USA offshoot from "Blame it on Inflation?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mr USA

Guest
Also from Webster's Dictionary:

Perspective, n. a broad view of events or ideas in their true nature and relationships.

Ignorance, adj. lacking knowledge about a particular subject or fact; uninformed or unaware.


Conclusion: Perspective without knowledge and understanding of subject matter = ignorance.

2nd conclusion: ( Baskil ) - ( knowledge * WW2 ) <> Perspective
 
M

Mr USA

Guest
LoL . . . Is that the most intelligent thing you can say in your defense? I may have been outspoken about my ideas, but I never resorted to outright name calling.

It appears that you have run out of rational things to say.
 
A

Apollo

Guest
First of all, you've resorted to outright name calling a lot. You even called someone a nazi earlier.

Perspective, n. a broad view of events or ideas in their true nature and relationships.

Ignorance, adj. lacking knowledge about a particular subject or fact; uninformed or unaware.


Conclusion: Perspective without knowledge and understanding of subject matter = ignorance.
Um, no. Just going by your ridiculous method there, you're not even right. All you did was take the word "perspective" and add it onto the beginning of the "ignorance" definition. Therefore, you changed it, and it no longer equals ignorance. I just thought I'd point out that even in your attempt to be clever, you were incorrect.

And finally:

Evil, adj. morally wrong or bad; harmful or injurious; an evil quality or conduct.

Good, adj. morally sound; well behaved; kind or friendly; honorable or worthy.

Moral, adj. of or concerned with principles of right or wrong conduct.
And then, what it all comes down to is what you believe is right or wrong. To some people, what Germany was doing was right, and therefore moral, and therefore good.

Do you finally see? Not even your silly dictionary definition supports you, because it all depends on your opinion of right and wrong. It is philosophy.
 
N

Namielus

Guest
Ok some of you might have noticed I posted early on this form. That was infact not me, cause that opinion was far to educated sounding to be the Namielus you all have grown to care for and love.

Sorry to dissapoint you but that was Duel impersonating me, and might I add he did a horrible job.

Yes I will be puting up a topic to see if I should come back, later all.

BTW I still go on icq, aim, msn, ring me sometime
 
M

Mr USA

Guest
The only outright name-calling I did was Nazi - and I apologized for that. Please also understand that I never used profanity. When used to attack others, it usually displays a person's lack of intelligence.

"Um, no. Just going by your ridiculous method there, you're not even right. All you did was take the word "perspective" and add it onto the beginning of the "ignorance" definition. Therefore, you changed it, and it no longer equals ignorance. I just thought I'd point out that even in your attempt to be clever, you were incorrect."

If you don't like the use of ignorance in my logic statement, then how about untutored, uneducated, unlearned, uninstructed, unenlightened or untaught. I actually thought it was clever, since using in-depth historical references didn't seem to be doing the trick.

"And then, what it all comes down to is what you believe is right or wrong. To some people, what Germany was doing was right, and therefore moral, and therefore good.

A. Morals are defined by the people of the present time, right? By the morals of that time (and by today's standards) all the atrocities I listed previously were/are considered wrong or bad. - and therefore evil.
B. Nationalism and a thirst for world domination are not moral qualities. Especially the way the Werhmacht and SS carried it out.
C. Nobody but Hitler and the core of his Nazi friends thought their actions were right. Even then, it is questionable, one might even say that they knew it was wrong, but thought the deeds were acceptable for their cause. The rest knew it was bad but choose to ignore it.

"Do you finally see? Not even your silly dictionary definition supports you, because it all depends on your opinion of right and wrong. It is philosophy."

There are different ways to discuss a topic - historic, philosophic, logic, etc. You keep resorting to philosophy even though this discussion has been a historical one. Why don't you stand up and admit that you are substituting philosophy for your lack of knowledge about WW2? It's easy to use philosophy. Any unlearned person can apply it to any subject he doesn't know about. How convenient.
 
M

mogg bomber

Guest
You know, I didn't want to say anything, but it's people like you Mr.USA that encourage the opinions of people like Slug man. I was trying to figure out why you're opinions were so against everyone else in the world, when I came across this quote by you:

"You must be a liberal democrat, that can only explain your flawed thinking. I bet you love Clinton too.
I'm sorry I did stand up for you, being that it is leftists like you that make this nation weak."

