Favorite Philosophers andor Ideologies : Othor Games

» Sun May 13, 2012 2:05 am

Why would you? Load of 'dem jewz got killed, surely that's what you'd want?

Liberalism has given the world everything it has now. Facism (which is what National Socialism, actually is) has only destroyed it.

Fascism was an attempt at blending Liberalism and Totalitarianism. It appeared to fail, but upon closer inspection one realizes that nearly every single large Republic or Democracy on the planet is a Fascism.

Since we are already talking about this, and to avoid the reich being in my browsing history. Whats a reich and who were the first 2 ? (If it sounds stupid I dont cre, im asking anyway).

I believe that "Reich" is a literal German word that translates to kingdom or something similar. Essentially, the "Third Reich" was the "Third attempt at a German Goverment". The first two would be the emperorship that ended with WW1 and the Republic that failed when the Nazi party rose to power.

» Sun May 13, 2012 8:09 am

Reich means empire. The first being the Holy Roman Empire.(Teutonic knights & other medieval German culture) The second was founded by Bismark.

» Sat May 12, 2012 7:45 pm

Firstly, from experience and observation I can tell you that it is hardly ever in my best interest to share my views in a public setting. I do not talk about my views in social situations when asked to share & debate our(the class's) beliefs because the society I live in doesn't accept it. Most of my view-sharing occurs in my academic papers or behind closed doors.

I once was in a government sponsored setting that promoted freedom of speech and taught multiculturalism. There were all sorts of quotes posted concerning things like "Never let anyone tell you that your beliefs are wrong." or "Whenever anyone denies you the right to speak what you believe, shout it instead." and other liberal sayings. They had sanctioned a Martin Luther King Jr. essay competition (oh look it is MLK day) in which you were supposed to write an essay on MLKjr incorporating 15 words from a list of 30. Best written essay wins. Without vulgarity or slander, I wrote the best essay. In fact, I wrote the only essay that could be considered passing in even a Middle School setting. (I read the others). My essay was disqualified for being "not socially acceptable" on the grounds that, because the winner gets to read his/her essay at an assembly, people would would riot and kill me. I argued that, though I would like to be martyred in such a way, I understand, so just say that I won, and I won't read it. Of course they couldn't do that, and it ultimately came down to "This is my facility and you can't do anything about it, even though you followed all the rules, and should have won the competition."

America preaches acceptance and promotes diversity and multiculturalism in every regard! (Except when your opinion differs!) It's nothing but hypocritical nonsense.

Of course I don't care if people attack my views. This is good ol' Nazi-hating America. I understand that. It's just looked down upon by this site and they'll close the thread if people do it. Again, I don't associate with any form of Neo Nazi garbage, and if I ever went to prison where their presence was great, they would end up killing me.

National Socialism is a political-religious philosophy to me, which is what it was at its conception. Just because the founders of it ran it into the ground, that's just a matter of their own vices. I don't go around denying the Holocaust or beating up helpless people in my spare time. That's usually hard for people to comprehend, but so be it.

Reminds me of the Penn and Teller episode on uni/college.

Its pathetic, and annoys me.
Also on the topic of America, im just going to say, I despise the founders. "blah,blah blah, freedom, blah, blah liberty" then they own slaves, and go around murdering natives. Truely they were great people.

» Sat May 12, 2012 7:26 pm

Reich means empire. The first being the Holy Roman Empire.(Teutonic knights & other medieval German culture) The second was founded by Bismark.

Thats stupid. So hes a nationalist, yet desperately trying to pretend to be like the Roman empire. So much for german superiority.

What makes those empires any different ? Britin had a huge empire, but we didnt consider oursleves Rome 2.0

» Sat May 12, 2012 9:31 pm

Its pathetic, and annoys me.
Also on the topic of America, im just going to say, I despise the founders. "blah,blah blah, freedom, blah, blah liberty" then they own slaves, and go around murdering natives. Truely they were great people.

The Founding Fathers were humans.
As humans they are intensely hypocritical.
You can't allow their personal shortcomings to cloud your interpretation of the ideals they promoted.

Thats stupid. So hes a nationalist, yet desperately trying to pretend to be like the Roman empire. So much for german superiority.

What makes those empires any different ? Britin had a huge empire, but we didnt consider oursleves Rome 2.0

The name "Holy Roman Empire" was the name of the government of Germany during the Medieval period.

» Sun May 13, 2012 4:39 am

Thats stupid. So hes a nationalist, yet desperately trying to pretend to be like the Roman empire. So much for german superiority.

What makes those empires any different ? Britin had a huge empire, but we didnt consider oursleves Rome 2.0

Holy Roman Empire isn't Rome. I have no idea why it was called that. It was medieval Germany. I know, it's confusing.

The Holy Roman Empire (first Reich) existed from 962 to 1806 at which point the 2nd Reich of Bismark came into being and the ceased to be known as the Holy Roman Empire.

» Sun May 13, 2012 9:32 am

What makes those empires any different ? Britin had a huge empire, but we didnt consider oursleves Rome 2.0

Yes we did, the Victorians felt they had inherited the mantle of leaders of the civilised worl from the Romans.

