Hermann Göring (apparently a top Nazi war criminal, Gestapo founder, Holocaust architect) held that animals deserve strong legal protection from cruelty and pushed the progressive 1933 Reich Animal Protection Act that banned unnecessary suffering.
Do you agree with his Nazi opinion? But of course, this isn't about "Nazi", we are talking about serious criminals that did a lot of wrong but also doing a lot of good, that's the whole point, is that people can do both (thousand do so, everyday).
Again, before I'm being mistaken for a Nazi, I'm not saying that doing good invalidate doing bad, I'm saying both are true simultaneously, you have many real life examples with people that did great within their community and later been discovered to have done extremely immoral things, I can pull up a massive list with Fable if you want me to but I don't think it's necessary. Previous slave owners that did heavily fight for slave rights later-on is another example but I don't think it's necessary as there is probably hundred of thousand of cases and this is HN, I believe we can extrapolate a minimum.
There you go, that's one Nazi opinion that you agree with that invalidates the grey comment above. You can speak clearly on HN without couching your agreement in paragraphs of defense. This isn't Reddit.
edit: I can't reply to your comment below, so I'll respond to your question here. Knowing the atrocities and the genocide that the Nazis committed behind the cover of the law, and how their antisemitism was at the root of so many of their laws and actions, I would never agree with any of the laws the Nazis passed. I would be concerned that I would be validating, enabling, or endorsing the antisemitism that inspired any particular opinion or law.
For example, why did the Nazis pass a law strengthening protections for animals? Was it for moral and ethical concern of animals, or was it so when they later dehumanized Jews that they had a legal framework protecting the Nazis who would conduct torturous experiments on them? Their motivation for any action is corrupt and inseparable from their antisemitism and genocidal conduct.
Knowing that antisemitism is coming back into style, and seeing your agreement with this infamous Nazi's law, I find myself finding your denial of Naziism suspect. One cannot simply agree with a Nazi without casting suspicion upon oneself. But thank you for your bravery.
It was useless to point it out because the point isn't about a specific Nazi, it's that everyone would agree with some of the good opinions of bad people, war criminals and so-on. You haven't replied btw, do you also agree with this Nazi opinion?
Knowing the atrocities and the genocide that the Nazis committed behind the cover of the law, and how their antisemitism was at the root of so many of their laws and actions, I would never agree with any of the laws the Nazis passed. I would be concerned that I would be validating, enabling, or endorsing the antisemitism that inspired any particular opinion or law.
For example, why did the Nazis pass a law strengthening protections for animals? Was it for moral and ethical concern of animals? Or was it so when they later dehumanized Jews that they had a legal framework describing how they could treat Jews like draft horses and lab rats, and protecting the Nazis who would conduct torturous experiments on them? The Nazi motivation for any action is corrupt and inseparable from their antisemitism and genocidal conduct. This is why the greyed out commenter above feels that the opinion of a Nazi sympathizer doesn't matter, because one can't tell whether or not their opinion is based on antisemitism and genocidal ideation or not.
Knowing that antisemitism is coming back into style, and seeing your agreement with this infamous Nazi's law, I'm finding your earlier denial of Naziism suspect. One cannot simply agree with a Nazi without casting suspicion upon oneself and one's motivations.
Do you agree with his Nazi opinion? But of course, this isn't about "Nazi", we are talking about serious criminals that did a lot of wrong but also doing a lot of good, that's the whole point, is that people can do both (thousand do so, everyday).
Again, before I'm being mistaken for a Nazi, I'm not saying that doing good invalidate doing bad, I'm saying both are true simultaneously, you have many real life examples with people that did great within their community and later been discovered to have done extremely immoral things, I can pull up a massive list with Fable if you want me to but I don't think it's necessary. Previous slave owners that did heavily fight for slave rights later-on is another example but I don't think it's necessary as there is probably hundred of thousand of cases and this is HN, I believe we can extrapolate a minimum.