1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...


The ****s didn't do anything wrong... by **** laws. Well, actually they did. They just didn't enforce the laws, which was in and of itself a crime.. The ****s did lose the war, and so were judged by Allied standards instead. If they had not been beaten, they wouldn't have been brought to justice for crimes... that the Allies also perpetrated. (You know, imprisoning parts of population by ethnicity, invading Poland, aerial carpet bombing, those sorts of things.)

We are talking on different paths.

Why is this of concern to you now?

I am aware that the N@zis wouldn´t have been accused of anything had they won. HOWEVER, my point is that they would STILL have committed mass murder, torture and plenty of other crimes.
The fact that noone has the power to judge a criminal doesn´t mean the crime doesn´t exist.

Indeed... and crimes only exist when there are laws to break. That's what a crime even is: a violation of an accepted, defined, and established standard. If it isn't any of these, it isn't a crime.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Now you REALLY fail. FYI, I´m German,

Prove it.

Wenn du glaubst ich schick dir ne Kopie von meinem Personalausweis haste dich geschnitten. Volldepp......

Plenty of interested idiots in this world who should no better but don't.

Not really, idiots are not interested in anything that requires a bit of intelligence. Otherwise they wouldn´t be idiots.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Tirigon wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Tirigon wrote...

Now you REALLY fail. FYI, I´m German,[/quote]Prove it.[/quote]
Wenn du glaubst ich schick dir ne Kopie von meinem Personalausweis haste dich geschnitten. Volldepp......[/quote]Since when did anyone have to be German to speak German, or use an online translator?

[quote][quote]
Plenty of interested idiots in this world who should no better but don't.
[/quote]

Not really, idiots are not interested in anything that requires a bit of intelligence. Otherwise they wouldn´t be idiots.

[/quote][/quote]Which just goes to show you have no experience working with idiots.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 août 2010 - 08:04 .

[Sarah1281]

You don't have to BE German in order to speak it or write it. Hell, you can google German phrases if you want. It doesn't prove anything.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
We are talking on different paths.

Why is this of concern to you now?

Because I thought I could have a chance to discuss with intelligent people. As your last posts have clearly proven you are NOT one of those I shall no longer care and ignorte you from now onB)

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...

Now you REALLY fail. FYI, I´m German, that means I am forced to know much more than I want to about this part of history. Which is quite much, as I am in fact interested in History. I would bet that I know much more about it than you, but that´s really not relevant for this discussion, so can we please stop questioning the other´s intelligence (or lack thereof) and use these nice little things called "arguments" instead? I once heard they make a discussion much more useful and pleasant.
If I want a flamewar I rather play DotA or CoD instead of posting here......

Claiming that you know anything about German history because you're German is the equivalent of Sarah Palin claiming to know about foreign policy because she can see Russia from her house.

The facts are exactly what Dean_The_Young stated. **** Germany did not break their own laws. Being the losing party in a war means you get subjected to all kinds of things, like having to answer for your actions based on the winning party's laws. The problem with Germany isn't necessarily what they did in Germany, but the fact that they invaded the rest of Europe and invoked their laws in places like Poland and France. If Germany had kept to Germany, then they wouldn't have been tried on war crimes charges. That's actually the entire reason they're called "war crimes." Because it's war.

The modern world lets bad guys run countries all the time as long as they keep to themselves, in case you haven't been paying attention to Iran and North Korea lately.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Which just goes to show you have no experience working with idiots.

Of course I have. 90 % of all people I have ever met are idiots.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
We are talking on different paths.

Why is this of concern to you now?

Because I thought I could have a chance to discuss with intelligent people. As your last posts have clearly proven you are NOT one of those I shall no longer care and ignorte you from now onB)

And here I thought we were all friends, even if you weren't going to send me your (probably Czech) Identity Card.

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

The modern world lets bad guys run countries all the time as long as they keep to themselves, in case you haven't been paying attention to Iran and North Korea lately.

Ehm, what does that matter? The fact noone has killed the rulers of these countries yet doesn´t mean they don´t deserve it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Which just goes to show you have no experience working with idiots.

Of course I have. 90 % of all people I have ever met are idiots.

And the other 10% agreed with you, by any chance?

What happened to 'ignore', by the by?

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

The modern world lets bad guys run countries all the time as long as they keep to themselves, in case you haven't been paying attention to Iran and North Korea lately.

Ehm, what does that matter? The fact noone has killed the rulers of these countries yet doesn´t mean they don´t deserve it.

Aren't you the one arguing against the right of anyone to enforce their views on others, or harming other people?

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...
We are talking on different paths. I am aware that the N@zis wouldn´t have been accused of anything had they won. HOWEVER, my point is that they would STILL have committed mass murder, torture and plenty of other crimes.
The fact that noone has the power to judge a criminal doesn´t mean the crime doesn´t exist.

