Sieg Heil to the King, Baby - Inappropriate Obsessions

Post Reply New Topic

Ok....what are your terms?

Unless they are radically different than alot of other people's "terms" in
this respect....yes......i'll probably strongly, but respectfully, disagree.


You are telling me about human mental constructs. Last time I checked, it doesn't
appear that any human mental constructs have proven to be objective truth. You
are the one who is so adamant about "knowing" the objective nature of good and
bad.... so the burden of proof falls upon you.

Last edited by Horus on 21 May 2010, 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

"An unshakeable belief in objective good and evil is the most dangerous thing in the world. It is exactly what fueled Hitler's murderous empire and Torquemada's Inquistion, Mao's "Great leap forward" and cultural revolution, America's holy crusade against communism, Abortion clinic bombings,
Islamic terrorism, etc....."
Hmm...it's not so much the belief in objective right and wrong, I think. It's the belief that these standards are more important than people's lives.

What all of the evils you mentioned have in common is that the perpetrators placed ideas before people, IMO.

Right,the problem lies not with the unshakeable belief in an objective good but in the way u apply it and in many ways the way u apply it is a test of it's objectivity(hence the more scientific facet of morality),
One of the most annoying things in my life as AS and i read lot's of posts here and there that strengthen my sense that this is a problem shared by many aspies is the distance between words and deeds,like u get a lot of people who talk big and do so little if not the opposite altogether/
In an attempt to be too smart to your own good people here tend to ignore the simplest and most basic fact,
Hitler practiced his beliefs by murdering anyone around him,including his own ppl
He is not going to hell as he himself is hell personified
words are nice but to get closer to objective good u need to find a value system that let u be nice to the people surround u and not killing them
it maybe that the definition of "nice" should be a valid item for discussion specially as the autistic nice is quite different from the NT "nice" but initiating a genocide is definitely not "nice" and this has nothing to do with how the majority see things,
looks like that in a quest to sound original at all costs people tend to loose grasp of the simplest fact of reality

Exactly....but the stakes are often very high in such standards since they usually
involve politics, religion, or both. People often lay the blame for such things at
the feet of science and reason. I would say if we lived in a world in which the
principles of science and reason prevailed, we would have far fewer evils like
those mentioned. Everyone of these things was the by-product of irrational
beliefs about jews, "witches", "communists", "capitalists", "infidels", "baby killers",
etc.....

In each case.....the perpetrators demonized the victims and once a group of people
is perceived as a threat to one's own survival, way of life, nation, etc...killing them IS
your moral duty. Jews were trying to set up a global empire and enslave the aryan
people....throw in gas chambers for the "final solution" to this mortal threat.

Ho chi Minh was going to get in his canoe and paddle to San Fransciso to rape
our sisters....drop napalm and agent orange on millions of southeast asians who
would aid and abed him.

The old woman who lives alone in the woods was seen cavorting with the devil.....burn her at the stake.

etc......


Even the most modern example is not much of an exaggeration.

i don't believe in god or heaven either, but i think the idea is if you go around murdering a bunch of people you're sort of disqualified ..

Heh, my comment was on Nara's post rather than yours - think we must have cross posted, I spent some time toning down my snarkiness . I'd still put the Sherman and T-34 above the Panther on overall grounds (and a Firefly was a rough match on tactical grounds anyway), but certainly, if the Germans had concentrated on building Panthers and Panzer IVs they'd have done better for themselves.



Or one Firefly. As it is customary to append.

US sent Shermans (amoung other vehicles) to Russians. Russians didn't like it and called it "coffin for five comrades".

Oh god, I was pretty obsessed with Nazi Germany for a while in high school. I was learning German, and in my junior and senior years we learned about German history as well.
I still love it/find it fascinating. I wouldn't want to live there/be a Nazi, but I love learning about the third reich. ("Tausendjähriges Reich!" lol)

As for me, I'd say my love of death and disease is relatively inappropriate.
I have a few hundred photos on my computer of accidents/murders/gore in general, as well as gory disease photos (like syphilis, I love syphilis!).
In some ways my obsession is acceptable, because I'm studying to become a forensic pathologist, but I still don't know what the kids in my forensic anthropology class would think of me if they knew I had a collection of photos of dead people...lol.

someone who can't actually rationalize things? thought god was forgiving and supreme love. but give em purgatory or somethin'

@nara44...