» Sat May 12, 2012 6:39 pm

As far as "Liberalism has given the world everything it has now."... what the hell do you mean by that? Democracy? Communism? Genocide? Muslims? Mormons? iPhones? Ford F-150s?
What did Fascism destroy? From what I understand, it was the Nazi technology that brought us into the rocket and jet age.

I don't want to get dragged into this most likely thread ending argument, but do not attribute the development of rockets and jet propulsion to the Nazi's or Fascism. These were German accomplishments, they were not developed by a political party.

Note: The Chinese developed rocket technology before the Germans.

» Sun May 13, 2012 8:30 am

/sigh
When you start telling me what I would want, I begin to think that you beginning to flamebait.
As far as "Liberalism has given the world everything it has now."... what the hell do you mean by that? Democracy? Communism? Genocide? Muslims? Mormons? iPhones? Ford F-150s?

While democracy did exist in Athens (in an unworkable form), liberalism brought it to its modern state (which isn't perfect, but better than any other system that has ever existed). Communism was an answer to excessive economic liberalism, admittedly but its as much a dead ideology as fascism is now. The next three points just seem to be things you think are bad randomly just shoved together, and I can think of worse things than iPhones and F-150s.

In response to your essay whining, did you honestly think that writing, what I assume was an essay in favor of national socialism/racism would not raise any objections on MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY, says leaps and bounds as to your social ability...

What did Fascism destroy? From what I understand, it was the Nazi technology that brought us into the rocket and jet age.

6 million Jews in Europe would like a word with you.

Fascism was an attempt at blending Liberalism and Totalitarianism. It appeared to fail, but upon closer inspection one realizes that nearly every single large Republic or Democracy on the planet is a Fascism.

Fascism relies on the individual's will being totally removed in the interest of the state. Liberalism is focused on the individual, and its early proponents were socialists. And no, fascism is a clear ideological concept, and cannot be applied to countries that have next to no similarities to it. Also 'is a Fascism'? Surely, it's 'are fascist'?

Thats stupid. So hes a nationalist, yet desperately trying to pretend to be like the Roman empire. So much for german superiority.

'Holy Roman' comes from the fact that the ruler of the first Holy Roman Empire was crowned by the Pope in Rome.

The Founding Fathers were humans.
As humans they are intensely hypocritical.
You can't allow their personal shortcomings to cloud your interpretation of the ideals they promoted

What an awful defense. The founders of the first state based on liberty while still maintaining the inexcusable policy of slavery is unforgivably hypocritical. Thomas Paine, another of the founding fathers was human, yet was an abolitionist.

» Sun May 13, 2012 9:41 am

Holy Roman Empire isn't Rome. I have no idea why it was called that. It was medieval Germany. I know, it's confusing.

The Holy Roman Empire (first Reich) existed from 962 to 1806 at which point the 2nd Reich of Bismark came into being and the ceased to be known as the Holy Roman Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire was the secular authority endorsed by the Pope. It started with Charlemagne, who unified much of what is modern France, Germany, and Italy, thus rebuilding the western Roman Empire. The Pope (forget which one) acknowledged this by naming him the Emperor. After his death, his holdings split up, and after much wrangling, the German part retained the title, which it theoretically held until around the middle of the 19th century.

» Sat May 12, 2012 10:44 pm

The Founding Fathers were humans.
As humans they are intensely hypocritical.
You can't allow their personal shortcomings to cloud your interpretation of the ideals they promoted.

I dont give a damn about ideals, actions speak louder than words. If they wanted freedom they wouldnt be so hypocitical as to own slaves. Its pathetic.

Hypocrisy isnt too much of an issue most of the time. But when you just harp on about liberty and freedom, then completely take away peoples freedom. You loose all credability, and are no better than your average slave owner.

Yes we did, the Victorians felt they had inherited the mantle of leaders of the civilised worl from the Romans.

Damnit Victorians, you let me down. Allthough it most likely was the most civilised place.

» Sun May 13, 2012 2:08 am

Sure, if you ignore the massive amounts of poverty...

» Sun May 13, 2012 3:49 am

I'm sorry but, the world isn't a democracy, and to say that it's better than anything else that ever existed is ridiculous. Why? Because it currently exists in some places? That appears to be your only defense.

To insult my social ability is, once again, flamebait, and you clearly missed the thesis of my example.

Talking about the Holocaust as the only thing that happened is pretty silly as well. You aren't giving me much of a reason to continue this discussion.

» Sun May 13, 2012 4:49 am

Fascism relies on the individual's will being totally removed in the interest of the state.

Fascism is an economic model that blends centralized control with individual economic liberty in an attempt to smooth out natural recessionary and inflationary periods as well as reach a degree of economic equality. In order to achieve that goal in Nazi Germany, a lot of additional layers were added and abused and those layers have become commonly (though incorrectly) associated with the idea of Fascism. Please note, I do not support the idea, I am merely trying to promote understanding of it from a factual perspective so that people will have the opportunity to separate what they know from what they think they know about the idea.

