/mod
-
Features
Defending HItler
- Thread starter Jolly_Penguin
- Start date
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
As I didn't defend Hitler, I can't have won. Show me how its really done.
laughing dog
Contributor
No need to do that. This has been explained to you numerous times. But only you can understand it for yourself and acknowledge you understand it. No one can do that for you. Either you are not up to that task or are unwilling to accomplish it. So enjoy one of your few victories.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I don't have a victory because I didn't defend Hitler. Show me how its really done.
Jason the Rationalist
Member
Both bananas and oranges are fruit but I don't eat either because I find both delicious and have just consumed one of each. Am I alone in finding this thread perplexing?
Better to ask, why put in court a dead man who lost the war?
Winning the war wasn't enough? Pushing the victory into an absurd idea of judging a dead man, is part of what?
As an intellectual challenge is a good game, but apparently the players didn't expect someone may decided to take the job of defending Hitler.
Talking with a student, he told me that for him, after becoming a lawyer he might do the same, defending his client even when it is obvious he is a criminal who perpetuated many killings. No matter what his principles are, his job is defending him the best he can. This is a right for everybody here in America. And in my first messages I put this issue at front: impartial judge, impartial juror, right for having an attorney.
I think the "accusers" weren't well prepared, and for this reason the discussion turned into almost a train of personal attacks.
My advantage is that for two years I had a friend who loved competition and debate. We were 14 years old, and he was always pushing for discussing anything. It was a good game. The topics came mostly from jokes.
One day, as an example, playing the spinning bottle in a group, rather than a kiss, I asked the girl to bring a black flower. She stand up immediately and went to the park in order to bring one. We were talking for more than an hour and she never returned back. Two hours, we were playing and watching TV and no news from her. Night shuts down and everybody went home, nobody heard from her.
My friend, the debater, the very next morning, very early, knocking my door, asked me about the "black flower". I said, "it was a joke".
He said, "probably not".
We didn't have many resources, but a library where one can ask for books from the main library in downtown. Three days waiting for a book about flowers.
My position was "no black flowers, it is a joke", his position was "there are black flowers".
At the end, no black flowers but "almost black flowers" in existence.
Sometimes he won, sometimes I was the winner. Two years playing his gameat least once a month. I learned a lot thanks to him, because I was allergic to books before I know him. This became an advantage in my studies later on, because I learned to question everything.
He was good going to the root of everything. One day he told me that science attacks the root of the bible, the seven days of creation, because finding the root false, then the entire doctrine becomes false.
Years later, I started to look at the roots of several theories of science, and it was a total surprise.
This case of defending Hitler has allowed me to understand more about WW2.
Perhaps for others when reading the discussion is something like a perplexed thread, however I see it different: It wasn't about my black flower, but damn! how good still is the feeling that no one was able to find it...
Winning the war wasn't enough? Pushing the victory into an absurd idea of judging a dead man, is part of what?
As an intellectual challenge is a good game, but apparently the players didn't expect someone may decided to take the job of defending Hitler.
Talking with a student, he told me that for him, after becoming a lawyer he might do the same, defending his client even when it is obvious he is a criminal who perpetuated many killings. No matter what his principles are, his job is defending him the best he can. This is a right for everybody here in America. And in my first messages I put this issue at front: impartial judge, impartial juror, right for having an attorney.
I think the "accusers" weren't well prepared, and for this reason the discussion turned into almost a train of personal attacks.
My advantage is that for two years I had a friend who loved competition and debate. We were 14 years old, and he was always pushing for discussing anything. It was a good game. The topics came mostly from jokes.
One day, as an example, playing the spinning bottle in a group, rather than a kiss, I asked the girl to bring a black flower. She stand up immediately and went to the park in order to bring one. We were talking for more than an hour and she never returned back. Two hours, we were playing and watching TV and no news from her. Night shuts down and everybody went home, nobody heard from her.
My friend, the debater, the very next morning, very early, knocking my door, asked me about the "black flower". I said, "it was a joke".
He said, "probably not".
We didn't have many resources, but a library where one can ask for books from the main library in downtown. Three days waiting for a book about flowers.
My position was "no black flowers, it is a joke", his position was "there are black flowers".
At the end, no black flowers but "almost black flowers" in existence.
Sometimes he won, sometimes I was the winner. Two years playing his gameat least once a month. I learned a lot thanks to him, because I was allergic to books before I know him. This became an advantage in my studies later on, because I learned to question everything.
He was good going to the root of everything. One day he told me that science attacks the root of the bible, the seven days of creation, because finding the root false, then the entire doctrine becomes false.
Years later, I started to look at the roots of several theories of science, and it was a total surprise.
This case of defending Hitler has allowed me to understand more about WW2.
Perhaps for others when reading the discussion is something like a perplexed thread, however I see it different: It wasn't about my black flower, but damn! how good still is the feeling that no one was able to find it...
