Celebrating murderers, good idea, or nah? (1 Viewer)

Most people that fall in the "fan clubs" of Kaczinksy, McVey, etc all agree that they make a very strong argument about whatever cause they are championing but their actions were unforgivable. Hitler thought that public transportation should be more efficient and run on a tight schedule. I can't think of many people that would disagree with that but I think that his actions is where he losses most of the crowd.

I have always wondered why the more murders someone attempts/commits drives them to more of a celebrity status in society. The hardwire in our brains is very confusing. Are we doing this to be aware of a predator or is it more celebratory and we all share a penchant for violence?
Historians or German economists will tell you that Hitler gets over-credited with most of the more economic success after being appointed Chancellor in a power-sharing coalition regime in January 1933 by President Hindenburg. Sure, the NSDAP was the largest political party in the Reichstag at the time, but their political rivals and enemies (KPD and SPD, Social Democratic Party), also held large swaths of seats in the Reichstag, then but Hitler never won a full statistical electoral majority at 44.6% in the 1932 presidential elections vs. Hindenburg, Hitler pushed for the Volkswagen (People's Car), free radio transmitter sets, promoting the Autobahn, but all these economic programs were proposed or were passed and promoted by previous politicians in the Weimar Republic. Germany's and economy, even by 1932, was showing signs of recovering, Hitler just took more credit with it became obvious due to his infrastructural work Macht dirch Freunde programs (Strength Through Joy). Hitler was also kind to animals,.yet he loved his Alsatian German Shepherd so much that in WWII's final days during the Battle of Berlin in his Reichstag he tested the cyanide capsule on her to make sure it worked before he used it,.along with a gunshot to right side of his temple to ensure he died. He was a staunch vegetarian who hated other, high-ranking Nazi officials and forbade them from smoking(except Finnish military leader Marshall Gustav Meinerheim)
 
Last edited:
Satan in Paradise Lost.

Almost got Milton booted from the church for heresy
Compared to what later European, 19th century Existentialist philosophers like Kierkegaard, or what Neitzsche wrote in Kneeling and Fearing, the Absurdity of Belief, Will to Power, Christianity being a historically religion that intentionally focused on slave-like, weak-minded modest people who wanted to prove their ethics and morals were more righteous then their ancient Greco-Roman cultural-political overlords, who, Neitzsche believed, secretly envied and resented their cultural and political sophistication. Nietzsche's father was a state-supported Lutheran minister in eastern Germany, and Nietzsche trained to be a Lutheran minister in the seminary in the early 1860's. Kierkegaard's father was also a Lutheran minister in Denmark but while he remained a devout Christian, he criticized how organized religion had moved away from Christ's less-top heavy Church hierarchy and pacifist, more open form of welcoming and evangelicalism. Quite a few theologians, historians even classicists have argued that the first or second generation of Jewish Christians didn't necessarily see him as incarnate, that he was a man who really died on the cross and never was resurrected from the grave. His original followers (Nazarenes) still viewed themselves as Jewish and took part in Jewish ceremonies and rituals and for Christianity's first 100 years until after the 1st Roman-Jewish War from 66-74 C.E. that some Christian communities began slowly de-emphasizing Christ's Jewish roots or religion's once, deep Jewish roots. Apostle Paul has also come under criticism for re-emphasizing Christianity as a separate, solely different religion, not a Jewish splinter group.
 
True, though I would assert that church hierarchy simply didn't understand the book or the point of Satan's role in it.

For the record, I’m not claiming contrary to your assertion
 
Sorry, huge work load has kept me away for a while, but finally have a backfill for my old job so it should be getting much better after I train him.

So this came from seeing people say they want that Brian Launderie guy to die a horrible death for probably killing his gf, but Colin Powell has a vast history of promoting, defending, covering up the murder of at least tens of thousands (if not more) and he is called a great man. There are tens of thousands of children that are dead now because of Powell's actions.

Calling a (specific) politician a "great man" is not considered political by this site (even though it absolutely is), but saying he was a murderer is considered political. (wait, does this mean I can post a thread about someone like Trump or Obama being a great man?)

Saying you are against mass murder (if done by the government) is political according to this site, even though I am not saying either party is good/bad on this. They are both the same, and I have no love for either of these parties. If I posted against some guy shooting a bunch of people, that would be fine also, but if the US government kills children, that is political?

