Member
Yes, I think there are some positions which I think are so vile that people should not hold them. One of those positions might be that the holocaust would have been better if it had been more focused on some groups more than it was. I did not mean that such positions should be banned outright. I thought that there were some opinions which were nowadays naturally repellant to people, but it appears that I was wrong. Apparently it has not been decided yet whether the methodology of the Holocaust was a good or a bad thing.
It is easy to talk of things being "good" or "bad" after the fact, however it wasn't necessarily that the Nazi's themselves thought those methods "good" only that they thought they achieved a "good". I'm not agreeing with them but it is an important distinction, one that is easy to ignore when you're judging someone's actions retrospectively.
Ultimately the Nazi's only acted as they did to achieve their end goals and, despite some portrayals in fiction, no one believes themselves to be evil. It is hard to accept but there must have been some motivation behind what the Nazi's did in which they believed themselves to be achieving some "good".
Don't get me wrong, I understand this logic is easy to ignore when faced with the horrors of some actions taken to achieve this "good" but in the end Germany at the time believed itself to be doing some good. We might not be able to understand their motivations but I don't think that gives us the right to dictate an objective morality.
Fifty years ago "positions I find so vile I believe others shouldn't hold them" could have been the opinion held on gay people and gay marriage. If we start allowing that position to hold water now who knows who else will be oppressed through it.