ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Is it wrong to behave violently towards a self-proclaimed nazi?
Yes, he has every right to his opinions, regardless of content. 43 55.84%
Violence is morally wrong, but laws should not protect hate speech. 18 23.38%
While it is legally wrong, it is morally justifiable. 12 15.58%
No, they deserve whatever they get and I lose no sleep over it. 9 11.69%
On Planet X we kick it like it's 1986, now. 3 3.90%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 1st December 2017, 11:53 PM   #1
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,681
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325269

1. Violence can be justified against anybody, but it does require extreme circumstances.
2. Pretty well
3. Mostly on my feet, the handstand is too tough these days.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 1st December 2017 at 11:55 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 11:58 PM   #2
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,974
I hate Illinois nazis.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:09 AM   #3
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Nazi Speech Rights (and Wrongs

There has been a lot of vocal discussion on multiple threads about acts of violence committed against self-proclaimed nazis/neo-nazis/alt-right, etc., and whether their rights to free speech deserve the same protections as other speech. Can violence against a nazi be justified at any time? How do the laws in your country protect unpopular or hate speech? Where do you stand and why?
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.

Last edited by Thermal; 2nd December 2017 at 12:12 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:46 AM   #4
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,695
It was the only thing that worked against the German Nazis: the combined acts of violence committed by the USA and the USSR … and a few others in the rest of the world.
However, the problem is that the USA is now run by a narcissistic Nazi sympathizer. A handful of anti-fascists aren't powerful enough to deal with them.


PS If that is all the guy does, to proclaim, "I am a Nazi," I see no reason to punch him. It would be a kind of service to the rest of the world: OK, now we know what you are and can stay away you from now on. At least until we meet you at a rally in Charlottesville …
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 2nd December 2017 at 01:29 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 01:52 AM   #5
Roofgardener
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
There has been a lot of vocal discussion on multiple threads about acts of violence committed against self-proclaimed nazis/neo-nazis/alt-right, etc., and whether their rights to free speech deserve the same protections as other speech. Can violence against a nazi be justified at any time? How do the laws in your country protect unpopular or hate speech? Where do you stand and why?
The violence is NOT justified. As for laws against "hate speech" (which we DO have in the UK), the problem is.... who defines what constitutes "hate speech" ?

In the hands of an authoritarian government, the hate speech laws become an Orwellian tool of repression.
Roofgardener is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 01:58 AM   #6
Roofgardener
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by dann View Post
It was the only thing that worked against the German Nazis: the combined acts of violence committed by the USA and the USSR … and a few others in the rest of the world.
However, the problem is that the USA is now run by a narcissistic Nazi sympathizer. A handful of anti-fascists aren't powerful enough to deal with them.


PS If that is all the guy does, to proclaim, "I am a Nazi," I see no reason to punch him. It would be a kind of service to the rest of the world: OK, now we know what you are and can stay away you from now on. At least until we meet you at a rally in Charlottesville …
I think it's a false equivalence to compare WW2 with punching somebody in the street. The former was a reaction to military invasion; the latter is common assault. (strictly speaking, it is a form of terrorism, in that it uses violence to to support a political agenda, and it was the favored tool of the Nazi's. This becomes ironic when we consider the so-called "AntiFa", in that they use the tools of fascism themselves.. but that's another story).
Roofgardener is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:48 AM   #7
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,268
I’m still pondering that two voter believe that violence is morally wrong, but that’s probably something for a another thread.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 06:09 AM   #8
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,695
Originally Posted by Roofgardener View Post
I think it's a false equivalence to compare WW2 with punching somebody in the street. The former was a reaction to military invasion; the latter is common assault. (strictly speaking, it is a form of terrorism, in that it uses violence to to support a political agenda, and it was the favored tool of the Nazi's. This becomes ironic when we consider the so-called "AntiFa", in that they use the tools of fascism themselves.. but that's another story).

Yes, the former was a reaction to military invasion, which is why it was at least ten years late! Unlike back then, nowadays you can't claim that you don't know what their intentions are. And yet some people still expected Trump to become a moderate as soon as he'd taken over control of the White House …
Did you know that the German Nazis wrote and handed out political pamphlets, participated in elections, gave public speeches, had parliamentary debates in the Reichstag? And so-called "democratic parties" use these tools of National Socialism to this very day! Isn't it ironic?
There is nothing ironic about the AntiFa using violence against Nazis. Tney are merely using one of their own tools of trade against them. In the case of Nazis, that is actually the only thing they respect.


