Debate between BurnTheOliveTree, Sentinel, and Black banner black gun

[BurnTheOliveTree]

black banner - Since you ask why cling to the liberal notion of free speech, why is it you cling to the oppressive notion of intolerance? You just can't apply one rule for our side and another rule for opinions that differ from ours. We are no better than they are if we don't allow them the same rights as we enjoy.

-Alex

[bcbm]

why is it you cling to the oppressive notion of intolerance

Because I simply cannot tolerate bigots, I'm afraid.


You just can't apply one rule for our side and another rule for opinions that differ from ours. We are no better than they are if we don't allow them the same rights as we enjoy.

I don't believe in the liberal conception of "rights." Everyone is, of course, free to speak their mind but when you start preaching genocide and murder against my friends, well.. there are consequences.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

But is it not the case that many on this site openly advocate slaughtering those who stand in the way of revolution? That is equal to genocide, surely? Why aren't you calling for them to be gagged? And what's wrong with humans having basic rights?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I wonder, do you make an effort to tolerate bigotry? It seems to me that if we can rise above their lunacy, without resorting to trying to ram their mouths shut, we end up with the moral high ground. And we look better for it. Surely you don't think fascists seriously stand a chance of converting Joe Average?

Hmm. On second thoughts, Hitler was democratically elected. I'm going to think again on this one.

-Alex

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+--> (BurnTheOliveTree) black banner - Since you ask why cling to the liberal notion of free speech, why is it you cling to the oppressive notion of intolerance? You just can't apply one rule for our side and another rule for opinions that differ from ours. We are no better than they are if we don't allow them the same rights as we enjoy.

-Alex[/b]

Resisting anti-semitism violently is now 'intolerance'? Seriously, man, if you thought we were going to sit down with the nazis and have a nice debate over a cup of tea, perhaps you're in the wrong movement? Do you seriously think they would be given a platform in the name of 'free speech' post-revolution? Not if I have any say.

And since when have communists started using abstract moral terms, like 'better than they'? We are advocates of truth and science, not that sort of bullshit. Let's leave that kind of talk to George W Bush.


black banner black gun
I don't believe in the liberal conception of "rights." Everyone is, of course, free to speak their mind but when you start preaching genocide and murder against my friends, well.. there are consequences.

Word.

About Gibson being drunk.. I have been mighty wasted a few times (never behind the wheel though) and said heaps of things I've regretted the next morning.

But I have always meant what I said. It's been the choice of situation and words I would have changed afterwards if such a thing was possible. So I'm one hundred percent positive Gibson is a bigot, propably a superstitious, anti-semitic bigot.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Sentinel - Yes, of course it's intolerance. Let me ask you a question. Do you think you can effectively suppress all the views you happen to despise? As I understand it, Stalin attempted to drive out religion, and it didn't work. In fact, it appeared to have hardened their resolve.

And if you're going to say that "better than they" is an abstract term, apply it to your position. Would it be too far off the mark to paraphrase your position as "our views are better than their views so their views shouldn't be allowed"?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Oh and another question, open to anyone who thinks that Nazi's should not have the same rights as others.

Do you consider the possibility that you might be wrong? By that I mean do you consider that the entire communist ideology is wrong? According to the scientific method, you should at least consider it. If you do consider it, freezing out other opinions seems... Counter intuitive, to say the least.

-Alex

[Sentinel]

Do you think you can effectively suppress all the views you happen to despise?

It's a historical fact that views can be suppressed into nonexistance. Look what the roman christians did to the traditional pagan religion of Rome. Seen a lot of Jupiter worshippers around?


As I understand it, Stalin attempted to drive out religion, and it didn't work. In fact, it appeared to have hardened their resolve.

He was being far too lenient, like the soviet line on superstition in general.


And if you're going to say that "better than they" is an abstract term, apply it to your position. Would it be too far off the mark to paraphrase your position as "our views are better than their views so their views shouldn't be allowed"?

Yes it would. See, scientific communism is based on material truth while nazis talk out of their ass. That's a fact, not my opinion or 'view'.

[Sentinel]

Oh and another question, open to anyone who thinks that Nazi's should not have the same rights as others.

Do you consider the possibility that you might be wrong?

Well one thing is certain. That definitely wouldn't mean the nazis were right. Therefore the repressing of their anti-human bullshit ideology would still be spot on.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Sentinel - A fair point about the Jupiter Worshippers. :)

However, wouldn't it be fair to say that there are no "facts", only interpretations? In which case, it most certainly is your view. Nothing is beyond dispute. Science agrees with that too, doesn't it? So by that logic, you are just as guilty of using "abstract terms" as I am.

To clear things up a little, what exactly is your view on going about suppressing other people's opinions? How would you do it, given the oppurtunity?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Right, rejecting communism isn't an argument for being a Nazi, I accept that. But think about it. If you do consider the possibility that you are wrong, you need other views to compare it to, capitalism for instance. If there were no other views, you can't truly consider the possibility that you might be wrong. And ultimately fascism and capitalism and every view that isn't yours come under the collective banner, "views that I disagree with".

