World War 3 thread! - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14908189
One Degree wrote:You don’t believe these three men were doing what they were convinced was right? How do you come to such a conclusion except from your own self righteousness?


I doubt Hitler or Stalin would like to have been called a 'gutmensch'. They knew they were full blown evil. Equalling Churchill to these two monsters is plain stupid.
How unsafe the world may look today, it's not as bad as the 20th century. Communism and nazism are gone. Thank God.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14908190
Atlantis wrote:What does that even mean? They did what served their aims. That doesn't mean they are "good" man.

I ask you again, were Hitler, Stalin and Churchill "good" man?

Answer! And stop attacking people simply because they oppose war. That is a creepy thing to do.


I have no idea if they were ‘good men’. I do know they were incapable of acting unless others were convinced they were ‘good men’. Even a psychopath believes he is right. You do not accumulate followers because they believe you are deliberately doing wrong. Why do you think revolutionaries depend upon the young? It is easier to convince them of your righteousness.
Who am I attacking for opposing war? Do the Palestinians or Israelis think they are wrong? It is ‘good’ people who believe others should abide by their ‘wisdom’ that enables war to exist. If evil people exist, they are impotent without the support of ‘good’ people.
By Atlantis
#14908305
@One Degree, you made an utterly indefensible statement, which I can only guess must be the expression of some sort of outlandish worldview. And now, instead of facing up to the enormity of what you said, you keep on pussy-footing around. Not only do you push some sort of reprehensible worldview, but you don’t even have the guts to face up to it.

You said “conflict is caused by good man”, which gets us into a world of absolute relativism where good is evil and evil is good, where words have lost their meaning and fake can be true - a world in which Hitler is good and Gandhi is evil, a world where human values and decency have given way to the arbitrariness of those who have power.

We are not talking about “righteousness”. Nobody who still accepts the conventional meaning of words would hold that the righteous are good.

We are not talking about the “do-gooders” either. Nor are we talking about those who pretend to be good by wanting to bomb Syria for “humanitarian” reasons. They are not good; they are the lowest vermin who pretend to do good in order to pursue an evil design aimed at destroying others for their own benefit.

In this world nothing is absolute. Somebody may have the best of intentions but still chose a path that leads to destruction. And nobody even knows his or her innermost intentions. But good must still mean good, whether or not it is accompanied by the wisdom to make the right choices is another matter. The truly good do not know that they are good.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14908313
Atlantis wrote:@One Degree, you made an utterly indefensible statement, which I can only guess must be the expression of some sort of outlandish worldview. And now, instead of facing up to the enormity of what you said, you keep on pussy-footing around. Not only do you push some sort of reprehensible worldview, but you don’t even have the guts to face up to it.

You said “conflict is caused by good man”, which gets us into a world of absolute relativism where good is evil and evil is good, where words have lost their meaning and fake can be true - a world in which Hitler is good and Gandhi is evil, a world where human values and decency have given way to the arbitrariness of those who have power.

We are not talking about “righteousness”. Nobody who still accepts the conventional meaning of words would hold that the righteous are good.

We are not talking about the “do-gooders” either. Nor are we talking about those who pretend to be good by wanting to bomb Syria for “humanitarian” reasons. They are not good; they are the lowest vermin who pretend to do good in order to pursue an evil design aimed at destroying others for their own benefit.

In this world nothing is absolute. Somebody may have the best of intentions but still chose a path that leads to destruction. And nobody even knows his or her innermost intentions. But good must still mean good, whether or not it is accompanied by the wisdom to make the right choices is another matter. The truly good do not know that they are good.


You seem to start with saying my position is indefensible and then you go on to defend it. Your view seems to be based upon drawing distinctions at your convenience. You say righteous people are not good people. You say do gooders are not good people. You seem to overlook the fact THEY think they are good. Your worldview that everyone who disagrees with you is evil and knows it is the distorted one. Yes, we do live in a world where ‘good’ people thought Hitler was good and thought Gandhi was bad.
The only rational statement you made was they lacked wisdom. Well, NO ONE is all wise. We all have some wisdom. The best thing wisdom provides is the ability to know my wisdom is not your wisdom. Different people have different needs. BOTH can be right.
And yes, this is why I support local autonomy. What is right for me may not be right for you. That does not make you wrong.
Even the things we dislike about are parents are usually things they thought were right that we have decided aren’t. Does that make them evil?
In short, your post is a testament to someone who believes they have the inside track on what is right. That is self righteousness. Your refusal to believe others can be ‘good’ while disagreeing with you is the cause of conflict. How the hell can anyone believe all Germans, American Southerners, etc. were fighting unless they thought they were ‘good’ and ‘right’? To refuse to accept this is self righteousness.

We fight wars to force others to accept our ‘rightness’, and ‘goodness’.
#14908317
What your rant comes down to is that you consider people evil who believe that they are good even though they are not. Yet, that is not the point at all. I have gone to great length to list cases in which, by common sense, it is obvious that people who pretend to be good are not necessary good. As I said, they are not "truly good" even by common standards.

My effort of explaining things to you has nothing to do with "drawing distinctions at my convenience." But I'm obviously wasting my time.

Slaughtering millions of people and genocide are evil by any human standard, while non-violent resistance can only be termed evil by a mental process aiming to totally pervert the facts to undermine any sort of human decency. But you are so far gone that you claim that genocide is good because some people allegedly thought it to be good.