PS By the way, I didn't vote in poll, obviously.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 2nd December 2017 at 06:11 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:44 PM   #9
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,141
Originally Posted by Roofgardener View Post
The violence is NOT justified. As for laws against "hate speech" (which we DO have in the UK), the problem is.... who defines what constitutes "hate speech" ?

In the hands of an authoritarian government, the hate speech laws become an Orwellian tool of repression.
Laws guided by social norms and democratic processes decide it.

In the hands of an authoritarian government that ignores those norms and processes, all laws are irrelevant. Not following the rule of law is sort of what defines a regime as authoritarian. Sure, the authoritarian government may claim these laws as some sort of justification for their repression. However, having such a handy pretense merely saves them the trouble of making one up themselves.


It isn't like if that radio transmitter was actually attacked by a Polish soldier WWII would have been at all different.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 01:01 PM   #10
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,141
Originally Posted by Roofgardener View Post
I think it's a false equivalence to compare WW2 with punching somebody in the street. The former was a reaction to military invasion; the latter is common assault. (strictly speaking, it is a form of terrorism, in that it uses violence to to support a political agenda, and it was the favored tool of the Nazi's. This becomes ironic when we consider the so-called "AntiFa", in that they use the tools of fascism themselves.. but that's another story).
Violence is a tool. Tools are, strictly speaking, amoral. What makes the use of these tools moral or immoral is how and why the tool is being used.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 01:56 PM   #11
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 339
Has anyone else noticed that the "Yes" and "No" continuations contradict the question as asked in the poll? They need to be reversed. (Apparently, my English teaching skills are still working, even though I'm not cleared to substitute teach yet.)

Is it wrong to behave violently towards a self-proclaimed Nazi?

It depends on how is he/she/ze is behaving and acting in public (or on my private property), just like any other idiotic follower of political movement/religion/cult/conspiracy theory. If he/she/ze is simply spewing idiocy in their own home, that's their privilege. If they're spewing it in my home, I can show them the door and back that up if need be. If they're spewing in public but are not ACTING like stormtroopers or Gestapo, then they're just like the politicians and Jehovah Witnesses (and Mormons) who are running about looking for followers, I can ignore them. If they're grabbing me by the lapels and trying to force me to listen, it's assault and I can legally defend myself (have and will).
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:25 PM   #12
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,692
Originally Posted by Roofgardener View Post
The violence is NOT justified. As for laws against "hate speech" (which we DO have in the UK), the problem is.... who defines what constitutes "hate speech" ?
The public at large.

First, in order for speech to be eligible to be declared as "hate speech", the pronouncements or speech of any persons or groups must meet some criteria such as.

1. They attack a person or group on the basis of
a. race and/or skin colour
b. religion
c. ethnicity
d. sexual orientation
e. physical or mental disability
f. gender

and/or

2. They incite or encourage violence against the above mentioned people or groups.

Once the speech or pronouncements of the person or group meets these criteria, the public decide by vote or referendum, and if passed, members of those groups are permanently muzzled, banned from speaking in public places, and from publishing and distributing literature. Such a referendum would need to have a high standard, say, a 75% majority of voters

If y'all find this too cumbersome and too difficult to police, then I'd be in favour of having a Star Chamber to deal with Nazi's.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:29 PM   #13
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,782
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The public at large.

First, in order for speech to be eligible to be declared as "hate speech", the pronouncements or speech of any persons or groups must meet some criteria such as.

1. They attack a person or group on the basis of
a. race and/or skin colour
b. religion
c. ethnicity
d. sexual orientation
e. physical or mental disability
f. gender

and/or

2. They incite or encourage violence against the above mentioned people or groups.

Once the speech or pronouncements of the person or group meets these criteria, the public decide by vote or referendum, and if passed, members of those groups are permanently muzzled, banned from speaking in public places, and from publishing and distributing literature. Such a referendum would need to have a high standard, say, a 75% majority of voters

If y'all find this too cumbersome and too difficult to police, then I'd be in favour of having a Star Chamber to deal with Nazi's.
That sounds like the tyranny of the majority. It also sounds like it would have prevented heliocentric views being propagated. In today's muslim world, it would prevent people advocating for the end of the death penalty for blasphemy or apostates (i.e. atheism ).
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:36 PM   #14
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,342
Originally Posted by Roofgardener View Post
the problem is.... who defines what constitutes "hate speech" ?
We define it the same way we do discrimination.