My whole point is that people should not kill each other. Its wrong for an individual and its wrong for a government. Killing innocent children is even worse, and hundreds of thousands have dies from US foreign policy in the last 25 years (Dem and Rep administrations). Not saying that it is one party or the other culpable, this is bipartisan and not political.

SO I have been saying murder is wrong by anyone, and mass murder is even worse. The government controlled by Dems and Repubs both engage in this mass murder and I can't go along with saying the people involved are great.

If I can't say some politician is bad because his actions resulted in mass slaughter, why can someone say that same guy is a great man? Is that also not a political take?

PS, love the takes on fictional material.
Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff - It should not be hard to do

Also, I love you guys!
 
Ted Kaczinksy actually had valid critiques of industrialized society. He was a very brilliant man. But he was also the Unabomber so...

Now that that little tidbit is out of the way, I'm starting to notice...something, going on with certain people. It's like the most thinly veiled attempt at a glaringly clear bad faith argument. Is this a thing going on right now in certain circles? Like how the Let's Go Brandon thing is apparantly a very good and hilarious, uhhh, joke? Or whatever it's supposed to be. It might just be me or just something on this site but this is like the third or fourth thread in the past month like this.

Maybe its because our point in a previous thread was misunderstood, so we decided to make a new thread that more clearly exposes what our ideas are. This way, it can get to the core of the heart/argument and discard the assumed intentions/debris.
 
Sorry, huge work load has kept me away for a while, but finally have a backfill for my old job so it should be getting much better after I train him.

So this came from seeing people say they want that Brian Launderie guy to die a horrible death for probably killing his gf, but Colin Powell has a vast history of promoting, defending, covering up the murder of at least tens of thousands (if not more) and he is called a great man. There are tens of thousands of children that are dead now because of Powell's actions.

Calling a (specific) politician a "great man" is not considered political by this site (even though it absolutely is), but saying he was a murderer is considered political. (wait, does this mean I can post a thread about someone like Trump or Obama being a great man?)

Saying you are against mass murder (if done by the government) is political according to this site, even though I am not saying either party is good/bad on this. They are both the same, and I have no love for either of these parties. If I posted against some guy shooting a bunch of people, that would be fine also, but if the US government kills children, that is political?

My whole point is that people should not kill each other. Its wrong for an individual and its wrong for a government. Killing innocent children is even worse, and hundreds of thousands have dies from US foreign policy in the last 25 years (Dem and Rep administrations). Not saying that it is one party or the other culpable, this is bipartisan and not political.

SO I have been saying murder is wrong by anyone, and mass murder is even worse. The government controlled by Dems and Repubs both engage in this mass murder and I can't go along with saying the people involved are great.

If I can't say some politician is bad because his actions resulted in mass slaughter, why can someone say that same guy is a great man? Is that also not a political take?

PS, love the takes on fictional material.
Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff - It should not be hard to do

Also, I love you guys!
My issue is you paint with too broad and nebulous a brush when you say “Powell’s actions”
in it’s over broadness, you could accuse me of murder bc I voted for Obama who authorized drone strikes
- and I think you might actually believe that, which is whatever
but the truck of it is, with your hand washing of “both sides are bad” you implicate yourself - not playing the trolley game does not prevent the trolley from killing people- you’ve just taken away your chance to make sure the trolley kills fewer people

and you didn’t address the questions about your believing in a religion that has the biggest body count going
 
My issue is you paint with too broad and nebulous a brush when you say “Powell’s actions”
in it’s over broadness, you could accuse me of murder bc I voted for Obama who authorized drone strikes
- and I think you might actually believe that, which is whatever
but the truck of it is, with your hand washing of “both sides are bad” you implicate yourself - not playing the trolley game does not prevent the trolley from killing people- you’ve just taken away your chance to make sure the trolley kills fewer people

and you didn’t address the questions about your believing in a religion that has the biggest body count going
If I inserted what Powell did (Iraq, Vietnam, etc and sources), it would certainly be marked as political, but antiwr.com can tell you.

Voting is complicated and often in self-defense.

If A = 100 and B = 125 and Not A or B = 0... Shouldn't we push for not A??

We are blurring the lines here because for a lot of people statism is their religion.
 
Maybe its because our point in a previous thread was misunderstood, so we decided to make a new thread that more clearly exposes what our ideas are. This way, it can get to the core of the heart/argument and discard the assumed intentions/debris.
Yeeeea but it's pretty clear what's going on here man. Not a single person has really taken the hook.
 
