Who wants to kill the elderly?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by David Quinn »

By your own criteria, yes.

However, I don't agree with your idea that whoever thinks he's right is automatically a fool. He would only be a fool if he was wrong.

-
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Steven »

David Quinn wrote:By your own criteria, yes.

However, I don't agree with your idea that whoever thinks he's right is automatically a fool. He would only be a fool if he was wrong.

-
And who is the judge?

Seig Heil!
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by David Quinn »

Steven wrote:
David Quinn wrote:By your own criteria, yes.

However, I don't agree with your idea that whoever thinks he's right is automatically a fool. He would only be a fool if he was wrong.
And who is the judge?

Seig Heil!
Are you saying that anyone who makes a judgment is akin to being Hitler?

That in itself is a judgment.

-
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by samadhi »

Killing some people to benefit others in all of history has only been implemented by those who believe it is their right to decide for everyone the meaning of life. The meaning is always quite prosaic, what's good for me and mine. Ryan comes along and give us the same tired, worn-out, self-serving justification, "Trust me, I know what's good for you." When killing becomes the solution to every problem, dogma is the only argument that will do. "Because I say so." Unable to grapple with life complexities, the utter simplicity of killing has a hypnotic appeal, a cutting of the Gordian knot by slaughtering those who offend our sensibilities. First, marginalize them, they are old, infirm, sick, helpless. Then demonize them, they are useless, dead weight, a drain on our wealth, the cause of our suffering. Create a political agenda, we will save the environment by killing those whose very existence is threatening our own lives on this planet. Sell it relentlessly. Blame, demonize, destroy, all in the name of higher good.

Sorry Ryan, you'll have to look elswhere if you want to recruit followers for that demonic crusade. Fortunately, the era of mass murder is fading, not gaining strength. Your shouts of Seig, heil! are seventy years too late.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Cory Duchesne »

My father has always said that if he ever got Alzheimer's, he'd want someone to do him in. Is this really that uncommon of a sentiment? I don't think it is.

That being said, what percentage of Alzheimer's patients were once people who preferred to be killed if they were ever stricken with Alzheimer's?

And why are we keeping these people alive? The reason is that we don't have any official documentation of their wishes.

What could realistically be implemented and should be implemented is a system whereby young people are invited every ten years or so to sign papers which give the commands for assisted suicide or euthanasia under the conditions that they are incapacitated by Alzheimer's or something akin to it.

I don't see anything wrong with setting something like that in motion.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Sam and Steven clearly haven’t thought this one through in a rational manner.

Even our most conventional psychologists and doctors can agree and diagnose many elderly as being on the lowest rungs of unconsciousness, these people are like the undead – living zombies. I don’t see the point myself… You might as well spend tax money and labor on keeping a carrot comfortable and well fed because it has about the same level of consciousness.

We even debated this issue at University in an Ethics class, and I was one of the few who adopted a strong case for euthanasia in hospitals. Most people reacted emotionally with an ego-driven response, but when I modified my case by implementing the idea of levels of authorization that one would have to go through with family, doctors, and psychologists, then many people came around.

I also brought up the argument that some forms of bone cancer eat away one’s body from the inside out, and morphine doesn’t even touch the pain, so one suffers intensely for months and months before the whole thing is over, so I say kill him before the suffering starts. Get it over with…let him die with dignity in a suffering free state, and not screaming like an injured animal for months. There were a few Christians in the class who held fast to their dogma throughout the debate, and indignantly objected, they were in favor of putting more tax money into better pain medication, and allowing “God” to decide when people should die. My answer to them was: “what do we do in the meantime, as we wait for these miracle pain cures? And later I said, if your god would prefer to see human beings suffer for months and months before allowing them to die, what does that say about the morality of your god? They couldn’t answer my question…

For most people who never thought deeply about anything, it is the initial gut emotion that killing is wrong that causes people to react prematurely without thinking the argument through. However, I believe any rational thinker can easily make that call as a judgment.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Basically, this entire argument rests on the following assertion –

"Life is only an entitlement if it is worth living, or if that life eases the plight of humanity in some necessary way."

