How Far Could / Would You Go to Make People Believe Your Ideology? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

How Far Could / Would You Go to Make People Believe Your Ideology?

1. I would happily flay the fucker alive and wear his skin for a hat.
1
5%
2. I might beat him up a bit, but I would stop short of mutilation. If that was not enough to persuade him then indefinite detention.
No votes
0%
3. I would treat him humanely but detain him indefinitely.
1
5%
4. I would treat him humanely and let him go after a bit even if he did not consent to believe.
2
10%
5. I would do nothing to him.
10
50%
6. Other
6
30%
#15064778
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you imagining some sort of fantasy world where random PoFoers are arbitrarily made judges in make believe societies?

And also hoping one of the forum Marxists will then act out your fantasy of being oppressed by them?

It's alright POD you do not need to admit you could not do anything more for your beliefs than talk twaddle on the internet. 99% of your coreligionists are just as harmless.
#15064861
SolarCross wrote:
Honestly, that is a cop out. You absolutely can assume you can find like-minded zealots with whom you can gang up on your detainees if you need the back up.
My ideology can only be realised when certain people lose a war, possibly in the scale of world war. After that things will evolve itself. There is no need to push my ideals to anybody.
#15064871
annatar1914 wrote:
Wishing military defeat, collapse, and genocide of your fellow nationals, that's a class act right there.
I dispute that final term (impractical to happen given the sheer number of Chinese). The others are not exclusive to me, but almost consensus in the city.

Consider me as a moderate and my fellow Hongkonger in this forum a pro-China, which is now quite rare.
#15064872
Patrickov wrote:I dispute that final term (impractical to happen given the sheer number of Chinese). The others are not exclusive to me, but almost consensus in the city.

Consider me as a moderate and my fellow Hongkonger in this forum a pro-China, which is now quite rare.


One of the rich lessons of history that gives me much satisfaction in this life is the truism that nobody likes traitors, even those who use such base tools for their own ends, and that murderous traitors usually get what they often desire to inflict on their countrymen and women.

When you simple cavil about the 'sheer number of Chinese' as being the primary obstacle to their genocide, you are then an advocate of genocide.
#15064873
annatar1914 wrote:When you simple cavil about the 'sheer number of Chinese' as being the primary obstacle to their genocide, you are then an advocate of genocide.


Advocation requires considering the thing practical to do. Why would somebody dismissing something as impractical be an advocate of said thing is a mystery to me.

It seems there's an urge among some people to label me as a genocidal maniac and have me kicked out of the forum.

If the target group is small in number and weak in power there is no need to force anything on them. If they are large in number and strong in power then there is no way anyone can decimate them -- weakening is a more achievable and even possibly win-win goal.

I am too lazy to advocate anything that requires substantial establishment and in the end ineffective. The Holocaust has already proven that genocide is an impractical, ineffective and ultimately self-detrimental action.

China should be treated like Germany in WW2 at worst, where it suffered defeat and collapse, flat and square. It is absurd to suggest it as a genocide.

As for traitor, well, we did not ask ourselves to be part of the Chinese, we are born as one, on one hand, but on the other hand the "membership" is more or less imposed on us because of some stupid national pride. And to be fair it is them who breached the Social Contract.
#15064887
Advocation requires considering the thing practical to do. Why would somebody dismissing something as impractical be an advocate of said thing is a mystery to me.


No, it goes to intent. Were it ''practical'', would you be an advocate for it if a technique suggested itself?

It seems there's an urge among some people to label me as a genocidal maniac and have me kicked out of the forum.


Maybe you should do some self-reflection if there's more than one person thinking that.

If the target group is small in number and weak in power there is no need to force anything on them. If they are large in number and strong in power then there is no way anyone can decimate them -- weakening is a more achievable and even possibly win-win goal.


So here you're advocating a weakening of the Chinese so that a genocide might become more practical of a possibility. Am I wrong in thinking this?

I am too lazy to advocate anything that requires substantial establishment and in the end ineffective. The Holocaust has already proven that genocide is an impractical, ineffective and ultimately self-detrimental action.


But you would advocate for something that didn't require substantial establishment and efficacy? That wasn't ''impractical, ineffective, and ultimately self-detrimental"?

China should be treated like Germany in WW2 at worst, where it suffered defeat and collapse, flat and square. It is absurd to suggest it as a genocide.


Germany was ruined at the end of WWII, and millions of Germans died. What would you call that however?

As for traitor, well, we did not ask ourselves to be part of the Chinese, we are born as one, on one hand, but on the other hand the "membership" is more or less imposed on us because of some stupid national pride. And to be fair it is them who breached the Social Contract.


I'm beginning to think you're some kind of Fascist, like a Japanese Ultra-Nationalist with deep racial hatred for the Chinese. What do you think of them, by the way?
#15064902
annatar1914 wrote:No, it goes to intent. Were it ''practical'', would you be an advocate for it if a technique suggested itself?


Let's just say genocide should not be an objective, at least not mine. My objective is that the place should be free of corruption and abuse of power, and I see Chinese nationalism / chauvinism as the root cause of the said problems.


annatar1914 wrote:Maybe you should do some self-reflection if there's more than one person thinking that.


Apparently not more than one, but I use plurals just in case.


annatar1914 wrote:So here you're advocating a weakening of the Chinese so that a genocide might become more practical of a possibility. Am I wrong in thinking this?


Wrong. Again, genocide should not be an objective.


annatar1914 wrote:But you would advocate for something that didn't require substantial establishment and efficacy? That wasn't ''impractical, ineffective, and ultimately self-detrimental"?


This seems like a trap which aims to lure me into saying something like "genocide is OK as long as it is practical, effective and non-self-detrimental".

As long as there is no proof that genocide can be practical, effective and non-self-detrimental this is at best a shooting in the air, and slandering at worst. IMHO the "non-self-detrimental" one is the hardest to prove, and I would always like to play safe.


annatar1914 wrote:Germany was ruined at the end of WWII, and millions of Germans died. What would you call that however?


To be fair, they started it.

And in some sense, the Chinese are doing it / willing to do it to whoever (rightfully) not wishing to submit to them.


annatar1914 wrote:I'm beginning to think you're some kind of Fascist, like a Japanese Ultra-Nationalist ...


I have stated before that Fascism and Nazism are natural response to Bolshevik and Stalinism. I believe they should have their excess adjusted out though.

For example, I advocate "Arbeit macht frei" but it shouldn't be through force labour. Workers' rights should be addressed as well.


annatar1914 wrote:... with deep racial hatred for the Chinese.


This is not exclusive to me and many in Hong Kong and Taiwan are even more outspoken.

And again, the Chinese started it by showing their corrupt and brutal way in suppressing information and freedom, as well as unleashing their low civil standard upon us. Live in Hong Kong or even Taiwan and feel it, please. Edit: One needs to compare the difference between Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China in order to fully understand the problem.


annatar1914 wrote:What do you think of {Japanese Ultra-Nationals}, by the way?


They did it wrong, especially when they wished to forcibly take over the whole of China in the 1930s. In some sense, they were like what China wants to do now.

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]