Global Warming, CO2...

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:26 am

PunkMaister wrote:And you are a full of shite liberal that like all liberals nowadays assume that anybody that objects to your idol Obama is automatically a racist!
  1. That's interesting. Before you have accused me of being a fascist, as someone who would prefer any kind of dictatorship. Now you accuse me of being a liberal. Don't you think, that this is a little bit contradictory?
  2. I have not assumed that you are a racist only because you object to Obama. I have assumed that you are a racist and/or nationalsocialist considering what you have said about him:
    PunkMaister wrote:At least he was a bonafide American Citizen born in the USA while OBama's true origins are being kept secret from the American public by a court order which is unprecedented in both American jurisprudence and history. He might be the first foreigner from Kenya most likely to occupy such a position and illegally and unconstitutionally so as only people that have been actually born in the US can aspire to become president not foreigners. I could also go on about the unprecedented campaign finances Oblongo enjoyed mostly from foreign sources such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela you name it.
    and
    PunkMaister wrote:And guess what regardless of what Bush did does not change the fact that Oblongo is nothing but a clown and an impostor.
    You have not complained about his politic but about his origin. You have complained, that he may not be an American Citizen. And you are calling him names while comparing him to Bush although Obama has had not yet the opportunity to disgrace the USA as much as Bush has done.

    I have used both words: racist and nationalsocialist, although I think that you are showing more characteristics of the latter than the first. But people often don't really differentiate between both. They often use the word racist also if someone discriminates others not because their race but their culture and citizenship. It may be that you don't like Bush only because he may not be an American Citizen and that his skin colour has nothing to do with it. The fact, that you say, that non American Citizen are not supposed to become the American president alone is also not deciding but the amount of hate you are displaying. That hate is not only directed against Obama when you are calling him names without objecting to his politic but against other nations and cultures as well. You have shown your hate in many threads. And you have shown, that you put the interests of the USA above the interests of all others and even above law and justice. And that does makes you to a nationalsocialist.
PunkMaister wrote:That's funny considering there are plenty of African Americans that don't like the SOB one bit.
  1. The question would be if they don't like him because of his politic or because he may be a foreigner.
  2. And racism is not a logical attitude. There is racism even between negroids, if one is deep black and another only brown. Insofar your objection is not conclusive.
PunkMaister wrote:Y para que lo sepas pendejo yo soy Boricua.

This is an English board. You should use the English language, especially if your are speaking to someone, who does not understand Spainish. It does not makes sense to say something to me, if you know, that I don't understand it.

PunkMaister wrote:And guess what we Puertorricans are a product of race mixing so we laugh at the face of anyone calling us racist because is utter rubbish that can only fly when you are dealing with Anglo Americans by appealing to their even more senseless White guilt that keeps them silent even though they are about ready to explode and no wonder!
  1. That argument is also not conclusive. As I have said already, racism is not a logical attitude. Even if you are an hybrid does that not mean that you don't think, that other races are beneath you.
  2. And if you appeal to my »senseless White guilt« let it be said, that it is pointless. I believe in human races and I believe in differences between them. But I don't see a reason to discriminate someone only he belongs to one. I take each person as an individual, independent from his race, ethnic, culture or citizenship. And I don't believe in clan liability. What my ancestors have done has nothing to do with me. Besides, my grandparents were both anti-Fascists. Both were detained in a concentration camp by the nationalsocialists of the Third Reich.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Who is like God arbour, calling someone a Nazi (nationalsocialistic) is never going to get anywhere positive. You should understand exactly how touchy a term that is.
As you can see above, I have used the word in its original meaning. If you know another word to express the same thing, say it and I will use it in future. But I will not lump together all politician classifications. Racism is not the same as nationalsocialism and nationalsocialism does not necessary means, that someone has to be like the nationalsocialists of the Third Reich.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:43 am

PunkMaister via PM wrote:OK dude enough is enough you have now gone as far as calling me not only a racist but a fucking Nazi even though you do not even have a fucking clue to who I am my background, my ethnicity nothing. You assumed that I'm an angry white man ridden by so called white guilt but you guessed wrong I happen to be from Puerto Rico comprendes ahora estupido? We Puertorricans in case you did not know are the products of race mixing so the accusations of racism by the likes of you are just laughable rubbish.

