"Strength lies not in defense, but in attack."

[CrAz3D]

Some of the things he said are true regardless of his deeds...and you have to admit he was an AWESOME speaker.

[Rule]

Some of the things he said are true regardless of his deeds...and you have to admit he was an AWESOME speaker.

Well, you'd have to be specific about the "truths" that came out of him.  I have listened to his speeches, and yes, he is innately capable of drawing emotion from his crowd to fuel his words.  But if you listen carefully to what he is saying, you realize there is almost no content in his speech:  what he says in 20 minutes can be summarized in 2.  I suppose it is in his best interests to keep the speeches content free, as his points really had little logical basis, and he wasn't going to be able to manipulate his audience with reason.

(re: original point) : yes, judge a quotation by what is says, not who said it.  On the other hand, if a friend of mine started writing down Hitler quotations all the time, I'd think that would be more disturbing than if he had been writing down, say, Orwell or Shakespeare quotes; while a quote on its own should be judged by content, if you are pushing out the works of Hitler, that suggests that you idolize the man, which is your right, but is not an image an institution would want to have.

Watch Pierre Trudeau, (in my opinion one of the greatest speakers ever), completely dominate this reporter who was looking to demonize him.  It's brilliant how he turns things around.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-162-429-21/unforgettable_moments/conflict_war/trudeau_just_watch_me

[CrAz3D]

uhm, did you not see the 2 quotes in the first post, those seems like pretty "truthful" things.

[Rule]

uhm, did you not see the 2 quotes in the first post, those seems like pretty "truthful" things.

Nope, not truth, just a subjective opinion like most things.

[Armin]

I'd take that as a compliment, as Hitler was a very smart man.

Hitler has accomplished alot more than you think. For instance, the history channel now has endless material.

He may have been smart and a strong leader, but he also killed an estimated 56 billion people.  Estimated.  That's not exactly the kind of tactics that I'd like to see from the Western world. 

Yes, he was a genius, yet extremely arrogant and misguided. It's his actions that are bad, not his words. At the time, his strategies were the best there were, and I'm sure it could've been used for good instead of evil.

[rabbit]

Everyone is good.  Only the loser is evil.

[CrAz3D]

uhm, did you not see the 2 quotes in the first post, those seems like pretty "truthful" things.

Nope, not truth, just a subjective opinion like most things.

...you can say all "truths" are just subjective opinions.

[Rule]

uhm, did you not see the 2 quotes in the first post, those seems like pretty "truthful" things.

Nope, not truth, just a subjective opinion like most things.

...you can say all "truths" are just subjective opinions.

No.  If African-American is defined to be someone whose ancestors moved from Africa to the United States, then the statement "Michael Jordan is African-American" is a truth.

[CrAz3D]

I'm African American too!

My ancestors are African...but this all assumes we originated in africa...maybe we haven't found the oldest person yet whom might reside in like...Philadelphia (I hear that city is OLD)

[Warrior]

I'm African American too!

My ancestors are African...but this all assumes we originated in africa...maybe we haven't found the oldest person yet whom might reside in like...Philadelphia (I hear that city is OLD)

lol..

[iago]

Everyone is good.  Only the loser is evil.

That's total contradictory.  However, I agree with the second half. 

The loser is evil.  Hitler lost.  => Hitler is evil.  QED

...you can say all "truths" are just subjective opinions.

That's not true at all.  As Rule demonstrated, you can move from logical premises to a logical conclusion, assuming everything is solid.  The only difficulty is proving the premises, and ensuring that they properly link to the conclusion. 

It may be argued that the original premises (the premises of the premises of the premises, etc.) are subjective, and that may be true.  However, those premises are typically universal truths that everybody accepts (evil is bad, the sky looks blue, you can't live naked in outer space, etc)

[CrAz3D]

Everyone is good.  Only the loser is evil.

That's total contradictory.  However, I agree with the second half. 

The loser is evil.  Hitler lost.  => Hitler is evil.  QED

...you can say all "truths" are just subjective opinions.

That's not true at all.  As Rule demonstrated, you can move from logical premises to a logical conclusion, assuming everything is solid.  The only difficulty is proving the premises, and ensuring that they properly link to the conclusion. 

It may be argued that the original premises (the premises of the premises of the premises, etc.) are subjective, and that may be true.  However, those premises are typically universal truths that everybody accepts (evil is bad, the sky looks blue, you can't live naked in outer space, etc)

I just think that they're universal agreements.  ;)


& you so can live in outer space nakey!...you'll just die very quickly

[iago]

I just think that they're universal agreements.  ;)

& you so can live in outer space nakey!...you'll just die very quickly

Well, it depends who you talk to.  In theory, the entire universe could be an elaborate fake perpetrated by the Great Deceiver, in which case everything we believe is false.  That leaves you with only one thing to believe in: yourself.  You know that you must exist because you can think.  Cogito Ergo Sum, anyone?

According to Descartes, who started with that argument, the only basic premise is that "I exist", and all other premises must be derived from there. 

That is, of course, the theory of one man.  Other philosophers have taken other routes.

[rabbit]

Everyone is good.  Only the loser is evil.

That's total contradictory.  However, I agree with the second half. 

Think about it.

The terrorists believe they are fighting for Allah to make the world a better place; they are on a holy war (ie they are the good guys) against the blasphemers and power-hungry overlords (ie Americans, which are the bad guys).

The Americans (ie the good guys) are fighting people who kill innocent people (ie: the bad guys) and use dirty tactics and who don't live the way we want them to (capitolistly, for example).

It's all POV.  If you were an Al Qaeda Jihadist, odds are you'd be pretty sure you were the good guy.

The loser is the one who is evil, usually (Custard wasn't evil, just stupid).

[iago]

Everyone is good.  Only the loser is evil.

That's total contradictory.  However, I agree with the second half. 

Think about it.

The terrorists believe they are fighting for Allah to make the world a better place; they are on a holy war (ie they are the good guys) against the blasphemers and power-hungry overlords (ie Americans, which are the bad guys).

The Americans (ie the good guys) are fighting people who kill innocent people (ie: the bad guys) and use dirty tactics and who don't live the way we want them to (capitolistly, for example).

It's all POV.  If you were an Al Qaeda Jihadist, odds are you'd be pretty sure you were the good guy.

The loser is the one who is evil, usually (Custard wasn't evil, just stupid).

I already told you I agree. 

However, your statement is still contradictory.  Perhaps you could say:

Everyone is good.  Only the user looks evil. 

But you can't say that somebody is good AND evil!