Kindness Vs. Intelligence

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sorry but this whole post is pure nonsense. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, period, and you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge about who Hitler actually was. I'm not talking about Nazi sympathies, I'm just pointing out that while the media likes to portray Hitler as pure evil, he was complex character. That of course doesn't excuse what he did, but human behavior is more complex than that, especially when it comes to people in power because there are so many factors at play and people are so far removed from the effects of their actions. There is a lot more to history than just the Nazi propaganda and anti-Nazi propaganda. I'm saying these things not to support the Nazi's, but because I'm studying the eugenics movement now, and you need to understand the enemy in order to stop them because due to black and white thinking we are missing the evil as it's coming back into our culture.

No, the reason I don't understand is because you have one of the most confusing ways of writing ever, its full of assumptions and unnecessary words and it's extremely indirect. You've also shown a failure of comprehension on many points and base your response on said misconception, making it even more incoherent. Anyway, I didn't contradict myself, you just failed to parse the sentence correctly. The presence of the apparent contradiction combined with the qualifier "basically" explains what is meant, as there is one interpretation which resolves the superficial contradiction. It's just a way of establishing ceteris paribus, which can also be expressed by "all OTHER things equal". I don't mean any offense, just to clarify the situation, but it only doesn't make sense to you because you have some clear problems with language. Yes, I made some typos which would be confusing if you read everything literally, but all the information is there in the context.

An intelligent individual may not see that value in kindness, but even a psychopath can see the manipulation value in kind acts even if the end objective is not to be kind.

I'm a firm believer in that there is no such thing as a selfless act, at the basic form it is producing some stimulation to the brain. It doesn't necessarily make the act immoral though.

So, I agree an intelligent individual doesn't necessarily want to be kind. However there are certain forms of intelligence where empathy plays more of a role and as intelligent group animals empathy has played some role is regulating societies and proprieties, which is itself intelligent strategy for group survival. Of course that is dependent on if the individual has any inclination toward group survival. Chimps are extremely violent yet empathy still plays a role, such as documented tool sharing to obtain food where one individual pleads for the tool.

I fear sometimes that you are right. People don't generally do things that require loss. And I have found that the more in need you are, the less people are likely to be sympathetic; rather they become irritated. It's a sad thing to be aware of and I try to forget about it.

I do think that it is intelligent to be kind. Things are more pleasant that way. I witness a lot of nastiness in my building and it is not conducive to enjoyment of life. This makes me wonder about kindness: is it the act of kindness, or the feeling of sympathy that matters?

That good feeling is an example of the lack of selflessness. You brain is getting positive stimulus. However not everyone will get this stimulus, such as psychopaths. However they will seek another form of stimulus.

But people can decide to rationally follow rules regardless of the how they feel because they believe in the principle of the rules.

Hi again Ganondox :

You said:
I'm sorry but this whole post is pure nonsense. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, period, and you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge about who Hitler actually was. I'm not talking about Nazi sympathies, I'm just pointing out that while the media likes to portray Hitler as pure evil, he was complex character. That of course doesn't excuse what he did, but human behavior is more complex than that, especially when it comes to people in power because there are so many factors at play and people are so far removed from the effects of their actions. There is a lot more to history than just the Nazi propaganda and anti-Nazi propaganda. I'm saying these things not to support the Nazi's, but because I'm studying the eugenics movement now, and you need to understand the enemy in order to stop them because due to black and white thinking we are missing the evil as it's coming back into our culture.


Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, period, and you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge about who Hitler actually was Thank you again Ganondox for your explanation. But if you were to look on-line in say...Google...and if you were interested enough to read some of the things there concerning Hitler's legacy and OTHER people's opinions you'll quickly learn THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE OPINION CONCERNING HITLER'S KINDNESS. It seems however you, in your infinite wisdom, find that hard to believe and therefor use the term "ignorant" to describe anyone not in agreement with you. This is of course your right to believe this way and protect the reputation of your kind and loving Hitler. You're young...perhaps you'll change your mind over time (unless you've already been totally propagandized); please take the time to investigate further on-line sources...I use Wikipedia as a beginning source.