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
humbleman, you did it wrong. In the book, Hitler defended himself:
"The book was controversial, particularly among reviewers and Jewish scholars, because the author allows Hitler to defend himself when he is put on trial in the jungle by his captors." Also, Hitler used his oratory skill, if you can call it that. Something Steiner wrote in the book: "there shall come a man [who] ... will know the grammar of hell and ... will know the sounds of madness and loathing and make them seem music."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Portage_to_San_Cristobal_of_A.H.
So you need to pretend to be Hitler defending himself and use his style of argument.
"The book was controversial, particularly among reviewers and Jewish scholars, because the author allows Hitler to defend himself when he is put on trial in the jungle by his captors." Also, Hitler used his oratory skill, if you can call it that. Something Steiner wrote in the book: "there shall come a man [who] ... will know the grammar of hell and ... will know the sounds of madness and loathing and make them seem music."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Portage_to_San_Cristobal_of_A.H.
So you need to pretend to be Hitler defending himself and use his style of argument.
No.
I play his attorney.
I defend his memories, his actions, his goals.
If you want, you can attack my client by all sides.
My job is to proving you wrong and your accusations as malicious and derogatory.
So far, the accusers had no other choice but to attack my person, and this behavior of them happened when they saw they can't win their case against him if a court is asked for judging my client Mr. Hitler.
On the contrary, rather than finding my client Mr. Hitler as guilty for that event called "the Holocaust", the ones guilty for such sad moment in WW2 appears to be the allies and their daily bombing on German logistics.
If you want to continue, you must start explaining how those Allies daily bombings didn't kill hundreds of thousands of detainees working in German factories, roads, storage centers, etc.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Well gee, once again he said "I play his attorney". He is not saying these are his positions, he is saying he is taking these positions for the purpose of this thread.
Again.
At this point it is reasonable to conclude, absent looking inside his head, that he might be doing the devil's advocate job or defense attorney job. Maybe. Probably not, because as I pointed out in the "insult post", there are those who were waiting to pounce on anyone who took up the intellectual exercise and accuse them of expressing their actual viewpoints.
Those who told me humbleman did a horrible job, they are also the same who were waiting to pounce. That is why when I said "show me how to do a better job" they didn't - they'd have to then pounce on themselves!
Again.
At this point it is reasonable to conclude, absent looking inside his head, that he might be doing the devil's advocate job or defense attorney job. Maybe. Probably not, because as I pointed out in the "insult post", there are those who were waiting to pounce on anyone who took up the intellectual exercise and accuse them of expressing their actual viewpoints.
Those who told me humbleman did a horrible job, they are also the same who were waiting to pounce. That is why when I said "show me how to do a better job" they didn't - they'd have to then pounce on themselves!
Jason the Rationalist
Member
I find in face-to-face conversations that if I am talking about something I have read, I have to keep prefacing it with the fact that these are not my own words, these are not necessarily my views, as I talk through what I have read. That thread can get lost quite quickly when one really gets into the matter. People do seem to love pouncing on the words of others without necessarily thinking through whether these are actually the speaker's own words and in line with the speaker's own views. I'm guilty of doing this myself. It can be quite difficult to differentiate sometimes. The slightest doubt can lose its proportions, become inflated relatively quickly in the heat of debate. Would it help to regard everyone as playing devil's advocate when gauging response and counter-response in threads such as this?
laughing dog
Contributor
humbleman's defense is to acknowledge everything but the holocaust. That is not acting like a defense attorney because defense attorney's are not permitted to disavow actual facts. Which means he is doing a bad job, since he has done nothing to defend Hitler as a defense attorney. Disavowing actual facts is not playing devil's advocate either. Which means he has done nothing as a devil's advocate - which is also a bad job. This is basic reasoning.
Now, humbleman could have used your tongue in cheek comment about Stalin as a defense of Hitler - that Hitler killed fewer communists than Stalin. That would have been a better defense than the no defense of his, because
1) it has a factual basis, and
2) it is based on the reasonable conclusion that fewer deaths of communists is a better outcome than more deaths of communists.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
In short, you acknowledge he said he is playing defense attorney but criticize him for doing a bad job.
Then show me how to do a better job.
Then show me how to do a better job.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
He already did in explaining how humble did a bad job.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Other people in the thread are not acting like a prosecution. They are not actors trying to prove something. Instead, they objectively looked at your argument and gave fair criticisms. You could not respond in a coherent or sometimes rational counter. For example, your claims about farts are nonsensical.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Pointing out the flaws of an existing argument is not the same as constructing a better argument.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,277
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
How is
in any way pointing out the flaws in an argument that the Holocaust did not occur?
laughing dog
Contributor
He did no job, because his legal defense did not exist. Defense attorney's do not engage in no legal defenses (except to plead guilty). So, your synopsis is wrong.
Clearly point what you did not understand in
.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
So you are telling me that laughing dog posted a defense of Hitler?
laughing dog
Contributor
I gave your implicit defense of Hitler as an example.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I never gave any defense of Hitler, implicit or explicit. So you cannot give my non-existent implicit defense of your idol as an example of a defense of your idol.