I've contacted the Adm. of the situation and I have informed him that I will defend myself from this crap fiercely. Is up to him to do as he must but I will not take this crap from you or anyone lying down...
You still don't understand that I don't have to know you. It is enough that I see your attitude at this board. You are attacking Obama, other cultures and other nations and you put the interests of the USA above the interests of all others and even above law and justice.

If you like it or not, that makes you a nationalsocialist. If you don't like it, you should change your attitude.

And I have no problem, if you defend yourself. But do it by showing, that you are not a nationalsocialist. Show that your attitude does not meets the definition of a nationalsocialist.

And above all, start to read a post. I have already admitted that you could be an hybrid. But that does not mean, that you can't be a racist. And I have already said, that I don't necessary think, that you are a racist, but a nationalsocialist. Racism is not the same as nationalsocialism and nationalsocialism does not necessary means, that someone has to be like the nationalsocialists of the Third Reich. Maybe you should read, what what means.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:26 am

Who is like God arbour wrote:
  1. That's interesting. Before you have accused me of being a fascist, as someone who would prefer any kind of dictatorship. Now you accuse me of being a liberal. Don't you think, that this is a little bit contradictory?
First of all The Adm. already told you to cut it out but let's address your latest post anyhow.

Nope Most liberals now act like fascist as it has to be their way or the highway and to hell with freedom of speech, thought and expression if is not in sync with the party line.

Who is like God arbour wrote:[*]I have not assumed that you are a racist only because you object to Obama. I have assumed that you are a racist and/or nationalsocialist considering what you have said about him
You have not complained about his politics but about his origin. You have complained, that he may not be an American Citizen. And you are calling him names while comparing him to Bush although Obama has had not yet the opportunity to disgrace the USA as much as Bush has done.
Because it is true that he may not even be an American citizen and as such his election is unconstitutional. As is the unprecedented foreign funding of his campaign mostly by countries that are enemies of the US and it's interests.
Who is like God arbour wrote:I have used both words: racist and nationalsocialist, although I think that you are showing more characteristics of the latter than the first. But people often don't really differentiate between both. They often use the word racist also if someone discriminates others not because their race but their culture and citizenship. It may be that you don't like Bush only because he may not be an American Citizen and that his skin colour has nothing to do with it. The fact, that you say, that non American Citizen are not supposed to become the American president alone is also not deciding but the amount of hate you are displaying. That hate is not only directed against Obama when you are calling him names without objecting to his politic but against other nations and cultures as well. You have shown your hate in many threads. And you have shown, that you put the interests of the USA above the interests of all others and even above law and justice. And that does makes you to a nationalsocialist.[/list]
The correct term if you must know is Nationalist not Nationalsocialist and yes when it comes to the USA I'm a staunch nationalist that puts her interests first. The only time I've been in disagreement with the US was when they were using Vieques as a bombing range and even that should and could have been solved differently because that Island town's economy really went downhill after the navy left. The bombing practices were outdated and unnecessary but the withdrawal of the US navy all together did more harm than good in the end to that town.

And again yes I am against against any foreigner who was not born or has been a naturalized citizen for at least 12 years or more to be president. Heck Over here we are even more draconian only people born and residing in the Island can aspire to become governors. Guess we had it with appointed ones by Spain first and the US latter during the first half of the 20th century



Who is like God arbour wrote:
  1. The question would be if they don't like him because of his politic or because he may be a foreigner.
  2. And racism is not a logical attitude. There is racism even between negroids, if one is deep black and another only brown. Insofar your objection is not conclusive.
Negroids! Man such derogatory terms! tsk,tsk... Fact is I never use the 'N word in any of it's variations unlike you have though. My post is pro-nationalist but not racist whatsoever. And from what I've learned from dealing with African Americans that they do not feel as you claim and just FYI so called brown people are not necessarily of African decent. Native Americans have brownish skin and to an extent if you must know so do I.