Do you follow? I get the impression i'm not being very clear. :(

-Alex

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:49 AM
But is it not the case that many on this site openly advocate slaughtering those who stand in the way of revolution?
Indeed, and I am one of them.


That is equal to genocide, surely?

No, not at all. Genocide is mass-murder based around characteristics which are incidental, such as the color of one's skin or one's national heritage. Revolutionary violence would be directed against those who choose to stand in the way of our freedom.


Why aren't you calling for them to be gagged?

See above.


And what's wrong with humans having basic rights?


Rights are grounded in 18th century enlightenment ideals about the nature of government. I believe in freedom, not rights.


I wonder, do you make an effort to tolerate bigotry? It seems to me that if we can rise above their lunacy, without resorting to trying to ram their mouths shut, we end up with the moral high ground.

I think the fact that we aren't calling for the death of people based on nonsensical romantic ideals already puts us on the moral high ground. Any ground given to fascists to operate is ground they will gladly take and use to attack us and their other "enemies." Fighting fascists is self-defense.


Surely you don't think fascists seriously stand a chance of converting Joe Average?

No, they stand a very serious chance of doing just that and historically, have done it quite well. That is why we have to fight them.


Hitler was democratically elected.

No, he was appointed.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Opinion based slaughter still isn't an awful lot better than senseless slaughter, though. Either way there are a lot of bodies.

And if you believe in freedom, that doesn't mean you believe in freedom as a right? That would seem to make sense.

-Alex

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:41 AM
Opinion based slaughter still isn't an awful lot better than senseless slaughter, though. Either way there are a lot of bodies.
Killing your oppressors is absolutely better than senseless slaughter.



And if you believe in freedom, that doesn't mean you believe in freedom as a right? That would seem to make sense.

Rights are based in government. I don't believe in government and therefore...

[Sentinel]

However, wouldn't it be fair to say that there are no "facts", only interpretations? In which case, it most certainly is your view. Nothing is beyond dispute. Science agrees with that too, doesn't it? So by that logic, you are just as guilty of using "abstract terms" as I am.

Well communism is a legitimate scientific theory that has been around for a while without having been proven wrong. On the contrary, Marx' writings have described historical events and periods with an eerie precision.

Nazism is a hate-mongering ideology based on pseudo-science. There is a difference.


To clear things up a little, what exactly is your view on going about suppressing other people's opinions? How would you do it, given the oppurtunity?

Let me first make clear that I wouldn't suppress anyones view who simply disagreed with me on anything. We're talking about hostile and anti-human sentiments, and it'll be the people who will decide, not I. I'm just a worker like anyone. How would I prefer us to deal with nazism?

In the same way as with superstition. See my favorite redstar2000 paper, The Cathedral and the Wrecking Ball (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083428859&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&). I would deny them all publicity and visibility in the society and prevent them from teaching their crap to their kids.

The violent reactionaries would have to be executed, I'm afraid, but I would never start a 'genocide'. Why on earth would I?

A couple of decades, or even centuries, but eventually they'd cease to exist other than in the history books. We can wait.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

How was Hitler appointed? He was elected, and then booted out all the other parties, which is incidentally what you'd be doing. I thought that was an undisputed fact. Certainly it's what we're taught in school, although I suppose they are bourgeoisie idiots. Boy, i'm tired of the word bourgeoisie.

-Alex

P.S Just saw the part about fascist fighting. Is there not another way to prevent them from seriously converting the average man or woman? Is there no alternative to butchery? The way some people talk about post-revolution society, it's anything but self defence, it's a gleeful attack.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Black banner - Certainly it would be, if the (few) Nazi's could effectively oppress you. They aren't in power, so you aren't killing your oppressors.

What do you think of rights based in International Law, such as the UN Human Rights Charter?


Sentinel - I would agree that there is a difference, but keep in mind, it is in our opinion that they differ. As blatant as it seems, it is still not a fact, but a view.

About violent reactionaries - Couldn't you imprison or attempt to educate them?

-Alex

P.S. I'm going to have to go quite soon guys, my dinner awaits me. :) But it's been interesting.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:47 AM
How was Hitler appointed? He was elected, and then booted out all the other parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#...t_as_Chancellor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_appointment_as_Chancellor)

He was never elected.


which is incidentally what you'd be doing.

I don't plan on getting elected or appointed, actually.


I thought that was an undisputed fact. Certainly it's what we're taught in school, although I suppose they are bourgeoisie idiots.

Well, I don't know what school you went to, but they weren't teaching history correctly.


Just saw the part about fascist fighting. Is there not another way to prevent them from seriously converting the average man or woman?