And again you're confusing crime with morality.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And here I thought we were all friends, even if you weren't going to send me your (probably Czech) Identity Card.

I admit, you surprised me. I would not have expected you to be able to use sarcasm. You have my respect.

And yes, I AM German, believe it or not. Not that I´m glad about it, I would totally prefer to live elsewhere (as Germans re the second dumbest people in the world) but still I´m stuck here for now.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

The modern world lets bad guys run countries all the time as long as they keep to themselves, in case you haven't been paying attention to Iran and North Korea lately.

Ehm, what does that matter? The fact noone has killed the rulers of these countries yet doesn´t mean they don´t deserve it.

Which would be infringing on the freedom of these rulers, right? So according to your earlier post you agree they should live and continue doing what they do for the sake of their own freedom.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Aren't you the one arguing against the right of anyone to enforce their views on others, or harming other people?

Of course I am. But the Iranian Government oppresses its own people and has countless innocents executed. That´s why they are criminals. It is just a funny coincidence that they are considered criminals by other states, too.

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

Which would be infringing on the freedom of these rulers, right? So according to your earlier post you agree they should live and continue doing what they do for the sake of their own freedom.

If they wouldn´t harm anyone, yes. However, they DO harm many people (by means of imprisoning or executing them), so there´s a difference.

Thing is, everyone should live free and do whatever he wants, but everyone else has the same right. You mustn´t take that right away from others.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...
If they wouldn´t harm anyone, yes. However, they DO harm many people (by means of imprisoning or executing them), so there´s a difference.

Thing is, everyone should live free and do whatever he wants, but everyone else has the same right. You mustn´t take that right away from others.

Which is the entire reason law exists, so your freedom doesn't infringe on my freedom.

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

Which is the entire reason law exists, so your freedom doesn't infringe on my freedom.

So tell me, how does this reason legitimate laws that LIMIT freedom? For example, in many countries homosexuality is illegal, sometimes even punishable by death. But HOW do you justify such laws if laws are there to protect your freedom? Does other people´s sexuality limit your freedom?
And similar questions can be asked about almost every law. How does it limit your freedom if someone takes cocaine or smokes weed, for example?

[Dean_the_Young]

The dangers they can put other people in their state, same as with reckless driving or shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The dangers they can put other people in their state, same as with reckless driving or shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

Well, I feel much more threatened by policemen and security personal than by drunk or stoned people. Does that mean being policeman should be a crime?
I don´t think so.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The dangers they can put other people in their state, same as with reckless driving or shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

Well, I feel much more threatened by policemen and security personal than by drunk or stoned people. Does that mean being policeman should be a crime?
I don´t think so.

How you feel, and whether you are, are different things.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How you feel, and whether you are, are different things.

Maybe. Doesn´t mean you are threatened by drug addicts, though. The only thing that may put you in danger is being robbed because they need money for their stuff, and this would be much less probable if drugs were legal.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Which is the entire reason law exists, so your freedom doesn't infringe on my freedom.

So tell me, how does this reason legitimate laws that LIMIT freedom? For example, in many countries homosexuality is illegal, sometimes even punishable by death. But HOW do you justify such laws if laws are there to protect your freedom? Does other people´s sexuality limit your freedom?
And similar questions can be asked about almost every law. How does it limit your freedom if someone takes cocaine or smokes weed, for example?

You claim that the speed limit is a limitation on your freedom and you choose to speed if you can be reasonably assured that you won't get caught. The problem is that speed limits exist for a reason. If you're speeding and cause an accident, that accident could injure someone else. You've just limited someone else's freedom by injuring them. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to, the fact is that you broke the law and you will likely have witnesses against you to indicate that you were driving at dangerous speeds or erratically.

Other people's sexuality doesn't limit my freedom, but I can't deny that it's lawful in some countries for it to be illegal. I won't even deny that some think it's immoral and that's grounds by itself for it to be illegal. If enough people in those countries feel that they are oppressed by such laws then they can choose to overthrow their oppressive government, and good for them.

I may not like a law, but that doesn't mean I'm free of it. Same goes for others. If you don't like the law, then change it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How you feel, and whether you are, are different things.

Maybe. Doesn´t mean you are threatened by drug addicts, though. The only thing that may put you in danger is being robbed because they need money for their stuff, and this would be much less probable if drugs were legal.

The history of people under the influence of drugs and intoxicants shows a pattern of behing dangerous in that state, legal or not. Drugs directly effect the parts of your brain that are relied upon to take measured, safe judgements that would not harm them.

When you screw with your brain, you make it easier and more likely for you to harm others.

[Sarah1281]

This argument may have moved past Hitler but now it's debating the merits of anarchy which is really, REALLY off-topic.