Message to the users of this forum

[waw460]

Recently I have been reading several topics on this channel of Politics.
At first I was rather excited to be given a chance to talk about interesting things like politics; since my flash/programming skills can be described as terrible.

But after a while my enthousiasm drifted away on the sea of hate that some users express on these channels. It is that hard to discuss politics without pointing out the flaws of others? On most forums one can't express a sympathy for socialism without receiving links to utterly retarded 'anti'-sites or being accused of atrocities like The Great Leap Forward or Gulag's.

Even though I have respect for and am a little bit attracted to center-right-wing lliberalism I am myself Left-oriented. This DOES NOT mean that I feel love for Stalin or Mao. Neither does it mean that I like Hitler.

Seing these accusions, especially the last one, makes my blood boil in my vains.

(((Hitler raped the socialist ideal. He transformed Class Struggle into Race struggle, he burned the Reichstag so that he could blame it on Communist Rebels, he transformed The Community to The State (read Marx; real socialism=NO state), he had Left intellectuals assassinated just because they were Left, his party was extremely NATIONALIST (compare with: The INTERnationale; Proletarier ALLER LANDER, vereinigt euch!). The term 'Socialist' in National-Socialism was a purely populiustic term in order to gain votes.)))

The mentality 'They are not entirely correct so I must be right!' is of a very retarded nature. Nevertheless it is used by many (eg. There are some minors flaws in evolution---> Go creationism!; Some socialist states opress---->Let's get extreme-right wing!).

I would hereby like to ask all users of this forum to discuss politics in a human and adult way (which means: no false accusations, no swears without reasons, respect for other opinions).
We should not let discussions like these tear us apart. Feelings of superiority were at the base of almost all life-taking conflicts.

Positive feelings and respect distinguish man from beast, not hate and violence.

[kahncccp]

Its nice to see someone on the forum who's not a dumbass.

[rainjirea]

a little bit extrem aren't we? how can you compare hitler and his politic with the right site XD?
i mean even in germany only the extrem-right-wing, which are 1 or 2 parties are national-socialist.
the normal right side in my point of view suppords old values, laws and don't want really big chances.
that doesn't mean that they don't want to chance anything.
the left side on the other hand want more drastical measures like no atom-energy, more reformations and so on.

in the end it doesnt change the fact that it doesn't matter, for which party you vote, before the elections they want to make everything better and after the election nothing happens XD.

[Zeistro]

At 3/19/08 04:50 PM, kahncccp wrote: Its nice to see someone on the forum who's not a dumbass.

Then perhaps you should leave so there'd be one less around.

To the topic starter: most of us are aware of Hitler's populist methods. Indeed, he used the term "socialist" to gain votes just like many modern democrat Presidents *cough* Obama *cough* like to portray themselves as christian if only to chip away at the Republican base.

Hitler was no far-leftwinger, but his regime incorporated many aspects of the left and right extremes, hence why he is so universally hated without having apologists on either the right or left.

[waw460]

At 3/19/08 05:02 PM, rainjirea wrote: a little bit extrem aren't we? how can you compare hitler and his politic with the right site XD?
i mean even in germany only the extrem-right-wing, which are 1 or 2 parties are national-socialist.
the normal right side in my point of view suppords old values, laws and don't want really big chances.
that doesn't mean that they don't want to chance anything.
the left side on the other hand want more drastical measures like no atom-energy, more reformations and so on.

in the end it doesnt change the fact that it doesn't matter, for which party you vote, before the elections they want to make everything better and after the election nothing happens XD.

Old values you say? examples given:
Man-Woman weddings? Hitler gassed gays.
Modern art? Hitler burned it.

Nevertheless your endlines are great :p

[waw460]

At 3/19/08 05:10 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 3/19/08 04:50 PM, kahncccp wrote: Its nice to see someone on the forum who's not a dumbass.

Then perhaps you should leave so there'd be one less around.

