inky wrote:And as for the Nazis, I'm not sure if you missed the part where they were bragging about being "Aryans" and being the "Supreme Race" in "Great Nazi Germany," or you just chose to disregard that fact. The extermination of the Jews, the Polish people, the gypsies, the handicapped, and others, together with Nazi Germany's relentless quest to conquer Europe was all part of their "road to glory" - selfish, cold, and ignorant. Hitler USED the people's anger, which was caused by their defeat in WWI, as the cornerstone of his own ambition.
Yes, Hitler did lead the Germans to believe falsely that they were part of a superior race. Yes, they were ignorant, but not all of them. Some high ranking members of the Nazi party actually tried to assassinate Hitler. They deserve some credit. Many others fell under Hitler's brainwashing that the Jews must be eliminated. They don't deserve all the blame. Some Nazis, however, really did just sadistically torment the Jews, but their beliefs were warped. Hitler himself had warped beliefs, thus he committed genocide. The point is, you cannot generalize. The ones that committed the greatest evils are the ones who committed their crimes while knowing that they were doing wrong. Even then, their behavior can always be traced to factors in their childhoods and such. That is the problem with trying to dispense equal justice. You can't.
Views are relative and subjective. Consider a Middles Ages crusader, who razed foreign lands and killed Muslim "infidels" in order the "win back" the Holy Land. Then consider the Catholic Church during the Inquisition, which tortured countless innocents to "cleanse evil." History is recorded so that the Crusades seem glorious and the Inquisition seems terrible. History is usually written from one point of view. So think about the views of the crusader, the "infidel," the Inquisitioner, the wrongly accused "heretic," the Nazi soldier, and the Jewish prisoner, and you will realize that no matter what your idea of justice is, it is never right.
inky wrote:My friend, everything changes once one of your close friends or family members become the victim of a crime. If you see a news report about someone raped and/or murdered, don't just think about your own views, try thinking about the ones who knew the victim personally. Then ask yourself if the punishment fits the crime.
Had one of your close friends or family members become the victim of a crime? If you want to play the "put yourself in someone else's shoes" game, then think about the views of the offender and the offender's close friends and family.
inky wrote:Being soft on crime or any form of offensive action would only lead to more because others would consider it to be a norm.
Wrong. Using a crime to punish a crime leads to the belief that crimes are justified norms.
Again, go back to your initial statement. "You basically have the license to kill this guy if you meet him." No you don't. You don't know the guy. You only know what he's affiliated with. You only know what his group is known to believe and do. According to your reasoning, if you were American Caucasian, I could accuse you of racism and slavery. If you were black, I could accuse you of gangster violence. If you were South American, I could accuse you of drug trafficking. If you were Muslim, I could accuse you of fundamentalist terrorism. Your statement is an extreme bias.
Alastor Crow
Reise for Mod.
(@ least for me 