Who is like God arbour wrote:This is an English board. You should use the English language, especially if your are speaking to someone, who does not understand Spainish. It does not makes sense to say something to me, if you know, that I don't understand it.
Google Translate is your friend and I was making a point of where I am from and thus the absurdity of your claim.


Who is like God arbour wrote:
  1. That argument is also not conclusive. As I have said already, racism is not a logical attitude. Even if you are an hybrid does that not mean that you don't think, that other races are beneath you.
  2. And if you appeal to my »senseless White guilt« let it be said, that it is pointless. I believe in human races and I believe in differences between them. But I don't see a reason to discriminate someone only he belongs to one. I take each person as an individual, independent from his race, ethnic, culture or citizenship. And I don't believe in clan liability. What my ancestors have done has nothing to do with me. Besides, my grandparents were both anti-Fascists. Both were detained in a concentration camp by the nationalsocialists of the Third Reich.
Except that being a nationalist and being a racist are 2 very different things so different in fact that the claim is just absurd. I have plenty of friends in all shades of skin pigmentation and I have never seen any of them as beneath me nor will I ever.

Who is like God arbour wrote:As you can see above, I have used the word in its original meaning. If you know another word to express the same thing, say it and I will use it in future. But I will not lump together all politician classifications. Racism is not the same as nationalsocialism and nationalsocialism does not necessary means, that someone has to be like the nationalsocialists of the Third Reich.
Nationalism and and so called Nationalsocialism are 2 very different things that name will always carry the stigma of being the name of Nazi party and there is no way to separate the 2 anymore. And you did clump the 2 word together so for all intended purposes you very much did called me a Nazi which is absurd. And by the way you have gone from calling me a racist and a nazi to now calling me a hybrid. A hybrid is when 2 species mix together and just FYI be it from Africa, Asia or Europe we are all one species so sorry to burst your bubble but I'm no hybrid. For someone that claims to be above racism you have a way with words.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:29 am

  1. Don't blame me, if you can't read or, for whatever reason, do not read. Now for the second time: »I have used both words: racist and nationalsocialist, although I think that you are showing more characteristics of the latter than the first. But people often don't really differentiate between both. They often use the word racist also if someone discriminates others not because their race but their culture and citizenship. It may be that you don't like Bush only because he may not be an American Citizen and that his skin colour has nothing to do with it. The fact, that you say, that non American Citizen are not supposed to become the American president alone is also not deciding but the amount of hate you are displaying. That hate is not only directed against Obama when you are calling him names without objecting to his politic but against other nations and cultures as well. You have shown your hate in many threads. And you have shown, that you put the interests of the USA above the interests of all others and even above law and justice. And that does makes you to a nationalsocialist.«
    But if it does satisfy you I hereby confirm that I have not read anything from you, that lets me conclude, that you are a racist. Now stop pretending, that I accuse you of being a racist. I have only read many things that let me conclude, that you are a nationalsocialist.
  2. Don't blame me, if you lack historical and political understanding. If you would have such, you would know, that it is wrong to equalise nationalsocialism with the nationalsocialists of the Third Reich as it is wrong to lump fascism, anti-Semitism, anti-communism together. You have to differentiate. National Socialism was not a monolithic movement, but rather a combination of various ideologies and philosophies which centered around nationalism, anti-communism, traditionalism and the importance of the ethnostate. You defend all these ideologies respective philosophies but the ethnostate. But you countervail the latter by your displayed hate for Muslims and other cultures and nations.
  3. Don't blame me, if you lack biological understanding. If you would have such, you would know, that in biology, hybrid has two meanings. The first meaning is the result of interbreeding between two animals or plants of different taxa. Hybrids between different species within the same genus are sometimes known as interspecific hybrids or crosses. Hybrids between different sub-species within a species are known as intra-specific hybrids. Hybrids between different genera are sometimes known as intergeneric hybrids. Extremely rare interfamilial hybrids have been known to occur (such as the guineafowl hybrids). The second type of hybrid consists of crosses between populations, breeds or cultivars within a single species. This second meaning is often used in plant and animal breeding. In plant and animal breeding, hybrids are commonly produced and selected because they have desirable characteristics not found or inconsistently present in the parent individuals or populations. This rearranging of the genetic material between populations or races is often called hybridization. It's irrelevant if you like it or not. But you are an hybrid.
  4. Don't blame me, if you lack anthropological understanding. If you would have such, you would know, that the term Negroid is a scientifical term used in anthropology and that as such, it has no derogatory meaning.
  5. Don't blame me if you don't know that it is meanwhile proven, that Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, to Stanley Ann Dunham, an American of mainly English descent from Wichita, Kansas, and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. Otherwise he couldn't have been put under the presidential oath. Insofar his citizenship is out of question and your attacks on him are pointless unless you can show that there is a reasonable doubt or it is not his citizenship that does bother you.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:16 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:[*]Don't blame me if you don't know that it is meanwhile proven, that Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, to Stanley Ann Dunham, an American of mainly English descent from Wichita, Kansas, and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. Otherwise he couldn't have been put under the presidential oath. Insofar his citizenship is out of question and your attacks on him are pointless unless you can show that there is a reasonable doubt or it is not his citizenship that does bother you.[/list]
Not it hasn't that is only an unofficial unverifiable claim as he is to date unable to produce a birth certificate of his own and what he has done instead is gone to court to keep any and all documents pertaining to his place of origin sealed.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=80931

