Whatever happened to "The Debates"

Sea Bird said:
Everyone's biased. You can't have a position if you're not. Asking judges to be 100% impartial is unrealistic.
Click to expand...
No, judges are supposed to be impartial.

Sea Bird said:
Real men aren't poster children for the Hitler Youth.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, since Hitler was a socialist and his youth corps was designed to promote that unquestioned. Real men question authority, are self-reliant and do not shun personal responsibility.
 
DamnYankee said:
No, judges are supposed to be impartial.
Click to expand...

They can't be. Or at least not completely.

I agree 100%, since Hitler was a socialist and his youth corps was designed to promote that unquestioned. Real men question authority, are self-reliant and do not shun personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Hitler was not a socialist. He openly opposed democracy, socialism and communism. The uniting interest behind socialists is concern for the material conditions of the working class - something Hitler's policies didn't reflect. Hitler was a fascist.

The rest I agree with. But complete self reliance is impossible. ;)
 
Sea Bird said:
They can't be. Or at least not completely.



Hitler was not a socialist. He openly opposed democracy, socialism and communism. The uniting interest behind socialists is concern for the material conditions of the working class - something Hitler's policies didn't reflect. Hitler was a fascist.

The rest I agree with. But complete self reliance is impossible. ;)
Click to expand...

No one can be completely impartial. If they can't look past their impartiality and rule based on the case in front of them and nothing elese, however, they should not be judges.

Hitler expanded on and developed programs to improve the material conditions of the middle class, so he was a socialist. Where he instituted theses policies by force or not doesn't negate that fact.

Complete self reliance is difficult but not impossible. Real men strive for self reliance and don't shun personal responsibility. Liberals shun personal responsibility, and look for socialist government programs to do for them which they don't like to do for themselves.
 
Sea Bird said:
They can't be. Or at least not completely.
Click to expand...

In matters of legal decision, they are supposed to be, always and completely. Perhaps you don't think it is possible for them to be, because you know it would be impossible for yourself to be?

Hitler was not a socialist. He openly opposed democracy, socialism and communism. The uniting interest behind socialists is concern for the material conditions of the working class - something Hitler's policies didn't reflect. Hitler was a fascist.

The rest I agree with. But complete self reliance is impossible. ;)
Click to expand...

Hitler was indeed a socialist. A Nationalist-Socialist, to be exact. It's where the word "NAZI" comes from. It is the attempted amalgamation of nationalism and socialism, and ironically, is very similar in nature, principle and theory, as what we are currently seeing in the Obama administration policies. But as with any socialist experiment, Hitlers also ultimately failed.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
A "real man" is someone who takes losing an anonymous online debate with civility and doesn't hold a grudge for over a year over his aforementioned debate loss.
Click to expand...
You are the exact opposite of a real man, being liberal, beholden to social trends, and dependent on others for his subsistence. A real man questions authority and isn't afraid to speak his mind even if it makes lesser men uncomfortable and himself unpopular. A real man never forgets and does not forgive unless repentance is given.
 
DamnYankee said:
No one can be completely impartial. If they can't look past their impartiality and rule based on the case in front of them and nothing elese, however, they should not be judges.

Hitler expanded on and developed programs to improve the material conditions of the middle class, so he was a socialist. Where he instituted theses policies by force or not doesn't negate that fact.

Complete self reliance is difficult but not impossible. Real men strive for self reliance and don't shun personal responsibility. Liberals shun personal responsibility, and look for socialist government programs to do for them which they don't like to do for themselves.
Click to expand...

A few big mistakes there. Socialism doesn't mean improving the material conditions of the middle class. Hitler didn't have an economic platform. Liberals are anti-socialist - they're anti-radical, counter revolutionary, reformist, and thusly shunned by socialists all throughout history

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative". - Hitler, 1942.
 
Sea Bird said:
The middle class and working class aren't the same thing. Also, improving the middle class' condition wasn't the goal of Hitler's regime.
Click to expand...

Hitler expanded on and developed programs to improve the material conditions of the working class as well. It doesn't matter what his goal was, as when he started these programs he wasn't specific to the masses that he intended to kill all the Jews and attempt a military take-over of Europe. All that shit was bad but he began his rise to power by using socialism.
 
DamnYankee said:
Hitler expanded on and developed programs to improve the material conditions of the working class as well. It doesn't matter what his goal was, as when he started these programs he wasn't specific to the masses that he intended to kill all the Jews and attempt a military take-over of Europe. All that shit was bad but he began his rise to power by using socialism.
Click to expand...

So because his programs helped the working class, among others, he was a socialist?
 
DamnYankee said:
He was a socialist because he expanded on and created social programs. His ulterior motives and how it all ended can't negate that fact.
Click to expand...

Government programs don't equate to socialism. Sure, many socialists want to have more of them - I'm guilty of that as well - but that's not what defines socialism. All schools of socialism imply worker control of production - even if they're realized as dictatorships. That's what unites them - you can't be a socialist without that. You also must be heavily concerned with the material conditions of the working class, and their liberation - if that's not one of the primary goals of your society, you're not a socialist. Socialism - perhaps with the exception of Leninism - is to the far left. In nearly all issues not pertaining to the size of government, it's highly libertarian. And in theory, it's also highly democratic - though some of it's representations expressed this far less than I'd have liked. Additionally, some schools of socialism are implicitly against social programs, and government in general. Followers of these schools have sought to abolish the three major sources of power - the state, religion and the private sector - and develop a classless society.

In short, Hitler was not a socialist. Nothing close.

You may also want to have a look at this book, which I consider to be the best text on on socialism, to date.
 
Sea Bird said:
Government programs don't equate to socialism. Sure, many socialists want to have more of them - I'm guilty of that as well - but that's not what defines socialism. All schools of socialism imply worker control of production - even if they're realized as dictatorships. That's what unites them - you can't be a socialist without that. You also must be heavily concerned with the material conditions of the working class, and their liberation - if that's not one of the primary goals of your society, you're not a socialist. Socialism - perhaps with the exception of Leninism - is to the far left. In nearly all issues not pertaining to the size of government, it's highly libertarian. And in theory, it's also highly democratic - though some of it's representations expressed this far less than I'd have liked. Additionally, some schools of socialism are implicitly against social programs, and government in general. Followers of these schools have sought to abolish the three major sources of power - the state, religion and the private sector - and develop a classless society.

In short, Hitler was not a socialist. Nothing close.

You may also want to have a look at this book, which I consider to be the best text on on socialism, to date.
Click to expand...

The Nazi's had defacto ownership of the means of production as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top