Welcome back to: Destiny is retarded.
On today's episode, we have "Genocide is ok when we do it"
@LukeAlmighty I think you’re misinterpreting what he’s saying. Jews were actively being exterminated in Germany, and killing the people trying to kill you is self-defense. Notice that he says it was OK for jews to kill nazis, not Germans.
@dave
Oh, Hi Dave.
There are several ways of looking at it.
1) The old fassion war stance.
Meaning, that every war is amoral.
That obviously ain't his point.
Or, we can take the defense point.
Well, he didn't talk about defense there, did he? He said genocide. That means mass murdering, and if jews are genociding you under the flag of defense, that means you can defend against their "defense" justyfying the supposed original aggression.
Do you see the problem now?
@dave
But he didn't say it either way.
He said: I see one genocide as justified, but the 2nd one as immoral.
I see why you hate this point though :D
@LukeAlmighty Do you believe that it’s wrong to kill people that are trying to kill you?
@LukeAlmighty Not at all. I believe in an affirmative right to self-defense.
💀
@dave @LukeAlmighty
Destiny clearly states: "at the very least, people who were a part of the SS, or nazi politicians". Problem is, if you were a jewish person, it wouldn't be a nazi politician that would have their gun pointed at you. It might not even be a proper SS member. It's gonna be a low level grunt, that acts on the orders of his higher-ups. So the way I see it, this being an argument of killing out of self-defense makes no sense.
Self-defense works when your life is in IMMEDIATE threat, not when "well, I'm convinced those people are gonna eventually come to kill me because of their ideology". That's not self-defense, that's acting in anticipation of a threat. It's Minority Report, without an actual clairvoyant.
What Destiny seems to argue, is that if we're convinced the Nazis are an existential threat, we are in the right to kill them.
Forgive me for not going too much farther into the stream. Maybe there are better arguments made later on in the discussion, but frankly both of them simply annoy me when they speak.
Self-defense works when your life is in IMMEDIATE threat
Under most circumstances, yes. But most people are never going to run into a situation where they find out someone is planning to kill them in advance. Approximately a third of all living jews were exterminated in the holocaust, and the only reason it wasn’t all of them is because Hitler had bitten off more than he could chew and was defeated militarily. Jews organizing and killing the people actively trying to exterminate them would have absolutely been justified.
@LukeAlmighty @dave
This is why I've ended up hating the progressive left so fucking much. They've ended up mirroring the Nazis, that they claim they hate, so fucking much, that I honestly wonder if I'm the one taking crazy pills. That clip of the Joker is an adequate analogy of how modern left-wing political discourse is.... messing with my mind.
@LukeAlmighty @alyx “It was right for that armed robber to shoot his victim, because his victim would have killed him instead if he could have”
@dave @alyx
Your thinking is so one-dimensional.
You said, the jews were right to commit a genocide. From there on, the danger was established.
Your examples are based on "one side attacking first", but that's retarded. Both sides know, that the other one can attack at any moment. Do you understand that concept? A Stand off?
@LukeAlmighty @alyx How do you not understand that the jews WERE ACTIVELY BEING FUCKING KILLED. How does this fact keep slipping out of your mind?
@dave @LukeAlmighty
And the fact that Nazis vs Jews isn't a 1 person on 1 person confrontation (were you can argue self-defense) seems to be slipping out of your mind.
It's: a bunch of captured Jews, that would have been justified to kill in self-defense when they were being sent in the gas chambers; the nazis; and another bunch of Jews (and other nations) that were justified in pursuing a war to stop the genocide. But they were not justified in starting up their own genocide, because they were free men at that time, not in immediate thread of execution. Some of them were under a threat, which is why they were fighting a war, to stop the people threatening their lives.
And again, sometimes we are perfectly capable to stop crime without killing the criminal. Other times, the bastards will fight until the bitter end, and then, yes, you could end up killing them, justifiably so. But it is still preferable to try to disable them, than to shoot for the head, if that is an option.
