CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[Ziggy Stardust]

Of course it is impossible to properly assign how many deaths are his fault and how many were unavoidable given the German invasion.

But wouldn't you agree that if his stupidity and incompetence caused millions of unnecessary deaths, he ought to be morally blamed for them? He can't be blamed for the deaths that were unavoidable as a result of the German action, but he can be blamed for all those who died because of his idiotic decisions.

I think the reasoning goes: If Germany had not gone to war, those casualties would not have happened. But I can see your side of the argument as well. What makes you think Blame is un-dividable. Hitler is to be blamed for all casualties, Stalin is to be blamed for those that died because of incompetence under his leadership.

If the argument is, who should we blame most, that has to be Hitler. No matter how incompetent Stalin was a an commander, no one would have died if Hitler hadn't instigated the war.

 

[RedRalph]

Of course it is impossible to properly assign how many deaths are his fault and how many were unavoidable given the German invasion.

But wouldn't you agree that if his stupidity and incompetence caused millions of unnecessary deaths, he ought to be morally blamed for them? He can't be blamed for the deaths that were unavoidable as a result of the German action, but he can be blamed for all those who died because of his idiotic decisions.

No, I wouldn't assign moral blame for that I would only do so if there was intent. This isn't double standards by the way, I make a moral distinction between intent and incompetence.

In any case, it all comkes down to the fact that it was Hitler who actually caused all of it, because no matter how incompetent Stalin was at the start, none of it matters unless Hitler gives the order to attack. So I'm not interested in this 'Hitler only killed 6m people' BS, he was morally responsible for 27m Soviet citizens dying.

 

[Phlegmak]

Zardnaar:

Well, Zardnaar, how do you intend to take your newfound ideological stance into daily practice?

?

 

[RedRalph]

I think the reasoning goes: If Germany had not gone to war, those casualties would not have happened. But I can see your side of the argument as well. What makes you think Blame is un-dividable. Hitler is to be blamed for all casualties, Stalin is to be blamed for those that died because of incompetence under his leadership.
If the argument is, who should we blame most, that has to be Hitler. No matter how incompetent Stalin was a an commander, no one would have died if Hitler hadn't instigated the war.

while I don't agree with that argument, if thats the point Luiz is trying to make I think its understandable, that some deaths were both of their faults. But even with that caveat, all were Hitlers fault, and most were in no way attributable to Stalin.

 

[Ecofarm]

And you call yourself a (small D) democrat? Get outta here.

You don't think that taking away people's money is a limit to their influence, and that it is sometimes justified?

 

[PiMan]

I think he has a problem with influence being tied in any way to money. This is inherently undemocratic.

 

[Ecofarm]

No it is not, as long as everyone has equal opportunity.

Some people don't vote... some people don't provide for their kids. Freedom.

 

[RedRalph]

No it is not, as long as everyone has equal opportunity.

Some people don't vote... some people don't provide for their kids. Freedom.

So do you believe a law which forces people to provide for their kids is anti-freedom?

 

[Ecofarm]

I think a law that forces anyone to provide for any kids is anti-freedom.

Of course, anti-freedom needs to be balanced with (enforced) compassion...

 

[RedRalph]

I think a law that forces anyone to provide for any kids is anti-freedom.

Even their own kids?

 

[PiMan]

A person born to a rich family has far greater opportunity for themselves and greater opportunity to provide for descendants than a child of a pauper.
Money not only can buy influence, but it buys more money.

 

[Ecofarm]

Even their own kids?

I understand the need to hold people responsible for their actions, but yes. Any coercion is anti-freedom.

A person born to a rich family has far greater opportunity for themselves and greater opportunity to provide for descendants than a child of a pauper.
Money not only can buy influence, but it buys more money.

If you think it is such a huge imbalance on one's ability to make a difference (ask Obama, who didn't get crap from his family), then DO IT! Noone is stopping you. If you choose not to exercise your equal opportunity, don't complain to me. It's your freedom, your choice, your decision... don't get a bad attitude because someone chose a different path/method than you did.