To the topic starter: most of us are aware of Hitler's populist methods. Indeed, he used the term "socialist" to gain votes just like many modern democrat Presidents *cough* Obama *cough* like to portray themselves as christian if only to chip away at the Republican base.

Hitler was no far-leftwinger, but his regime incorporated many aspects of the left and right extremes, hence why he is so universally hated without having apologists on either the right or left.

Sigh, this is what my topic wanted to fight. Why do you call kahncccp a dumbass?

You are correct that Hitler combined Left and Right in some way; but today it are the parties on the far right of the political spectrum that demand amnesty for collaboration-convicts and that organise 'Memorials to fallen heroes' at SS graveyards.

National-Socialism; nomen est omen? Not always.

[kahncccp]

At 3/19/08 05:10 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 3/19/08 04:50 PM, kahncccp wrote: Its nice to see someone on the forum who's not a dumbass.

Then perhaps you should leave so there'd be one less around.

I suggest you leave as well, then.

[rainjirea]

Old values you say? examples given:
Man-Woman weddings? Hitler gassed gays.
Modern art? Hitler burned it.

Nevertheless your endlines are great :p

thx, ok the right site in germany is again gay-weddings (but they are only against the wedding), they want harder laws against criminal foreigners and they want to make it harder for foreigners to come and life in our land (in fact it is 10000 times easier to comeand live in germany compared to america) and so on, but they aren't racist (in fact we have many in germany and the are part of the criminal problem (not all but many)).
with old values i mean christian?-values. only the EXTREM-right-side is racists and goes direct against foreigners.

you don't know anything about politics when you say right site = hitler and left site =
punk, karl marx. because only the extrem-right and left wings really suck.

[waw460]

At 3/19/08 05:29 PM, rainjirea wrote:

Old values you say? examples given:
Man-Woman weddings? Hitler gassed gays.
Modern art? Hitler burned it.

Nevertheless your endlines are great :p

thx, ok the right site in germany is again gay-weddings (but they are only against the wedding), they want harder laws against criminal foreigners and they want to make it harder for foreigners to come and life in our land (in fact it is 10000 times easier to comeand live in germany compared to america) and so on, but they aren't racist (in fact we have many in germany and the are part of the criminal problem (not all but many)).
with old values i mean christian?-values. only the EXTREM-right-side is racists and goes direct against foreigners.

you don't know anything about politics when you say right site = hitler and left site =
punk, karl marx. because only the extrem-right and left wings really suck.

You imply that 'you don't know anything about politics' when I say marx is left winged?
Please, my friend, go and educate yourself before you say such things. (In politics and in spelling)

[rainjirea]

You imply that 'you don't know anything about politics' when I say marx is left winged?
Please, my friend, go and educate yourself before you say such things. (In politics and in spelling)

no, i say they you know nothing, when you automatically come to this conclusion, after somebody wrote he is left or right-winged and attack you with this fact. i never said marx wasn't left-winged.
i mean when i vote for a left-winged or rightwinged-party i am not automatically i fan of those guys and ideas.

[JackPhantasm]

Open mind open your eyes, fish bowl water full.

[Al6200]

At 3/19/08 04:38 PM, waw460 wrote: Recently I have been reading several topics on this channel of Politics.
At first I was rather excited to be given a chance to talk about interesting things like politics; since my flash/programming skills can be described as terrible.

Well, a lot of the skill in Computer Science comes with math education. Study hard, do your homework, stick at it, and you'll improve.

But after a while my enthousiasm drifted away on the sea of hate that some users express on these channels. It is that hard to discuss politics without pointing out the flaws of others? On most forums one can't express a sympathy for socialism without receiving links to utterly retarded 'anti'-sites or being accused of atrocities like The Great Leap Forward or Gulag's.

Well, to be fair:

1. You can defend yourself. If someone sticks you with the Great Leap Forward, stick them with modern Sweden and Norway, and then distinguish between socialism and communism. If you feel really miffed about it, make a thread defending socialism and see what arguments people have against you.

