Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,450
- Location
- Wiltshire
Happy VE day! Also all the english brave men who were still fighting and those who were killed in the pacific.
VE Day. 65th Anniversary.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
Not at all, an act is just an act. A man perceived as good can do a bad act, a man perceived as bad can do a good act. I simply maintain that a person isn't inherently good or bad. That's just my belief, you can choose to believe what you want. If you truly think that a person can be inherently bad then you can list me the things prior to 1930 which show that Hitler was inherently bad from birth
when qualitative terms like good, bad, lazy, conscientious etc etc are used in everyday language, they're not used as absolute concepts.
no one is saying that every single thought and action Hitler produced was "bad" - but rather his expansionist and genocidal policies were so abhorrent that overall "bad" label stuck
no one is saying that every single thought and action Hitler produced was "bad" - but rather his expansionist and genocidal policies were so abhorrent that overall "bad" label stuck
Which is precisely what I said when I said that good and bad depend upon the aspects being compared. All I have said throughout is that someone isn't inherently good or bad, seems to be a fairly straightforward premise.
i think that's where I disagree with you. behavioural trends are very real, and if someone displays more of one quality (or deviancy) then society has a right to praise or punish them.
in terms of the VE day celebrations, yes, there were brave soldiers on both sides - but the elite NAZI leadership were instrumental in following a very deviant policy, and regardless if they personally had some minor redeeming qualities these would not counterbalance what they were doing
to try and make a case for justifying NAZI actions as being part of some broad spectrum of normal behaviour wins no votes with me
in terms of the VE day celebrations, yes, there were brave soldiers on both sides - but the elite NAZI leadership were instrumental in following a very deviant policy, and regardless if they personally had some minor redeeming qualities these would not counterbalance what they were doing
to try and make a case for justifying NAZI actions as being part of some broad spectrum of normal behaviour wins no votes with me
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Happy VE Day, my respects to those who've fought and died in WWII. Here's hoping we never see a third.
Well that's your choice. You believe that someone can be inherently bad or good from birth, I don't believe that someone is inherently bad or good. Nothing wrong with that, everyone has different ways of thinking.
(i should point out that nowhere did I say that I justify their actions, nor anywhere did i say that society should not punish them for their actions. All I ever said, which I believe I have already explained once, is that I don't believe that a person is inherently good or bad.)
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 552
- Location
- ingerlund
My thoughts are with those who gave their lives so that the world could be the way it is today.
Not many realise how close we were to a very different Europe.
Not many realise how close we were to a very different Europe.
I don't want to get into this but an example of bad people would be the family of baby Peter or the family that abused the ill man to his death for years (I forget his name).
Happy VE day
Indeed, their actions towards baby p were despicable and horrific, though again I don't suppose they were "bad" when they were 4 years old, or 8 etc. In essence ,they weren't born bad or inherently bad.
we're going round in circles...
you seem to think that we can't call anyone bad unless everything they ever did was bad
that doesn't happen, even the worst person in the world (name Hitler springs to mind) was somewhat genial at times - the point is most people look at an overall picture of someone's moral fibre and make a judgement
in that sense Hitler was waaaay baad!
you seem to think that we can't call anyone bad unless everything they ever did was bad
that doesn't happen, even the worst person in the world (name Hitler springs to mind) was somewhat genial at times - the point is most people look at an overall picture of someone's moral fibre and make a judgement
in that sense Hitler was waaaay baad!
we're going round in circles...
you seem to think that we can't call anyone bad unless everything they ever did was bad
that doesn't happen, even the worst person in the world (name Hitler springs to mind) was somewhat genial at times - the point is most people look at an overall picture of someone's moral fibre and make a judgement
in that sense Hitler was waaaay baad!
Not at all, you can call someone bad all you want, I simply said that a person isnt inherently bad. I am really not sure why you have a problem with that. You even started in this thread by stating that you agreed that bad and good were only comparative.
"Most" people can do what they like, I am not, nor at any time have I claimed to be, talking for most people. I have only ever stated that I personally dont think anyone is inherently bad or good. As I say, I really dont understand why you have a problem with that. I can only assume its a bit of a boring weekend and you're just seeking an internet argument to pass the time
Exactly. So a person cannot be inherently good or bad. (though their actions at a specific period may well be)
I can only assume its a bit of a boring weekend and you're just seeking an internet argument to pass the time
... hey if you're taking the bait...
besides, you're the one who changed tune: I disagreed when you said
... no mention of "inherently"
sure no-one is born "bad" that's a stupid thing to say, but Hitler definitely became one
... hey if you're taking the bait...
Well I am a touch limited at the moment by what I can do as my daughter is asleep on the sofa next to me and I dont want to wake her up.
Yeah thats because at first I momentarily forgot that I was on an internet forum where you have to be precise and explain everything exactly or people jump down your throat, was only after I remembered that I made sure to put inherently in.
Absolutely, I agree that for a period (some would say the most crucial period) of his life he could be defined as being "bad". Nevertheless though that still doesnt mean that he was inherently bad (as proven by the period prior). I never said he wasnt "bad" during WW2, only that he wasnt inherently bad, which I still stick to and which you must agree with as you admit that nobody can be born "bad" thus agreeing that no-one can be inherently bad. So it seems we are in agreement and thereby ends our momentary distractions from life.
lol trapped in an endless argument with me! I like that
alright, alright don't dramatise...
actually I don't agree with you. although someone isn't born bad, it doesn't mean they they can't go on to develop for example psychopathic tendencies, or as you might call it "inherently bad"
a psychopath is someone who lacks empathy and morality + combine that with megalomania = Hitler
There are other disorders which are pervasive and produce an outward appearance of badness or criminality - so in that sense you can have a pervasive trait of "badness"
of course it should be emphasised, that only a fraction of people with mental health disorders become criminals