[Rei Murasame]

[...]

All of that writing only to prove nothing. Do you think that violent people are actually only psychopaths?

At this point I'm only interested insofar as you are showing me what the mind of a liberal-humanitarian actually looks like in its most deluded state.

[Frollein]

The term, "fascist" came later, but the basic elements of fascist society -- authoritarian, nationalistic, militaristic, oligarchic -- had been apparent in German culture for centuries before that. While Germans (like Japanese) still exhibit notable subservience to oligarchic authority, it is no longer connected to nationalism and militarism.

What utter stinking bullshit.

Fact.

Opinion. Your opinion, not to be confused with fact.

Of course no other European power was ever "authoritarian, militaristic, nationalistic, oligarchic" - I wonder how egalitarian, pacifist, internationalist, socialist Britain managed to build its Empire.

Certainly there have been notes of fascism in Britain from time to time, but it was more egalitarian and libertarian than Germany.

Not to its colonies. You may ask Indians what they think of British rulership, for example. Besides, if I take your "basic elements", then I can call the US a fascist state. The theory of a "German separate path" or that Germany was predisposed for fascism is utter bullshit.

Oh wait, it was the light of its benevolence (later inherited by the United States of Freedom and Human Rights (TM) ) that made all the colonies eager to submit, right? Or Spain - South America still has fond memories of their peaceful and not at all genocidal caretaking.

Spain was fascist, too. Duh.

When it destroyed the Aztecs and plundered South America? Please!

I agree that nationalism was necessary for the German-speaking peoples to assert their rights as a people, but there is more to fascism than nationalism, and the militarism, authoritarianism and oligarchy were what created the German perils to peace of the early 20th C.

Nationalism alone wouldn't helped them to unite their territory. They also needed their military to enforce that goal, which was against the interests of all their neighbours. Are you really that naive or does it just fit your preference of scapegoating Germany? Do you really think any society is immune to fascism, communism or religious extremism? Do you think that pointing the finger at Germany and claiming that "it could only happen in Germany" will save your country from something similar ever happening there? Militarism, authoritarianism and oligarchy were traits of virtually every European nation in the early 20th century and they all participated eagerly in the imperialist game.

[Truth To Power]

[...]

Sociopaths. See how you can't address what I actually said, and have to make up something else instead?

It's always the same.

All of that writing only to prove nothing.

The wrongness of your sociopathic views isn't nothing.

Do you think that violent people are actually only psychopaths?

I said sociopaths. See how you always have to claim I said things I did not say?

I have enough experience with violent people to know they are evil, vicious, parasitic, sociopathic scum.

At this point I'm only interested insofar as you are showing me what the mind of a liberal-humanitarian actually looks like in its most deluded state.

Absence of response to my factual refutations of your claims noted.

[Frollein]

Fact.

Opinion. Your opinion, not to be confused with fact.

Calling a fact opinion does not make it less factual.

Except when it's not a fact, but an opinion. I understand that it is your preferred way of looking at it, that doesn't make it factual. And insisting that it "does, too!" won't change that, either. So stop it.

Of course no other European power was ever "authoritarian, militaristic, nationalistic, oligarchic" - I wonder how egalitarian, pacifist, internationalist, socialist Britain managed to build its Empire.

Certainly there have been notes of fascism in Britain from time to time, but it was more egalitarian and libertarian than Germany.

Not to its colonies.

Ignoratio elenchi.

How exactly am I missing the point? Just because you conveniently left out racism in your idiosyncratic definition of fascism (of the German variant) doesn't mean it isn't relevant. Unless you want to spread your "Germany invented fascism" bullshit, of course. Fact is that Britain was the greatest motherfucker of all. If you want to see how egalitarian they were even to their own compatriots, read Dickens. There you can also get a first hand impression of what "liberalism" of the British variant looked like.

You may ask Indians what they think of British rulership, for example.

<yawn>

Oh, sorry, I forgot it only counts if you kill white people.

Besides, if I take your "basic elements", then I can call the US a fascist state.

Correct. The USA has become notably closer to fascist in the last 35 years, especially since 9/11. But there is still some resistance to authority and oligarchy.

Really? Where? And, most importantly, how is Germany responsible?

The theory of a "German separate path" or that Germany was predisposed for fascism is utter bullshit.

I never mentioned a "German separate path." It was certainly predisposed to fascism, though not uniquely so.

Except that this supposed predisposition is exactly what is meant with "the German separate path", so you are in fact saying that Germany was predisposed to fascism, which is, of course, utter bullshit.