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/11

And this from Pravda Russia itself:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column ... ng_Obama-0




And he is already placing the nation in mortal jeopardy:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:39 pm

The truth about Obama's birth certificate
    • FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit website that describes itself as a "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Centerof the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

      Most of its content consists of rebuttals to what it considers inaccurate, misleading, or false claims by politicians. FactCheck has also targeted misleading claims from various partisan groups.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3889
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:59 pm

Punkmaister wrote:Wow just wow, have you even read the whole darn thread? I think you should apply yourself the lesson of not being an A-hole and just post something because you feel the need to troll and derail a whole thread over senseless crap. It's unbelievable. Being around this board is like being around the most histrionic bunch of fascists I've ever come across. There was a time when Liberals use to say "I may not agree with your views, but I'll die for your right to express them" Now it has become "Everybody must spout the party line or else!"
Oh I sure have read the whole thread, including your angry retorts anytime anyone mentions that we could do more for for the Earth and that there are ways that we can reduce pollution and our dependence upon oil and polluting power production, and your name calling everytime such a mean has been demonstrated as a possible example.

You call people "ecofreaks" just because they seem to care about the environment as much as you seem to care about the USA, but when you're called a Nacionalist by WILGA, you don't accept it, even though the meaning is far less demeaning then the word "ecofrak".

You use your nationality as "proof" that you can't be racist when it is not any proof at all.
Racism can come from any culture, even ones of mixed heritage.
WILGA no esta un pendejo si no eses un racista, comprende?
Calling someone an idiot in a language we know that person doesn't speak is childish.
And stop presuming you know shit about me because you don't. I've always been in favor of a government sponsored recycling program for the trash to this day is still being collected into landfills in the Island. Heck it would even bring much needed jobs and revenue which is desperately needed nowadays over here.
I'm not presuming I know anything about you.
I was asking these questions because everytime people talk about ways to help the environment, you retort angrily and call them "ecofreaks".

All I know about you is that you seem to be an angry person who likes to lash out at people instead of replying in civil manners, and who likes calling out certain behaviors in people and then doing the exact same thing you just accused others of doing.
You don't like being insulted, yet you insult freely.
You get angry when people mention any faults of the US, yet you'll do the same of other countries, and even go as far as demeaning your new President, who's been a lot more honest then your older one ever was in his entire career.
And you'll get angry at people for pointing that out.
In fact, that has been your motus operandi since the beginning, and even your 1 day ban hasn't changed a thing.

Oh, and by the way, in your response post, you just called everyone on the board "Facists".
But that's ok right, since you were the oone insulting people, and not the one being insulted...

And just so everyone reading this threads knows where I stand on the issue:
Even though it hasn't been proven without a doubt that mankind is responsible for "Global Warming", it has been proven without a doubt that mankind is a polluter and is destroying many of this planet's ecosystems with his reckless behavior.
It has been proven that the richest countries (such as the US, Canada, Germany) are reaping the profits of netural ressources plundered from poorer countries, and exploiting the people there as cheap labor.

