The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

Dj_Jestar said:
Ah, ok.. understand now. Thought you were disputing the literal difference between "the fight against fascism" and "fighting fascism" :)
Click to expand...

Nah, just phrasing of the 50 million dying "fighting fascism". After all, if we were to include everyone who merely happened to die during ww2, we would also have to include all of the german and japanese soldiers and civilians in the figure, even though of course they werent "fighting fascism" themselves. :)
 
semi-pro waster said:
If we're really getting into semantics then in your example of walking down the street you've died as a result of terrorism, not fighting against it nor because of the fight against terrorism - presuming of course that is that the terrorists would not simply have taken their toys home if they were ignored completely and had nothing to fight against.

If you're an innocent citizen who happens to be in the vicinity of an anti-terrorist operation and are mistaken for a terrorist then killed you have died as a result of the fight against terror.

However this is largely a pointless distinction.
Click to expand...

Terrorism probably wasnt the best choice.

But clearly if we are including everyone who died in WW2 as someone dying "fighting fascism", then we would have to also include all axis military/civilian deaths (which would have course make it vastly more than 50 million). Thus the difference in fighting fascism and fighting against fascism.
 
Tombstone said:
Terrorism probably wasnt the best choice.

But clearly if we are including everyone who died in WW2 as someone dying "fighting fascism", then we would have to also include all axis military/civilian deaths (which would have course make it vastly more than 50 million). Thus the difference in fighting fascism and fighting against fascism.
Click to expand...

Apologies, was just me wasting a bit of time getting into the semantics, I understand the point you're making and you're right it is more correct to say that 50m died as a result of the fight against facism.
 
UK|AL said:
I want him to expand on the idea of liberal fascism. The term is contradicts it's self, when you use the true meaning of liberal.

Liberal got a lot bad press, because of links to communism but most communism implementations actually suppressed other view points which is not liberal. I.e China and the tank guy. Communism like that is actually fascist.

Liberal - Tolerant, Open Minded.
Fascist - Close minded.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
 
Tombstone said:
Terrorism probably wasnt the best choice.

But clearly if we are including everyone who died in WW2 as someone dying "fighting fascism", then we would have to also include all axis military/civilian deaths (which would have course make it vastly more than 50 million). Thus the difference in fighting fascism and fighting against fascism.
Click to expand...
"fighting fascism" is implicit that you are not embracing/accepting/tolerating it.. so to include the Axis deaths would not be necessary. However, Wiki says the total deaths for all those involved is 73million+.
 
LabR@t said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
Click to expand...
You want me to buy the book? Because i can't get anything out of that short wikipedia article.

What i think he is getting at is, they force people people to things which they don't want to believe in. In this case he has got no idea of the true meaning liberal, because that is in fact fascism.

As i said there has been no true communist rule, because communism in it's true form is very very hippy. Love & peace sort of thing. Communism in china & russia was very very bad. They killed people who did not agree, which is not tolerant at all.

Liberal accepts all view points even opposite view points, they might disagree but they won't kill anyone over it. Where as the extreme right probably would.

You can tell me more if you want.

That book has got the wrong idea of liberal, as you can tell by it's huge criticism section.

If we use the same type of argument in the book against the BNP, I could call the BNP left wing because they want a huge government, and they want to forcibly move people using government power which is exactly what china and russia did.
 
Last edited:
Dj_Jestar said:
"fighting fascism" is implicit that you are not embracing/accepting/tolerating it.. so to include the Axis deaths would not be necessary. However, Wiki says the total deaths for all those involved is 73million+.
Click to expand...

Again though it comes down to semantics, there is a difference between "fighting" something, and merely being someone who doesnt embrace/accept or tolerate something.

For instance, I dont embrace/accept/tolerate the Taliban and their ideals, but in no way could I be considered someone who is "fighting" it. Thus if the Taliban attacked my place of work and I was killed, my death couldnt really be included in a figure of people dead fighting the Taliban. Dead as a result of the fight against the Taliban, most certainly. But not dead fighting the Taliban.
 
Last edited:
But you are, in some sense of the word, tolerating. You're not actively disputing the Taliban, you're just not <something> it. :)

But yes, I get your point and this is wandering hideously off topic now. :)
 
Last edited:
UK|AL said:
Liberal accepts all view points even opposite view points, they might disagree but they won't kill anyone over it. Where as the extreme right probably would.
Click to expand...

Liberals and fascists are different extremes - as such you are all extremists.

You say you wouldn't kill somebody for having a different opinion - I believe you.

But would you stop them getting a job as a policeman, or a teacher? Your doing it now, and that is forcing your opinion on sections of society you view as important.

The world needs all sorts of extremists to provide balance but I wouldn't trust any of you, your all just working your own agenda.
 
Hxc said:
I think you'll likely find that it's actually a small minority that come over here and spunge off the government. The majority come over here, work, often doing jobs we personally would not like.
Click to expand...

What are these jobs we do not like you speak of? I think you mean we will not work for the same pay that the immigrants are happy to work for, don't you.

I didn't know shop work, bar work, supermarket till worker, plumbing, brickies, chippies, engineers, doctors, nurses (etc, etc) were such hated jobs by the british. Or maybe its the fact employers won't offer us a 33% pay cut to do the same job.
 
Last edited:
Telescopi said:
Liberals and fascists are different extremes - as such you are all extremists.

You say you wouldn't kill somebody for having a different opinion - I believe you.

But would you stop them getting a job as a policeman, or a teacher? Your doing it now, and that is forcing your opinion on sections of society you view as important.

The world needs all sorts of extremists to provide balance but I wouldn't trust any of you, your all just working your own agenda.
Click to expand...

Yes I would allow them to get a job as teacher or police man as long as they don't force there own opinion on the public. If they do there job well, then it's fine.

Writing a law excluding people is anti-liberal, it's regulation, i don't like that at all. Same with section 28.

I'm actually right wing on economics and left on social issues.

The dignity of all people should be preserved.

Liberal isn't a extreme, communism would be a extreme.
That's like saying traditional conservatives are fascists.

Modern conservatism is actually quite left on social issues, i have no problem with them.

Because liberal does not mean what most people think it means. Liberal is actually anti-regulation, and freedom. Freedom allows people to gay, black whatever without punishment.

It's just liberalism now a days means nothing like that, it has all sorts of regulation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom