The Gaming Den

fectin wrote:That's option two. "They deserve it" is exactly the rationale behind the holocaust.

Dressing it up in sanctimony isn't new either.

No see, you missed the important part. The part that you failed to understand is that some people do deserve it, and some people don't.

See, if you run into Hitler, it's okay to shoot him in the face, but if you run into Barak Obama, it's not appropriate to shoot him in the face.

The justification for killing them both is the same, but sometimes the justification is right, and sometimes it is wrong.

Deciding that you can never ever figure out who does or doesn't deserve scorn is really dumb, and you are an idiot for making that decision.

Now, it's even dumber that you are actually settling down behind the position that the current German government that makes it illegal to be a Nazi is exactly as bad as the Nazi government. That's just fucking hilarious.

I'm not sure how anyone seriously proposed that hating Nazis is equivalent to hating Jews. Is this a joke? Trolling?

The nazi ideology is one of suppression/extermination of "biologically inferior beings," where "biologically inferior beings" is everyone but heterosexual white men. When you say, "I'm a nazi," you are saying "I subscribe to an ideology that believes only heterosexual white men are fit to govern the world and all others should, best case, bow before us, or; worst case, be exterminated."

Now, the Jewish ideology as expressed in the old testament is... pretty much exactly as fucking terrible as that ("we are the chosen people and god hates everyone but us"). And I'm all for hating fundamentalist judaism exactly as much as I hate nazism, because both of those groups believe terrible things that make the world a worse place when put into action. But the typical Jewish person is not that hardcore about their religion, and while if they follow their religion at all they believe something stupid but at least it's not "you know, I really think we should kill or enslave the rest of the world on the premise of our inherent superiority."

Since when was it impossible to judge a group for the traits that group professes to have? Are you proposing that there is some Nazi who doesn't believe in white supremacy? Then that's not a fucking Nazi, they're using the wrong word. If white supremacy is terrible, then groups whose defining feature is "believes in white supremacy" are terrible. We don't have to grudgingly accept their beliefs because you can put an -ism on the end of their name.

DSM, it's really difficult every time you post in a thread, because it seems like you are genuinely incapable of keeping track of a conversation that has already occurred, and you can reread until you get it.

Read the bullshit 3 options fectin gave, none of which include executing Nazis.

I presented an alternative theory, that another option is to correctly determine who deserves punishment, and then punish those people.

Fectin said that's just being a Nazi, because the Nazis thought the Jews deserved it.

Fectin is retarded, and I am mocking him for believing that anyone who thinks they know who deserves punishment is just a Nazi precisely because hopefully he will realize how fucking wrong his categories are, since they actually boil down to:

1) Never oppose the Nazis because anyone who hates Nazis is as bad as Nazis.

2) Anyone at all who acts to punish anyone else ever.

3) Decide that even though you don't like the Nazis, it would still be bad to actually oppose them, and let them conquer Europe because it would be impolite to stop them.

(Note, he'll probably say it's okay to stop them from invading France, but not okay to stop them from seizing power in Germany. But because that's only a difference of number of Jews killed, not principle, I'm going to ignore his arbitrary distinctions.)

Now of course, all the things he said logically lead to letting the Nazis seize power because it would be rude to stop them. But of course, fectin is probably not specifically as stupid as he is generally, so I'm sure that in any given situation, he can realize how much his general principles are retarded, and therefore I will keep speaking in terms of specific examples, like a goddam German law that makes it illegal to be a Nazi and advocate for the murder of all the Jews. This law is not as bad as being a Nazi because it takes a strong stance that X is better than Y and doesn't pussy foot around pretending to be tolerant. It's still a law that is infinitely better than being a Nazi, and the reason is because it condemns the people who should be condemned.

TL;DR Fectin seriously proposed hating Nazis is equivalent to hating Jews, because he specifically said that determining that some people deserve hate (IE Nazis) is exactly the same as "option 2: racist."

Well, since you're the one advocating "punishing" an entire broad group, I feel fairly secure on the high ground here.

Nazi party membership in Germany peaked around 8 million, so yes: when you automatically say any individual Nazi (e.g. Schindler), or the group as a whole "deserves punishment" that's pretty much the same as Stormfront raging about the minority du jour.

For the rest, well done pummeling that strawman. Keep practicing, and I'm sure someday you'll make devastating points about a position you didn't have to make up first.

fectin wrote:Well, since you're the one advocating "punishing" an entire broad group, I feel fairly secure on the high ground here.

Are you also against punishing the broad category of "rapists"?

I mean, what the fuck is your problem that you genuinely think there is no functional difference between black people and the group of people who make it their explicit mission to murder all the black people?

@Kaelik, I genuinely have no idea why the fuck you sperged out at me. Well, no, I get that; you're Kaelik, and that is what you do. But what I actually don't understand is what mistaken impression in your head drove you to this particular sperg-out.

You do actually realize I agree with you, yes? And you do realize I'm disagreeing with Fectin, yes? And you also realize my argument (Nazis definitionally believe something terrible and condemnable, and are therefore punishable) is... well, basically your argument, yes? What exactly are you ever-so-helpfully 'correcting' me on, again?

Fectin wrote:Nazi party membership in Germany peaked around 8 million, so yes: when you automatically say any individual Nazi (e.g. Schindler), or the group as a whole "deserves punishment" that's pretty much the same as Stormfront raging about the minority du jour.

The part where Schindler supported the Nazi party is terrible. The fact that he had a moral change of heart when he saw the rhetoric being put into action on people he knew means he was less "totally evil" and more "short-sighted moron." But don't act like saving a handful of jews makes Schindler an infallible saint. The part where he saved hundreds of lives is good; the part where he supported an organization which killed millions is bad. And that's really clear.

See, the reason we create groupings is because those groupings have some set of universal traits. That is how you're able to make the grouping. Jewish people universally have the trait of belonging to a specific common ethnicity, and possibly some religious beliefs thrown in there. Black people universally have the trait being of African descent. And nazis universally have the trait of believing in white supremacy. If believing in white supremacy is condemnable (it is), then being a nazi is condemnable (it is).

What you're actually arguing is "not all Nazis are equally Nazi-ish! Some are just stupid/obeying authority/swept up by nationalism/raised poorly/whatever." And that's true, but that's not an argument for "oh, okay, so it turns out being a Nazi is okay then, and we should ignore it." Because we can replace that with "not all murderers are equally murderer-ish! Some are just stupid/obeying authority/swept up by nationalism/raised poorly/whatever." Does that make it okay to be a murderer? Fuck no. What you've established is that we judge and punish people for condemnable behaviors while taking into account circumstance. But that's obvious, and not at all an argument for not judging/punishing any Nazi/murderer/rapist ever.

Kaelik wrote:

fectin wrote:Well, since you're the one advocating "punishing" an entire broad group, I feel fairly secure on the high ground here.

Are you also against punishing the broad category of "rapists"?

I mean, what the fuck is your problem that you genuinely think there is no functional difference between black people and the group of people who make it their explicit mission to murder all the black people?

Judging is bad. Good kids don't judge. Do you like to be judged ? No you don't. So don't judge. Ok ?

The Vigilante wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

fectin wrote:Well, since you're the one advocating "punishing" an entire broad group, I feel fairly secure on the high ground here.

Are you also against punishing the broad category of "rapists"?

I mean, what the fuck is your problem that you genuinely think there is no functional difference between black people and the group of people who make it their explicit mission to murder all the black people?

Judging is bad. Good kids don't judge. Do you like to be judged ? No you don't. So don't judge. Ok ?

Smart kids don't give a shit about peoples' judgements.

DSMatticus wrote:@Kaelik, I genuinely have no idea why the fuck you sperged out at me. Well, no, I get that; you're Kaelik, and that is what you do. But what I actually don't understand is what mistaken impression in your head drove you to this particular sperg-out.

You do actually realize I agree with you, yes? And you do realize I'm disagreeing with Fectin, yes? And you also realize my argument (Nazis definitionally believe something terrible and condemnable, and are therefore punishable) is... well, basically your argument, yes? What exactly are you ever-so-helpfully 'correcting' me on, again?

I do actually realize that in your last post you asked if anyone was arguing what fectin was clearly arguing, so I explained the situation, because if you actually knew what was going on you wouldn't have asked that.

Kaelik wrote:I do actually realize that in your last post you asked if anyone was arguing what fectin was clearly arguing, so I explained the situation, because if you actually knew what was going on you wouldn't have asked that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

I suppose it is hard to express the incredulous tone through the internet, but the three-paragraph rant which follows is what we call a 'clue.'

Prak_Anima wrote: Smart kids don't give a shit about peoples' judgements.

Not exactly: peoples' judgement is one of the things that helps people develop healthy habits, like "not being the smelly kid". Now we shouldn't give a shit if people have such judgements as "You condemn Nazis, therefore you are a bad person", because they are wrong, but some judgements are certainly worth paying attention to.

The fact is that all Nazis are bad, and you are totally safe to make this statement and judge them based on that. Note that, unlike being black, you can choose whether or not to be a Nazi, so if you label yourself as one, it's entirely your fault and you deserve the scorn you receive. Nazis have a worldview that is entirely unacceptable, and so it is the responsibility of people to judge them based on this, so that more people will say "Yes, those Nazis are dickheads and nobody likes them. I won't become a Nazi."

I don't understand why people put layer upon layer of toilet paper on the toilet seat, but touch the toilet handle with their bare hands.

Because they don't want to sit in the pee / poop of the previous person and wash their hands after touching the toilet handle?

The Vigilante wrote:Judging is bad. Good kids don't judge. Do you like to be judged ? No you don't. So don't judge. Ok ?

The irony of somebody calling themself "the vigilante" and then saying something like this is staggering.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:Judging is bad. Good kids don't judge. Do you like to be judged ? No you don't. So don't judge. Ok ?

The irony of somebody calling themself "the vigilante" and then saying something like this is staggering.

I assumed he was being sarcastic. Because yeah, if not, it would be extra retarded.

Kaelik wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:Judging is bad. Good kids don't judge. Do you like to be judged ? No you don't. So don't judge. Ok ?

The irony of somebody calling themself "the vigilante" and then saying something like this is staggering.

I assumed he was being sarcastic. Because yeah, if not, it would be extra retarded.

I would've thought it obvious.

ishy wrote:Because they don't want to sit in the pee / poop of the previous person and wash their hands after touching the toilet handle?

the toilet seat is the cleanest thing in your bathroom. The toilet handle is the dirtiest.

Ted the Flayer wrote:

ishy wrote:Because they don't want to sit in the pee / poop of the previous person and wash their hands after touching the toilet handle?

the toilet seat is the cleanest thing in your bathroom. The toilet handle is the dirtiest.

Wow, so people actually do things based off of perceptions, and not off of absolute facts? Color me shocked.

Oh, damn. I hurt. I had fun, but I hurt.

I had a great weekend. Went to a family get-together Saturday, ended up throwing a frisbee (and similar) for two hours.

Then came home and found out the neighbors had made a slip-and-slide by dint of spreading out a tarp and slicking it up. I spent a good hour sending kids from one end of it to the other.

I wasn't actually too bad off yesterday morning from that. A little sore, but that's not unexpected--it's not like I do formal exercise, I just do stuff. And later yesterday, they broke it out again and I again assisted the kids going down the end (get them to lay down and then I'd yank their wrist to send them sliding across the tarp.

Then there was the moment when I took myself out to avoid running over a kid, when I took a try on the sliding myself. I was running at the tarp, and a two-year-old wandered out in front of me. If I went into a slide, I'd plow right over him. The difference in mass would make this...unacceptably injurious to the squirt. So I tried to stop, still ran on to the tarp, my feet slid out from under me, and then I landed flat on my back and bounced the back of my head off the ground a moment later. A quick concussion self-test later (I could focus my eyes on various distances, I knew who everyone around me was, I knew who the President was and who wrote Hamlet), and I was back up.

So now I'm sore as hell (to the point that getting out of a deep chair was a problem just now) and the excuse "Ma'am, I don't think I'll be able to make it today, I crippled myself playing frisbee and playing in the water with the neighborhood kids" isn't going to fly very far.

PoliteNewb wrote:

Ted the Flayer wrote:

ishy wrote:Because they don't want to sit in the pee / poop of the previous person and wash their hands after touching the toilet handle?

the toilet seat is the cleanest thing in your bathroom. The toilet handle is the dirtiest.

Wow, so people actually do things based off of perceptions, and not off of absolute facts? Color me shocked.

Plus, people don't like sitting in piss even if it is usually reasonably sterile.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote:

Ted the Flayer wrote:
the toilet seat is the cleanest thing in your bathroom. The toilet handle is the dirtiest.

Wow, so people actually do things based off of perceptions, and not off of absolute facts? Color me shocked.

Plus, people don't like sitting in piss even if it is usually reasonably sterile.

If we're talking about public restrooms, I'm pretty sure everything is covered in piss anyway.

DSMatticus wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote:
Wow, so people actually do things based off of perceptions, and not off of absolute facts? Color me shocked.

Plus, people don't like sitting in piss even if it is usually reasonably sterile.

If we're talking about public restrooms, I'm pretty sure everything is covered in piss anyway.

Including the toilet handle.

Do you wash your ass after you go to a public restroom?

Do you wash your hands after you go to a public restroom?


The answer lies within.

This does remind me of some pictures I saw of public restrooms after a festival day. I was actually quite amazed at how shitty people appear to be at taking a shit.

Major lightning storm in Oakland, CA (USA) right now. I'm posting from a covered enclosure outside while the elements pound around me. Pretty cool.

Every half-minute or so the whole area gets lit up by lightning. You can hear the thunder 3-4 seconds after, usually. I went for a walk earlier and my shoes got soaked even with me hopping over all the streams of water running down streets and sidewalks at high speed.
EDIT: I had a pretty decent umbrella too.