What you just said didnt make sense. I guess you made it cryptic and semi poetic on purpose because when you tried to speak logically and even stretch a definition you looked kinda stupid.

In answer to your question which is not even germain to the issue, no. Love is not in accordance ot justice. Noone loved Tookie Williams aside fomr his mother maybe. But in the justice system and such. He was killed. and Justice was met. It was a loveless act.

Justice is loving. Justice sets fairness and equality in the scheme of humanity. What's best for the multitude in love by eliminating the minority in hate.

Hate is the majority FYI, and Justice has nothing to do with love. Stop verbally masterbating and grow up.

Evidence of justice not being loving would be? Justice is based on majority ruling and majority goes after what is right as one.

Whats right, and love arent one and the same.

Then what's right must be hateful.

No, not that either. Right tends to be neutral since right changes with each person. DUH.

But not everyone can be individually right. That's what makes individuals who rebel against wholesome standards of many are the ones who are wrong and are brought under one ruling that is right. That's justice. Love is for and hate is against. When justice poses as more for and less against it creates a balance.

Youd be suprised to know then that Hitler loved his people and thought he was doing the right thing.

I do know that but he was against his own people as well. Not right. He didn't see people as people and that's where he flawed.

No, he was FOR his people, the Germans. He was against Jews, and Communists and others whom he felt hurt his people. He was Right in his mind. He loves his people.

Justice is blind. It does not see race or origin. Justice is for all and what Hitler did was not justified by any means. The Jews were innocent and harmless to the rest of humanity. Hitler was against humanity and not for it.

Not according to him. Nor his party. In fact he was elected into power first. He was doing what he thought was right for his people, most of them agreed with him. in his mind he was justified and right. And to him the Jews were the enemies and not guilty. Sorry you lose.

Hahaha. There are no winners with you so that's none of my concern.
Here you are, justice.
Someone punches you so you punch them back.
Hitler threw the first punch not the second punch.
Hitler was the imbalance and not the balance.
He was justified in nothing because there existed a previous balance that needed no interference and in changing this balance he created an imbalance. Him, not the Jews. He was not the victim, the Jews were.

=/

Hitler was a disgruntled war vet, painter, vegitarian who had a niche in speaking to large audiences. The 1st punch was thrown by the unfair Treaty of Versaille which made Germany after WW1 even poorer and hungier than any modern nation at the time. The 30s depression in the Germany made the Depression in the USA look like the Roaring 20s. All caused by the brutal treatment of a treaty drafted by morons after WW1, and the Germans were made ot pay pretty much everything for a war they didnt start.

Stir in that depression, hunger and misery toss in 100s of political parties and 1 brilliant speaker and you have the mess of WW2.

Hitlers goal was to make a world safe for Aryan Germans. Because he felt they were being tricked and imprisoned to Jewish money lenders and what not. In his mind he was right. He was doing it for his people, he was reacting to the times he grew up in. In his mind he was right, and he was just.

Maybe you should learn something about the word "reletive" and read the book the guy wrote. I did. Cant say it was really all that good, but I did get an outlook into his mind most people dont have when they are busy making blanket claims about right and wrong.

Good thread.

Alright. Then prisons should be privately funded. Let the human rights and opponents of the death penalty pay to house and feed the convicted for extended periods of time.

Just like it's not fair for me to pay reparations for slavery, it's also not fair to ask me to condone the draining of my hard-earned money to indefinitely support a convicted murderer.

I'm all for swift execution.


Let's say the proverbial shit hits the fan. We get invaded, world-wide plague, fucking zombies walk the earth. The population is significantly thinned out, and mankind struggling to survive. So the survivors go into survival mode, doing whatever is necessary to maintain some quality of life. And I'm quite willing to lose a few to save the many.

Spell the word "relative" correctly, and I'll consider it.
I'm educated and perfectly aware of Hitler's regime.

The key phrase in this is "his mind". What he did was not justified because it was his personal idea of what was right for Germany. No one else's. He was against all other nations and races because he felt his was superior. He dug bones and did forensics on his ancestral grounds for a guide to what he thought was the only ideal race worthy on earth.
Now, take a murderer for instance. What do you suppose is going through his mind? The same principle is shown. He has some sort of excuse for why he felt the need for the dirty deed, but was it justified? No, it never is. He murdered an innocent person because he thought what he was doing was right, but was it? Not according to the majority when threatened by the minority. So, he is given a sentence to serve for the crime. That is justice. Hitler was not settling justice, he was stirring it. He was a murderer who had no right. He was hateful and not loving because he had a greater estimation of self than others. A greater estimation of Germany than any other country. Great enough to slaughter and conquer. The mind of a murderer clearly displayed. Love and justice are outward, not inward.

So, anyways. Comments are acknowledged when on subject.

Spell the word "ancestral" correctly, and I might bother to read the rest.