 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
Agathon:
First of all... those views are not getting mass appeal anytime soon... they are brutally mocked...
secondly, there's another important thing called majoritarianism... if the KKK was wildly popular (which it would never be) then they do have the right to influence policies as officeholders... hopefully, there'd be enough people of other persuasions to counter-act the pro-KKK majority...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Now there's someone with his head screwed on the right way.
Let me ask the Hitler-lovers ( ) this: If the Nazi Party, given what you know about them and their political program, became popular in the country you lived in and began to establish themselves as a political power by legitimate means, what would you do?
Would you leave them be and wait until they gained power and then attempted to overturn all the civil rights you wanted to protect, or would you suppress them, which would be bad for them, but good for all the people who would avoid the evil things they planned on doing?
Presumably, this dilemma once confronted the German authorities. I think they made the wrong choice, don't you? |
 Nice post. I disagree with you, but good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
Kidicious:
how the hell is the KKK a threat to America in 2003?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
Kidicious:
quote:
We are always at war with the fascists |
and we are always at war with the filthy rich liberal bourgious slaver class like you...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
a slaver class i should add that has legalized a genocide that has taken the lives of over 10 million black babies...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Now there's someone with his head screwed on the right way.
Let me ask the Hitler-lovers () this: If the Nazi Party, given what you know about them and their political program, became popular in the country you lived in and began to establish themselves as a political power by legitimate means, what would you do?
Would you leave them be and wait until they gained power and then attempted to overturn all the civil rights you wanted to protect, or would you suppress them, which would be bad for them, but good for all the people who would avoid the evil things they planned on doing?
Presumably, this dilemma once confronted the German authorities. I think they made the wrong choice, don't you? |
I would wait. IF they have the support of the majority of the citizens, then they deserve to be in power! I personally would vote against them (duh) but I can't say they don't have the right to hold their views just because I don't like them! It creates a paradox; why can't they just say, well, we're in the minority, but we don't like your views, so you shouldn't be in power?! EACH VIEWPOINT IS SUBJECTIVE, AND THUS EQUALLY VALID.
You shouldn't be arguing for them to be banned, you should be arguing against them in order to convince others they are wrong! (obviously, this isn't necessary now, but you get the point)
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't want to wait for the tide to turn the way it did in Germany. They were small and laughed at there to until they used very dubious means to gain power. |
Well, if they are using "dubious" (by which I assume you mean illegal) means to get into power, then we arrest them, because they are breaking the law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
I would wait. IF they have the support of the majority of the citizens, then they deserve to be in power! I personally would vote against them (duh) but I can't say they don't have the right to hold their views just because I don't like them! It creates a paradox; why can't they just say, well, we're in the minority, but we don't like your views, so you shouldn't be in power?! EACH VIEWPOINT IS SUBJECTIVE, AND THUS EQUALLY VALID.
You shouldn't be arguing for them to be banned, you should be arguing against them in order to convince others they are wrong! (obviously, this isn't necessary now, but you get the point)
Well, if they are using "dubious" (by which I assume you mean illegal) means to get into power, then we arrest them, because they are breaking the law. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
What's going on here
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Now there's someone with his head screwed on the right way.
Let me ask the Hitler-lovers () this: If the Nazi Party, given what you know about them and their political program, became popular in the country you lived in and began to establish themselves as a political power by legitimate means, what would you do?
Would you leave them be and wait until they gained power and then attempted to overturn all the civil rights you wanted to protect, or would you suppress them, which would be bad for them, but good for all the people who would avoid the evil things they planned on doing?
Presumably, this dilemma once confronted the German authorities. I think they made the wrong choice, don't you? |
One instance does not a statistically valid sample make. I would obey the law and fight within it, unless or until my opponent strayed from that line, in which case all bets are off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kolpo
|
|
"One instance does not a statistically valid sample make. I would obey the law and fight within it, unless or until my opponent strayed from that line, in which case all bets are off."
But what if they first made things like genocide legal(let's assume they control 2/3 of the states and can change the constitution at will) before they did them.
What if they made you protesting against them illegal on a legal way: based on your rethoric should you then stop protesting because you said you will not violate the law until they do and they didn't, they just changed it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
I would wait. IF they have the support of the majority of the citizens, then they deserve to be in power! |
So you'd overturn democracy in its own name? Even if the Nazis had the support of the majority of citizens I still think it would be justifiable to suppress them. My reason is that a democracy isn't "anything goes" but a political form that has definite limits. If we believe in the preservation of democracy more than we believe in this or that temporary government then suppressing the Nazis is the rational thing to do.
You can't tell me that you care about freedom of speech if you think that it is OK to allow a course of action that leads to more free speech violations (by the Nazis) than a course of action that requires less (you suppressing them).
quote:
I personally would vote against them (duh) but I can't say they don't have the right to hold their views just because I don't like them! It creates a paradox; why can't they just say, well, we're in the minority, but we don't like your views, so you shouldn't be in power?! EACH VIEWPOINT IS SUBJECTIVE, AND THUS EQUALLY VALID. |
In fact, if each moral viewpoint is subjective and has no binding claim on others, then the purported "right" for these people to hold their own views is also subjective and therefore a figment of your imagination. So if you are a subjectivist you cannot find an objectively binding reason why I shouldn't shoot the Nazis.
quote:
You shouldn't be arguing for them to be banned, you should be arguing against them in order to convince others they are wrong! (obviously, this isn't necessary now, but you get the point) |
That's a fair comment. However, my example only holds when things have got out of hand and there is a realistic prospect of them getting in whatever arguments people put forward.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Presumably, this dilemma once confronted the German authorities. I think they made the wrong choice, don't you? |
I think it is not a question of right or wrong, because it can only be seen in its historic context. I still think it was "right" for Germany to create a rule that allows certain actions against extreme political organizations, esp. shortly after WWII, when the democratic process was just in the beginning. But that doesnīt mean it must be the right thing to do for other countries.
For a cheap shot, I could blame it all on the Allies, who started with declaring Hitlerīs NSDAP a criminal organization in Nuremberg 45.  But of course it wouldnīt be fair. One of the core points of the new (West-) German constitution after WWII was to make sure that a system like that of Hitler cannot come back, because the experience of that system (and its final breakdown/defeat) changed Germany in every possible way. This point became in fact the most important idea in the entire German society. So the idea to limit extreme political forces even by declaring a certain party illegal isnīt something that is forced upon us by an evil authority, it has developed within our society as a reaction of a special situation, and it is widely accepted. I would think of it as a self-limitation of the society.
Maybe in the future this rule it isnīt needed anymore, perhaps then it will be abandoned, which would be certainly good.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-05-2003 08:20
) I think its better to invite people to have their obnoxious views blown apart then to try to stop them from speaking.
|