but also the source of all good found in other civilizations.

Read my reply 4 posts up.

Actually I don't know if anyone has posted this in this thread but, Communism gave birth to Nazism and Hitler copied the concentration camp idea from the Commies too, not to mention that he sent people to the Soviet Union to train to do their job at said concentration camps. The only difference between the two is that communism kills by social status and nazism kills by nationality.
Thus communism brings nothing good and shouldn't be embraced.

For military gain, military is always putting it's needs before anything else.
Yes, capitalism isn't perfect but atleast my relatives don't end up in siberia just because they don't like the goverment.

DrumsofWar wrote: Read my reply 4 posts up.

I did and found it quite irrelevant.

Let us consider:

First you talk about the terrible things the British did, which is essentially what I said.

You then expound on the undemocratic ways of Chiang Kai-shek. Great, Chiang was a Nationalist who began the Chinese Civil War by killing the Communists in the Kuomintang in 1927.

Then you talk about Western and Soviet influence in China up to and during the Second World War. What, if anything, does this have to do with the supposed evils of Communism?

You proceed to the Sino-Soviet split, which has not even been previously mentioned in this discussion. Are you implying that because Communists disagreed, they must be irrational and evil? Barack Obama and John McCain disagree, so does that make the federal republic irrational and evil?

Then you say "the rest is history" as if that were not a cliché devoid of meaning, especially so because almost everything you wrote was history. Perhaps you were hinting at the fall of the Soviet Union, but that only validates the materialist conception of history. You will note that Mikhail Gorbachev placed political reform before economic reform, and Russia consequently became less robust.

Anyway, your only real point here is that Communism killed a lot of people, which I never denied as I even gave you a more accurate body count. Your other main point, which you did not restate here, is that Communism is worse than Western imperialism, AIDS, and Hitler combined by both body count and irrationality or evilness.

While you have refrained from repeating outlandish quantitative claims that I have easily disproved, such as that Communism killed more than imperialism, National Socialism, and AIDS combined or that China jails the most people in the world, you still hold on to the argument that Communism is qualitatively worse. However, I cannot fathom how you can ever think that Communism could be worse than just Nazism, let alone Nazism, imperialism, and AIDS.

No matter how one feels, both Communism and capitalism were founded on rational principles with the goal of progress. Nazism, on the other hand, was an ideology founded on hatred with the goal of racial extermination and global domination. Communism, and for that matter, imperialism, is nowhere nearly as evil as Nazism and Japanese fascism; when else have you seen the West and the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communists and Nationalists, fighting a common enemy?

Finally, I must reiterate your hypocrisy in telling me to reexamine points that are quite irrelevant when you yourself have dodged so many much more pertinent points of mine. This complements the double standard you impose where you do not need any evidence for your claims while all the evidences in the world supporting mine do not seem enough. These facts show your extreme arrogance, which you can read further about in my reply five posts up.

GreatGodSajuuk wrote: Actually I don't know if anyone has posted this in this thread but, Communism gave birth to Nazism and Hitler copied the concentration camp idea from the Commies too, not to mention that he sent people to the Soviet Union to train to do their job at said concentration camps. The only difference between the two is that communism kills by social status and nazism kills by nationality.
Thus communism brings nothing good and shouldn't be embraced.

How did "Communism [give] birth to Nazism"?