No, the reason I don't understand is because you have one of the most confusing ways of writing ever, its full of assumptions and unnecessary words and it's extremely indirect. You've also shown a failure of comprehension on many points and base your response on said misconception, making it even more incoherent. Anyway, I didn't contradict myself, you just failed to parse the sentence correctly. The presence of the apparent contradiction combined with the qualifier "basically" explains what is meant, as there is one interpretation which resolves the superficial contradiction. It's just a way of establishing ceteris paribus, which can also be expressed by "all OTHER things equal". I don't mean any offense, just to clarify the situation, but it only doesn't make sense to you because you have some clear problems with language. Yes, I made some typos which would be confusing if you read everything literally, but all the information is there in the context.

I don't mean any offense That's very nice. I don't mean any either. You made typos??? All the information is there??? I have one of the most confusing ways of writing ever??? I'm honored.

How about this????: If you become confused with something I write, then why not just ask me for clarification...no one will think less of you. Just because you don't understand (for your own personal reasons) something someone has written is no reason to try to accuse them of anything. Perhaps you should read more diverse authors? And perhaps when you observe myself or anyone else who, in your estimation, has some clear problems with language then speak up and show us what a nice person you are and help that person out with your expert clarification?

You're full of assumptions which will fade as you grow older.

P.S. Sorry you don't like my writing style...it's not meant to be simple and I'll be happy to be quite specific about anything I've written (mea culpa...I make assumptions as well).

I feel that kindness is more important than intelligence most of the time. Than again, I'm not the brightest. Intelligence is fine just as long as someone with superior intelligence doesn't treat me like I'm unaware of the world around me.

Haha no. You aren't ignorant for having a different opinion about Hitler, but for not understanding the history of the Nazi party (makes since, because given your age anti-Nazi propaganda would have been more prevalent and the Nazi's would have had more emotional impact to cloud objective reasoning about the people who the party consisted of). Hitler was kind to animals beyond what was needed for practical reasons in both policy and personal life, so it's clear he was actually in some since kind. But nice attempt at an ad hominem by trying to make me look like a neo-nazi by claiming that my Hitler is "kind and loving". You completely misinterpreted the actual implications of my claim. Your baseless snark is not needed, it's just a symptom of a lack of intellectual integrity, so please get out.

I DID ask for clarification, but you decided to be rude about it rather than just clarifying your position, and you are just continuing your rudeness, blaming all misunderstanding on me when it's clear you have problem. So please stop YOUR parade of intellectual superiority and shut up because you are contributing nothing, all you've done is by a condescending jerk. Now I'm definitely not going to take any of your nonsense seriously.

Last edited by Ganondox on 21 Nov 2016, 1:33 am, edited 3 times in total.

I think this may be true, and the problem with my model is that in most circumstances it's easy to differentiate between which choice is more beneficial. It's only for the really complicated issues the intelligence is more important.

Kindness tends to be an action or a type of applied intelligence that demonstrates an understanding of the issue at hand.
Intelligence can lead to kind actions that benefit self/others.
Separately they can both lead to social benefits, but have a more meaningful impact when combined.

Haha no. You aren't ignorant for having a different opinion about Hitler, but for not understanding the history of the Nazi party (makes since, because given your age anti-Nazi propaganda would have been more prevalent and the Nazi's would have had more emotional impact to cloud objective reasoning about the people who the party consisted of). Hitler was kind to animals beyond what was needed for practical reasons in both policy and personal life, so it's clear he was actually in some since kind. But nice attempt at an ad hominem by trying to make me look like a neo-nazi by claiming that my Hitler is "[b]kind and loving". You completely misinterpreted the actual implications of my claim. Your baseless snark is not needed, it's just a symptom of a lack of intellectual integrity, so please get out. [/b]

Haha??? This seems to be, once again, your failure to properly identify what your're trying to say.

You want to have people follow your view of Hitler being "kind" but again, either DO NOT KNOW what you're trying to talk about and/or you're unwilling to read the facts for yourself or communicate honestly about the facts you THINK you do know.
WHAT IS THIS WONDERFUL "KINDNESS" you attempt to teach others of???? Can you even explain it????

Please tell me if you've already heard this:

One major feature of Hitler's rise to power was his repudiation of Christianity and all it stood for.

