Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, calling Bush a fascist (the intent of equating him with Hitler) does make sense, because Eternal War is at the heart of fascism, and Bush supported a policy of Endless War.

No, not at all. Fascism has nothing to do with eternal war. Neither does neoconservatism.

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death." - Mussolini, What is Fascism (1932)

Gailbraithe wrote:
The argument that Republicans use fascist tactics to achieve fascist goals and are thus fascist is in no way a circular argument.

A circular argument is not the same thing as begging the question. In a circular argument the speaker assumes a condition in the initial definition which is required to realize the second definition. In this instance you have defined what constitutes a Republican is his fascist nature, because you haven't provided a definition of 'Republican' except that which is 'fascist'

I wasn't aware that I had to define the meaning of "the Republicans." The Republicans are the Republican Party specifically, including its political leaders and party leadership and members, and more generally the allied media personalities (and news channels), financial benefactors, and the array of think-tanks and astroturf organizations that support the Republican Party.

While there are certainly outliers within that broad group -- exceptions to every rule -- when one speaks of the Republicans one is speaking of the collective effect of their collective efforts. And that group has shown a pronounced tendency to engage in fascist tactics towards fascist goals.

Gailbraithe wrote:40% is a majority if it is the largest segment of the group in question.

No, it's not. 40% is a plurality if it is the largest segment of the group in question.

The idea that the greatest segment of a group implies 51% because it 51% is the greatest possible segment of a group is nonsensical as the greatest possible segment of a group 99%.

The greatest part of a group is always at least 51%, not exactly 51%. That's why the traditional, common definition of a majority is "more than half." Which would be 51% or more, and thus include 99%.

And the great possible segment of a group is 100%. For example, the majority of my organs are human organs and 100% of my organs are human organs. No pig heart valves or anything of the sort.

Not listening is not censorship, but you're not simply refusing to listen if you have me on ignore. If you have me on ignore you are literally censoring me from your view by removing my words. Not necessarily bad, or even improper, but still censorship.

Ignoring you does not remove your words. If it did, I couldn't be responding to this. All ignore does is turn your comment into a single line asking me if I want to see your post. It hides your words from me, and no one else.

Please investigate the terms you're using instead of assuming you have a perfect handle on them, and subsequently insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

Take your own advice.

Gailbraithe wrote:
"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death." - Mussolini, What is Fascism (1932)

No, notihng about eternal war in there. Fascism glorifies war, as I said, but it does not attempt to create an eternal war. It could be said that warfare is a constant of human behavior as defined by fascism, in fact I would agree with that, but that's not what eternal war is.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I wasn't aware that I had to define the meaning of "the Republicans." The Republicans are the Republican Party specifically, including its political leaders and party leadership and members, and more generally the allied media personalities (and news channels), financial benefactors, and the array of think-tanks and astroturf organizations that support the Republican Party.

While there are certainly outliers within that broad group -- exceptions to every rule -- when one speaks of the Republicans one is speaking of the collective effect of their collective efforts. And that group has shown a pronounced tendency to engage in fascist tactics towards fascist goals.

It isn't enough to simply nominate 'Republican' as a means of self-definition. You have to describe what a Republican is while not being a fascist, otherwise you're still in a circular definition when stating that Republicans are fascists; ie. you're circularly referring to fascists as fascists. Again, that's fine, but you have to support it by defining what Republicans are, and how they fit into fascism. That's another thread, though, and it already exists.

Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it's not. 40% is a plurality if it is the largest segment of the group in question.

We've already been through this, so we can take it to PM, or leave it be.

Gailbraithe wrote:
The greatest part of a group is always at least 51%, not exactly 51%.

No, the greatest part of a group is the largest part of the group as defined. You're thinking of the greatest possible part of a group.

Gailbraithe wrote:
And the great possible segment of a group is 100%. For example, the majority of my organs are human organs and 100% of my organs are human organs. No pig heart valves or anything of the sort.

Segment implies division. 100% of something is not divided.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Ignoring you does not remove your words. If it did, I couldn't be responding to this. All ignore does is turn your comment into a single line asking me if I want to see your post. It hides your words from me, and no one else.

Yes, as I said, you are removing my words from your consideration. That's censorship. It may be proper censorship, but its still censorship.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Take your own advice.

Censorship is occasionally carried out to aid authorities or to protect an individual, as with some kidnappings when attention and media coverage of the victim can sometimes be seen as unhelpful.

You would seem to be an authority with regard to yourself; ergo you can censor yourself. Read your sources.

EDIT: I just walked downstairs and explained this argument to my roommate and his girlfriend. They, both college educated people, think you're a complete idiot and can't believe you are actually making these ridiculous arguments. I've already talked to a half dozen people about your silly majority argument. Everyone thinks you're an idiot.

We are never going to convince each other, because in my view your positions are absolutely absurd nonsense with no basis in any sort of reality. I think your argument has no merit at all, that it is patently false and that your position is no different than arguing that Godzilla is the president of the USA and the seas are made of jello. It's just bizarre.

So lets just drop it. We have to agree to disagree, because apparently you are wedded to this complete nonsense, and I am not going to drink the kool-aid you are peddling. Unless others in the forum chime in and break this tie, we can only continue to butt heads on this, as you continue to present no arguments and insult my intelligence, while I grow more and more frustrated at the apparently fething crazy man who won't shut up.

So drop it. And this is why I'm ignoring you. Because talking to you is no different than talking to a wall.

Nevermind.

I just walked downstairs and explained this argument to my roommate and his girlfriend. They, both college educated people, think you're a complete idiot and can't believe you are actually making these ridiculous arguments. I've already talked to a half dozen people about your silly majority argument. Everyone thinks you're an idiot.

Democracy in action!

In other news, you're 34, and have a roomate.

Good times...

It would seem to be a fairly sensible living arrangement, if you're not in any sort of long-term relationship.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It would seem to be a fairly sensible living arrangement, if you're not in any sort of long-term relationship.

Bingo. I lived alone for most of the last ten years, and frankly it just gets lonely.

The biggest problem I see is that the government is far too big. Power needs to be moved out of the federal level and down to the state/county/city levels.

Too much money is going down the drain throwing potheads into jail, failing at fighting a losing war on drugs, supporting other nations (especially Israel), wasted on an undiscplined school system, supporting welfare, and being wasted on the ghettos.

I lived alone for most of the last ten years, and frankly it just gets lonely.

Ugh, GOD DUDE, stop being so miserable. You like fighting, fight the apathetic depressed horror you seem to have spent your entire adult life in.

FIND SOME HAPPINESS.

Follow your dreams.

And live in harmony, harmony oh love!

There are two users in this thread who would be well advised to put each other on Ignore.

This seemed appropriate, given the subject matter.

Monster Rain wrote:

This seemed appropriate, given the subject matter.

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Gailbraithe wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Dems, GOP, all are crooked bastards. Death to the Incumbents. Term limits NOW.

Term limits only increase the power of the lobbyist in Washington. They will actually make the problems worse, not better.

We don't need less experienced representatives who will be more reliant on unelected staffers and lobbyists to understand the system, we need a more actively involved electorate that actually pays attention to who is doing what in congress. Incumbency is not the problem, incompetence is.

This is something that I actually agree with. If you want to see what inexperienced, less educated politicians look like watch our parliament sometime. With so many people to choose from it's a lot easier for us to get rid of a politician when they screw up so we end up with a bunch of guys with little experience and their arguing sounds like something you would hear in grade school.


Also, in Canada, if a party has 40% of the people supporting it they would most certainly have a majority.