Good lord. I just got out of a meeting with farm-workers fighting for fair treatment and you people want to cry about how YOU can't make any money?? Pathetic!

 

[RedRalph]

I understand the need to hold people responsible for their actions, but yes. Any coercion is anti-freedom.

So do you think any laws at all are anti-freedom as they all compel people to behave in certain ways?

 

[Ecofarm]

Of course. Some are justified.

It's called "the social contract". One gives up individual freedom via taxes, laws, etc. for security.

 

[RedRalph]

Of course. Some are justified.

So you don't view freedom as an absolutely good thing? In some circumstances less freedom is better than more?

 

[warpus]

Of course. Some are justified.

It's called "the social contract". One gives up individual freedom for security.

Calling them anti-freedom is a bit much. It makes it sound like they were designed to impede a person's 'guaranteed' freedoms, which they don't.

 

[Ecofarm]

So you don't view freedom as an absolutely good thing? In some circumstances less freedom is better than more?

People not having the freedom to murder me is good for me, no doubt. Such a restricton of freedom is justified. Just like some taxes are justified and some laws are justified. I'd even go as far as to say that some nationalization is justified, but I'm not so sure about that.

Calling them anti-freedom is a bit much. It makes it sound like they were designed to impede a person's 'guaranteed' freedoms, which they don't.

I didn't choose the term, but I'm willing to let it slide. Your clarification is fair.

 

[trader/warrior]

If I could prove to you that socialism results in more disposable income and higher social mobility for the people would you become socialist? Money=Freedom after all.

 

[Ecofarm]

If I could prove to you that socialism results in more disposable income and higher social mobility for the people would you become socialist?

No, because I believe the costs to individual freedom and contribution outweigh making every sloth middle-class. I'd rather have one rich genius and 9 min-wage workers than 10 welfare minds; it's better for society.

I do, of course, support some socialist measures to ensure equal opportunity. But not full-on socialism. I think a minimal safety-net works better to move society forward than hand-outs for everyone all the time. I also think that government control of the means of production retards our development.

 

[aelf]

The German empire consisted of a sauage factory in Africa while the English one spanned the world. I don't think the English and French are entirely blameless, and even if the Germans won WW1 would a German dominated Europe have been any worse than an English/French one? No holocaust, no Stalin, no Communism in Russia, no Hitler. I'll make that trade in return for the French once again getting stomped a'la 1871. England should have stayed out of it, wars over 1914/1915 or so, French lose some border territory and pay some money- less than the cost of fighting WW1 most likely and you avoid several million dead.

Waffle, waffle. So you picked on who to blame yet for 1914 and, as a result, who to blame for 1919 yet? Surely you don't mean to say that the one who had the smaller empire is automatically the victim?

That is a myth propagated by the Allies so they could have someone to blame that wasn't themselves, and the Germans as the crux of the Central Powers and the country that did the most fighting for the Central Powers was an easy target to assign blame.

Who is truly is to blame is much more complicated. It is tempting to say the answer is simple, that the assassination of the Arch-Duke set of a series of entangling alliances. That is simply not true. The treaties signed by by the European powers were defensive treaties, and as such, all the declarations of war were not required by the alliances. Perhaps the leaders during that time misinterpreted the treaties, but I highly doubt it.

Yadda, yadda. Signed the blank cheque, signed the DoW first!

Hitler wasn't right wing. Since when does the union halls produce a right winger? Never have understood the revisionist history there.

You'll have to dig awfully hard to find anyplace that I've said right wing means capitalist. Right wing more or less identifies with conservative ideaology. Now, check out Hitler's progresses on social safety nets and entitlement programs. Have you read much on his corporate nationalization policies? Not conservative at all. The only tenant he shared with a genuine conservative is that of nationalist tendancies...something which is quite common across all boundaries in different forms.

Next please.

Ahem. Almost everybody disagrees with that, so I say there's a lot proving to be done on your part.

But I'm kind of picky as to what is considered left-wing, so fair enough. Nonetheless, surely you don't mean to say that Hitler was left-wing?

Money=Freedom after all.

Not necessarily, of course.