Liberalism is focused on the individual, and its early proponents were socialists. And no, fascism is a clear ideological concept, and cannot be applied to countries that have next to no similarities to it. Also 'is a Fascism'? Surely, it's 'are fascist'?

The US has an increasingly controlled (regulated) economy and can therefore be considered Fascist in nature. The difference between the Fascism in the US and the Nazi Fascism is that the Nazis attempted to force the idea at one time whereas the US has been slowly evolving into one over the past 200 years.

What an awful defense. The founders of the first state based on liberty while still maintaining the inexcusable policy of slavery is unforgivably hypocritical Thomas Paine, another of the founding fathers was human, yet was an abolitionist.

Thomas Paine was not a Founding Father, but his writings did influence them and his ideas eventually lead to the American Revolution. My defense is not "awful". We are not debating how nice the people were, nor how many slaves they had, nor how hypocritical they were. Those things are all irrelevant when you are discussing the merits of the evolving social theory they relied upon when they attempted to establish a new form of government. You are suggesting that an ad hominem attack against the Founding Fathers renders their positions illogical?

» Sat May 12, 2012 9:31 pm

What did Fascism destroy? From what I understand, it was the Nazi technology that brought us into the rocket and jet age.

The Nazis were fascists? And Frank Whittle was a Nazi? You live and learn, I suppose.

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:57 am

The Nazis were fascists? And Frank Whittle was a Nazi? You live and learn, I suppose.

Lol, I was responding to someone who thinks the Nazi's were fascists, probably not a good idea.

Sure Frank Whittle was the father of jet propulsion but it was the Nazi's who used it and developed it to the point that we recognized its importance.

» Sat May 12, 2012 9:10 pm

I'm sorry but, the world isn't a democracy, and to say that it's better than anything else that ever existed is ridiculous. Why? Because it currently exists in some places? That appears to be your only defense.

I never said the world is a democracy, and it is better than However, it provides the most legitimacy than any other form of rule, has provided the world with more economic wealth than any other, and is dependent on people being free to express their beliefs and opinions. Hell, do you honestly think that the Internet would've existed under a national socialist regime?

To insult my social ability is, once again, flamebait, and you clearly missed the thesis of my example.

Its not flamebait, merely an observation. If you were unable to comprehend how writing a racist essay on Martin Luther King day is inappropriate, then you've got some rather large problems in dealing with context.

Talking about the Holocaust as the only thing that happened is pretty silly as well. You aren't giving me much of a reason to continue this discussion.

The holocaust isn't relevant to a discussion of national socialism? Then what is?

The US has an increasingly controlled (regulated) economy and can therefore be considered Fascist in nature. The difference between the Fascism in the US and the Nazi Fascism is that the Nazis attempted to force the idea at one time whereas the US has been slowly evolving into one over the past 200 years.

Making a highly debatable comparison doesn't mean that it is fascist. Regulation doesn't equal fascism (unless you're a fan of von Hayek, and he uses 'totalitarianism' anyway), as it could just as easily be social democratic. If an animal is a bipedal primate, it could be human, but it could just as easily be a gorilla.

Thomas Paine was not a Founding Father, but his writings did influence them and his ideas eventually lead to the American Revolution. My defense is not "awful". We are not debating how nice the people were, nor how many slaves they had, nor how hypocritical they were. Those things are all irrelevant when you are discussing the merits of the evolving social theory they relied upon when they attempted to establish a new form of government. You are suggesting that an ad hominem attack against the Founding Fathers renders their positions illogical?

That's the thing, It is highly relevant. It makes as much sense as being told the merits of atheism from the Pope.

» Sat May 12, 2012 7:08 pm

Been a while since I read the Inferno, but shouldn't Epicurus be in the first circle of Hell with the other "noble" unbelievers?

Well in Inferno Epicurus and his followers were sent to the circle of heretics criticized for their materialistic beliefs which clashed with Judeo-Christian beliefs. The Problem of Hell arises given that such a place even exists.

Holy Roman Empire isn't Rome. I have no idea why it was called that. It was medieval Germany. I know, it's confusing. The Holy Roman Empire (first Reich) existed from 962 to 1806 at which point the 2nd Reich of Bismark came into being and the ceased to be known as the Holy Roman Empire.

In the words of Voltare "The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire" only called holy because Charlemagne was considered such by the pope. Charlemagne being the founder of said empire.

The premise of heaven in this comic seems incredibly easy to get into - hence why Nietzsche got in. http://www.dead-philosophers.com/comics/2010-10-25-neitzschegod.jpg

Poor Nietzsche, he never meant it literally honest.

Also in regards to the current topic at hand I would recommend either cooling it or debate via PM for the sake of the thread.

» Sun May 13, 2012 4:09 am

I can no longer comment to the benefit of this thread.

» Sat May 12, 2012 7:52 pm

There was a "keep an eye on" note posted for the mods as soon as this topic appeared, it was well justified reading through this thread as it seems that despite the length of time members have been on these forums many are unable to discuss in a mature way that is within the forum rules.