2. There's some degree of intellectual rigor on the politics forum, in other words, people will criticize poorly thought out or researched ideas. Don't take it personally, it's just that people aren't going to react well to weak arguments.

Even though I have respect for and am a little bit attracted to center-right-wing lliberalism I am myself Left-oriented. This DOES NOT mean that I feel love for Stalin or Mao. Neither does it mean that I like Hitler.

I think most people are sympathetic to that concept. If you just point that out in a topic then you'll probably be able to successfully retaliate and win.

(((Hitler raped the socialist ideal. He transformed Class Struggle into Race struggle, he burned the Reichstag so that he could blame it on Communist Rebels, he transformed The Community to The State (read Marx; real socialism=NO state)

Most of the above supports are very weak. It's easy to say "The socialist ideal is no state with pure freedom. But Hitler, Mao, and Stalin have just gone against that ideal and therefore don't represent true socialism".

However, you should see that that's a circular argument. You're defining the socialist idea as a set of policy and results, not just a policy, so whenever there's a socialist policy and you get non-ideal results, you can say "That's not real socialism".

So if we're to use your standards, then socialism is either perfect or real socialism doesn't exist, your theory is not falsifiable, and therefore is not scientifically valid!

:he had Left intellectuals assassinated just because they were Left, his party was extremely NATIONALIST (compare with: The INTERnationale; Proletarier ALLER LANDER, vereinigt euch!). The term 'Socialist' in National-Socialism was a purely populiustic term in order to gain votes.)))

Yes, but what you're doing is trying to disconnect the bad results of socialism from socialist policy by defining socialist policy in terms of its results, and therefore making it impossible to fairly judge.

The mentality 'They are not entirely correct so I must be right!' is of a very retarded nature. Nevertheless it is used by many (eg. There are some minors flaws in evolution---> Go creationism!; Some socialist states opress---->Let's get extreme-right wing!).

The evolution one is a serious problem, but the fact that some socialist states oppress is a good reason to have non-socialist policies.

I would hereby like to ask all users of this forum to discuss politics in a human and adult way (which means: no false accusations, no swears without reasons, respect for other opinions).

I respect you as a person, but I'm not going to sacrifice intellectual and academic rigor in order to look more "civil". Granted, swears and insults are rude and unnecessary, but pwns and brutal counterarguments are a part of the scientific method.

Positive feelings and respect distinguish man from beast, not hate and violence.

Again, most people try to be positive, but if you say something that doesn't make sense, I don't think it's at all rude or inappropriate for me to provide counterarguments.

[Zeistro]

At 3/19/08 05:14 PM, waw460 wrote: Sigh, this is what my topic wanted to fight. Why do you call kahncccp a dumbass?

Because kahncccp is a dumbass that would of been better off as an aborted fetus. Look at the guy's blatant hypocrisy and how moronic both him and his posts are.

Point, I will never insult you personally if I do not feel you deserve it. Even if you and I disagree 100% as long as you effectively convey your points then I will return the courtesy.

You are correct that Hitler combined Left and Right in some way; but today it are the parties on the far right of the political spectrum that demand amnesty for collaboration-convicts and that organise 'Memorials to fallen heroes' at SS graveyards.

Do not forgot it is individuals on the far-left who demand amnesty for illegal immigrants, not to mention lighter sentences for cold-blooded murderers. A recent case comes to mind (in California)involving the co-founder of the Crypts.

National-Socialism; nomen est omen? Not always.

People's republic. There's many misnomers.

At 3/19/08 05:22 PM, kahncccp wrote:

I suggest you leave as well, then.

Oh wow. I am absolutely dazzled by your keen wit and originality.

eyerollie

[Benovere]

At 3/19/08 04:50 PM, kahncccp wrote: Its nice to see someone on the forum who's not a dumbass.

That is depending on point of view. He was intelligent (from what he said), but he came on the internet, where millions of stupid, retarded, and downright asinine people have access to, and expected, no, demanded an intelligent conversation. That is lack of common sense, to expect others to have common sense.