That is why I:
A) Recycle, take care of my power concumption, try to use as many recycled products as possible;
B) Don't believe in uncontrolled capitalism as it is practiced in the USA;
C) Give to social organisms to help the less fortunate every time I can;

Although I am not apologetic of living in one of these rich countries, because I had nothing to do with where I was born.
Knowing, however, that my country exploits others just gets on my nerves and really pisses me off, which is why I cannot be a nacionalistic as Punkmaister, because I know my country isn't perfect, and I don't accept those imperfections in the light that there are some steps that can be taken to improve, and which aren't taken by my country.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:46 pm

PunkMaister wrote:The correct term if you must know is Nationalist not Nationalsocialist and yes when it comes to the USA I'm a staunch nationalist that puts her interests first.
I will confirm that the appropriate term in US English is indeed "nationalist." "National socialist" is a very rare term, used primarily to refer to the Nazi party, and occasionally used by white supremacists to refer to some cleaned-up version of the policies of Hitler in the Third Reich. The usual term applied to aggressive US nationalist sentiment is jingoism.

Calling someone a "national socialist" on an English language forum is if anything even less conducive to polite discussion than calling folks "fascists." And that usually goes nowhere good in a hurry. (PunkMaister, please take note.)
And again yes I am against against any foreigner who was not born or has been a naturalized citizen for at least 12 years or more to be president. Heck Over here we are even more draconian only people born and residing in the Island can aspire to become governors. Guess we had it with appointed ones by Spain first and the US latter during the first half of the 20th century
Obama certainly has been resident for more than 12 years in the US. In general, having been born to an American mother - regardless of wedlock status or citizenship of the father - is enough for the INS to class someone as a citizen by birth. For reasons relating to political expediency and the Korean and Vietnam wars, having only an American father is a less universal ticket to being classed as a citizen by birth by the INS.

Rival candidate John McCain was born in Panama, for example. He was nevertheless a citizen by birth by virtue of his parents, and eligible to run for the office of president. Obama has both an American mother and was born on American soil (Hawaii, 1961), either of which could qualify him as a "natural-born" citizen.
Negroids! Man such derogatory terms! tsk,tsk... Fact is I never use the 'N word in any of it's variations unlike you have though. My post is pro-nationalist but not racist whatsoever. And from what I've learned from dealing with African Americans that they do not feel as you claim and just FYI so called brown people are not necessarily of African decent. Native Americans have brownish skin and to an extent if you must know so do I.
Another academic note worth taking, Who is like God arbour. "Negroid" is a severely dated term in English, and brings to mind the racism of earlier eras.

A less academic note worth taking for you, PunkMaister: Racism can be found in all flavors. Nixon was intensely racist. One of his racist beliefs was that the Chinese were mentally superior to the white race - a stereotype not very unusual in white Americans even today, but one rarely complained about.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:42 pm

I'm sorry if my words were differently understood than meant.

But I think, that I have made it clear, at least in my following posts, that I have not meant, that Punkmaister is to equalise with the national socialists of the Third Reich.

There were different national socialistic movements and what has happened in the Third Reich is not really something, that would have been supported by all other national socialistic movements (e.g. Strasserism), if there wouldn't have been the »Night of the Long Knives« and other purges.

You can call it nationalism, jingoism or spread-eagleism. But the fact remains, that he supports ideologies and philosophies, that were also supported by all national socialistic movements.

But if you demand the use of other words, I have to demand, that you are showing me, where the difference in ideologies and philosophies is between jingoism and the common denominator of all national socialistic movements. As far as I can see it, there is no significant difference. Where the one were anti-Semitic, the other are anti-muslimic (although that's not really a characteristic of nationalism, jingoism or spread-eagleism what would mean, that he is indeed more a national socialist than a nationalist, jingoist or Spread-eagleist) and the rest is identical.