I'm not going to go line by line to respond...

But I just don't understand why you bring science into this.

My beliefs are not science-based nor would I think any sort of majority of scientists agree...

So I don't understand why you

a) insist there is one set of objective rules for morality/faith... when there is clearly a wide dispute (without even consulting scientists...) on this matter and yet you can't imagine why anyone would question you... it has nothing to do with scientists and they are BY FAR not the only ppl that support subjective morality (not even saying they DO... just paraphrasing you)... but it's a pretty common belief from many people.

b)i still say you have no clue how science works and think you just need someone/something to project your issues on

c)i'm glad you have your beliefs. everyone needs something that works for them.


so peace... i don't wanna derail the thread any more.

this is why this is an obsessive inappropriate topic.

Sorry.....that was entirely my fault. For some stupid reason, (probably because your post to Nara about all this came soon after mine. I guess I just ignored
the quotebox and foolishly assumed you were directly replying to me) I thought you
were responding to my comments about all this.

Anyway.....I think to some extent we're working from a different definition of
"superiority" here. I'll grant you that the T-34/Sherman WAS superior to any
German tank for all practical and tactical purposes. The facts that these machines
were more suited for mass production, cheaper to manufacture and easier to
maintain gives them that edge. Overall they had the mobility edge as well, even
over comparably mobile german tanks like the panther.

Still....in and of themselves so to speak....i'd still say the panther was superior.
If they mobility "kinks" had been resolved, the panther would've been vastly
superior to either tank and these were certainly improved in the G model panther.

But I will also concede that the firefly was, overall, at least on equal footing
with the panther. In fact....APDS rounds for the 17pdr gun on the firefly had
significantly greater AP capacity than any of the rounds fired from the panther's
KwK 42 L/70 75mm gun. It's armour was still weaker than the panther's though
and the firefly wasn't available in large numbers until early 1945 due to shortages
of the 17pdr guns. The optics in the panther were also superior to those in the
or any other allied tank.

At any rate...due to the substantial mobility edge of the firefly and it's excellent
17pdr gun, I will concede.

I just usually don't take the firefly into consideration in my "best overall tank
of WW-II" judgements because they weren't available in great numbers until
very late in the war.

The british actually produced some very good tanks too like the
Comet.

The heavy Soviet tanks (much like the german heavies though for different
reasons) were mostly overrated IMO.

Including the infamous JS-III which caused such a stir in the postwar western
democracies.

It's a little-known fact that the Americans and British actually HAD
guns with significantly superior AP capacity to anything the Germans
produced with the possible exception of 128mm mounted on the
Jagdtiger and the ridiculous Maus "supertanks" which never saw
combat.

It's just that none were ever mounted on any armored vehicle
that saw combat aside from the two "super pershing" tanks
which got a little action in the final days of the European war.

These two tanks had the longer T54 version of the 90mm gun
and this AP capacity of this gun was probably greater than even
the KwK 43 L/71 88mm mounted on the King Tiger.

Though i'm not sure if that's the case with the tungsten-cored Pzgr. 40/43
round created for the KwK 43 gun. This round was in very short
supply in any case thanks to a shortage of tungsten.

The Americans and British created even larger caliber high-velocity guns
though which were never mounted on an armored vehicle which saw
combat.

Two examples of Hitler-resque style "bigger is better" thinking on the part of
the Americans and British:

The American T28 "gun motor carriage":

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomas-merton/2343954225/

The British A39 Tortoise "heavy assault tank":

http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/tanks/gb ... /02964.jpg


I can't imagine what anyone was thinking when they envisioned these
super-massive AFV's which were little more than marginally mobile
fortifications of zero tactical utility at all.

That's mainly because of the gasoline/petrol engine on the Sherman though.


I don't think the T-34's armour was so much more resistant to anti-tank fire
than the Sherman's.


I can't be sure about this though as i've heard too many conflicting "professional"
accounts in this regard.

If the T-34's armour was more resistant, it certainly wasn't by much though.

If anyone cares....this is an excellent site comparing the qualities
of various WW-II battleships of all the major combatants save
the Soviets.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm#guns

If anybody wants, I have a big gallery of German tanks

What was it that excited you the most? The goose stepping or the burning of books?

ruveyn