Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/10/08 08:38 AM, zoolrule wrote: IT'S NOT THE FUCKING POINT FFS, ARE YOU RETARDED OR SOMETHING? READ ALL OF THE POSTS.

Ok so... what I could gather...
1. Napoleon and Alexander were examples of honorably accountable leaders.
2. The bit about the 16th century was hyperbole.
3. Honor justifies war.
4. Honor determines who you hold accountable and what you hold them accountable for.

Did I get it right?

Huh? . He credited Hitler for the things German scientists achieved. Eisenhower did have something to do with space race, just like Hitler did with WW2.

But Eisenhower didn't have anything to do with discovering Van Allen radiation belt. (just like Hitler with rockets technology)

Research of the Van Allen radiation belt was greatly expedited due to the space race. Though, Eisenhower didn't personally design the pioneer 3 did he? So then... he can't be held accountable for the space race.

Defining responsibility is a loose logic. We could say the space race is really thanks to the dinosaurs, and be right in some sense. What it comes down to is what we use the logic to prove. I think it's quite possible for 'good' to come of 'evil'. That doesn't make the 'evil' person 'good'.

That Hitler may have influenced 'good' direction in some areas, does not to me make Hitler honorable or a 'good' person. So to get back to your original point that anyone who thinks Hitler helped accomplish some good things, is completely off-base and trollery.

At 9/10/08 02:38 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: So to get back to your original point that anyone who thinks Hitler helped accomplish some good things, is completely off-base and trollery.

So to get back to your original point that anyone who thinks Hitler helped accomplish some good things is a nazi, is completely off-base and trollery.

At 9/9/08 10:27 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Hitler hated all "non-pure" races, based on the science of evolution.

HI BEN STEIN'S CREATIONIST FRIEND, HOW ARE YOU DOING ON THIS FINE DAY?

At 9/10/08 08:38 AM, zoolrule wrote:

But you forgot what we were discussing about, you can't just throw arguments to the air like some retard.

no, your entire argument is that in today's society it's alright to say Napoleon, Alexander and Ceasar were awesome people but not Hitler even though they all share the same fucking insane expansionist war-crazed behavior.
What a stupid argument to say "well people were way worse back when Alexander the great was around, so I guess we can excuse his acts".

Wow, way to go. Hey, maybe the Aztecs can be excused for all the human sacrifices since it was their custom! Yay! Hey, Genghis Khan and Mohammed couldn't have been that bad..

It's called developing, not propaganda. Because you gotta know where to put the line.

What's your argument other than "well I decide who was evil and who wasn't ok?"

What do you care?

I don't care if they don't care, but if I assume some jew guy is actually jewish and he gets offended, then he can suck the farts out my ass.

Why?

Because a religion is something you can choose and a race is something you can't.

At 9/10/08 02:38 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: Ok so... what I could gather...
1. Napoleon and Alexander were examples of honorably accountable leaders.
2. The bit about the 16th century was hyperbole.
3. Honor justifies war.
4. Honor determines who you hold accountable and what you hold them accountable for.

Did I get it right?

Far from it.

Honor is a fucking stupid thing to justify anything.

Honor is such a fucking ridiculously arbitrary term. There's tons of shit that's considered honorable in other societies that's fucking appalling. Indians were strapping widows to funeral pyres because it was honorable for the wife to go out with the husband. Men leaving their families husband- and fatherless by going out and strapping themselves to an explosive-stuffed plane and flying it down an aircraft carrier's throat was considered honorable. Vikings murdering and raping entire villages was considered honorable.

You can't tell me that those are justifiable things. Those are fucking horrible thing to do and their societal standard of "honor" doesn't change a damn thing.

Also, there are still a bunch of the workmanship that Stalin ordered through his prison camps. Hitler's somehow worse than Stalin?

Yeah, Stalin didn't target a race, he targeted fucking everyone. Not to mention he murdered, far and away, more people than Hitler did. Or is there something honorable about throwing someone in a forced labor camp for 25 years just because they had the wrong parents, were religious, or just had otherwise shitty luck?

Fuck all of you people and your high horses.

At 9/10/08 03:45 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 9/10/08 02:38 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: Ok so... what I could gather...
1. Napoleon and Alexander were examples of honorably accountable leaders.
2. The bit about the 16th century was hyperbole.
3. Honor justifies war.
4. Honor determines who you hold accountable and what you hold them accountable for.