Spain was fascist, too. Duh.

When it destroyed the Aztecs and plundered South America? Please!

Though it wasn't modern or nationalistic enough (the church was the thing, not the nation) to be called fascist at that time, it was on the path, as shown by the commonplace emergence of fascism in Latin America after Spain was kicked out.

Dude. Read some history books. You're really reaching now. I don't even know what to write when I read such utter nonsense.

They didn't have to be authoritarian or oligarchic.

*sigh* You do realize that oligarchic societies are the norm since forever? It's called Feudalism. Every nation back then was authoritarian and oligarchic, no matter what they were in theory. Do you really think the French shoemaker or the English miner were more liberated than the Prussian farmer? If yes, I heartily recommend reading some history books.

Do you really think any society is immune to fascism, communism or religious extremism?

Switzerland seems to be; also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But yes, it is quite rare.

Switzerland had Calvinism, which counts as religious extremism in my book. The rest are British ex-colonies that don't exist long enough to pass judgment, even if they already did eagerly engage in ethnic cleansings of the indigenious population, so the racism element can be checked already.

will save your country from something similar ever happening there?

Noting the cultural basis of fascism might.

There is no cultural basis of fascism anymore than there is one of communism or liberalism.

Militarism, authoritarianism and oligarchy were traits of virtually every European nation in the early 20th century and they all participated eagerly in the imperialist game.

Except the ones that didn't.

Which were? Switzerland? They just took all the Nazi gold and sent back the Jews to Germany, so they were fascist collaborators. But please, find me some European nation that was not engaged in the game in the last 200 years (since Germany has been "on the path to fascism" since whenever, we need a bit of ramp-up time, right?).

[Rei Murasame]

<yawn>

Oh, so only white people count under this morality of yours, then. Petty-moralism at its apex. Apparently it's some kind of universal morality you are proposing, but at the same time it somehow only kicks in when someone lays their hand upon a white person to kill them. Your real agenda is revealed for all to see.

Game over. I'm done here. I literally don't need to say anything more.

[Truth To Power]

<yawn>

Oh, so only white people count under this morality of yours, then.

Oh, so you can't tell the difference between fascism and colonialism. That fits.

Petty-moralism at its apex.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Apparently it's some kind of universal morality you are proposing, but at the same time it somehow only kicks in when someone lays their hand upon a white person to kill them. Your real agenda is revealed for all to see.

My nomination for Strawman of the Month.

Game over. I'm done here. I literally don't need to say anything more.

You sure don't. But I'm pretty sure you will.

Of course no other European power was ever "authoritarian, militaristic, nationalistic, oligarchic" - I wonder how egalitarian, pacifist, internationalist, socialist Britain managed to build its Empire.

Certainly there have been notes of fascism in Britain from time to time, but it was more egalitarian and libertarian than Germany.

Not to its colonies.

Ignoratio elenchi.

How exactly am I missing the point?

By trying change the subject from Britain's government to colonial government -- not coincidentally including and even focusing on governments by private corporations like the BEIC .

Just because you conveniently left out racism in your idiosyncratic definition of fascism (of the German variant) doesn't mean it isn't relevant.

While fascism is congenial to racism, they are not necessary partners.

Unless you want to spread your "Germany invented fascism" bullshit, of course.

I've said no such thing.

Fact is that Britain was the greatest motherfucker of all.

Meaningless.

If you want to see how egalitarian they were even to their own compatriots, read Dickens.

He wrote fiction. Duh.

You may ask Indians what they think of British rulership, for example.

<yawn>

Oh, sorry, I forgot it only counts if you kill white people.

Indians were killing each other for millennia before Britain came along.

Besides, if I take your "basic elements", then I can call the US a fascist state.

Correct. The USA has become notably closer to fascist in the last 35 years, especially since 9/11. But there is still some resistance to authority and oligarchy.

Really? Where? And, most importantly, how is Germany responsible?

I never said or implied that Germany was responsible.

The theory of a "German separate path" or that Germany was predisposed for fascism is utter bullshit.

I never mentioned a "German separate path." It was certainly predisposed to fascism, though not uniquely so.

Except that this supposed predisposition is exactly what is meant with "the German separate path", so you are in fact saying that Germany was predisposed to fascism, which is, of course, utter bullshit.

Huh? If it wasn't predisposed to fascism, how did it become fascist?

Spain was fascist, too. Duh.

When it destroyed the Aztecs and plundered South America? Please!

