Most insane NES'er currently?

[Toteone]

If anyone says 'Heil Hitler' again I am going to go on a screaming rant and report it. Seriously, I know that the whole 'genocide thing' is just about the game, but I still find it extremely offensive that anyone thinks it would be even funny to post something like this. I am really serious, so if anyone who has posted in this thread recnetly uses that thread again, I will report it.

I agree with this, please respect the Israelis in our world and the ones in our forum specifically.

 

[Insane_Panda]

I disagree that Hitler was a great man. He was a strategic ******. If it weren't for him Nazi Germany would have a MUCH better chance of conquering Europe. The only thing he ever contributed to Germany was brainwashing its citizens and going on crazed genocidal schemes, wiping out millions (of working, able citizens which contributed a great deal to the German nation, mind you) for no real reason other than to fill his insane ideas. The Jews were not a threat to him, he killed merely to kill and establish his vision of a perfect world.

Von Manstein and the General staff conquered France, not Hitler.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

^sum that stuff up too long.

Who is us? Your opnion is the Heil Hitler is offensive. My opnion is that Hitler is no diffrent from any other conqueror. If you find it offensive that I believe this or say "Heil Hitler" than simply don't listen.
[...]
All you gave me was nothing but some guys belief. Pfft...and you tell me I'm wrong because this guy believed something diffrenet. Sounds a lot like brianwashing to me.

That just goes to show that things like right and wrong are relative. You believe this guy is right while I don't agree. Can you honestly PROVE factually that this guy is right? No you can't. It's simply a theory. Similarily I can't prove I'm right either it our relative beliefs.
Similarily I believe that everything including right and wrong and good and evil are relativ ebased upon the society, upbringing, education etc....
IMO it is impossible for there to be objective right and wrong or good and evil. One society can consier one thing good while a diffrent society can consider the same thing as evil.

It seems quite clear that you didn't read the text.

I am not trying to prove its validity by the argument from common consent. Its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it.

Your statements of relativism are continuing in the exact same line of argument as previously, and my only answer is to repost the second link from my previous post.

St Augustine defines virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind of degree of love which is appropriate to it. Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought. When the age for reflective thought comes, the pupil who has been thus trained in 'ordinate affections' or 'just sentiments' will easily find the first principles in Ethics; but to the corrupt man they will never be visible at all and he can make no progress in that science. Plato before him had said the same. The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful. In the Republic, the well-nurtured youth is one 'who would see most clearly whatever was amiss in ill-made works of man or ill-grown works of nature, and with a just distaste would blame and hate the ugly even from his earliest years and would give delighted praise to beauty, receiving it into his soul and being nourished by it, so that he becomes a man of gentle heart. All this before he is of an age to reason; so that when Reason at length comes to him, then, bred as he has been, he will hold out his hands in welcome and recognize her because of the affinity he bears to her.'15 In early Hinduism that conduct in men which can be called good consists in conformity to, or almost participation in, the Rta—that great ritual or pattern of nature and supernature which is revealed alike in the cosmic order, the moral virtues, and the ceremonial of the temple. Righteousness, correctness, order, the Rta, is constantly identified with satya or truth, correspondence to reality. As Plato said that the Good was 'beyond existence' and Wordsworth that through virtue the stars were strong, so the Indian masters say that the gods themselves are born of the Rta and obey it.16

The Chinese also speak of a great thing (the greatest thing) called the Tao. It is the reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road. It is the Way in which the universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge, stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. It is also the Way which every man should tread in imitation of that cosmic and supercosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar.17 'In ritual', say the Analects, 'it is harmony with Nature that is prized.'18 The ancient Jews likewise praise the Law as being 'true'.19

This conception in all its forms, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, and Oriental alike, I shall henceforth refer to for brevity simply as 'the Tao'. Some of the accounts of it which I have quoted will seem, perhaps, to many of you merely quaint or even magical. But what is common to them all is something we cannot neglect. It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are. Those who know the Tao can hold that to call children delightful or old men venerable is not simply to record a psychological fact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment, but to recognize a quality which demands a certain response from us whether we make it or not. I myself do not enjoy the society of small children: because I speak from within the Tao I recognize this as a defect in myself—just as a man may have to recognize that he is tone deaf or colour blind. And because our approvals and disapprovals are thus recognitions of objective value or responses to an objective order, therefore emotional states can be in harmony with reason (when we feel liking for what ought to be approved) or out of harmony with reason (when we perceive that liking is due but cannot feel it). No emotion is, in itself, a judgement; in that sense all emotions and sentiments are alogical. But they can be reasonable or unreasonable as they conform to Reason or fail to conform. The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.

[...]

This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgements. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgement of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or (as they now call them) 'ideologies', all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they possess. If my duty to my parents is a superstition, then so is my duty to posterity. If justice is a superstition, then so is my duty to my country or my race. If the pursuit of scientific knowledge is a real value, then so is conjugal fidelity. The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed themselves. The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in.

[...]