And before someone asks, I'm not a supporter of such movements. I think that this should be clear considering what I have written up to now not only in this thread but in others too. But I think that it is important to know what historical has really happened and to exactly differentiate. It is a mistake to lump all political movements, one does not like, together.

Concerning the term "Negroid", I think I also have made it clear, that I didn't have meant to use that term in a derogative way. To me, negroid is a term like caucasoid or mongolid.

The same applies to the term hybrid.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:51 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:I'm sorry if my words were differently understood than meant.

But I think, that I have made it clear, at least in my following posts, that I have not meant, that Punkmaister is to equalise with the national socialists of the Third Reich.

There were different national socialistic movements and what has happened in the Third Reich is not really something, that would have been supported by all other national socialistic movements (e.g. Strasserism), if there wouldn't have been the »Night of the Long Knives« and other purges.

You can call it nationalism, jingoism or spread-eagleism. But the fact remains, that he supports ideologies and philosophies, that were also supported by all national socialistic movements.
I am still of the opinion you have the term wrong in terms of English usage.

To us, the general term is nationalist, while "national socialist" is much more specific - meaning a historical tie with the Third Reich or drawing inspiration from it. A history written in English might refer to Strasserism as a branch of nationalism, but would only refer to it as "national socialism" inasmuch as it was specifically and closely tied to the Nazis of the Third Reich.
But if you demand the use of other words, I have to demand, that you are showing me, where the difference in ideologies and philosophies is between jingoism and the common denominator of all national socialistic movements.
Certainly. It's a sub-set relation. "Nationalist" is the broadest category. A nationalist is not necessarily jingoist, because a nationalist could be instead an isolationist and advocate a purely passive foreign policy. A jingoist is not necessarily fascist; jingoism actually predates fascism, which is a much more specific movement.

A jingoist may not necessarily be opposed to either communism or lassez faire economics, both of which the fascist movement spoke out against; jingoists may even favor a two-party state. (As is typical of jingoism historically in the US.)

"National socialism" is then a subcategory of fascism, at least according to the traditional view, although there's apparently some scholarly debate over whether national socialism meets all the little curlicues of fascism if we are to take the Italian fascists' word for what they meant.

Hitler identified himself as Germany's Mussolini; Stalin claimed there was an important distinction between the Italian fascists and the German national socialists, and that was the racism bit.
As far as I can see it, there is no significant difference. Where the one were anti-Semitic, the other are anti-muslimic (although that's not really a characteristic of nationalism, jingoism or spread-eagleism what would mean, that he is indeed more a national socialist than a nationalist, jingoist or Spread-eagleist) and the rest is identical.
Nebulous racism against the other is very common in nationalism without necessarily being fascistic or oriented on a specific race. "Muslim" not precisely being a race, and yet being associated with race, anti-Islamic sentiment requires quite a bit of shoe-horning to fit into the racial imperatives of the national socialist movement, and then there's the economic policy questions to consider.

So no, a racist jingoist is not necessarily - in English - a national socialist. Perhaps national socialist is a broader term in German (I had not realized that), but to us, it's a very specific subcategory dealing almost exclusively with the Third Reich and its historical relatives, including the neo-Nazi movements.
And before someone asks, I'm not a supporter of such movements. I think that this should be clear considering what I have written up to now not only in this thread but in others too. But I think that it is important to know what historical has really happened and to exactly differentiate. It is a mistake to lump all political movements, one does not like, together.

Concerning the term "Negroid", I think I also have made it clear, that I didn't have meant to use that term in a derogative way. To me, negroid is a term like caucasoid or mongolid.

The same applies to the term hybrid.
Contexts don't always translate well between German and English. The languages have very many cognates, but the differing historical backgrounds are what render some cognates offensive and renders others non-colloquial. I'm sure there are many cases in the other direction that I have yet to embarrass myself with in German (ich spreche Deutsch selten) but I can see why you often choose English words that sound out of place to a colloquial speaker.

There's a lot of consciousness about racial labels in the English speaking part of the world. The terms derived from the Spanish word for "black" were heavily overused by white racists in the US (negro/nigger), and thus have come to be deemed offensive in the US, because they were meant as slurs by so many for so long. "Black" is usually an acceptable term, though it may seem vague. "Negroid" still persists in the language, but almost exclusively as a technical term among physical anthropologists, and due to its similarity to "negro," is likely to provoke poor reactions outside of that context.