Speech that is;

a) extremely derogatory of, or
b) used in a way intended to be inflammatory towards, or
c) is used in an attempt to create hate and anger towards

any specific group of people, where a protected class (e.g. Race, Age, Gender, Sexual Preference, Religion) is used to distinguish them.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:39 PM   #15
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,342
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
That sounds like the tyranny of the majority. It also sounds like it would have prevented heliocentric views being propagated. In today's muslim world, it would prevent people advocating for the end of the death penalty for blasphemy or apostates (i.e. atheism ).
You can't do these things without attacking people because of their religion?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:47 PM   #16
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Violence is the tool of the bully and the despot.

If you believe that it should be the first response to anything, then you are a bully and/or a despot.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:48 PM   #17
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Originally Posted by dann View Post
It was the only thing that worked against the German Nazis: the combined acts of violence committed by the USA and the USSR and a few others in the rest of the world.
When the despot starts taking over countries with a massive military force, then the die has already been cast. The despot was the one who chose violence.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:50 PM   #18
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,342
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Violence is the tool of the bully and the despot.

If you believe that it should be the first response to anything, then you are a bully and/or a despot.
It's also the tool of the desperate when all else has failed.

If the people forced to live under a cruel tyrant rise up in rebellion, are they being Bullies or Depots?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:55 PM   #19
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,782
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
It's also the tool of the desperate when all else has failed.

If the people forced to live under a cruel tyrant rise up in rebellion, are they being Bullies or Depots?
Do you think US citizens are under a despotism?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 03:11 PM   #20
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,342
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Do you think US citizens are under a despotism?
What? Are you smoking something? Why would you even ask that?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 03:19 PM   #21
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,782
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
What? Are you smoking something? Why would you even ask that?
Because the discussion has been about the mortality of attacking nazis in present day America. Not whether it was morally justifiable in the Warsaw ghetto in 1944.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 03:20 PM   #22
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,342
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Because the discussion has been about the mortality of attacking nazis in present day America. Not whether it was morally justifiable in the Warsaw ghetto in 1944.
Please prove this....
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 03:25 PM   #23
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
It's also the tool of the desperate when all else has failed.

If the people forced to live under a cruel tyrant rise up in rebellion, are they being Bullies or Depots?
Did the cruel tyrant use violence to rise to their position? If you're describing them as a "cruel tyrant" then I'm betting that they did.

It's not morally wrong to use violence to oppose violence. It is morally wrong to use violence as a tool to get what you want.

The Nazis violently invaded Poland in 1939. It was appropriate then to use violence to oppose them. The neo-Nazi shouting slogans under a swastika flag has not used violence. It is not appropriate to use violence to silence them. If a neo-Nazi punches you, then it is not morally wrong to punch them back. But it is morally wrong to punch them when they have not been violent towards you.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 03:28 PM   #24
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,782
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post

It's not morally wrong to use violence to oppose violence. It is morally wrong to use violence as a tool to get what you want.

The Nazis violently invaded Poland in 1939. It was appropriate then to use violence to oppose them. The neo-Nazi shouting slogans under a swastika flag has not used violence. It is not appropriate to use violence to silence them. If a neo-Nazi punches you, then it is not morally wrong to punch them back. But it is morally wrong to punch them when they have not been violent towards you.
This 100%
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 03:35 PM   #25
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,342
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Did the cruel tyrant use violence to rise to their position? If you're describing them as a "cruel tyrant" then I'm betting that they did.

It's not morally wrong to use violence to oppose violence. It is morally wrong to use violence as a tool to get what you want.

