Europe is becoming NAZI

[Lorizael]

You've got it all wrong, Ned. Clearly the problem isn't that Europeans today look like Nazis back then, but that Europeans today look like Europeans back then. Face it: Europeans are always evil commie hitler fascist subhumans, no matter what generation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
Yeah, criticisement of Israel and not being pleased with it bullying others = antisemitism.

There ought to be a word for taking a post by Ned, or one of our other favorite and INSIGHTFUL posters, and responding to it seriously, in such a way that any counter is seen as defending said INSIGHTFUL poster, and threadjacking an INSIGHTFUL thread such as this, to a standard flamewar.

[Ned]

Lorizel, the way I see it is that commies will always be commies, out to destroy freedom and capitalism. But Europeans do seem to like NAZISM, as they embrace everything about the Third Reich (except its need to restore its military honor) even while denouncing the NAZI's as barbaric and inhuman.

Odin, once again, National Socialism does seem to be leftist, as the Europeans today seem lefist to most. Had WWII not started or ended with a peace deal in October 1939 based on Hitler's offer, and had elections been held in 1940 and the NAZI's tossed out, which just might have happened, would all the social reforms introduced by the NAZI's been suddenly deemed "progressive" instead of "barbaric" because the government of Germany was now liberal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ned's been drinking again

[Kuciwalker]

I think Ned has a good point there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's cause he's been drinking. Alcohol makes everything better .

[Ned]

Imran, I stopped drinking years ago. Bad liver.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yes, I was about to make the point that Ned pulled off the very, very, very rare Godwin in the opening post of the thread.

...and then you realize that I already said that a few hours ago.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by korn469
I have a question about Godwin's Law since people reference it so often on apolyton. Is Godwin's Law basically that once a person starts to trivialize the Nazi atrocities/totalitarianism by suggesting that a person/group/government that has little in common with Nazis is just as bad or worse has just lost the debate? Kind of like the **** you rule. If you tell somebody **** you or **** off or use the f bomb as your argument you've lost.

Godwin's Law:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

from Wiki

[Ned]

While comparing one to the NAZI's and/or Hitler is normally like resorting to violence instead of persuasion, one of my basic points here is that Europe here seems to be afflicted by its own history so much that it cannot even discuss National Socialism in a serious manner.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Ned
While comparing one to the NAZI's and/or Hitler is normally like resorting to violence instead of persuasion, one of my basic points here is that Europe here seems to be afflicted by its own history so much that it cannot even discuss National Socialism in a serious manner.

...mostly because of Godwin's law. Anyone who objectively looks at the Nazis and agrees that some things were good ideas must fear that they're going to be called a Nazi by their opponents. Therefore, everyone tries to obfuscate any Nazi association with their particular program / idea / theory.

The Nazis are the boogeyman that everyone trots out for one thing or another. Americans do it at least as much as Europeans, probably more.

[Jon Miller]

It is because defeating the Nazi's was our one great success of the 20th century. And we can all (Basically) agree on that. Nowhere else, even on communism, do we all agree so well.

JM

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


There ought to be a word for taking a post by Ned, or one of our other favorite and INSIGHTFUL posters, and responding to it seriously, in such a way that any counter is seen as defending said INSIGHTFUL poster, and threadjacking an INSIGHTFUL thread such as this, to a standard flamewar.

[Dr Strangelove]

It seems to me that the article didn't really say much. The paper states that withdrawal of care might be appropriate in some cases, but the article doesn't clarify what criteria would be used. Further more while cost is mentioned as a possible factor the Right Rev'd contradicts himself by stating that great care must be taken when even considering cost, then he turns around and suggests that justice demands that the extra cost of caring for a deformed baby should be taken into consideration when deciding upon the continuation of care. IMHO either the reviewer didn't do a very good job of summarizing the paper or the paper's conclusions are so vague as to be nearly useless.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
It is because defeating the Nazi's was our one great success of the 20th century. And we can all (Basically) agree on that. Nowhere else, even on communism, do we all agree so well.

JM

No doubt, Jon. But it is somewhat lucky for us that the NAZI's conducted ethnic cleansing, its medical experiments and its slave labor, because that gave us a post hoc justification for the war. Had the NAZI's be clean on these issues, succeeding generations would have had to ask just why we were fighting Germany. Was it to save Democracy? That's a laugh given our alliance with the USSR and the way the sold out the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. Was to it liberate Poland? Again, their fate was adversely decided long prior to the end of the war. Was it to stop aggressive war in the abstract? Again I reference the equally guilty ally, the USSR, and the lack of rescuing Poland.

At the time WWII began, ethnic cleansing and the other justifications for the war did not exist. There was no really good reason for that war when viewed ab initio. The war crimes trials, in a way, provided us a post hoc justification for our participation in WWII.