re: #153 Nyet

Well, since we are into specific examples, I’ll just write down the most expected one: It can be argued that Stalin was less harmful than Hitler for some groups, that it was right to support him during WWII and so on, but I will insist that Stalin wasn’t better than Hitler. Someone who has killed X millions isn’t better than someone who has killed Y millions. (Disclaimer: this illustrates the principle and doesn’t compare any group to Stalin or Hitler.)

Someone who has killed x millions did less damage than someone who killed x + y millions. Supporting the USSR was better than supporting the Nazis against the USSR. If the Nazis had successfully invaded the USSR, more people would have died than under Stalin. Unless you get into gay black hitler territory and start thinking about the outflow from Stalin being in charge, then yeah, supporting Stalin was better.

To put it another way, dying by being shot is better than dying of pancreatic cancer. That doesn’t imply, at all, that there’s anything the least bit good about dying by being shot.