There's something of a generational gap among blacks in the US surrounding "nigger." Many older blacks find the use of the term completely unacceptable, while younger blacks - in the generation that didn't live through segregation or the race riots of the 1970s - are more likely to use it themselves.

The term "mongoloid" also has a very politically incorrect history in English, also having to do with 19th century history, and one which you probably aren't aware: In England, after the disorder was identified in publication by John Langdon Down, people with Down's syndrome were referred to as "mongoloid" for quite some time. As a result, if you say "mongoloid," people are likely to assume you're referring to someone with Down's syndrome.

"Hybrid" is just an odd word choice. It just happens that term is rarely used in that particular context in English. "Mixed-race" is the current fashionable term in most of the US.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:56 pm

What's the topic again?
I'd love to talk about how Obama is more honest than Bush, or what it means to be racist, but it is not meant to happen here at all.
I'll have to PM JMS.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Post by sonofccn » Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:15 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:I have started to reply to your post. But that's stupid. You are again and again claiming, that the whole economy would collapse and humanity gets killed, if energy stems only from renewable energy sources but you have given not one single reason for that apocalyptic scenario.
Well to be a nitpicker I claimed the economy would collaspse not that humanity will die, we are a hardy species. I have stated my reasons and asked that you provide proof that money can be made off of greentech. Actual companies that don't need goverment hand outs to exist, because if a company can't generate a postive contribution then it can only survive as long as actual providers are generating money for it. So once again name a successful "green" company.
Yes, to build renewable energy plants needs investments. And as long as these investments are not amortized, the production of energy from this plants will cost more, than the production of energy from plants, that are already amortized. Insofar it is only logical that there is a reluctance to invest in renewable energy if an investment in established plants could be more profitable. But that does not mean, that it is the correct choice in the long run.
So your saying because green tech cost more per unit and produces less per unit is is horrendously inferior to nongreen tech above and beyond the brownie points a company gets if it goes down this path. So you just kinda admitted the economy will ,if not fully collasp, shrink to a vastly smaller size. You do realize that these people can't take it with them right and if this world dies before we develop interplantary transports they die with it so wouldn't it be logical for these investors to make their loot off unclean tech and then gradual phase it away during the next few decades or centuries as opposed to spewing out coal plants as nevada sinks below ocean level?
Yes, certain jobs will no longer exist. But new jobs are created in the same time. Who do you think is supposed to build and operate the new plants? Who do you think is supposed to build the non-polluting cars?
I get it my point was that since the new plant can't provide sufficient energy at affordable prices it will either leech off of pappa government or sink into the dust and that when GM builds a line of cars that no one buys it does the same. The end result either way is not a robust economy but a shrinking one if not a collasping one.
You attitude is very simple: environment protection yes, but only if it does not costs you anything.
No. I simply do not choose to forget the only reason to protect the environment, to protect humans. If it will cause a downgrade of living it is not advisable since humanity and it's progress are top priority.
But because that is not possible, you don't really want environment protection. As you have said, you are only willing to invest in a filter, if it does anything tangible. That means, that for you, only your perspective is relevant.
If the filter was the only thing standing between a smog filled city street and a breathable atmosphere I would call that tangible. Paying more for a filter that has no discernible difference if I use it or not however isn't. I don't need to see first hand but I need a little more then blind faith. I need to see some cause and effect between the choices of my actions.
You rather kill the planet and save humanity, which means in reality nothing more than that you are ready to kill the planet to save the living standard of only your generation of your nation.
No I simply understand the planet only has value if there are humans. If I had to destroy the world to save humanity I would do it in a heartbeat. Not a generation but humanity, or do you think we will be still be trapped on this world for the rest of time. Not that I believe it will come to that of course but I do not see the point of increasing human suffering for any world.
nd concerning a better term »for someone who believes he has a right to arbitrary decided who get's what for an entire nation.«: parliamentary democracy. It's not a new concept. You should know it.
When someone does something against the will of the majority I don't think democracy can be applied, after all if the majority of people believed in this you wouldn't need to use a law to pass it. The US government doesn't have the right to control your life on that level, nor the German government nor anyone else. I don't care if it will save your life it isn't worth the lose of liberty.
Parliamentarians are deciding for the entire nation. They enact laws which are compelling for the entire nation and everyone in it, irrelevant if the addressee likes the law or if he has elected the ruling party. And a good parliamentarian does not do, what the electors are wanting, but what is the best for the all people of a nation.
So in essence your saying that to be a good government it has to basically view the people as stupid children who can't possibly know what is good for it? The whole democracy bit in the name implies the people have the control and the point of a Democratic republic, is that similar or radically different from parliamentarian democracy?, is to provide a repersenative of your interests since it would impossible for the masses to effectively respond to the day to day affairs of government. Why the hell would you vote otherwise?
They not always the same and too often parliamentarians are only doing what they are doing because they hope to be re-elected. That usually results in a short-sighted policy, where the solution of long-term problems is not approached.
While I agree politicians pander to voters with false promises and the latest fashionable cause I just can't quite adjust to the notion that they know what's best for me. Their politicians, their idiots who 9 times out of 10 have never had a real job. They are the last people who should be turned to for help and the thought of them thinking their somehow magicaly smarter then me or anyone else just burns me. They exist to serve me, not the other way around.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1923
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:59 pm