The Nazis violently invaded Poland in 1939. It was appropriate then to use violence to oppose them. The neo-Nazi shouting slogans under a swastika flag has not used violence. It is not appropriate to use violence to silence them. If a neo-Nazi punches you, then it is not morally wrong to punch them back. But it is morally wrong to punch them when they have not been violent towards you.
See, wasn't hard to clarify rather then just using a blanket statement of "Violence is the tool of the bully and the despot."
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:11 PM   #26
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
See, wasn't hard to clarify rather then just using a blanket statement of "Violence is the tool of the bully and the despot."
What I said was not inaccurate. Bullies and despots are the ones who choose to use violence to solve their problems.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:17 PM   #27
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,692
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
That sounds like the tyranny of the majority.
Yes. What is wrong with the majority getting to decide what is right and what is wrong?

Originally Posted by Giz View Post
It also sounds like it would have prevented heliocentric views being propagated.
"Heliocentric views" are not people of a grouping of race, skin colour, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability or gender, therefore they fail the first criteria. They do not incite or encourage violence or harm to those groups, therefore, they fail the second criteria.

Having failed both criteria, they never get to be voted on.

Originally Posted by Giz View Post
In today's muslim world, it would prevent people advocating for the end of the death penalty for blasphemy or apostates (i.e. atheism ).
Who are we to decide what is right for the Muslim world?
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd December 2017 at 11:21 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:22 PM   #28
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,396
I feel like if there's any... idea that's got to have it say and now needs to go away... it's Nazism.

I mean like people do get that we had a whole war. Like the whole war, the entire world was involved, I forget what they called it, over this?

What exactly does anyone think Nazism is going to say at this point?

There are times and places where things top being hypothetical. They stop being metaphorical. They stop being problems in a textbook or a court room.

And "There's Nazis in the streets" just might be one of those times.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 02:16 AM   #29
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,695
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The Nazis violently invaded Poland in 1939. It was appropriate then to use violence to oppose them. The neo-Nazi shouting slogans under a swastika flag has not used violence. It is not appropriate to use violence to silence them. If a neo-Nazi punches you, then it is not morally wrong to punch them back. But it is morally wrong to punch them when they have not been violent towards you.

You appear to know next to nothing about the German Nazis if you think that they weren't violent until 1939! They were pretty violent from the word go:
Kristallnacht
SA
etc.

And their fans, the Neo-Nazis and other white supremacists, aren't exactly make-love-not-war hippies either:
Oklahoma City
Right-wing terrorism

As I've said before: The major problem with the Anti-Fascists is that there aren't enough of them. When the Nazis are totally outnumbered, they tend to give up on being violent. They take off their polos, run home and hide.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

But when they're in power, they are as violent as they said they'd be.
Which, I guess, is what some of you will lean back and wait for …

In the meantime, I think that the the Afro-Americans, the Jews, the gays, the commies have every moral right to do whatever they can to put a stop to them.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 3rd December 2017 at 02:21 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 02:57 AM   #30
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,692
Originally Posted by dann View Post
You appear to know next to nothing about the German Nazis if you think that they weren't violent until 1939! They were pretty violent from the word go:
Kristallnacht
SA
etc.

And their fans, the Neo-Nazis and other white supremacists, aren't exactly make-love-not-war hippies either:
Oklahoma City
Right-wing terrorism

As I've said before: The major problem with the Anti-Fascists is that there aren't enough of them. When the Nazis are totally outnumbered, they tend to give up on being violent. They take off their polos, run home and hide.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

But when they're in power, they are as violent as they said they'd be.
Which, I guess, is what some of you will lean back and wait for …

In the meantime, I think that the the Afro-Americans, the Jews, the gays, the commies have every moral right to do whatever they can to put a stop to them.
Yup, and what exactly did the rest of the world do about the Nazis when Hitler came to power in 1933 and started his genocidal persecution of the Jews, the Romani and the infirm..... EXACTLY NOTHING. The German people knowingly voted this dictator into power.

The rest of the world, negotiated and had talks and meetings, pussyfooted around and did a lot of hand-wringing, but they took NO ACTION against the Nazis. It was only when Germany invaded Poland six years later that the rest of the world took the action of going to war.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 03:20 AM   #31
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,254
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
That sounds like the tyranny of the majority. It also sounds like it would have prevented heliocentric views being propagated. In today's muslim world, it would prevent people advocating for the end of the death penalty for blasphemy or apostates (i.e. atheism ).
Yet that hasn't happened in countries such as the UK which have such laws. Therefore we can say with some authority that the "slippery slope" argument that such laws lead to tyranny is not consequential on such laws.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 03:31 AM   #32
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,254
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Did the cruel tyrant use violence to rise to their position? If you're describing them as a "cruel tyrant" then I'm betting that they did.

