- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Explain this?
You'll find douchebag leftists strutting around in these today.
Explain it? The best I can offer is that some people were born with their brains up their asses and sh*t them out.
Explain this?
You'll find douchebag leftists strutting around in these today.
Ah, indeed, we have 2 perspectives.
For me, crazy and evil are very different. Crazy people aren't (usually) evil. Something is wrong with them that prevents them from perceiving the world in a rational way. I've known people with schizophrenia and it is really a different reality.
I don't think Hitler was crazy. That is too easy. He was simply more evil. In your construct, his actions were so evil that they must've been crazy. To me, that confuses different spectrums. (Although, the product of "crazy" can also be evil, particularly if you believe the death penalty defenders who say that all of the capital murderers are crazy, not evil.)
Hitler was absolutely rational and calculated. He cultivated entire logistics operations to achieve his evil. Now, so did Stalin and Mao, of course.
But, you did not address the other practical aspects of my post. We can certainly discuss relative evil - we are probably both right. But what would justify NOT fighting Hitler, but fighting one of the others instead? Or the Khmer Rouge?
Charles Manson seemed to embody both.Why can a person not be both unstable and evil? Being a sociopath seems to take in some elements of both even though the instability seems to come in form of erratic behavior as opposed to the 'lock him in a padded cell' type of crazy.
Was trying to stay out of this particular go-nowhere derail, but both Stalin (whose purges started before WWII) and Mao benefited from a war-weary world, with that weariness starting with the fight against Hitler. And, Hitler exported his evil outside his borders, which Mao didn't do, and Stalin only did a little bit (and even that depends on which historic borders you want to use).
Suffice it to say, of all those evils, if I had to pick one to fight, I'd pick Hitler every time.
Ah, indeed, we have 2 perspectives.
For me, crazy and evil are very different. Crazy people aren't (usually) evil. Something is wrong with them that prevents them from perceiving the world in a rational way. I've known people with schizophrenia and it is really a different reality.
I don't think Hitler was crazy. That is too easy. He was simply more evil. In your construct, his actions were so evil that they must've been crazy. To me, that confuses different spectrums. (Although, the product of "crazy" can also be evil, particularly if you believe the death penalty defenders who say that all of the capital murderers are crazy, not evil.)
Hitler was absolutely rational and calculated. He cultivated entire logistics operations to achieve his evil. Now, so did Stalin and Mao, of course.
But, you did not address the other practical aspects of my post. We can certainly discuss relative evil - we are probably both right. But what would justify NOT fighting Hitler, but fighting one of the others instead? Or the Khmer Rouge?
Why can a person not be both unstable and evil? Being a sociopath seems to take in some elements of both even though the instability seems to come in form of erratic behavior as opposed to the 'lock him in a padded cell' type of crazy.