Active thread
First, I'd like to thank you all for taking replying correct and elaborate as ever. It's very stimulating.
Agreed. It's a rebellion either way, just not a very successful one. And I suppose by 'the big boys' you mean yourself and a few others. Well, I await your arguments with caution(although my youthfull mindset might prevent me from replying with equally great caution
)
Not just politics. But politics is indeed a VERY illustrative example.
I will refer him to this thread, altough I doubt he has the patience to read it all.
He did what any führer* would have done in my hardly fully documented opinion, except he killed more jews.
By all means skip this paragraph. I made the mistake of bringing up the wrong example because I hoped I could keep it short. But I'm far too tired to come up with a decent reply on the particular matter, and I'm afraid the reply is not very agreeable to read. I personally plan on never reading it, EVER. I was wrong to bring it up. The paragraph is filled with even bigger mistakes.
Surely the Romans have slaughtered and annihalited many different little cultures. They just didn't have camps to put them in. The tribes which consisted out of mainly warriors could very well have been complete murdered if they were too rebellious to follow the workings of the roman empire. I brought up the romans because I wanted an example of something that was so long ago, we have no way of
knowing, not that we
knowanything to date(today) but we can be fairly sure whether or not Stalin put 200 or 2000 (or who knows maybe more...*coughs*) in the goelag. I brought the romans up as an example of how history can be simplified after many years and the death of (proportianially speaking perhaps, population of the know world didn't really explode back then) a million is justified and wrote of the history books as 'He came, he saw, he conquered'. Yes yes, great empire, they made the foundation for the code juris civilis. Nevertheless, it was a poor argument and deserves no further attention for I cannot back it up. I just figured it'd be easier than to start describing the year 5000 in which our views of WO 1-15 are comparable to the crusades, because just like Bush in WO 3, they decided to attack all of islam which lead to a conflict all over the known world. This fictional situation would be even more so unsubstanciated and I therefor hoped to flee in history and it's simplification on the matter of our objectivity due to our distant perspective on the moral values which were then uphold.
He rebuilt the infrasturcture of Germany, and improved the economy, which could only be done by breaking the treaties imposed on germany and which inevitably lead to war. The factories, the roads, the infrastructure really, all was preperation for war. It served no other goal and was financed by what would upset the 'victors who didn't win'.
Motivating the people is also an important part of being a succesfull politician, you can't do that without creating an enemy, the people have to unite. He built germany from the ruble of humiliation through frustration to a superiour race(state of mind, not agreeing with him, just explaining how nationalism works)
As for the statement "If you want to kill, but can't, you're one of the good guys" that makes no sense.
That's why the statement was:
moral system which is
absurd(if you want to kill, but can't: you're one of the good guys)
Seems like my friend isn't the only one who should learn how to read...
(I promise, in time, I'll learn how to write
)