Though it wasn't modern or nationalistic enough (the church was the thing, not the nation) to be called fascist at that time, it was on the path, as shown by the commonplace emergence of fascism in Latin America after Spain was kicked out.

Dude. Read some history books. You're really reaching now. I don't even know what to write when I read such utter nonsense.

<yawn> Lack of response noted.

They didn't have to be authoritarian or oligarchic.

*sigh* You do realize that oligarchic societies are the norm since forever? It's called Feudalism.

No, it's not.

Every nation back then was authoritarian and oligarchic, no matter what they were in theory. Do you really think the French shoemaker or the English miner were more liberated than the Prussian farmer?

Why not compare like with like?

If yes, I heartily recommend reading some history books.

Back atcha.

Do you really think any society is immune to fascism, communism or religious extremism?

Switzerland seems to be; also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But yes, it is quite rare.

Switzerland had Calvinism, which counts as religious extremism in my book.

The rest are British ex-colonies that don't exist long enough to pass judgment, even if they already did eagerly engage in ethnic cleansings of the indigenious population, so the racism element can be checked already.

Racism and fascism are compatible but not the same.

will save your country from something similar ever happening there?

Noting the cultural basis of fascism might.

There is no cultural basis of fascism anymore than there is one of communism or liberalism.

Militarism, authoritarianism and oligarchy were traits of virtually every European nation in the early 20th century and they all participated eagerly in the imperialist game.

Except the ones that didn't.

Which were? Switzerland? They just took all the Nazi gold and sent back the Jews to Germany, so they were fascist collaborators.

They have taken gold from a lot of other unsavory characters, and didn't allow other refugees in, either. So?

But please, find me some European nation that was not engaged in the game in the last 200 years (since Germany has been "on the path to fascism" since whenever, we need a bit of ramp-up time, right?).

Finland, Switzerland, Greece, Poland and Bulgaria are enough to be going on with.

Consolidate your posts. Do not respond to everyone in a new post. Format as I have done unto you -TIG

[Decky]

By trying change the subject from Britain's government to colonial government -- not coincidentally including and even focusing on governments by private corporations like the BEIC .

Ah you are on of those people. Crimes against humanity are ok as long as the occur to non Europeans? British imperial actions are totally irrelevant eh? Only brown people I suppose... Why care?

[Truth To Power]

By trying change the subject from Britain's government to colonial government -- not coincidentally including and even focusing on governments by private corporations like the BEIC .

Ah you are on of those people. Crimes against humanity are ok as long as the occur to non Europeans? British imperial actions are totally irrelevant eh? Only brown people I suppose... Why care?

Would you consider making a comment relevant to what I said?

We were talking about fascism, not colonialism.

[Stormvessel]

There exist no rights that cannot be enforced through strength of arm.

Go tell a hungry lion on the Serengeti that it's your right not to get eaten.

The greatest thing about the natural world is that it doesn't give two shits about petty human sentiment. It continually flies in the face of everything the bleeding heart humanist holds dear.

Strong. Weak. No "rights". /thread.

[Zamuel]

Wow ... The BS is getting pretty deep hereabouts!

. Do you think that violent people are actually only psychopaths?

Let's start with one of the milder misconceptions. Violence is a form of communication, it is employed when coercion becomes the only option available to gain required attention. Psychopathy is an extreme example of a need that requires attention.

The term, "fascist" came later

No ... It's Latin.

but the basic elements of fascist society -- authoritarian, nationalistic, militaristic, oligarchic -- had been apparent in German culture for centuries before that.

Duh-yeah, like ever since the Romans conquered the Goths and the losers learned how it works. "A fascis was a birch rod carried in ancient Rome by the lictors, a kind of proto-police force. The individual fascis was used to impose discipline on behalf of the state, but when bound together in a bundle of fasces, the one rod became, both symbolically and physically, stronger." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1506259/Fascist-origins-in-ancient-Rome.html

There exist no rights that cannot be enforced through strength of arm.

Total BS, ie: the right to justice cannot be enforced thru coercion, any coercion obviates justice. Rights are principles, give me one example of "strength of arms" ever eliminating a principle. Empires crumble, principles are immortal.

As I said, rights are principles. They are arrived at thru consensus and they do physically exist. We are their embodiment. Once established, a principle can only be eliminated by the death of every human that understands it. Humans have quite a bit invested in the principles we have developed. Even when they evolve, as -trial by combat- evolved into litigation and -eye for an eye- evolved into diplomacy, we retain them in case of need.