I don't think a statement like that even deserves an answer.
 
M

Mr USA

Guest
Serving #34 . . . please step up.

I'm a conservative. I'm not ashamed of it either. This country is too far left and needs to swing back to the middle (at least). But I don't see the correlation between my points and foreigners thinking the US is a joke and filled with people with low IQ's (his statement not mine).
 
M

mogg bomber

Guest
Ok, that's not so bad then. Your original post made it sound like you were one of those people who bash the other side for no reason at all. I'm not really conservative or liberal, somewhere in the middle(for example, I think Clinton was an embarassment to the country, but he was also a fairly good president). I really wouldn't say liberals are making this country weak though, if anything our current president is doing that well enough on his own.

Anyway, what I meant was you seem to be saying the US never makes mistakes, and that everyone else is wrong. This indirectly leads to foreigners bashing the US, because they see this attitude as an attack against them. You're right though, there was no reason to say the US is a joke and filled with people with low IQ's(although I've certainly seen enough of them, just watch Jerry Springer sometime).
 
M

Mr USA

Guest
We've been around the world and back again on this thread. But ultimately, I've been trying to show that historians see WW2 as 'The last good war' - one in which it was a virtual fight of good vs. evil. America has, clumsily, stepped in smelly dog poop too many times for me to defend it in all scenarios. But being that I'm well-versed in WW2 and that the US is cast in a good light, I wasn't comfortable with people belittling our role and reasons during that period.
 
A

Apollo

Guest
There are different ways to discuss a topic - historic, philosophic, logic, etc. You keep resorting to philosophy even though this discussion has been a historical one. Why don't you stand up and admit that you are substituting philosophy for your lack of knowledge about WW2? It's easy to use philosophy. Any unlearned person can apply it to any subject he doesn't know about. How convenient.
I don't know a whole lot about World War II. Unless I'm mistaken, I said that a long time ago. But I do know that any matter of right/wrong or good/evil comes down to philosophy. To me, it seems that you are very much fixed on history, and you know a lot about it. But you are so fixed that you belittle other fields of study such as philosophy. Calling philosophy a tool for any unlearned person who doesn't understand something is silly. I could just as easily say that history is for those who memorize trivial facts because they can't do the thinking and reasoning necessary for other fields of study.

Of course, I don't believe that, but you should recognize the fact that history is not all-important. Like I said, anything involving right or wrong and good or evil is a matter of opinion.

A. Morals are defined by the people of the present time, right? By the morals of that time (and by today's standards) all the atrocities I listed previously were/are considered wrong or bad. - and therefore evil.
But again, there are people that don't believe that. There are groups of nazi-wannabes that want to accomplish Hitler's goals. So, for them, it wasn't evil. It's just a matter of opinion.

B. Nationalism and a thirst for world domination are not moral qualities. Especially the way the Werhmacht and SS carried it out.
Again, that's just your opinion. By the way, what's wrong with nationalism? You have nationalism (pride in one's country), do you not?:)

C. Nobody but Hitler and the core of his Nazi friends thought their actions were right. Even then, it is questionable, one might even say that they knew it was wrong, but thought the deeds were acceptable for their cause. The rest knew it was bad but choose to ignore it.
Like I said, there are those that are still really into his cause. They believe it's right.
 
J

Jake74

Guest
I love to get involved :D

I see two sides to this. First, the one I personally believe:

The US was the "good guy".
We were fighting to save lives and prevent some else from ruling the world. No one has the right to decide if another should live or die, but the one with the bigger guns eventually has that decision. We were trying to protect the innocent and defeat the attackers. This makes us the one's making the right action.

Now the other
Hitler was the "good guy"
He truly believed in what he did, he was willing to die for it. That shows conviction and character. Not many people are willing to die for a cause. That should be respected. He had the leadership and character to get a country behind him, and to defeat most of Europe. That shows skill and determination.

It's too bad he was wrong about what he thought was right. The last person with that kind of conviction and the right cause is now worshipped as a god.

BTW, the winner always makes the rules...
 
M

mogg bomber

Guest
I think you greatly overestimate the amount of help we gave the Europeans in WWII. They fought for quite alot longer than the US did and suffered far more losses. The war was almost over by the time we joined, I really doubt we even affected it much. And yes the atomic bomb did end the war, but it was well on it's way to completion by that time anyway.