This is what Confucius meant when he said 'With those who follow a different Way it is useless to take counsel'. This is why Aristotle said that only those who have been well brought up can usefully study ethics: to the corrupted man, the man who stands outside the Tao, the very starting point of this science is invisible. He may be hostile, but he cannot be critical: he does not know what is being discussed. This is why it was also said 'This people that knoweth not the Law is accursed' and 'He that believeth not shall be damned'. An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut. He can say nothing to the purpose. Outside the Tao there is no ground for criticizing either the Tao or anything else.

Again, I refuse to sum this up. It's a book arguing my case for morality against your case for relativism. You can provide a book of your own, or read mine and argue against it, or both, but to stand on your opinion and demand that I prove an opinion wrong is a concession that you have no basis for what you say.

 

[Toteone]

You know Erik, not that it has anything to do with the relevant discussion at the point but as I've stated before the 'moderate tag' looks a bit strange with the -3, -4 but I guess it's in moderation to the standard froum whackos.

 

[Oruc]

how the hell did I cheat in stjnes4? I won that fair and square I read the rules and used them to my advantage!

so i suppose Skilord joined as the Teutonic order (A french ally to begin with) with the countries best interests at heart.

 

[Israelite9191]

Yeah, so Napoleon, who liberated the Jews, will be considered as bad as Hitler? Not unless they find out that the man we thought was Hitler was an identical clone and the real Hitler was a peace loving Budhist who spent his life secluded in a monastery in Tibet. In other words, even if Hitler wasn't pure evil and pure evil dosen't exist, bringing up Hitler brings up feelings in Jews like myself that I would wish on no one. Do you really want to hurt people?

 

[fantasmo]

Yeah, so Napoleon, who liberated the Jews, will be considered as bad as Hitler? Not unless they find out that the man we thought was Hitler was an identical clone and the real Hitler was a peace loving Budhist who spent his life secluded in a monastery in Tibet.

Because peace-loving Buddhist monks are TOTALLY as bad as French dictators who attempted to conquer Europe. What a crappy comparison.

 

[silver 2039]

I don't know wat was here

 

[Gelion]

Can we move this debate to history?
In any case we have a clear winner in this poll....

 

[Insane_Panda]

Most of you post does'nt makes sense, Napolean liberated Jews? I was under the impression he simply conquered other countries.
As for wether I want to hurt people well that depends wether I dislike them.

Freed Palestine from the Ottomans for awhile. Also, Napoleon did alot more than most of you think. His Civil Code for laws were among the most advanced and liberal of the time - though he ruled with absolute power, the common people enjoyed many more rights than the serfs of other European nations.

Also, how do you call Hitler a great man? Even if you are basing your remarks simply on his military record, you will CLEARLY see that he was inept at warfare and should have left the business of war to his much more capable generals.

 

[silver 2039]

A very foolish man.

 

[silver 2039]

Yes. Nothing

 

[Lord_Iggy]

100 years from now people will think of Hitler as no worse than Napolean or the like.

Except for the massive genocides. But isn't this thread getting off track? Hitler to Dolphin sex?

 

[Dachs]

That does not make his achievements any less. He ruled Germany and made it powerful. One of the strongest countries in the world. Got rid of the Treaty of Versailles. Was an excellent oratar. He may have made foolsih military desecions but that does not change fact Germany had many military achievemnts under his rule. He is credited for it perhaps he should'nt be but I think he is a Great Man.

He also ran Germany into the ground not long afterward. That alone should get him out of "GM" status by your definition. Genocide is all well and good in NESing, but application to the real world is just wrong.

@ Sheep, and all of the other ppl who read my Tophet post: I was joking, dammit! Couldn't anyone see the sarcasm in that post?

 

[das]

you will CLEARLY see that he was inept at warfare and should have left the business of war to his much more capable generals.

Had he did that, he would've lost much earlier. See late 1941-early 1942... Frankly, a large percentage of his generals are WAY overrated.

Either way, its too early to speak about Hitler objectively. There's a reason they used to call Napoleon the "Corsican Ogre" and the "Antichrist". In his days, Louis XIV was quite disliked during and soon after his lifetime, and so was Peter the Great. And so on... As for Hitler... Hitler was Hitler. He was, objectively speaking, a great man (if one judges by willpower and character, which is the only reasonable way of measuring great people). Either way, not sure how the hell did he get into this thread...

 

[Toteone]

Hey it worked out for me when I left the actual warring to you Das.
't was my most successive NES next to Goob and Kamil sigh, good 'ole fanatical times

oh btw. it may be drifting as you said but isn't dolphin sex a rather cute and endearing topic?

 

[das]

What the hell does dolphin sex have to do with Hitler and NESer insanity?

 

[andis-1]

What the hell does dolphin sex have to do with Hitler and NESer insanity?

Maybe toteone is a dolphin?

 

[Symphony D.]

You know, that would actually explain a lot...

 

[BananaLee]

He's an insane and an immoral dolphin.

Yes. That does answer the questions in everyone's mind