[GriffinLancer]

At 3/19/08 05:02 PM, rainjirea wrote: a little bit extrem aren't we? how can you compare hitler and his politic with the right site XD?

Far Right= Reactionary movements. A desire to go back in time to a more conservative era.

i mean even in germany only the extrem-right-wing, which are 1 or 2 parties are national-socialist.

National-Socialist= Center of the Left, give or take a few issues. A want for a unified State, same rules, etc, etc.

the normal right side in my point of view suppords old values, laws and don't want really big chances.

Conservatism.

that doesn't mean that they don't want to chance anything.

Actually, True Conservatism is not changing a damn thing. if they change one thing, they're more MODERATE.

the left side on the other hand want more drastical measures like no atom-energy, more reformations and so on.

Left depends on how far you wanna go. Yes, the left side is the Radical Side.

in the end it doesnt change the fact that it doesn't matter, for which party you vote, before the elections they want to make everything better and after the election nothing happens XD.

Well, this country is run by businesses and lobbyists who are only making these presidents richer. If you want shit done, get a 3rd party president (Like a Libertarian (Left) or a Constitutionalist (Right).

[rainjirea]

Well, this country is run by businesses and lobbyists who are only making these presidents richer. If you want shit done, get a 3rd party president (Like a Libertarian (Left) or a Constitutionalist (Right).

thats why we have another form of democracy XD, at least france, german, englands and the us democracy have some big differences. in the end the best lier wins. to be true, from 100 voters only 10-30 really know what the vote.

and yes my english sucks enough to not understand everything, i used National-Socialist because i missunderstand the first post a bit. i mean nazi, racist-opinion and in german we also call them nationalsozialisten (even when its wrong, media can make it right). so for me a national-socialist was/is on the extrem right side from my bad commen knowledge and my missunderstanding, because both words look similar.

ah and thx for some new words XD.

Actually, True Conservatism is not changing a damn thing. if they change one thing, they're more MODERATE.

they have to change things, if the left side made decisions in a former period, they try to rebuild the old system, which they want at least.

[reviewer-general]

At 3/19/08 05:22 PM, kahncccp wrote: I suggest you leave as well, then.

Well, that was redundant.

;

[xcs-the-mad-fan]

Well not going into hitler here. But heres a thought for you guys. The non-assholes i supposed. Or the 'assholes' that just have a little too much to say (its okay i was and am still like this).

' There are more good guys than bad guys in the world. Its just that the bad guys make more noise than the good guys '

Somewhere along those lines.

[altanese-mistress]

There is a very good reason why I stopped coming to the forums a while back, and that is because more than a few users are self-righteous and cherry-pick arguments.

And honestly, no one makes any interesting topics anymore; it's all the same recycled jibberish with the only possible exception being the occasional current event that spurs about a dozen topics.

Then why am I here? I like to check every now and then for something worth responding to.

[Al6200]

At 3/25/08 10:20 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: There is a very good reason why I stopped coming to the forums a while back, and that is because more than a few users are self-righteous and cherry-pick arguments.

Maybe they cherry-pick because they want arguments of the forum to be academically rigorous (at least, by the standards of a forum).

And honestly, no one makes any interesting topics anymore; it's all the same recycled jibberish with the only possible exception being the occasional current event that spurs about a dozen topics.

Meh.

[xcs-the-mad-fan]

At 3/25/08 10:20 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: There is a very good reason why I stopped coming to the forums a while back, and that is because more than a few users are self-righteous and cherry-pick arguments.

And honestly, no one makes any interesting topics anymore; it's all the same recycled jibberish with the only possible exception being the occasional current event that spurs about a dozen topics.

Then why am I here? I like to check every now and then for something worth responding to.

Perhaps someone like you should post more of this. Simple posts as a 'senior' on the forums to solve stupid problems. If you want to solve them that is.

Or start your own interesting topic maybe?

[altanese-mistress]

At 3/26/08 06:11 AM, Al6200 wrote: Maybe they cherry-pick because they want arguments of the forum to be academically rigorous (at least, by the standards of a forum).