But the real thing to remember is, in war there are no "good" or "bad" sides, just "winners" and "losers". But in the end everyone loses, look at the life loss totals for all of the countries involved. Not to mention other losses, such as most of Europe torn apart, and lots of other losses as well. Most of these points have already been brought up in this thread, but it's important to realize these things.
 
M

Mr USA

Guest
"I think you greatly overestimate the amount of help we gave the Europeans in WWII. They fought for quite alot longer than the US did and suffered far more losses. The war was almost over by the time we joined, I really doubt we even affected it much. And yes the atomic bomb did end the war, but it was well on it's way to completion by that time anyway."

These words couldn't be more inaccurate. This is why I think you who are unlearned about WW2 should stick to some other light topic and debate philosophy there (no offense, mogg bomber, you sound like a reasonable person). If the United States did not enter the war, evil would have prevailed. Germany would have overrun Europe & Africa and Japan would have been master of the Pacific. There have been studies done suggesting what would have happened if this country had done this or another country had done that. But no information supports the idea that Britain and Russia could have continued fighting without the help of the US. It was US bombers and airmen that devastated German industry. It was US destroyers and navy men that stemmed the successes of the U-boat campaign. Britain was on the brink of capitulation because of the U-boat campaign. It was US industry that supplied the Russians with trucks, jeeps and other munitions (which helped them tremendously). It was US industry that out produced the Axis in every way, shape and form. It was virtually ONLY the US that did anything against Japanese imperialism (China did little being that they were in the middle of a civil war). Without US action in the Pacific, almost every island and every country on the Pacific rim would be under Japanese control right now. It sounds like a strong statement, but it is one supported by historical fact and research.

"Calling philosophy a tool for any unlearned person who doesn't understand something is silly."

With those of you I'm debating with, my point is accurate. Philosophy does have its place and its use. But you can't substitute knowledge of facts with pontificating. Marry the two and you've got a strong argument. But to make accurate philosophic assertions one needs to have a base to work with. Without that base, one might only be talking out of a smelly orifice.

"But again, there are people that don't believe that. There are groups of nazi-wannabes that want to accomplish Hitler's goals. So, for them, it wasn't evil. It's just a matter of opinion."

Society at large sets acceptable moral standards. A group of neo Nazis does not. Nazis are about hate. They are willing to do anything to further their cause, regardless of who they step on and whether it is moral or not. If you are trying to tell us otherwise, maybe you should volunteer your time to do speaking for them.

"Again, that's just your opinion. By the way, what's wrong with nationalism? You have nationalism (pride in one's country), do you not?"

Nationalism is fine. I wasn't trying to undermine it. I just wanted to say that it is neither a moral nor immoral quality. However, the way that the Werhmacht and SS exemplified their nationalism was immoral.
 
D

Duel

Guest
Okay, you know what I think the problem here is:

You seem to think we're supporting the Germans.

You know what, I'm going to shock you here, I think what the Germans did was wrong. And I doubt very much that you will find anyone here who disagrees. BUT we weren't right. Just because they were wrong doesn't mean we were right.


Evil, adj. morally wrong or bad; harmful or injurious; an evil quality or conduct.

Hmm... harmful or injurious... morally wrong.... like, say, hurting people? Like everyone involved in the war did?

Good, adj. morally sound; well behaved; kind or friendly; honorable or worthy.

Well behaved? Kind and friendly? Us? Tell that to the ex-residents of Nagasaki.....


Look, whenever something uses "Morally" in the definition it's a matter of how you look at it. You know what, the religon I was raised in views eating pork as morally wrong (Matter of fact, so does christianity..... look at the 5 books of Moses....)

And, you have resorted several times to outright name-calling, and have never once responded when I saked you stop. If you want, I will repeat my plea:

MR. USA:
Calling people uneducated or ignorant due to their opinions without knowing their background is insulting. You have done this 5 times now. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop that. It IS name calling, and you've been resorting to that since page 2 of this debate. You've sunk so low one of us had to go down there to fend you off, my friend. Now, if you're simply going to claim we're morons, don't waste your enlightened breath on us poor, ignorant cowherds. Go to one of the history boards you cherish so deeply. Or, better yet, WRITE TO AN ACTUAL HISTORIAN. Find someone who you can yell at who agrees with you, or else don't be surprised when we dislike you for your continued insults and abuse.
 