For instance: In a purely pragmatic sense, a Steve Jobs (Apple CEO), or a carpenter, or a David Quinn each provide an valuable service to the species so an argument could be made that each of these lives has some relative value to the overall health of the species. Moreover, to keep each human being alive requires enormous cooperation and natural resources, it requires a great deal of sacrifice, labor, and servitude to the other, so we should be aiming at minimizing our burdens collectively through population reduction, technological acceleration, while maximizing the quality of each world citizen. This combination would result in a truly rational world, which could function sustainablely and allow the natural world to regenerate itself…

It initially sounds cruel and heartless to the untrained ego, but in a purely pragmatic analysis, some citizens are not entitled to live because they hurt the health of the whole. It is easy to see on the extreme parts of the spectrum - Suppose one analyzes the behavior of a repeat child molester, or a repeat crack dealer that refuses to alter his course of action, death should be an alternative for these unfit misfits. One wants to keep their genes out of the gene pool. One needs to think of the future health of the species, and what we want the future genome to look like. Basically, One needs to actively shape the world according to the universal masculine will that emerges in the rational mind when the ego has totally vanished.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

To Beingof1 and others who find the premise of this thread disturbing, let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by samadhi »

Ryan,
Even our most conventional psychologists and doctors can agree and diagnose many elderly as being on the lowest rungs of unconsciousness, these people are like the undead – living zombies. I don’t see the point myself… You might as well spend tax money and labor on keeping a carrot comfortable and well fed because it has about the same level of consciousness.
Blame, demonize, destroy.
We even debated this issue at University in an Ethics class, and I was one of the few who adopted a strong case for euthanasia in hospitals. Most people reacted emotionally with an ego-driven response, but when I modified my case by implementing the idea of levels of authorization that one would have to go through with family, doctors, and psychologists, then many people came around.
You weren't talking about assisted suicide but euthanasia without consent.
I also brought up the argument that some forms of bone cancer ...
Why not ask the person suffering what they want? Don't they get a choice?
For most people who never thought deeply about anything, it is the initial gut emotion that killing is wrong that causes people to react prematurely without thinking the argument through. However, I believe any rational thinker can easily make that call as a judgment.
Seig Heil!
... so we should be aiming at minimizing our burdens collectively through population reduction, technological acceleration, while maximizing the quality of each world citizen. This combination would result in a truly rational world, which could function sustainablely and allow the natural world to regenerate itself…
Everyone is already doing this. You simply want to do it with murder.
It initially sounds cruel and heartless to the untrained ego,
lol ... but you will train people to enjoy murder, how enlightened of you ... lol.
but in a purely pragmatic analysis, some citizens are not entitled to live because they hurt the health of the whole. It is easy to see on the extreme parts of the spectrum - Suppose one analyzes the behavior of a repeat child molester, or a repeat crack dealer that refuses to alter his course of action, death should be an alternative for these unfit misfits. One wants to keep their genes out of the gene pool. One needs to think of the future health of the species, and what we want the future genome to look like. Basically, One needs to actively shape the world according to the universal masculine will that emerges in the rational mind when the ego has totally vanished.
Seig Heil!



Dan,
To Beingof1 and others who find the premise of this thread disturbing, let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?
Alzheimer's isn't the plague. You can't catch it by inhaling. Even if you could, what's wrong with a quarantine? Even during the height of the Black Death in Europe, people tried to care for those with the disease, not exterminate them.
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Steven »

David Quinn wrote:
Steven wrote:
David Quinn wrote:By your own criteria, yes.

However, I don't agree with your idea that whoever thinks he's right is automatically a fool. He would only be a fool if he was wrong.
And who is the judge?

Seig Heil!
Are you saying that anyone who makes a judgment is akin to being Hitler?

That in itself is a judgment.

-
No I am pointing out the implications of justifying judgement, that one can no longer condemn any judgement, for all are subjective.

If you allow yourself to form a judgement upon others, how can you then refute or condemn the judgement of another on the same point, even if it condradicts your own?

When you accept your own judgements on how others should live or what is best for others, you immediatly justify every other judgement by all other people.

But ofcourse no one would accept this, that a judgement completely opposed to their own should be equally valid, so who then is the final judge?

Should it be the strong? The wise? The masses?