Did you amend the title of this thread to better fit your narrative/objective or did someone else?
 
If I inserted what Powell did (Iraq, Vietnam, etc and sources), it would certainly be marked as political, but antiwr.com can tell you.

Voting is complicated and often in self-defense.

If A = 100 and B = 125 and Not A or B = 0... Shouldn't we push for not A??

We are blurring the lines here because for a lot of people statism is their religion.
Words = ponies
I realize the underlying issue here is that few, if any, buy your statism premise (another term that’s too broad to discuss effectively). So I’m certainly not buying your statism = religion gambit

I do accept the basis of your premise that we should aim to lessen deaths, but I think your ‘perfect is the enemy of the good’ approach does the opposite

last thing, focusing on the war aspect is way too late in the continuum to get concerned- since most every war ever is about resources/assets, the concern should be with equitable sharing of resources, not the fights over resource hoarding
 
Sorry, huge work load has kept me away for a while, but finally have a backfill for my old job so it should be getting much better after I train him.

So this came from seeing people say they want that Brian Launderie guy to die a horrible death for probably killing his gf, but Colin Powell has a vast history of promoting, defending, covering up the murder of at least tens of thousands (if not more) and he is called a great man. There are tens of thousands of children that are dead now because of Powell's actions.

Calling a (specific) politician a "great man" is not considered political by this site (even though it absolutely is), but saying he was a murderer is considered political. (wait, does this mean I can post a thread about someone like Trump or Obama being a great man?)

Saying you are against mass murder (if done by the government) is political according to this site, even though I am not saying either party is good/bad on this. They are both the same, and I have no love for either of these parties. If I posted against some guy shooting a bunch of people, that would be fine also, but if the US government kills children, that is political?

My whole point is that people should not kill each other. Its wrong for an individual and its wrong for a government. Killing innocent children is even worse, and hundreds of thousands have dies from US foreign policy in the last 25 years (Dem and Rep administrations). Not saying that it is one party or the other culpable, this is bipartisan and not political.

SO I have been saying murder is wrong by anyone, and mass murder is even worse. The government controlled by Dems and Repubs both engage in this mass murder and I can't go along with saying the people involved are great.

If I can't say some politician is bad because his actions resulted in mass slaughter, why can someone say that same guy is a great man? Is that also not a political take?

PS, love the takes on fictional material.
Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff - It should not be hard to do

Also, I love you guys!
so.you are saying every person in involved in any military action is guilty of mass murder? do you view all people in our military services are murderes? if you consider Collin.Powell a mass murderer, that would make all of our service members murderers also. I didn't realize you were anti military. or is that different because they are just doing their jobs and following orders?
 
There’s a follow-up gotcha on the way.

Sorry, huge work load has kept me away for a while, but finally have a backfill for my old job so it should be getting much better after I train him.

So this came from seeing people say they want that Brian Launderie guy to die a horrible death for probably killing his gf, but Colin Powell has a vast history of promoting, defending, covering up the murder of at least tens of thousands (if not more) and he is called a great man. There are tens of thousands of children that are dead now because of Powell's actions.

Calling a (specific) politician a "great man" is not considered political by this site (even though it absolutely is), but saying he was a murderer is considered political. (wait, does this mean I can post a thread about someone like Trump or Obama being a great man?)

Saying you are against mass murder (if done by the government) is political according to this site, even though I am not saying either party is good/bad on this. They are both the same, and I have no love for either of these parties. If I posted against some guy shooting a bunch of people, that would be fine also, but if the US government kills children, that is political?

My whole point is that people should not kill each other. Its wrong for an individual and its wrong for a government. Killing innocent children is even worse, and hundreds of thousands have dies from US foreign policy in the last 25 years (Dem and Rep administrations). Not saying that it is one party or the other culpable, this is bipartisan and not political.

SO I have been saying murder is wrong by anyone, and mass murder is even worse. The government controlled by Dems and Repubs both engage in this mass murder and I can't go along with saying the people involved are great.

If I can't say some politician is bad because his actions resulted in mass slaughter, why can someone say that same guy is a great man? Is that also not a political take?

PS, love the takes on fictional material.
Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff - It should not be hard to do

Also, I love you guys!

Too easy.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom