"if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide"

This is the pacifists dilemma though. There were numerous attempts to sway hitler from his course. Neville Chamberlain famously celebrating the Munich Agreement. At the end of the day, you can't peacefully stop someone if they are intent on causing violence.

I don't think you can really go down this road, either. It's a fun thought experiment, but it requires knowledge you only have once it's too late. You can't talk to the one kid who will grow up to be adolf hitler. There's very likely one out there now that we can't stop because we don't know them.

"At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities."

The pacifist's dilemma and this combined, to me, put this in a morally ambiguous place. If you accept that you can't stop someone bent on violence, and nazis arrive announcing that they are, then is it better for a little violence, visited upon those who pursue violent ends? Or is it better that we wait and see the violence occur before we react to it?

On further introspection, i think both of our positions exist in a similar ambiguity - you need to know who to speak to before you know who to speak to, and i need to know who to correctively punch before i know who to correctively punch. Yours might be better for short term, worse for long term. Mine might be worse for short term, better for long term.

In truth, i probably lean more towards agreeing with you, but i'm trying to point out that even though we think "be civil" is the best option, it doesn't have any divine right to be the best option. The best option (we would probably agree) is the one that causes the least overall harm, and we don't *know* what that is, and never can. I think it's important we reconsider accepted wisdom like that. (which is really why i decided to argue it..in honesty, i probably feel the same as you; disapprove but not loudly. My main problem with the position i'm taking is - how do you *stop* the nazi punchers once the nazis are suitably punched? And when do i become the nazi?)

@transmorpher
"leaving yourself and your loved ones open to the same treatment next time someone disagrees with one of your views."

I made it very clear in earlier comments that i'm only ok with someone being punched if they are openly calling for genocide and death to people. I'm ok with you ripping that argument apart (because i think it can be.. i'm leaving myself open on purpose), but that isn't what you've done. I don't accept there's an equivalence between my harmless beliefs and a genocidal maniac's.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

" Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, that was already growing antisemitism for several decades before he came to power"
Had Bernanke and Geithner been decent people, the crisis/meltdown would have been much less than it is right now. No two ways about it.

The right Hitler analogy to describe what you're talking about would be:

"Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, Neville Chamberlain could've done more to stop him, so isn't the Holocaust really all his fault?"

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Bernanke and Geithner did nothing but make the problems larger than they had to be [for the average american] so that their banker friends could shovel more money into their private accounts before more shit hit the fan.
Why give either of them any slack at all?


Because Bernanke has actually done a lot to try to make the situation better. He could've done more, but not a tremendous amount more. Geithner fits your description a lot more closely, but again, I dispute that Geithner made the problems worse, and I definitely dispute that he intentionally made things worse for his own gain.

I sorta don't get what your point is in arguing all this. Do you really think single individuals in any position anywhere deserve all the blame for the economic crisis? Do you really think the people most culpable are all government employees?

>> ^dbarry3:
>> ^gwiz665:
^Well then, good sir, show your work. How would you show good/bad in morality? Some issues are certainly more easy than others, murder is always wrong, and such, but other issues are not something to be decided out of any kind of fear, because fear is inherently a personal, egoistical thing. I recoil from flames, because I don't want to get burned. My empathy with others (relate their responses to my own) leads me to help others away from flames as well. As soon as a subject reaches a certain complexity, fear stops (should stop) being a motivator and something else should take over, such as weighing pro/con, looking at something from different angles and so on.
I am not afraid of my government, but I am afraid of a tiger.
or is it?

You are more afraid of a tiger than your government? At least the tiger gets it over with quickly and simply.
When I speak of fear I am not talking about a lunatic paranoia (e.g. Glenn Beck). The concept of a "fearing" man does not fit well in our society's image of what a man should be. There is nothing wrong with the values of courage and bravery, but only a fool claims to live by the popular slogan "No Fear." Fear serves a purpose, but the fool regards it as nothing more than an antiquated response that should not be considered. Same can be said for pain. I remember hearing about a book that spoke on the benefits of pain (if anyone knows of this book please post it). The author spoke about a rare disorder in which individuals do not experience physical pain, and how this can cause for grave difficulties in life (e.g. a person chewing off their own tongue because they could without feeling the pain associated with it). You are completely right in stating that wise consider life by accounting for various factors at play. But without fear we are likely to miscalculate ourselves in relation to the risk associated with the item in question. For instance, Neville Chamberlain demonstrated a lack of appropriate fear for what Nazi Germany was capable of when he promoted a policy of appeasement. So all this to point out that fear is not a response that should be disregarded and labeled as being entirely useless. To do so is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and completely misunderstand the human condition.


I think you are missing my point. Fear is a factor in life, certainly, like pain it is a gut response to something, like a loud noise, fire, tigers. Fear is evolutionarily lodged deep within is, because it has helped the individuals survive. The "feel no pain" disorder is a terrible one, and people usually die young because of it. A life without fear, might not be so great either.

I would make a distinction between "fear", as in terror, scared of, something that involves a real present danger to your person, and the more loose intimidation of governments, of being a social outcast, of one nation invading another. This is not fear, this is a rational response. You think about it, you don't feel it.

And in general, doing something for fear of the consequences if you don't, is a bad reason, in my opinion. I don't do my homework, because otherwise my teacher will be mad at me, I do them because I've made a conscious decision to learn. My reason for not killing a person is certainly not just fear of the police killing me right back, it's because I don't think killing is good in and of itself. And so on.

I would fear a tiger damn well more than any government.

>> ^gwiz665:
^Well then, good sir, show your work. How would you show good/bad in morality? Some issues are certainly more easy than others, murder is always wrong, and such, but other issues are not something to be decided out of any kind of fear, because fear is inherently a personal, egoistical thing. I recoil from flames, because I don't want to get burned. My empathy with others (relate their responses to my own) leads me to help others away from flames as well. As soon as a subject reaches a certain complexity, fear stops (should stop) being a motivator and something else should take over, such as weighing pro/con, looking at something from different angles and so on.
I am not afraid of my government, but I am afraid of a tiger.
or is it?


You are more afraid of a tiger than your government? At least the tiger gets it over with quickly and simply.

When I speak of fear I am not talking about a lunatic paranoia (e.g. Glenn Beck). The concept of a "fearing" man does not fit well in our society's image of what a man should be. There is nothing wrong with the values of courage and bravery, but only a fool claims to live by the popular slogan "No Fear." Fear serves a purpose, but the fool regards it as nothing more than an antiquated response that should not be considered. Same can be said for pain. I remember hearing about a book that spoke on the benefits of pain (if anyone knows of this book please post it). The author spoke about a rare disorder in which individuals do not experience physical pain, and how this can cause for grave difficulties in life (e.g. a person chewing off their own tongue because they could without feeling the pain associated with it). You are completely right in stating that wise consider life by accounting for various factors at play. But without fear we are likely to miscalculate ourselves in relation to the risk associated with the item in question. For instance, Neville Chamberlain demonstrated a lack of appropriate fear for what Nazi Germany was capable of when he promoted a policy of appeasement. So all this to point out that fear is not a response that should be disregarded and labeled as being entirely useless. To do so is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and completely misunderstand the human condition.

Then some uppity black man talks about stuff like dignity, peace, empathy, pride, geneva conventions, and not killing people

His policies are what people object to, not skin melanin. There are more ways to approach 'peace' than the neolib world view accepts. Carter is a neolib, has a NPP, and his weak policies all but created modern world terrorism via Iran. Reagan was a hawk who ended the cold war through Brinkmanship & arms buildups. A Dove that created violence, and a Hawk that established peace... Clearly this whole 'peace' thing is a bit more complicated myopically pursuing neolib policies of unilateral disarmament. Peace is a cycle of pressure, buildup, and release - and the "Nevile Chamberlain" school of appeasement merely prolongs the 'buildup' stage and makes the 'release' more problematic.

If you don't like being mixed in with all those various conservative groups, you shouldn't allow them to act like they speak for the entire block of conservatives as they yell and shout.

"Shouldn't allow?" I'm afraid that my belief in Freedom of Speech makes that kind of approach unfeasible. The real issue here is one where people like myself who are fiscal conservatives are the antithesis of BOTH major US political parties. What we true conservatives want would END the free lunch. NEITHER party wants that to happen. The vast bulk of American voters are fiscal conservatives who want smaller government, balanced budgets, less spending, & lower taxes. Sadly, all we end up with are left wing liberal extremist tax & spenders like Bush & Obama.

But the fact remains, there were no tea party gatherings under Bush.

The objections were there. Even you acknowledge it. The national attention was more consumed with Iraq war protesting. I'm an unaffiliated voter, and I didn't vote Republican so my objections had little weight I deem. Most voters are sheep who join a "big party" and they are too consumed with cheering on their 'team' than caring whether their team is a bunch of self-serving jackasses. It is very similar to the tunnel vision fanboi-ism rampant in modern US sports. "Kobe Bryant is a rapist? M'eh - who cares as long as he wins games..." Sigh.

Because whatever you can say about Barack Obama, he hasn't done ANY damage to the Constitution that wasn't done by dozens of men before him. And to hear people throwing the Constitution around now just rings hollow.

If people who were howling about the Constitution under Bush were also howling about it now, then there would at least be consistency. To hear neolibs howl about the constitution under Bush but fall silent now - as you say - "rings hollow".

Also, one last point, if you think Liberals get their arguments from any one place, that sadly proves you have little information about liberals as a group

Neolib talking points come from a variety of musicians, but the song is always the exact same song. Similarly, right wing talking points come from from way more sources than just Limbaugh & Beck but the message is almost identical.

Say what you will about Republicans, they are ALWAYS... ALWAYS on point, and they take no goddamn prisoners.