Counter-propaganda (or being proactive about it) is good, but it won't do anything to stop emboldened Nazis from attacking their enemies, which is why we need to make it impossible for them to operate.


Is there no alternative to butchery? The way some people talk about post-revolution society, it's anything but self defence, it's a gleeful attack.

I'm talking about fighting fascists now, and we're content to give them severe beatings. There won't be butchery, just enough revolutionary violence to secure our aims.


Certainly it would be, if the (few) Nazi's could effectively oppress you. They aren't in power, so you aren't killing your oppressors.

You seem to be confusing two seperate ideas. I'm not just talking about violence against nazis when I talk about killing oppressors.


What do you think of rights based in International Law, such as the UN Human Rights Charter?

Same thing. And what good has it done anybody? Hint: Nada.

[Sentinel]

but keep in mind, it is in our opinion that they differ. As blatant as it seems, it is still not a fact, but a view.

No, it really is a fact. If someone says that he is of the opinion that bananas are blue, would he be wrong only from my point of view? As I would point out they are green to begin with, later on turn yellow, finally brown but never blue unless some idiot paints them?

No, he'd be fucking wrong, period. Facts exist, and they are what counts.


About violent reactionaries - Couldn't you imprison or attempt to educate them?

Perhaps, but then we come to the question of having prisons in the first place. A communist society is stateless, it shouldn't have things like a police force, prisons, etc. And if didn't have prisons, we would have to find alternative ways to deal with crime.

Those the people would judge as potential future members of society could sometimes be educated, perhaps, but the others.. I don't know, any suggestions my friend?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

How can you be sure you aren't colour blind? How can you be sure, beyond all doubt, that there isn't a worldwide conspiracy to keep you under the impression that bananas are yellow? You can't. Scepticism is a real *****, but there's no denying it. ;)


As for suggestions, could you not have a vigilante imprisonment of some kind? Or perhaps deport them? (I realise this is a bit contradictory with the state thing again, and the whole idea of no borders, but it's still better than outright murder.)

-Alex

[Janus]

I hope no one minds but I split this from the Mel Gibson thread.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 12:49 PM
How can you be sure you aren't colour blind? How can you be sure, beyond all doubt, that there isn't a worldwide conspiracy to keep you under the impression that bananas are yellow? You can't. Scepticism is a real *****, but there's no denying it. ;)



Save the philosophy for the cats over at Starbucks who's primary decision each morning revolves around what shade of black to wear; it does not fit within the realm of scientific materialism.

I mean listen to yourself "a worldwide conspiracy to keep you under the impression that bananas are yellow?".

Come on, get a grip!


As for suggestions, could you not have a vigilante imprisonment of some kind? Or perhaps deport them? (I realise this is a bit contradictory with the state thing again, and the whole idea of no borders, but it's still better than outright murder.)

-Alex

Do you think you would get the same treatment if the roles were reversed? Sorry Ghostrider, but that pattern is definitely full, negative on the flyby.

Now Bob, tell them what they've won...

An all expense paid trip to the local furnaces by way of a mustard gas shower!

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Slim - I know it sounds mad, I know. This is the whole point, however mad it is, just like the Nazi viewpoint, it's still within the realm of opinion not fact, and you need to adjust your language accordingly.

No doubt the Nazi's would treat us like that, but that isn't the issue really. Two wrongs don't make a right and all.

-Alex

[Sentinel]

How can you be sure you aren't colour blind? How can you be sure, beyond all doubt, that there isn't a worldwide conspiracy to keep you under the impression that bananas are yellow? You can't. Scepticism is a real *****, but there's no denying it.

BurnTheOliveTree, following your 'logic' no action whatsoever, revolutionary or otherwise, would be justified:

How could we be so egoistic that we'd (violently! :o ) overthrow the power, free the proletariat of the world and create a communist society?

We could be wrong and the cappies could be right, after all! Maybe using wage-slavery to gather profits really is their 'right' (you're a strong believer in 'rights', correct?). Let's just accept things the way they are and live in peace and harmony.. :rolleyes:

NO, bad idea BTOT. We all have one life on this planet, and it's now that it matters. We must crush bigotry and oppression here and now!

Afterwards we must not allow counter-revolutionary activity, and even less can we let anti-human genocidal maniacs freely propagate for their ideologies.

Deporting them would indeed not be possible as a long term solution as true communism is bound to be global. Prisons (of all kinds I can think of) as means of control are a feature of a state, not a communist society.

This is self-evident really.

Yawn, I don't think this debate can go anywhere further. :(

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:49 PM
How can you be sure you aren't colour blind? How can you be sure, beyond all doubt, that there isn't a worldwide conspiracy to keep you under the impression that bananas are yellow?
Because bannanas are a colour, I call that colour yellow, and so does everyone else. If there was a trick against me, it was to make me call it something else, to the status quo. And I don't know why anyone would bother, or why I should care.