The only judgement that is morally sound is the one that is not made. The only moral perspective that is morally sound is to be amoral.

Try it for yourself. If you are right to have an opinion, what makes Adolf Hitler, or any other individual, wrong?
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Sam and Steven clearly haven’t thought this one through in a rational manner.

We even debated this issue at University in an Ethics class, and I was one of the few who adopted a strong case for euthanasia in hospitals.

For most people who never thought deeply about anything, it is the initial gut emotion that killing is wrong that causes people to react prematurely without thinking the argument through. However, I believe any rational thinker can easily make that call as a judgment.
Did it ever occur to you that making ethical decisions is unethical?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by David Quinn »

Steven wrote:
David Quinn wrote: Are you saying that anyone who makes a judgment is akin to being Hitler?

That in itself is a judgment.
No I am pointing out the implications of justifying judgement, that one can no longer condemn any judgement, for all are subjective.

If you allow yourself to form a judgement upon others, how can you then refute or condemn the judgement of another on the same point, even if it condradicts your own?
It depends on whether the other's judgment is rational, consistent with the facts, insightful, profound, throws new light, etc.

Just because all judgments are subjective doesn't mean that all judgments are equally valid. As a rule, the subjective judgments expressed by a truthful person far outweigh the judgments expressed by those who are dishonest, irrational, shallow, have mental blocks, etc.

Try it for yourself. If you are right to have an opinion, what makes Adolf Hitler, or any other individual, wrong?
Hitler wasn't wrong to have an opinion. It is a question of whether his opinions were truthful, profound, rational, etc. In my opinion, they weren't. I consider them to be juvenile.

Did it ever occur to you that making ethical decisions is unethical?
Then making any decisions at all is unethical, since all decisions, no matter how trivial, have an ethical component to them.

-
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Steve,
Did it ever occur to you that making ethical decisions is unethical?
The reverse is more accurate: making unethical decisions is still ethical. "Ethical" is a very broad term.

I think what you meant is something more along the lines of "most ethical decisions that are regarded as good through conventional ethics are also evil by the same standards", which is what Nietzsche tried to show through his Genealogy of Morals. I could be giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and you might actually be saying something with no weight at all.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Sam,
Alzheimer's isn't the plague. You can't catch it by inhaling. Even if you could, what's wrong with a quarantine? Even during the height of the Black Death in Europe, people tried to care for those with the disease, not exterminate them.
Somehow I knew you'd completely evade the question. You don't address an ethics hypothetical by changing its content.
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Steven »

It depends on whether the other's judgment is rational, consistent with the facts, insightful, profound, throws new light, etc.

Just because all judgments are subjective doesn't mean that all judgments are equally valid. As a rule, the subjective judgments expressed by a truthful person far outweigh the judgments expressed those who are dishonest, irrational, shallow, have mental blocks, etc.
But it is still up to the subject to determine these values, and there is no grand judge other than the subject to go to to determine whether or not the judgement of these values is correct.

One must allow themselves judgements and justify their right to judge before they can judge whether or not another individual is a valid judge.

You are therefore claiming that as long one thinks they are of sound mind that their judgements are valid. That if they think that their own view is "rational, consistent with the facts, insightful, profound, throws new light, etc." this justifes them in forming judgements and therefore allows them to critique the judgements of others.

The point is not the critique of anothers judgement, but the basis upon which one allows their self to form judgements, for this is necessary prior to judging another.

If denying the self the right to judge involves admitting that the self is irrational, inconsistent with fact, uninsightful, mundane and ignorant, then no one is going to deny themselves the right to judge in this manner.

So whose judgement is right? Who can accurately judge the above premise of a rightful judgement? Perhaps a select few, but what of the rest of humanity?

In reality it comes down to the lowest common denominator, group judgement, but I am asking where the absolute arbitrator exists to determine which of us right to form judgements and which is wrong.
Hitler wasn't wrong to have an opinion. It is a question of whether his opinions were truthful, profound, rational, etc. In my opinion, they weren't. I consider them to be juvenile.
So you and him both had opinions. You and him both allow yourselves to form judgements. You and him both justified your outlooks and right to judge.

