Why Do Fascists Hate Christianity? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14475868
And thus we get back to the idea that your ideas are not rational because they imperil the survival of your very community.

You would prefer to attack those whom you think are your opponents, even if it means that your people might die.
#14475872
Pants-of-dog wrote:And thus we get back to the idea that your ideas are not rational because they imperil the survival of your very community.

All actions which are taken are perilous in some way, so whether something is 'perilous' or 'not perilous' is no indication of whether the ideas that led to it are rational or not. This is why I've asked you before, "what is rationality?"

It's difficult for you to claim that my position is 'anti-rational', if you can't even define what 'rationality' is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You would prefer to attack those whom you think are your opponents, even if it means that your people might die.

And that seems perfectly rational to me. But of course, I haven't actually defined 'rationality' either.
#14475874
Rei Murasame wrote:All actions which are taken are perilous in some way, so whether something is 'perilous' or 'not perilous' is no indication of whether it is rational or not. This is why I've asked you before, "what is rationality?"


There is significantly more peril in running around stabbing everyone who opposes you than there is in many other actions.

It's difficult for you to claim that my position is 'anti-rational', if you can't even define what 'rationality' is.


As I said,

It has various definitions. The two most common, and those I am using here, are:

1. It can be understood by a rational mind as being logical and plausible.
2. It is the self-interest of the person advocating it.

RM wrote:And that seems perfectly rational to me. But of course, I haven't actually defined 'rationality' either.


If it threatens your own survival, I do not see why it is in your self-interest.
#14475878
Pants-of-dog wrote:There is significantly more peril in running around stabbing everyone who opposes you than there is in many other actions.

Over what time scale? This is a rhetorical question of course.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It has various definitions. The two most common, and those I am using here, are:

1. It can be understood by a rational mind as being logical and plausible.
2. It is the self-interest of the person advocating it.

Okay.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If it threatens your own survival, I do not see why it is in your self-interest.

Well, then, we agree to differ.
#14475882
Rei Murasame wrote:Over what time scale? This is a rhetorical question of course.


Of course it is rhetorical, because the obvious answer is that this is true on all time scales. Even porcupines do not attack all possible predators. And they are more prickly than you are.

RM wrote:Well, then, we agree to differ.


Can you please explain how an action that puts your community at risk of violence is one that will lead to survival? Even if we disagree, I would like to understand.
#14475883
Pants-of-dog wrote:The idea that human rights are based partly on Christian teachings supports my claim that fascists do not actually like Christianity.

I'm not arguing that facists like Christianity. I'm arguing that they don't like it, because Christianity teaches compassion for people outside the racial group. By contrast, the Nazi's racist blend of facism requires eliminating miscegenation and eliminating other races from the gene pool for the facist group. One of the reasons I find left-of-center arguments for atheism amusing is that I see it leading to exactly the type of government that leftists loath most.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Maybe it's because they are not being targeted for brutal oppression due to their religion.

Really? Too many Muslims support violence.
It showed an astonishing 12% of respondents said, if the men in the so-called “Toronto 18” terror plot had succeeded in carrying out their attacks on Canada, they would have been “at least somewhat justified.”

That doesn't really bother Canadians, because 88% said no. However, this seems to really bother them:

The most talked about statistic was the fact 90% of Muslims (including women) in Iraq, Morocco, Tunisia, Indonesia, Afghanistan and Malaysia expressed the view “a wife is always obliged to obey her husband.”

For some reason, a wife obeying her husband really bothers Canadians.

However, the most disturbing finding to emerge from this face-to-face survey of more than 38,000 Muslims around the world was the near-universal desire of most Muslims in Africa, Asia and the Middle East to see sharia become “the official law of the land.” (99% in Afghanistan, 84% in Pakistan, 83% in Morocco). [bj21: except if they are within the contiguous borders of Canada]

So what, argue those who have scant knowledge of sharia. To them I say, here is another statistic about the supporters of sharia that jumped out of the survey.

Of those Muslims who support sharia law, 85% in Egypt, 75% in Pakistan and 65% in the Palestinian Territories, support the execution of any Muslim who walks away from Islam. Even in secular Turkey, Bosnia and Russia, 15% of Muslims backing sharia supported the beheading of those who walk away from Islam.

Tender mercies. So I guess the only problem with Islamists is that they aren't Canadian. Gosh, if the Nazis had been Canadian, we could have avoided a world war.

Rei Murasame wrote:To go even further, theoretically, the ultimate peace could be attained if everyone converted to Islam.

And became a Canadian, of course...

Pants-of-dog wrote:And the last time ethnic nationalists tried that, they got their asses handed to them.

You mean Sudan? Rwanda? Kosovar Albanians? Or are you talking about Nazi Germany?
#14475886
blackjack21 wrote:I'm not arguing that fascists like Christianity. I'm arguing that they don't like it, because Christianity teaches compassion for people outside the racial group. By contrast, the Nazi's racist blend of fascism requires eliminating miscegenation and eliminating other races from the gene pool for the fascist group.