But you can't start fighting back with the plan of genociding those that threatened you. That's not justified. And neither is it justified to kill those that surrender, which is what would happen in a genocide.
And the fact that Nazis vs Jews isn’t a 1 person on 1 person confrontation (were you can argue self-defense) seems to be slipping out of your mind
When we are talking about an organization that is trying to murder you and everyone you love, that organization needs to be destroyed. What it sounds like you’re saying is something like “you didn’t need to kill every nazi”. And frankly, that might be true. But it’s still a more just outcome than the holocaust.
@dave @LukeAlmighty
A moral abhorrence never justifies another. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
@dave @alyx
When I see an antifa guy on the street, I don't want to kill him.
But he thinks I am a nazi, and that I want to kill him. That makes him an active thread to ME.
And therefore, I AM actually justified to attacking him too, based on the fact, that he thinks, that I will attack him.
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND IT?
@LukeAlmighty @alyx In a scenario where “antifa” was a powerful organization actually rounding up and killing people that they believed were nazis, this is a credible threat to your life. So since it’s necessary to preserve your life, killing members of antifa would be justified.
In real life however, where antifa is just a bunch of college kids larping as revolutionaries…congratulations, you just murdered someone who wasn’t doing anything to you based on some schizo idea about what you think he thinks. There was no credible threat to your life, and you killed him. I see why you take after NEETzsche.
@LukeAlmighty @alyx Your life is not in danger dude, please touch grass.
@dave @LukeAlmighty
>killing members of antifa would be justified.
No. It's justified to capture them, put them to trial and imprison them. Nothing more.
@dave @LukeAlmighty
If you want to argue, that during attempted capture, the antifa fight back, your life is in immediate threat, and while fighting back some of them die. That is indeed self-defense. But if more antifa members die than it is necessary to simply capture them and stop their activities, you've gone beyond what is justifiable.
And that is what a genocide is. It's killing much more people than it is necessary to stop a threat. No matter how radical or fanatical a movement is, people will surrender when it is clear they don't have a chance of winning a battle. If you kill those that try to surrender, that's genocide. If you don't kill them, then you stopped at only killing those that posed an immediate threat to you on the battle field.
@dave @LukeAlmighty
Maybe part of the issue here is that you don't completely understand everything that a genocide entails.
Doing a genocide includes killing those individuals that don't pose any threat to you, whether it's because they surrendered to you already, because they're too young, old or invalid to be capable of doing you harm, or because those individuals simply never meant to do you any harm.
This is why you can't argue self-defense here. Because genocide, by definition, includes killing people who aren't a threat to you, just because the demographic they're a part of, by choice or not, who aren't actually an imminent threat to you.
White South Africans are targeted for racial violence routinely, making them actively killed. The government routinely threatens to "expropriate" their land "without compensation," and the people doing it sing "Kill The Boxer" as these demands hash out. When you combine these things, all racially motivated, you have an active extermination of Whites going on.
Which raises the following question: should South African Whites put down this active extermination with extreme prejudice? Your options are:
1) Yes, they absolutely should, because I, Dave, am internally consistent
2) No, in my system of thought, Whites uniquely lack the right to self defense on a racial scale (default if you do not answer)
Going to have to ask @LukeAlmighty and @alyx to forward the question to Dave since he blocked me.
@NEETzsche
> What should I do if I was face to face with Antifa people?
> But antifa people aren't around you.
What if it's just a low IQ?
@LukeAlmighty @alyx @dave
@dave @LukeAlmighty
Are you not aware of the typical nazi/neo-nazi/white supremacist arguments against Jews? Cause I tell you what, if for a second I thought any of it had any fucking merit... shit man.... there are some fucking serious accusations.
@LukeAlmighty @dave
Right, I forgot to say this initially. You can't argue against the fact that Nazis were trying to justify their actions by saying "muh juice are an existential threat to us".