Alonzo Fyfe

And, yet, it is a wonder how common this type of argument is. Among the most relevant examples I have seen used here is,

"Atheism is evil because Hitler was an atheist" and "Christianity is evil because Hitler was a Christian."

Or, a somewhat related claim, "Separation of Church and State is good because the founding fathers liked it," vs. "Separation of Church and State is good because the founding fathers hated it."

Which have the same logical validity as "Slavery is good because the founding fathers owned slaves."

Purple Smartie

I doubt it matters what Hitler or any other criminal ate, I don't know of any scientific studies that point towards diet as a justification for brutality.

All vegetarians are not like Hitler, just as all lesbians are not like Ellen Degeneres and all apples are not like oranges, though I suppose certainly some of them could be.

Pyrrho

Halfwits are common. Surely this is not news to anyone? In most places, one can't swing a dead cat without hitting three or four of them.

To be fair, of course, sometimes when people discuss such issues, they are not intending the arguments that you and I have suggested. Unfortunately, most of the time, it seems that they are.

themistocles

Well, he wasn't a drinker, if William Shirer's book is accurate.

Sunfair

Speaking of cats, he did prefer them to dogs. For eating, that is...

(During WW1, it was a matter of necessity, and I have seen quotes by him discussing it. Rumors of his later appetite for Big Cats are unconfirmed, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, considering how wierd he was.)

exnihilo

Why does it matter? ones individuals actions/preferences have no relevance to what other people do.
George Bush eats meat, big fucking deal, does that make all other people who do so stupid, moronic idiots. While we are at it, Hitler was also said to be an athiest--does that make all athiests fascists? Hitler was also quite an accomplished artist, contrary to what is commonly noted, does that make art a fascist pursuit.

As for "normal" Michel Foucault and many others have demonstrated that normality is always contigent to a specific time and place and is always subject to change. Thus, normalcy is meaningless in regards to motrality or ethics, while history suggests quite that the connection between normalcy and injustice is just the opposite. Afterall wasn't slavery, rape, religious torture, child labor, and even genocide quite normal at different times and places throughout Western History? Personally when I hear people appealing to normalcy I see it as an appeal to ignorance. Normalcy and conformity have always been the hallmarks of fascism, while independent thought and intellectual independence are expressions of freedom par excellence.

ma1939

He was a vegetarian. There's a revisionist movement that is being pushed by vegans and the animal rights movement that want to persuade people that he wasn't. It's well known that Marshal Mannerheim, for example, the Finnish leader during World War II, detested Hitler because he was a vegetarian and disapproved of hunting. I can find numerous other references.


http://www.danford.net/faf2.htm

Pyrrho

It is easy to find references that claim he was a vegetarian, and it is easy to find references that claim he was not a vegetarian. A solid proof that will convince everyone is not so easy.

However, we can say that Marshal Mannerheim would not be in an ideal position to know, so his word is fairly worthless. According to this site:

http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/mayjun96/hitler.html

Dione Lucas, Hitler's chef in Hamburg during the late 1930s, says that he ate squab, which means he was not a vegetarian. Supposedly, this information is in Lucus' book Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook:

Surely, the word of those who prepared his food is a better source of information than the Finnish leader during WWII.

Some of the confusion on the matter is explained at:

http://www.peta.org/liv/c/hitler.html

If what they say is true, it would explain why people have believed that he was a vegetarian when he was not.

But, ultimately, it does not matter, as I noted before:

"But it is fallacious reasoning to say that something must be evil because an evil man did it. Hitler was, I am told, kind to children (of the "appropriate race"); would anyone therefore claim that it is wrong to be kind to children, and that one should be cruel to them instead?"

And if Hitler brushed his teeth every day, would you say that was bad? Really, the whole thing is so ridiculous. It does not matter whether Hitler was a vegetarian or not, because it would not make being a vegetarian good or bad in either case.

AquaVita

This thread doesn't really strike me as an issue of morality. Moving to MD.

JGL53

I agree. Hitler was an insane mass murderer who thought Jews and other non-Aryans were racially inferior. Apparently, the evidence weighs in favor of him NOT being a vegetarian. If he wasn't, then good for him. But if he had, such would not have added to or subtracted from judgement of him as a moral monster (in my opinion).

My original point was that IF he had been against eating meat, that would have been just more evidence of 'unclear' thinking on his part.

I.e., if he avoided meat for supposed health reasons, that would be just another irrational belief he held. If he had avoided it for moral reasons, one would wonder why he would be concerned with avoiding participating in unnecessary pain and suffering re non-human animals, but had no qualms inflicting such on his fellow humans.