He contended Christians and Christian values are what brought Germany to it's knees. (But perhaps you dispute this?)

He said that in the future Germany would return to it's previous barbarian Germanic ways. ( " " " )

WHAT would KINDNESS mean to such a person???? I see his kindness as being "The kindness of death" and the proof is all the millions of mutilated bodies. But please go ahead and give us the results of your investigation into Hitler's personal life; did you have to go to Germany to look up the records or are you just lamely accepting statements you blindly accept??? Let me guess......

Yes yes I'm aware of a popular movie that painted Hitler favorably and was praised by many (Nazis) in Germany....What? Did you think all those fanatics and their families would suddenly fade away or perhaps turn into peace loving Christians?

The idea here, as I read it, is to suggest Hitler wasn't all bad and go on to justify his killing ways as being meant to be good for Germany (while HE amassed a secret personal fortune of hundreds of millions of Deutschmarks). I guess that means you're partly right as it was obvious he was always very kind TO HIMSELF...perhaps this is what you meant?

I DID ask for clarification, but you decided to be rude about it rather than just clarifying your position, and you are just continuing your rudeness, blaming all misunderstanding on me when it's clear you have problem. So please stop YOUR parade of intellectual superiority and shut up because you are contributing nothing, all you've done is by a condescending jerk. Now I'm definitely not going to take any of your nonsense seriously

I feel I gave you clarification of anything I could. Is there more? Can you be specific? You never have any misunderstandings???? How can this be??? Please be more specific in your statements...can't you??? You sound exactly like I imagine the fools running in the streets these days...You have little to contribute and when others make statements you are unable to relate to then you start calling names...I hope you grow up more and drop this attitude.

"Now I'm definitely not going to take any of your nonsense seriously" Which means you respectfully read other things I've written...come to a conclusion that I should be taken seriously and now, because of a disagreement or misunderstanding you'll revise your previous thinking??? How strange.

"So please stop YOUR parade of intellectual superiority and shut up because you are contributing nothing, all you've done is by a condescending jerk." A little clumsy...(I see what you mean about errors) but you get your point across. I never claimed "intellectual superiority"...are you having problems keeping up with the conversation???

The only thing I might claim (however weak) might be more experience". Do you know what I mean??? For example YOU might think, that at your present age, you may understand things better than when you were 16. And I hope you will understand thing better (in context) when you are 30 or 40 or 50 or what ever. Or perhaps you think you are now at the highest level of understanding, wisdom and intelligence you will ever be???? (I hope not)

And lastly, since you seem to get so upset at my style and statements, why not just ignore what I say and live in your own little word where no illogical "condescending jerk" (your KIND words) type people can upset you?

I was raised by an ideological Nazi, in my formative years, so would contribute an insight, about animal welfare.

A eugenicist would not be kind to sickly or non-standard (for their breed) animals.

I have "tmi," on that, but would prefer not to burden the forum with it.



A pragmatic compromise was reached, in which the church and Christian holidays were used as a vehicle to promote Hitler-ism, gradually leaning, back, toward the paganism of former days. It was called "positive Christianity," and resembles our prosperity preachers, who are somewhat mystical, at times, Dominionist, triumphalist, but justified by works. Aside from outward appearances of piety, the doctrine would be flexible.

So, how are you supposed to 'test the spirits,' as the saying goes. In other words, what makes any prospective candidate Biblical, as according to Scripture.

SJW's are blithe nihilists, in all fairness. But, wishing people a Happy Yule, while harming others, does not make you a good a person, either.

I am not having this conversation, as it's completely off-topic and you've just been rude.

Going to reply to this because even though it's off topic you have not been condescending and sarcastic (while not even understanding what points I was actually making).

The actual Nazi party is not synonymous with eugenics. Afterall, eugenics was actually more popular in the US than it was in Germany, the Nazis just drove it further because they had the power to do so. The Nazi party actually played a huge part in advancing animal welfare, most the modern German animal rights laws originate with the Nazi regime.



Hitler was very much opposed to Christianity, but he played face to work with the system as if he didn't it would have been political suicide. He pretended to be Christian in order to get support. It should be noted that one of the things he hated about Christianity was the way it traditionally treated animals.