3 ms·
Of course I agree with OP that one can't be nice to Nazis. But he should have also mentioned that one should not be nice to anyone who kills innocent humans. No
by jan_m_savage 15d ago
Of course I agree with OP that one can't be nice to Nazis. But he should have also mentioned that one should not be nice to anyone who kills innocent humans. Not just the Nazis.
EDIT: is there something wrong with my statement? Don't be a coward and downvote silently. Tell me how what I wrote is wrong?
- zulux 15d ago[flagged]
- deleted 14d ago[deleted]
- jan_m_savage 14d agoAre you being sarcastic or are you a midwit?
- ath3nd 14d ago[dead]
- someguynamedq 14d agoI'm not voting either way on your comment (I don't have downvote rights), but it's clear to me why it's being downvoted, so I'll say it if they're not. The Nazi example was clear and useful in the original post. It's a thing that almost everyone will be on the same side of. The point is that it is an extreme example, not the most generic possible example, in order to demonstrate the point that "there exists at least one scenario where being nice is not mandatory." Because the original example was already sufficient for the purpose, it comes across as suspect that you are suggesting that he should not have used it as an example. The natural suspicion would be that you are in some way trying to blur the separation between Nazis and run of the mill murderers of innocents, I.e. implying perhaps that they are not much worse than others. I don't know what your intent is, but many believe Nazis to be much worse than ordinary innocent killers, so your statement implying they are the same is probably rubbing those people the wrong way