Hypothetical: If the Nazis Were Right Would You Agree with Some Form of the Holocaust

**Goofle** · 02-12-2017, 10:31 AM

Neither, obviously.

OccultHawk · 02-12-2017, 10:33 AM

Do you know what hypothetical means?

Oriphiel · 02-12-2017, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Uh, no it doesn't because it don't believe it's possible for any group, person, or even living species, hell maybe even non-living matter and empty space to be in anyway superior or inferior.

Good for you, I feel a similar way. Still, I felt the need to point out a perceived contradiction in your post. You said that you'd be okay with genocide in Batlord's scenario, but then ended your post by saying that it wasn't a defense of genocide. However, saying you approve of something in a given scenario is a statement of defense. Under certain parameters and conditions, you do support the idea of genocide.

This doesn't mean that you're a genocidal maniac in our current reality, though, so apologies if that's how you interpreted my post. But it's important to remember that reality changes. Situations change. Facts change. Batlord's scenario, wild as it seems, may affect you. It's shocking how quickly people believe it when famous people feed them pseudo-science. There could easily come another day when a large movement truly believes that "science" proves their superiority. Since you've said that you would be in favor of a "superior" race exterminating other races, who knows which side you'll be on if that day comes, if the "science" is convincing enough to you?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

**Goofle** · 02-12-2017, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Do you know what hypothetical means?

Yeah. What does that have to do with my post?

The Batlord · 02-12-2017, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suzy Creamcheese

Good for you, I feel a similar way. Still, I felt the need to point out a perceived contradiction in your post. You said that you'd be okay with genocide in Batlord's scenario, but then ended your post by saying that it wasn't a defense of genocide. However, saying you approve of something in a given scenario is a statement of defense. Under certain parameters and conditions, you do support the idea of genocide.

This doesn't mean that you're a genocidal maniac in our current reality, though, so apologies if that's how you interpreted my post. But it's important to remember that reality changes. Situations change. Facts change. Batlord's scenario, wild as it seems, may affect you. It's shocking how quickly people believe it when famous people feed them pseudo-science. There could easily come another day when a large movement truly believes that "science" proves their superiority. Since you've said that you would be in favor of a "superior" race exterminating other races, who knows which side you'll be on if that day comes, if the "science" is convincing enough to you?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

We're not talking about "this world's" (heretofore referred to as Earth 1) concept of genocide though. On Earth 1 genocide has no justification, since eugenics has time and time again been proven to be bunk, and is therefore the result of irrational hatred and prejudice. There is simply no benefit to genocide on Earth 1.

However, my scenario posits the existence of... let's just call it Earth 3. On Earth 3, not only are certain races somehow genetically inferior (less intelligent, less physically capable) but also morally inferior. Blacks are a criminal race of mental deficients who will in fact steal your TV and rape your blonde wife. Jews are sneaky, greedy cowards who are using their control of banking to influence world politics to the detriment of the white race.

And on Earth 3 the white race are being kept from their full potential by these races. The Earth 1 that you are familiar with is not in fact what Earth 3 would be even without the Jews. Earth 3 would be better than Earth 1. Earth 3 would enter a new Golden Age of enlightenment, peace, and prosperity that might even rival Heaven or some ****. And all you have to do to achieve this new Eden is to do some terrible things. Things that your children and their children and their children's children will never have to contemplate because one generation had the moral courage to work for the greater good.

Genocide on Earth 3 would therefore potentially be a highly different concept morally speaking, and should not be compared to Earth 1 genocide.

OccultHawk · 02-12-2017, 11:28 AM

Because I felt like you were lecturing me based on my response to an impossible hypothetical scenario.

Suzy - I get your reasoning that it puts me one step closer to supporting a potential genocidal campaign. I also agree that one most remain vigilant against becoming impressionable when insanity is sweeping through a culture.

I feel like part of what the responses to this question reveals is that people feel like their could be some truth in Nazi reasoning. So maybe the flipside is equally disturbing.

OccultHawk · 02-12-2017, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

We're not talking about "this world's" (heretofore referred to as Earth 1) concept of genocide though. On Earth 1 genocide has no justification, since eugenics has time and time again been proven to be bunk, and is therefore the result of irrational hatred and prejudice. There is simply no benefit to genocide on Earth 1.