I'd say your opinion of the Republican party's unity is somewhat exaggerated. There are innumerable factions in the GOP. The Democrat as I see it is far more efficient about corralling in thier 'mavericks'. This whole health care debate has only gotten this far because of the extremist fringe Democrats stomping on the necks of the moderates.

You're probably a fucking liar, and if you're not, you're still a fucking idiot if you think Iraq is better off now.

And, no, forcing them to sign long-term contracts with corporations for inflated prices is not doing them any good.

An angry little tirade? Yes, because I've gone over this a thousand times with a thousand different idiots, and you are the proverbial straw on my back.

The question is why you are so eager to help private oil companies steal something that rightfully belongs to the Iraqi people?

I guess it's because you care about them so much.

Or more likely you've been effectively brainwashed, and it's doubtful there was much brain there to begin with.

"Maybe Neville Chamberlain was right in how he handled Hitler and to follow that example we should have just let Saddam take Kuwait as well."

You compared Saddam to Hitler. Oh, you're fucking brilliant.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^bcglorf:
The Middle East has nearly 60% of the planet's oil reserves. If none of them have privatized their oil, wouldn't that make the privatized oil companies the underdogs?
Oh, nevermind, that just detracts from the simple answers people seem to want.
Iraq has oil. America is a corporation run by oil companies. America invaded Iraq to steal it's oil. Thank goodness it's that simple and no more thinking or complexity needs to be considered. baa, baa, baa.
No, we did it to save the 6.5 million Kurds out of the kindness of our hearts. And we only had to kill a million Iraqi's and turn another three million into refugees to do it.
And now we're only telling Iraq to either sign very long term leases with private oil companies who expect over ten times the going rate for extracting that oil, or we won't give them the $120 billion dollars we promised them to help rebuild their country after we bombed it back to the stone ages.
Oil companies the underdogs? Keep clutching at straws you racist war monger.



Whats ironic is that you and others who make comments like this seem not to have cared a whit about what was happening to Iraqis and Kurds whilst under Saddam. Aside from the issue of "stealing" oil or whatever the case may be I challenge anyone to say that Iraqis and Kurds lived great lives under Saddam. Americans went in there stirred the Hornets nest and now are trying to make lemonade out of lemons. If it works (still a long road) then it will be one of the greatest things ever but if it doesnt (with the help of people who are blinded by their indignance) then it will be a disaster. Point is....no saddam is good stuff. But perhaps people like you are removed and immersed enough in your pacifist dreamland to not have cared about the wives, sisters and daughters who were regularly stolen and raped while their siginficant others were fed feet first into wood-chipers by Saddams sons. I suppose the gasing of thousands of Kurds was awesome too so long as we weren't "stealing" oil. As long as its not close to home right? Maybe Neville Chamberlain was right in how he handled Hitler and to follow that example we should have just let Saddam take Kuwait as well.

Well I guess Americans could have just sanctioned Saddam into compliance. Seems to work great so long as the UN gets involved right? Maybe he would have slowed down with the mass graves, the torturing of families and other potential non-compliants and the utilization of what was the 3rd largest army in the world. I agree with your thought-process....as long as the slaughtering of thousands is kept in house and perpetrated by the local tyrant then we should never...under any circumstances....interfere. The loss of lives is never acceptable especially when made in the name of other less fortunate people. And asking for any sort of compesation in return, in whatever form, is always a big no-no as well.

That was the best speech Neville Chamberlain has given yet!

Muslim radicals are working for a better world, a world with no Jews, Israel or United States.

If so given, "Palestinians", a people that didn't exist before 1948, will turn their new State into a missile launch pad aimed at Israel.

"Barack Obama seems determined to repeat every disastrous mistake of the 1930s, at home and abroad. He has already repeated Herbert Hoover's policy of raising taxes on high income earners, FDR's policy of trying to micro-manage the economy and Neville Chamberlain's policy of seeking dialogues with hostile nations while downplaying the dangers they represent."

SOMETIMES THE TRUTH HURTS. HA HA HA HA HA.

Barack Obama seems determined to repeat every disastrous mistake of the 1930s, at home and abroad. He has already repeated Herbert Hoover's policy of raising taxes on high income earners, FDR's policy of trying to micro-manage the economy and Neville Chamberlain's policy of seeking dialogues with hostile nations while downplaying the dangers they represent. --T.S.

I see people everyday from Dumfuckistan.....The ones from the Capital, Huskhaven seem to be the most influential-Nancy's from there-

This one was rich: Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid-Sentence: 2 cups anthrax bisque. "The Neville Chamberlain school of appeasement" HAHA!

Galloway is another Neville Chamberlain.

This same spinelessness was also evident during the Cold War, when 'useful idiots' in the West tried telling us the Soviets only wanted to "coexist peacefully".

You can only have peace when your enemies fear you. The Iranians don't have the proper fear of extinction they should at the moment.