D

Duel

Guest
1.
I DO challenge you to find a piece of righting that says that the decisions the allies made, including the atomic bombs, was morally right.

2. Just a selection of quotes from you, Mr. USA. You say you've never resorted to name calling?

Lotus Mox -
Oh my goodness!?! What conspiracy stories have you been reading lately? 'An excuse for testing new weapons?' heheheheh. Could you please substantiate this statement? Was there an international study done? Was there an independent group that looked into suspicious activities? Were there numerous objective newspaper articles about it? Or is this a far-fetched fantasy that you pulled out of your armpit.

I think these distinguished men have more authority on the matter than a struggling student.

*sigh* Ok, apparently half of you are bull-headed or leftist and the other half shouldn't be posting on the subject given that you have no understanding of this period.


If you read this whole thread, except for my last two or three posts, you'll see that all my answers have been verbose, with arguments backing them up. My tone changed because I realized I was speaking with a couple of children

Do you actually fool yourself with this baloney? If you do, then I pray that lump on your head heals. It really is clouding your thinking

I'm sorry I did stand up for you, being that it is leftists like you that make this nation weak.

You believe this? If you do, then it's a good thing you weren't around in the 30's-40's otherwise you would have been a good nazi soldier. Your words speak to this.

if you believe this then you have no clue about logistics or the sociopolitical situation of the time.

Why don't we change the subject and talk about gravity, maybe we can disagree about its existence too?

My feeling is that those of you who've contradicted me remember a few things you heard in a general history class in high school and saw "Saving Private Ryan" - and think you're now experts.

( Baskil ) - ( knowledge * WW2 ) <> Perspective
 
M

Multani

Guest
I think I've read enough to jump in and smash Mr. USA for his outright ignorance and arrogance.
I have one question and only one question for the moment.

Who are you to determine what is moral and what isn't? Morality is in my opinion the opinion of many. If 85% of the world thinks something is immoral, then it becomes immoral. But that doesn't mean that that isn't an opinion. It just happens to be the opinion of 85% of the people in the world.

Nevertheless, you have been arrogant to think your opinion and only your opinion is right. That is ignorance at it's pinnacle. If you truly are a historian, than I question who and what college gave you your degree in history.

If you want to talk about atrocites, the U.S. is filled to the brim with them. Of course, you would outright dismiss anything wrong the U.S. has ever done. After all, god forbid the U.S. should make a mistake.:rolleyes:

The point is, there are few trully proven truths in life. Sources are useless because data can be manipulated. Books can be written in a biased view. Very few things in life are proven, and I think anyone that realizes that is trully educated.

Now, I would say you are "the casual Joe that thinks he knows everything but knows nothing", but that would be stooping down to your level, and I'm quite ready to do that...yet.
 
D

Duel

Guest
I, however, am quite ready to. The next time he starts to insult people, I'll feel quite free to sink down to his level. After all, I don't know any better according to him. I'm just a struggling student, or a child, or a guy with a head injury.
 
M

Mr USA

Guest
When using the words unlearned or ignorant, it can be applied to a person about a subject or as an overall blanket. I am unlearned or ignorant about certain subjects - like finance and cartography - and therefore, refrain from making assertions about these fields. I am inferring the same usage of these terms on some of you regarding history. I'm sure you have your own area of expertise - kudos for that. But in the realm of military history, I am well read. That is why I stand firm in my statements and challenge those that some of you are making.

Duel: Do you have anything material to say or are you just hedging on HOW I make my point? It looks to me as if you have no grounds of which to argue the heart of the discussion. But I'll respond directly to your last post anyway - agreed, some of my comments are poignant, but none of them are as blatant as using profanity. Case in point - none of my posts had to be edited by a board moderator.
 
D

Duel

Guest
Ah, I see, you object to profanity, but not hurting people. Well, the whole light of your case becomes clear. You realize, of course, that you haven't responded to my posts as to finding a quote that says the allies were right? You once said that you couldn't count how many books you'd read on World War 2, I think the first step to doing that would be you learning to count up to three, my friend. You keep avoiding the issue and insulting people to draw attention away from the fact that YOU ACTUALLY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OR FACTS ON ANYTHING WE DID. You simply prove Germany commited evil acts and believe that makes us right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top