What makes your judgement and opinion "rational, consistent with the facts, insightful, profound,"? The fact you judge your judgement to be so?

On what authority can you justify your judgement of another, or of yourself?
Then making any decisions at all is unethical, since all decisions, no matter how trivial, have an ethical component to them.
Precisely, but unfortunately impossible to practice, thus leading to the conclusion that the highest degree of ethical existence an individual can attain is one of minimal impact and interference.

Watch, don't touch. If ethics bothers you that is.
The reverse is more accurate: making unethical decisions is still ethical. "Ethical" is a very broad term.
Only if you mean making decisions that are not based upon ethics. The prefix un- means the unethical is always contrary to ethical and by definition cannot be the same.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Steven,
Only if you mean making decisions that are not based upon ethics. The prefix un- means the unethical is always contrary to ethical and by definition cannot be the same.
Unethical, especially in the context that I used it, just means "wrong", "bad", or "evil". Where there is choice, there is ethics. The term that is reserved for the motion of non-thinking matter is non-ethical. You could also use the word amoral.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Faust »

Dan Rowden wrote:Ask her if she knows the difference between logical and empirical causation. Take a gun.
what is logical causation?
Amor fati
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

A=A Or, if you prefer a Buddhist term, "codependent origination" (some prefer just "dependent origination"). It's based on the definition of "cause" as "that which is necessary for the existence of something". All things exist in the same way as logical constructs, dualities etc. Any thing requires that which it is not for its existence, it is therefore, by that definition, caused. You could think of "caused" as "necessarily related" if you like. i.e. logical causation is necessary relation. It's all just words; it's the meaning that matters.
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Steven »

So why is my desk not sprouting wings?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Why do you think that question isn't stupid?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by David Quinn »

Steven wrote: In reality it comes down to the lowest common denominator, group judgement, but I am asking where the absolute arbitrator exists to determine which of us right to form judgements and which is wrong.

Logic is the absolute arbiter.

Steven wrote:
Hitler wasn't wrong to have an opinion. It is a question of whether his opinions were truthful, profound, rational, etc. In my opinion, they weren't. I consider them to be juvenile.
So you and him both had opinions. You and him both allow yourselves to form judgements. You and him both justified your outlooks and right to judge.

What makes your judgement and opinion "rational, consistent with the facts, insightful, profound,"? The fact you judge your judgement to be so?

On what authority can you justify your judgement of another, or of yourself?
My connection to truth.

There is no such thing as an objective benchmark, in the sense of God-given rules or commandments existing independently outside of the mind, that one can call upon. However, as subjects, we can access a form of objectivity by uncovering what is ultimately true in life. Indeed, objectivity is nothing other than our subjective relationship to truth.

If a person uncovers truth, and knows logically that he has uncovered truth, then he in a position to make "objective" assessments about things. He can assess, for example, that Hitler was juvenile and had no little or no relationship to truth.

Steven wrote:
Then making any decisions at all is unethical, since all decisions, no matter how trivial, have an ethical component to them.
Precisely, but unfortunately impossible to practice, thus leading to the conclusion that the highest degree of ethical existence an individual can attain is one of minimal impact and interference.
Disappear as much as possible? You evidently don't believe in actions which can create positive or beneficial consequences. Or maybe you just don't have much faith in your own actions.

-
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Beingof1 »

Brokenhead, read my post again. I think you overlooked an important point.


Dan:
To Beingof1 and others who find the premise of this thread disturbing, let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?
If this late stage Alzheimer disease could threaten my survival, I should be the one to decide. In this case; the most prudent, logical, and humane thing to do would be to exterminate the entire human race. I should keep alive a group of six young other persons and no more.

One to tend the garden
One for cooking
One for general houskeeping
One for maintaining the grounds
One for hunting and gathering
One to repopulate the planet.

And me - the worlds only proud owner of a Smith and Wesson .44 revolver.

This way, I could insure humanities survival, as no one else has my sound judgment.



Some of you guys - seriously - cannot see the pathology being demonstrated here?

I mean - what is the deal? Some of you seem to be fearful of the totality you preach about. "Watch out - the totality - it will get you. Its like a giant boogeyman; menacing, threatening, robbing us of vital life sustaining resources by allowing old people to live.