I agree that many Christian churches have teaches that can be interpreted this way.

bj wrote:Really? Too many Muslims support violence.

    It showed an astonishing 12% of respondents said, if the men in the so-called “Toronto 18” terror plot had succeeded in carrying out their attacks on Canada, they would have been “at least somewhat justified.”

That doesn't really bother Canadians, because 88% said no.


This has nothing to do with my claim that Muslims in Canada are not violent because they are not being targeted for brutal oppression due to their religion.

And the whole Sharia thing is decidedly off topic.

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

taxizen wrote:POD - What about a muzzy tax instead of "running around stabbing people"? Would you think that was a suitably less violent means of discouraging the kind of behaviour Islamophobes dislike?


Explain to me what this has to do with Fascists and Christianity, and then I will discuss in that context.
#14475889
Pants-of-dog wrote:Explain to me what this has to do with Fascists and Christianity, and then I will discuss in that context.

Hey this is pofo every thread ends up agonising over muzzies, why fight it? Go with the flow.
#14475903
Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you please explain how an action that puts your community at risk of violence is one that will lead to survival? Even if we disagree, I would like to understand.


Preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power[1] by strategically attacking before the balance of power has a chance to shift in the direction of the adversary.
#14476026
blackjack21 wrote:I'm not arguing that facists like Christianity. I'm arguing that they don't like it, because Christianity teaches compassion for people outside the racial group.


But racism isn't an essential part of fascism just the nazi variety. Even for them dislike of christianity stemmed from much more than that, as I and others have posted.
#14476078
Saeko wrote:
    Preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power[1] by strategically attacking before the balance of power has a chance to shift in the direction of the adversary.


Thank you.

Yes, this is one context in which it may be a good idea. However, it is only rational (i.e. in your self-interest) if there is a strong probability that the risk associated with not acting (or acting too late) is higher than the risk of acting preemptively.

The issue with this is that the perception of risk is subjective. Someone who is, for example, racist will overestimate the risk posed by young black men. Someone who is jealous of others having power will see all other power bases as a threat, even if they are not. This behaviour can then lead to these attacked groups responding violently to the racist or power-jealous entity.
#14476121
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Thank you.


You're welcome.

Yes, this is one context in which it may be a good idea. However, it is only rational (i.e. in your self-interest) if there is a strong probability that the risk associated with not acting (or acting too late) is higher than the risk of acting preemptively.

The issue with this is that the perception of risk is subjective.


Quibble: Why do you conflate rationality with self-interest?

Back to the point. It is usually impossible to assess the probabilities of events in complex situations. See: Knightian Uncertainty. In those situations, the best that anybody can do is fall back on heuristics or historical precedent or both. Attacking preemptively is a good strategy because it eliminates the possibility of not attacking when the risk is high. Better safe than sorry, as they say.

Someone who is, for example, racist will overestimate the risk posed by young black men.


But that's like saying that someone who overestimates the risk posed by young black men overestimates the risk posed by young black men.

Someone who is jealous of others having power will see all other power bases as a threat, even if they are not.


There's no such thing. All other power bases are a threat.

This behaviour can then lead to these attacked groups responding violently to the racist or power-jealous entity.


The attacked groups could attack regardless.
#14476135
Saeko wrote:Quibble: Why do you conflate rationality with self-interest?


I believe that this is one of the definitions of rationality. Just to be clear: I am interested in the concept of self-interest, and we can get rid of the word "rationality" if you wish.

Back to the point. It is usually impossible to assess the probabilities of events in complex situations. See: Knightian Uncertainty. In those situations, the best that anybody can do is fall back on heuristics or historical precedent or both. Attacking preemptively is a good strategy because it eliminates the possibility of not attacking when the risk is high. Better safe than sorry, as they say.


We should then be striving to reduce the times of Knightian uncertainty and figure out what risk there actually is. This can only be done by analysing situations objectively. Racism and and unwillingness to share power make this more difficult.

But that's like saying that someone who overestimates the risk posed by young black men overestimates the risk posed by young black men.


Yes.

There's no such thing. All other power bases are a threat.


Only if you seek to have all the power.

The attacked groups could attack regardless.


Yes, but that is not certain. It becomes more likely if you keep attacking them.
#14476140
Pants-of-dog wrote:We should then be striving to reduce the times of Knightian uncertainty and figure out what risk there actually is. This can only be done by analysing situations objectively. Racism and and unwillingness to share power make this more difficult.


The whole idea behind Knightian uncertainty is that the bolded cannot be done at all, but people still have to make a decision regardless.


Me: There's no such thing. All other power bases are a threat.

You: Only if you seek to have all the power.

Me: The attacked groups could attack regardless.

You: Yes, but that is not certain. It becomes more likely if you keep attacking them.