Interesting read: Liberal Fascism

Just to confuse the issue that much more. ;)

Suffice it to say that leftist statism, historically, is more dangerous than any conservative statism that can be dreamt up.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:29 am

2046 wrote:Interesting read: Liberal Fascism

Just to confuse the issue that much more. ;)

Suffice it to say that leftist statism, historically, is more dangerous than any conservative statism that can be dreamt up.
Seen it before. In my opinion, Goldberg is full of it, and his book is fairly near to complete garbage. If you want to talk about the dangers of leftist statism, fascism is the wrong place to look. Look instead to Stalin, who was actually a leftist statist. If that's not enough atrocity for you - after all, Stalin also developed the USSR into a major power - try Pol Pot.

It's for very good reasons that most historians place fascism in the right wing; fascists were reacting to the rise of communism on the left. Fascist regimes emphasized traditions, rejected pluralism, rejected democracy, rejected pacifism, rejected - explicitly - liberals. The direct historical descendants of fascist parties? Universally on the far right fringe. Neo-nazi groups are largely conservative or reactionary.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Post by sonofccn » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:48 am

WIlGA since it appears that our little discussion is drifting apart I thought I might try and tidy it up a bit and bring it back to the brass tacks.

Point 1: You claim a fully green industry is profitable, that it can either maintain itself or infact grow. You cited an article on increase in solar power and investors recomending green tech. I merely request an actual example of a profitable green tech. Now please don't pull out it's for the enviroment and how cruel I am for wanting to kill off the future generation's earth. It is beyond the actual scope of this argument, namely that with green tech as it is now could fully supplant nongreen tech. We are debating financial matters on this point.

Point 2:You claim that a ceasing of the combustion engine in six years will have no harmful effects and further more that this is not a sign of you not planning ahead. I point out we could not possible adapt our infastructure to handle this in that allotted time much less in a world wide recession, that since no one wants green cars they won't sell and just the proposale of this would cause the stock market to take a bath. Fear and uncertainty can cause people to try and liquidate assets. So if you have anything concrete on how you can even plan to attempt this I would like to hear it.
Once again the enviroment state does not concern us, we are talking about finacial practability.

Point 3:In a nutshell you basicly assert a Goverment has the right to treat it's citizens like children while I assert that the citizens have the right to treat the Goverment as a servant or a tool to obtain thier goals. I would like to see your justification for your belief.

Point 4: Assuming that Global Warming is a valid belief we are in disagreement on the proper method of going forward. You believe that the people must be forced to make sacrifices for mother earth because of the greater good while I believe the people must make that choice on thier own and as an extension of that should be enticed with competative green tech to facilitate their gradual switch over. I await your justification.

Post Reply