However, my scenario posits the existence of... let's just call it Earth 3. On Earth 3, not only are certain races somehow genetically inferior (less intelligent, less physically capable) but also morally inferior. Blacks are a criminal race of mental deficients who will in fact steal your TV and rape your blonde wife. Jews are sneaky, greedy cowards who are using their control of banking to influence world politics to the detriment of the white race.

And on Earth 3 the white race are being kept from their full potential by these races. The Earth 1 that you are familiar with is not in fact what Earth 3 would be even without the Jews. Earth 3 would be better than Earth 1. Earth 3 would enter a new Golden Age of enlightenment, peace, and prosperity that might even rival Heaven or some ****. And all you have to do to achieve this new Eden is to do some terrible things. Things that your children and their children and their children's children will never have to contemplate because one generation had the moral courage to work for the greater good.

Genocide on Earth 3 would therefore potentially be a highly different concept morally speaking, and should not be compared to Earth 1 genocide.

That's a very long-winded explanation of hypothetical but I guess that's what it takes.

Oriphiel · 02-12-2017, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

We're not talking about "this world's" (heretofore referred to as Earth 1) concept of genocide though. On Earth 1 genocide has no justification, since eugenics has time and time again been proven to be bunk, and is therefore the result of irrational hatred and prejudice. There is simply no benefit to genocide on Earth 1.

However, my scenario posits the existence of... let's just call it Earth 3. On Earth 3, not only are certain races somehow genetically inferior (less intelligent, less physically capable) but also morally inferior. Blacks are a criminal race of mental deficients who will in fact steal your TV and rape your blonde wife. Jews are sneaky, greedy cowards who are using their control of banking to influence world politics to the detriment of the white race.

And on Earth 3 the white race are being kept from their full potential by these races. The Earth 1 that you are familiar with is not in fact what Earth 3 would be even without the Jews. Earth 3 would be better than Earth 1. Earth 3 would enter a new Golden Age of enlightenment, peace, and prosperity that might even rival Heaven or some ****. And all you have to do to achieve this new Eden is to do some terrible things. Things that your children and their children and their children's children will never have to contemplate because one generation had the moral courage to work for the greater good.

Genocide on Earth 3 would therefore potentially be a highly different concept morally speaking.

Yeah, I know. I'd still be against it. Even if one group was superior, I wouldn't trust them with the power to pick and choose who lives and who dies. All humans, regardless of genetics, are fallible. You really think they wouldn't take the opportunity to erase everyone politically opposed to them, and so on? Even people who fit their genetic criteria?

But I see your point. If, in your scenario, the "superior" group is somehow objectively immune to bouts of abusing their power, and would stop immediately after achieving their goal, the line becomes more muddled, but I would still say no on an instinctive level. At that point, it's kind of like how some people read Brave New World and see the utopian world in it to be a sort of heaven, while others see it as a monstrous hell.

The Batlord · 02-12-2017, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

That's a very long-winded explanation of hypothetical but I guess that's what it takes.

Last time I discovered that the best way to make someone start thinking in the actual terms of the thought experiment is to beat them over the head with the parameters and not let them think they were just deciding whether they'd ever murder their Jewish friend down the street.

OccultHawk · 02-12-2017, 11:45 AM

If I knew for certain that my life would be much better if I cut my penis off then I would cut my penis off. It's hard to imagine that amputating my favorite appendage would improve things but one must put that aside. That's the point of hypotheticals.

View Poll Results: Yay or Nay?
Yes.	2	12.50%
No.	14	87.50%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

02-12-2017, 10:33 AM	#52 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,006	Do you know what hypothetical means?

02-12-2017, 11:28 AM	#56 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,006	Because I felt like you were lecturing me based on my response to an impossible hypothetical scenario. Suzy - I get your reasoning that it puts me one step closer to supporting a potential genocidal campaign. I also agree that one most remain vigilant against becoming impressionable when insanity is sweeping through a culture. I feel like part of what the responses to this question reveals is that people feel like their could be some truth in Nazi reasoning. So maybe the flipside is equally disturbing.

02-12-2017, 11:45 AM	#60 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,006	If I knew for certain that my life would be much better if I cut my penis off then I would cut my penis off. It's hard to imagine that amputating my favorite appendage would improve things but one must put that aside. That's the point of hypotheticals.