So then racism and the like is not a threat to racial and other minorities? Or if it is, then that's only because those groups "seek to have all the power"?

Checkmate. 1-0.
#14476147
Saeko wrote:The whole idea behind Knightian uncertainty is that the bolded cannot be done at all, but people still have to make a decision regardless.


Yes, and the difference between Knightian uncertainty (KU) and risk is that KU is not able to be quantified, while risk is measurable. Thus, the more we are able to quantify, the more risk we have and the KU we have. The ability to quantify is based on the idea that we understand the factors involved and how they relate in some sort of way that is comprehensible to a logical mind. In other words, we have a model that accurately explains reality. To construct such a model, we have to understand reality as objectively as possible.

Thus, the more biases you bring to the table, the less risk you have and the more KU you have.

So then racism and the like is not a threat to racial and other minorities?


Of course it is.

Or if it is, then that's only because those groups "seek to have all the power"?


I am not sure which groups you are discussing here. If you are discussing racist groups, such as certain fascists, then the threat to minorities is due to the fact that these groups attempt to control the state apparatus and other powerful institutions in society in order to oppress minorities.
#14476152
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Yes, and the difference between Knightian uncertainty (KU) and risk is that KU is not able to be quantified, while risk is measurable. Thus, the more we are able to quantify, the more risk we have and the KU we have. The ability to quantify is based on the idea that we understand the factors involved and how they relate in some sort of way that is comprehensible to a logical mind. In other words, we have a model that accurately explains reality. To construct such a model, we have to understand reality as objectively as possible.

Thus, the more biases you bring to the table, the less risk you have and the more KU you have.


We already have nearly perfect models of reality in physics, but none of them are capable of reducing Knightian uncertainty about complex phenomena like say, the economy. That's because Knightian uncertainty stems from a lack of ability to calculate all of the possibilities. So even a perfect model of the situation at hand wouldn't be very helpful for most real-world problems.


Of course it is.

I am not sure which groups you are discussing here. If you are discussing racist groups, such as certain fascists, then the threat to minorities is due to the fact that these groups attempt to control the state apparatus and other powerful institutions in society in order to oppress minorities.


I am talking about minority groups. If you think that racism is partially the result and the cause of power imbalances among races in society, and, simultaneously, that other power bases are only a threat if you seek to have all the power, then, logically, either racism, as a power base, is no threat to racial minorities, or, if it is, then that can only because those minority groups "seek to have all the power".

Therefore, you must concede that either racial minorities "seek to have all the power", or that power bases can be a threat even to those who do not "seek to have all the power".
#14476157
Saeko wrote:We already have nearly perfect models of reality in physics, but none of them are capable of reducing Knightian uncertainty about complex phenomena like say, the economy. That's because Knightian uncertainty stems from a lack of ability to calculate all of the possibilities. So even a perfect model of the situation at hand wouldn't be very helpful for most real-world problems.


This does not mean we should stop striving for knowledge that helps us make better decisions.

I am talking about minority groups. If you think that racism is partially the result and the cause of power imbalances among races in society, and, simultaneously, that other power bases are only a threat if you seek to have all the power, then, logically, either racism, as a power base, is no threat to racial minorities, or, if it is, then that can only because those minority groups "seek to have all the power".


Again, it does not matter if racist people have power. What matters is that they use that power to promulgate a racist agenda. If a racist person had all the power and was never racist, then he would not be a racist threat.

Therefore, you must concede that either racial minorities "seek to have all the power", or that power bases can be a threat even to those who do not "seek to have all the power".


Yes, power bases can be a threat even to those who do not "seek to have all the power", if they use that power to attack others. However, there is nothing inherently threatening about another group having powers, unless you want your group to have all the power.
#14476164
Pants-of-dog wrote:
This does not mean we should stop striving for knowledge that helps us make better decisions.


Of course, but it does mean that few things can be reduced to a simple risk-benefit analysis.

Again, it does not matter if racist people have power. What matters is that they use that power to promulgate a racist agenda. If a racist person had all the power and was never racist, then he would not be a racist threat.

Yes, power bases can be a threat even to those who do not "seek to have all the power", if they use that power to attack others. However, there is nothing inherently threatening about another group having powers, unless you want your group to have all the power.


There is nothing "inherently" threatening about anything. The issue is not one of inherent threats anyway, but about realistic threats. And it is not unrealistic to suppose that someone with power might actually exercise it, unlike your hypothetical of a racist who never does anything racist.
#14476169
Saeko wrote:Of course, but it does mean that few things can be reduced to a simple risk-benefit analysis.


I never thought it was going to be simple.

There is nothing "inherently" threatening about anything. The issue is not one of inherent threats anyway, but about realistic threats. And it is not unrealistic to suppose that someone with power might actually exercise it, unlike your hypothetical of a racist who never does anything racist.


If you want to have all the power, as fascists do, then the fact that another group (such as Christians) has power is inherently threatening.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]