Zam

[Saeko]

As I said, rights are principles. They are arrived at thru consensus and they do physically exist. We are their embodiment. Once established, a principle can only be eliminated by the death of every human that understands it. Humans have quite a bit invested in the principles we have developed. Even when they evolve, as -trial by combat- evolved into litigation and -eye for an eye- evolved into diplomacy, we retain them in case of need.

Zam

So if a bunch of people consent to the existence of Santa Clause, then he physically exists?

[Frollein]

Are you saying he doesn't??

[Zamuel]

So if a bunch of people consent to the existence of Santa Clause, then he physically exists?

Santa Claus is much to nice to be a principle ... He's maybe more like the school janitor, with candy for nice little girls like you and frollien ... Ho, Ho, Ho ... (Just don't sit on his lap.)

Zam

[Saeko]

Santa Claus is much to nice to be a principle ... He's maybe more like the school janitor, with candy for nice little girls like you and frollien ... Ho, Ho, Ho ... (Just don't sit on his lap.)

Zam

Lolbertarians unironically believe Santa Claus is real.

[Pants-of-dog]

Rights do not objectively exist.

They exist solely as a social construct, even though there is a biological basis for them. That does not make them meaningless, nor does it mean that you can simply dismiss them. Capitalism, for example, exists solely as a social construct, and it still makes meaningful impacts on every human's life.

Also, while coercion and/or the threat of coercion is often a part of enforcing rights, it is not absolutely necessary. Nor is this force a cause of rights, though again, force is often a part of getting your rights recognised by the polity.

[Zamuel]

Rights do not objectively exist. They exist solely as a social construct, even though there is a biological basis for them.

This is simply limited thinking ... drawing intellectual lines to fence existence in and domesticate it.

The fact that you cannot see it, feel it, taste it, does not obviate physical existence. Our consciousness can not be objectified either, but it's physical existence is undeniable and inseparable. We link it to our bodies and brains, but in truth it cannot be quantified. It is the same with rights, these principles are as much a part of our anatomy as our minds are. They can be denied by outside agency, but cannot be internally expunged - because they exist. Ideas and ideals can be forgotten, rejected, but rights are fundamental and there is no escape from them this side of death. The founders of our country (USA) chose the word "inalienable" to describe them to exemplify the fact that a man cannot be separated from them. Your reasoning defies that.

Intellectual fences have their uses, but we must never be confined by them. They have gates in and out and we must always remember how to use them. It may seem a little scary, but step beyond those boundaries and you'll find there really is no danger out there.

Zam

[KlassWar]

Or Spain - South America still has fond memories of their peaceful and not at all genocidal caretaking.

Considering the post-colonial demographics of Anglo and Latin america, the Iberians were either less genocidal, less competent at genocide or a mixture of both.

[Saeko]

If you can't detect your rights in any physical way then how do you even know that they're there?

[Pants-of-dog]

This is simply limited thinking ... drawing intellectual lines to fence existence in and domesticate it.

Not really, I just like to be rigourous in the way I view reality.

The fact that you cannot see it, feel it, taste it, does not obviate physical existence. Our consciousness can not be objectified either, but it's physical existence is undeniable and inseparable. We link it to our bodies and brains, but in truth it cannot be quantified. It is the same with rights, these principles are as much a part of our anatomy as our minds are. They can be denied by outside agency, but cannot be internally expunged - because they exist. Ideas and ideals can be forgotten, rejected, but rights are fundamental and there is no escape from them this side of death. The founders of our country (USA) chose the word "inalienable" to describe them to exemplify the fact that a man cannot be separated from them. Your reasoning defies that.

1. You are correct when you say that something can objectively exist and yet still be impossible to sense empirically. Numbers exist in this category. I do not think rights fit in this category.

2. I am not at all certain that consciousness physically exists, even though its physical basis in undeniable.

3. I am not from the USA, and your founders actually denied a lot of people their rights.

Intellectual fences have their uses, but we must never be confined by them. They have gates in and out and we must always remember how to use them. It may seem a little scary, but step beyond those boundaries and you'll find there really is no danger out there.

Zam

I place no importance on whether or not rights objectively exist. They are just as important either way.

-----------------

If you can't detect your rights in any physical way then how do you even know that they're there?

You can detect if your rights are being respected by observing the behaviour of others around you.

[Zamuel]

If you can't detect your rights in any physical way then how do you even know that they're there?

I react when someone trips over them. It's kind of like the air, you can't see it but you will definitely notice it's absence.

Zam