It's not morally wrong to use violence to oppose violence. It is morally wrong to use violence as a tool to get what you want.

The Nazis violently invaded Poland in 1939. It was appropriate then to use violence to oppose them. The neo-Nazi shouting slogans under a swastika flag has not used violence. It is not appropriate to use violence to silence them. If a neo-Nazi punches you, then it is not morally wrong to punch them back. But it is morally wrong to punch them when they have not been violent towards you.
Although I agree in broad principle with your post we don't live in a world of platonic idealism in which free speech is a distinct idea that stands alone, we do know some speech is pretty much violence - which is why I can't preach to my followers to murder someone and not be culpable of murder myself if they do subsequently murder that someone.

The issue isn't that all speech is free - the disagreements arise because it is always a matter of what speech we as a society will allow individuals to have.

In the case of say "real" Nazis I think it is fine to have the view that someone who advocates genocide for a group in my society is prevented from publicly proclaiming that view.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 03:43 AM   #33
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,695
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
... when Hitler came to power in 1933 and started his genocidal persecution of the Jews, the Romani and the infirm....
Yes, I didn't mention the Romani, the disabled and the union leaders.

I guess that in particular the disabled should be ashamed for trying to put a stop to people who have every right to their opinions, regardless of content.
The Growing Neo-Nazi Public Profile Is of Grave Concern to Disabled People
(I can forgive them for not getting out of their wheelchairs and punching the Neo Nazis! I think they would if they could ...)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 3rd December 2017 at 04:24 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 09:11 AM   #34
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,355
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yes. What is wrong with the majority getting to decide what is right and what is wrong?



"Heliocentric views" are not people of a grouping of race, skin colour, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability or gender, therefore they fail the first criteria. They do not incite or encourage violence or harm to those groups, therefore, they fail the second criteria.

Having failed both criteria, they never get to be voted on.



Who are we to decide what is right for the Muslim world?
"If it doesn't bug me it isn't an issue" isn't really rock solid logic.

I'll blow your mind, some people find things you don't care about really important, so we can't use just what is important to you as a guideline.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 09:50 AM   #35
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,695
It probably won't blow your mind, but that is the kind of logic that Nazis use when they exterminate Jews, Romas, communists and the disabled. Killing them not only doesn't bug them, it's what their predecessors did and what they themselves look forward to doing!
Can we use that as a guideline for how to deal with them?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 3rd December 2017 at 09:52 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 03:50 PM   #36
kedo1981
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,531
"Chris Rock" Ain't nobody above an ass whipping

Heck if it weren't for Nazis we who would we kill in video games?
kedo1981 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 05:49 PM   #37
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,376
Originally Posted by dann View Post
You appear to know next to nothing...
If that's what you think I'm saying, then you appear to know next to nothing about my point.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 08:31 PM   #38
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,342
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
"If it doesn't bug me it isn't an issue" isn't really rock solid logic.

I'll blow your mind, some people find things you don't care about really important, so we can't use just what is important to you as a guideline.
You know I have read Smartcocky's post multiple times and I still can'y find the highlighted quite in there, nor his insistence that we use what he finds important as a guideline. Perhaps you can help me there since you seem to be reading a totally different posty to what I am.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 10:37 PM   #39
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,692
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
"If it doesn't bug me it isn't an issue" isn't really rock solid logic.
No, you missed what I said.

Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
I'll blow your mind, some people find things you don't care about really important, so we can't use just what is important to you as a guideline.
And that is fine.

I don't care about tiddlywinks, so if 75% of the population decide that tiddlywinks ought to be banned... it wouldn't bother me.

I do care about cricket. If 75% of the population decide that cricket ought to be banned... it would annoy the hell out of me, but I would abide by the decision of the majority.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 3rd December 2017 at 10:38 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 01:54 AM   #40
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,584
I voted no, as long they aren't actually acting on their beliefs.

Sort of like the infamous Westboro Baptist losers. As long as all they are doing is limited to speech, and legal exercise of their First Amendment rights only, responding with physical violence is both impermissible and counterproductive.

Boycotting them, firing them, shunning them, treating them as a pariah, that seems acceptable.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.