Just face up to the fact of the perfidy of what you are defending. No distortions or mental acrobatics will get you out of this hole.

And yes, this is why I support local autonomy.

Sure, the empire supports "local autonomy" on condition that it can suppress and exploit the rest of humanity. The empire, by very definition, is evil. It is based on unfettered greed and cupidity.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14908319
Atlantis wrote:What your rant comes down to is that you consider people evil who believe that they are good even though they are not. Yet, that is not the point at all. I have gone to great length to list cases in which, by common sense, it is obvious that people who pretend to be good are not necessary good. As I said, they are not "truly good" even by common standards.

My effort of explaining things to you has nothing to do with "drawing distinctions at my convenience." But I'm obviously wasting my time.

Slaughtering millions of people and genocide are evil by any human standard, while non-violent resistance can only be termed evil by a mental process aiming to totally pervert the facts to undermine any sort of human decency. But you are so far gone that you claim that genocide is good because some people allegedly thought it to be good.

Just face up to the fact of the perfidy of what you are defending. No distortions or mental acrobatics will get you out of this hole.


Sure, the empire supports "local autonomy" on condition that is can suppress and exploit the rest of humanity. The empire, by very definition, is evil. It is based on unfettered greed and cupidity.


The opponents of those who killed millions also killed millions. How does that make them ‘right’ by your own reasoning? How was the killing of Germans and Southerners ‘good’ while the killing of the allies and Northerners was evil? You condone genocide by one and say it is reprehensible for the other.
I have no idea what “the empire supports local autonomy” means. What empire?

Edit: @Atlantis Your view seems to be there is one truth we should pursue. I believe there are many true paths to pursue, but they may ultimately unveil one true path. Your view requires we know the correct path now. My view is we need to experiment in peace to find it in a huge variety of autonomy.

What modern ideology has been allowed to flourish without being undermined by those with a different ideology? We have no idea who has the best path because we do not allow them to pursue their path without interference.
User avatar
By Negotiator
#14909617
Reichstraten wrote: I doubt Hitler or Stalin would like to have been called a 'gutmensch'. They knew they were full blown evil.
Neither of them would have agreed to being evil. They both believed they did what was necessary.


Reichstraten wrote: Communism and nazism are gone. Thank God.
Neither is gone. Quite on the contrary, right now I hear of both more than ever in my life.

Besides, communism is a demand of the bible. Even if the soviet union was a pretty bad implementation.
#14909644
Negotiator wrote:Neither of them would have agreed to being evil. They both believed they did what was necessary.

I realise the road to hell is paved by good intentions, but they surely weren't what I'd call 'nice' people.

Negotiator wrote:Neither is gone. Quite on the contrary, right now I hear of both more than ever in my life.

That's because you visit a silly forum called PoFo.
If you want to know more about the place of these ideologies in today's world, read Huntington's Clash of Civilizations.
The postmodern mindset greatly discredited the big ideologies.

Negotiator wrote:Besides, communism is a demand of the bible. Even if the soviet union was a pretty bad implementation.

Not really. Communism is a modern political ideology. The bible is a centuries old book dealing more with the spiritual realms of life. This is an absurd statement.
User avatar
By Negotiator
#14911278
Communism is a society without poor people. Thus yes, its a demand of the bible and its nothing new at all. All my life I was told that communism was this evil thing and when the cold war was over and I read the communist manifest to my big surprise it turns out it was basically a regular sunday church service, like I've experienced so many and got annoyed with so often. Peace and love and lets all be solitary and live happily ever after.

But thats not the bible. The bible isnt like a sunday church service. It condems the rich in the most brutal way, and in the most prominent places, words by Jesus himself. It tells us the rich will most certainly end up in hell. All of them. Thats why I dont like regular church services. They try to soften the message of the bible. The bible is full of such hard messages. Just trying to soften them is implausible.

And I'm sorry if you're missing it, but the soviet union is done and wont return.

Theres certainly some people in the position of power, especially in the USA, who are dearly missing the soviet union. It was so easy to spent as much as the whole rest of the world combined on the military with the soviet union in place. Now the opponent is missing. Heck, even on the right wing people demanded the peace divident after the cold war. Stop investing in war and weapons, now finally invest in peace and schools and streets and welfare, they said during the 1990s. As it would be reasonable.

Then came the war on terrorism. Its principle is simple enough: you bomb muslims, you harvest the idiots who turn terrorist.

The results are surprisingly meager though. Thats why we're now supposed to fight the russians again. Even if they're a capitalist democracy. We just call it a dictatorship anyway, giving reasons why their democracy aint perfect that would apply even more to the USA with its horrendously outdated and stupid election system as well. For why could the US americans only vote Clinton or Trump for president ? Thats just two bad choices, obviously. And why did Trump win, while Clinton won the "public vote" ? Because the whole US democracy is a joke. Worse than only being able to choose between two candidates for president is that one can only vote for two parties. Two parties who hardly differ from each other, you always get more of the same.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14911279
Any ideology that believes it is the ‘right’ ideology will end up being totalitarian by the very nature of their reasoning. They are all the same. They all have the same outcome.
The only one that is different is the one that limits who it applies to.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]