Did I get it right?

Far from it.

Fuck all of you people and your high horses.

I was asking zoorule if those 4 points were accurate according to him. I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say, because I'm completely clueless as to where his arguments fit in. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Fyi... I strongly disagree with 3 and 4, and don't completely agree with 1.

At 9/10/08 05:13 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: I was asking zoorule if those 4 points were accurate according to him. I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say, because I'm completely clueless as to where his arguments fit in. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Fyi... I strongly disagree with 3 and 4, and don't completely agree with 1.

I was responding simply to the 4 points and I was saying the last bit to everyone who's like "OMGHITLER."

He's not even the worst person in MODERN history. Get over it.

At 9/6/08 05:49 AM, zoolrule wrote:

At 9/5/08 05:12 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/5/08 05:06 PM, zoolrule wrote: What's going on are all the mods Nazis?

Didn't you realize by now that you belong in the general forum?

I belong where ever i want.
What because i'm not so cool like you? "OMG EVERYBODY THINK HITLER IS BAD BUT ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH ON REALITY HE IS AN AMAZING GENIUS WTF LOLZROFLZ"

What he said is fucking bullshit, and i said what i said because there's a reason why you tend to agree with all of these things (You know what things) so easily.

Hitler did all that things while the world already changed.
I mean, he actually compared these people to Alexander and Napoleon? In their times war was actually thing of honor and respect, there was a REAL eternal struggle, at a time that when you made wars and conquered you were actually successful.
But on Hitler's time? What the fuck did he do that makes you say "Ok I think Funk wins.", while the rest of the world didn't have any army, even still recovering from WW1, Hitler was building his military like crazy for 5 years. It doesn't make you genius, it doesn't make you fucked up faggot.

If George Bush will go today and conquer half of the world (Picture related) would you compare him to Alexander and Napoleon? No, because we are not living in the 16th century.

Hitler's reign produced most of the basis for modern day medicine and the multistage rocket that made space exploration and satellite technology possible.

Again, why is he crediting it to Hitler? Did he invent it? What exactly did he contribute to it? If so, why aren't we Crediting Truman the Nuclear Fusion? I think it's far greater technological and scientific invention than Germany's. But even if it isn't. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HITLER.

I said what i said because you always seem to support Hitler and hate Jews, you never openly say that, but every time you get that chance to comment or side, you do. funk talked so much bullshit, but you agreed with him so easily, it's the same guy who claimed who should stop overpopulation by giving everyone guns. Hypocrite.

Hitler was a crazy evil idiot.

wtf are you talking about. i read your entire thing and you make no sense ok think before you right dude. what your saying doesnt make any sense dude....................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
..................

does anyone in this entire site know anything about jews. its a religon and most of the people on this site are just making shit up you guys are all retarted. there is know such thing as an athiest jew. the jewish religion and christinanity are almost the same religon. If you want to know about the jewish religon, read the bible and exclude everything about jesus and hell. buy the way im jewish and sense my grandparents are cristen ive read parts of the bible and ive been to chruch so i know what im talking about. dont listen to any of the retards on this site.

At 9/13/08 06:39 PM, skaterdan4556 wrote: im jewish and sense my grandparents are cristen ive read parts of the bible and ive been to chruch so i know what im talking about.

Such that a polar bear would claim to know everything about bears. You show him a grizzley and he scoffs, "that's no bear!"

At 9/13/08 07:21 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: To not practice Judaism doesn't un-Jewify a person, and a conversion into Judaism doesn't change who your ancestors were either.

That reminds me of this video of an 'atheist Jew' who hates Jews trying to join the KKK.

"So my mum was Jewish so I can't join?"
"No, Jewish blood runs through the mother."
"Could my kids join?"
"Well, I suppose that's a bit of a loophole, yes."

It should be REMEMBERED for what it was but not destroyed.

At 9/5/08 12:15 AM, poxpower wrote:
Actually, the last I heard, pyramids were build by paid Egyptian worked

Yea those sharecroppers were totally not slaves either. =\

Meh, if the society wants it to be destroy it if they don't don't. Personally I like preserving all things, they keep all kinds of things from the era as evidence of what happened.