Or because at least 100% of the users here are 14 year olds trying to sound smrt.

At 3/26/08 09:04 AM, xcs-the-mad-fan wrote: Perhaps someone like you should post more of this.

Someone like me?

Simple posts as a 'senior' on the forums to solve stupid problems.

I know I'm old (18) but you don't have to point it out.

[Al6200]

At 3/26/08 08:30 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 3/26/08 06:11 AM, Al6200 wrote: Maybe they cherry-pick because they want arguments of the forum to be academically rigorous (at least, by the standards of a forum).

Or because at least 100% of the users here are 14 year olds trying to sound smrt.

And they become academically mature contributors by using intellectual rigor (cherry picking, in your words) - not by taking cheap potshots and starting flame wars.

At 3/26/08 09:04 AM, xcs-the-mad-fan wrote: Perhaps someone like you should post more of this.

Someone like me?

Simple posts as a 'senior' on the forums to solve stupid problems.

I know I'm old (18) but you don't have to point it out.

Many of the users are much older than you, believe it or not. CellarDoor6 has gone to Wash. U, or has graduated. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall him saying that).

TheMason has been in the Air Force.

[Slizor]

So if we're to use your standards, then socialism is either perfect or real socialism doesn't exist, your theory is not falsifiable, and therefore is not scientifically valid!

Scientific validity.....in Political Philosophy?! Get out of here.

Seriously, what political philosophy is scientifically valid and since when has that been the aim of political philosophy? I was always under the impression that it aims to be philosophically valid.

[Al6200]

At 3/27/08 06:04 AM, Slizor wrote:

So if we're to use your standards, then socialism is either perfect or real socialism doesn't exist, your theory is not falsifiable, and therefore is not scientifically valid!

Scientific validity.....in Political Philosophy?! Get out of here.

Seriously, what political philosophy is scientifically valid and since when has that been the aim of political philosophy? I was always under the impression that it aims to be philosophically valid.

No, real political philosophies need to be tested with science - hence the major political SCIENCE.

Of course, you can't usually isolate variables or perform experiments the way one can in a hard-science, but political scientists still try to follow the scientific method with the information that they have.

Also, if by philosophically valid, you mean "proven", then you're hopelessly off-base, since it's much harder to prove something with logic than it is to support it with evidence.

[Slizor]

No, real political philosophies need to be tested with science - hence the major political SCIENCE.

There's a huge debate about whether politics can be studied as a science. While it is the case that since the Behaviouralist revolution of the 1950s Americans have adopted the position that you can study politics as a science, the British remain unconvinced - which is why I have a degree in Government and Politics Studies, not Political Science. And while it is the case that some areas of politics lend themselves to scientific methodolgy (particularly election and voting studies) I have never seen a scientific approach to political philosophy and ideology.

Of course, you can't usually isolate variables or perform experiments the way one can in a hard-science, but political scientists still try to follow the scientific method with the information that they have.

You know, there is only one "law" in political science (Duverger's) and even that doesn't always apply. Its really not a scientific subject.

Also, if by philosophically valid, you mean "proven", then you're hopelessly off-base, since it's much harder to prove something with logic than it is to support it with evidence.

I didn't mean that. By philosophically valid I meant that from their premises their conclusions follow - there are no gaps in logic. It doesn't have to be (and never actually is) proven, just consistant.

[D2Kvirus]

Starter for 10: which poster is he referring to (or do they sound uncannily like)?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

socialism fails proven fact

[waw460]

At 3/27/08 05:55 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: socialism fails proven fact

What do you think of the Scandinavian nations then?
Top of world's HDI

[waw460]

At 3/27/08 12:49 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/19/08 04:38 PM, waw460 wrote: Recently I have been reading several topics on this channel of Politics.

:et cetera et cetera

UR WRONG
This message has been brought to you by the Your opinion threatens the legitimacy of my opinion Foundation.

How mature of you.
This shit is what I'm referring to; needless hating.