Get a grip
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Why don't you just admit you're too cowardly to answer my hypothetical directly because you know you'll get logically pummeled?
Steven
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:14 pm

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Steven »

Steven wrote:So why is my desk not sprouting wings?
Dan Rowden wrote:Why do you think that question isn't stupid?
Define the process or rule that ceases causation and determines the extent, range, form, multiplicity, relative position and constitution of the co-dependantantly originating and necessarilly related entities.

My desk is not on fire, my cup is not producing dolls houses and each key of this keyboard is not causing green Dragons to appear in a ceaseless stream around my head.

Thus the logical causation law of co-dependant originition is a rule describing how an observer distinguishes between what already exists and is a rule of discriptive reasoning applicable only within the mind that is logically fallacious when applied to a criticism of the existence or causation of any entity for A: it requires the factual validity of non existing entities to give validity to existing entities thereby refuting the concept of existence itself as the premise of entities leading to the destruction of the validity of the propositions "is" and "not" and annihilating the entire arguement; B: it posits no cessation or order of causation beyond distinction.

It is at best incomplete, at worst an outright logical fallacy masquerading as enlightenment.
Logic is the absolute arbiter.
Judgement of the premise and proposition are open to interpretation even if the conclusion is logical and the process of thought rational.

This is, obviously, what allows human beings such wide variations of behaviour and conclusions even when following the unavoidably rational chain of thought.

Indeed I ask whether it is physically possible for the human mind to do otherwise than reason a conclusion from a premise.
My connection to truth.
Yours personally?

Speaking in general this is the only arguement valid to anyone that allows themselves to form judgements upon others for any other arguement would be by definition invalid, i.e. that my judgement is formed upon falsehoods.
There is no such thing as an objective benchmark, in the sense of God-given rules or commandments existing independently outside of the mind, that one can call upon. However, as subjects, we can access a form of objectivity by uncovering what is ultimately true in life. Indeed, objectivity is nothing other than our subjective relationship to truth.
Ergo every justification for every judgement formed by each individual has the same premise.
If a person uncovers truth, and knows logically that he has uncovered truth, then he in a position to make "objective" assessments about things.
Although the mind is a complex thing, the inherant process of thought is one of rational synthesis and analysis of knowledge upon conceptions, otherwise there would be no order even in illusions.

The variations come not in the process of rational thought, but in the contents of conceptions.
He can assess, for example, that Hitler was juvenile and had no little or no relationship to truth.
Logic is the absolute arbiter.
If one accepts Adolf Hitlers premises his subsequent life is highly logical, which is the ultimate arbiter.
Disappear as much as possible? You evidently don't believe in actions which can create positive or beneficial consequences.
To determine myself capable of persuing those actions and only those would require that I admit to myself that I am an entity of perfect and absolute perception and experience.

As I currently think that I do not know what say George Bush is thinking and currently concludes, I reason myself incapable of making these judgements with absolute perfection, therefore conclude that I run the risk of acting otherwise despite my motivations, where motivation is itself a premise fraught with bias.
Or maybe you just don't have much faith in your own actions.
And have reasoned that to need such is to be unable to overcome the illusionary aspects of self.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by samadhi »

Dan Rowden wrote:Somehow I knew you'd completely evade the question. You don't address an ethics hypothetical by changing its content.
The answer to your question was no, in case you couldn't figure it out. Euthanizing without consent is murder. Obviously you want to project circumstances to justify murder. As I pointed out, whenever that has been done in history, it has been by those who believe that what is good for me and mine, is good for everyone else. That appears to be your justification too. Killing for the greater good doesn't impress me, Dan. For someone who aspires to enlightenment, you seem strangely unwilling to value the life in those whose circumstances are less propitious than your own. Here's a clue. Social Darwinism is not what enlightenment points to.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Who wants to kill the elderly?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Killing for the greater good doesn't impress you? Yet, you're so willing, apparently, to engage in it on a massive scale. This is the point I was aiming for, Sam: you are willing to allow me, my mother and all of Humanity to die for your own perceived greater good. Interestingly, your sense of ethics is a billion times more murderous than mine. You, you, Hitler, you....
Locked