Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
I think I am the only person to ever read the bible and get pissedoff.

Presumably because most other like-minded people get sick and tired of it less than half-way through.

Originally posted by Homuncul
No it will not. Christianity is something that formed our moral norms we accept for over a millenia to present moment while nazism is not.

It did not. Anyone can see how virtually every society arrives at the same basic morals, with or without religion.

It proved futile and furthermore distructive.

So did Christianity. Your point?

No I think you're wrong. There's no such thing as freedom in perspective. There're always limitations. We only decide how much of them we need and it's something fundamental. So there's no such thing as non-thought control. You want more freedom for your thought but you have it.

Yes, but we have to draw a line somewhere. I think we should make everything public in this regard. Keeping the "Anarchists cook-book" etc banned is okay, as this is gun control (like ST pointed out). Banning "Mein Kampf" is political control.

Originally posted by Homuncul
No I think you're wrong. There's no such thing as freedom in perspective. There're always limitations. We only decide how much of them we need and it's something fundamental. So there's no such thing as non-thought control. You want more freedom for your thought but you have it.

Again, the public ought to draw the line - if they don't like it, they don't buy it. We have to courses of action:

1) Let censors decide which books and which political parties are banned. The problem here is that this will udavoidably lead to conflicting opinions - if Mein Kampf is banned, why isn't Das Kapital banned as well? If a book promoting rape is banned, which isn't the Holy Bible banned as well? All promote a destructive change in society which will gnaw at the fundament of Democracy. Banning MK but not Das Kapital only shows that the censors have no idea what they're doing - Das Kapital promotes an equally dangerous society, one which will replace democracy and remove the government. It shows that the censors are biased towards Communism, and inflicts this bias upon the democratic society which they are supposed to protect and uphold (all the while promoting, through censorship, an anti-democratic government). Is this fair?

2) On the other hand, we can let every political text be open for public use and abuse. There is no bias here, and democracy is upheld, but there's the danger that some people might be swayed and persuaded by these texts to commit crimes and try to destroy democracy.

It is this very self-sacrificing idea behind democracy which must be protected in my eyes. Choice No. 1 has a huge democratic loss in the form of free speech, but it has the gain of upholding the current government. It relies upon faith - the faith that through tight censorship, peace in the system is attained. I am of the belief that a peace through this can never be attained, and that such a government will never find the strengh to support itself, and will gradually spin itself into a censoring hole from which it cannot recover and will ultimately breed terror groups.

Rape book is not only banned because of someone's subjective opinion but because of right of those censorers to defy what fits the moral norms of the society and what's not.

Who gave them that right, and on which basis? Would society crumble if they weren't there?

Hitler was ill. He had mixed conceptions of good and bad. You should look at his childhood.

That's not relevant.

We learn it's factual goals and we're explained why it doesn't work.

So why not explain that Communism can't work either? Or a Church? Again, unneeded, biased censorship.

Or you mean that I can't imagine anarchy implicitly in all of it's forms because I lived only in republic?

I mean that the only reason you believe Anarchy can't work, and a Church can work, is because of biased censorship.

C' Jais: I didn't say Communism was good, did I?

Okay, here's the deal (what I meant to say):
Most christians practice chrisitanity in a way that doesn't really hurt people, apart from being a different view (ie. believing in God, not Allah), which is not offensive. A few think the Bible is a facist handbook.

All nazis are anti-semitistic, racists, and so on.

That's the difference.

Body count... The christians killed that many people, yes, but that was houndreds of years ago. It's like saying Norwegians are barbarians today because we were Vikings 1000 years ago, I think.

Books are banned when people are afraid of the ideas they may posses, however; immoral or unpopular a book may be. It and its "ideas" are still a part of free speech.
I want to ban Mein Kampf, but I'm not afraid of nazis, so I'm afraid you're wrong. If I was a Pakistani, maybe. Seeing I'm blonde, no.

I mean that the only reason you believe Anarchy can't work, and a Church can work, is because of biased censorship.
Um.. or maybe he's been to churches and seen them work? IMO, all the sermons I've been to in Christian Norway "worked". What's your definition of a "working" church anyway (just curious)? Anarchy deserves a whole thread of itself, IMO.

And about the rape book in my example, haven't you considered that it's not that "we think rape is wrong", but that it might increase the amount of rapes in the country, give the rapers a "leader"/"hero", and glorify rapes to the rapists?

If you value Democracy over as low a rate of sexual abuse as possible, well, tell that to girl who've been raped. "Yeah, the rape rate went up 10% but we're a democracy, so it's okay?"

This brings me to an interesting point. Yes, we value democracy, but don't we also value safety, security, acceptance, etc.?

Let's say we ban My Struggle and Nazism. You were right, and the exact same people remain anti-minority groups, but under new names. Pointless? No. Because although their opinions are the same still, their message will be different when they can't publicly call themselves "nazis", recognizing Adolf Hitler as their leader. Their message will be different when they can't use swastikas as symbols. You can say the exact same things about Jews (unless anti-semitism is banned too, which I'd like to see:)), but you'll be "just another racist", not a "member of the faction that killed 6 000 000 Jews". It might not be different to you, but I ensure you it'll be a big difference to those hit by their remarks (such as me).

Also about rape: You may value democracy, but if 5000 more girls are raped in the States annualy because of Molesting for Dummies, what's wrong with banning it?

This whole "if we ban this, we'll ban that and pretty soon we'll be a dictatorship" thing is simply not valid. Norway, for example, outlaws burning American flags. They don't, however, plan to outlaw saying something bad about America or Americans. Your theory of a "domino effect" is just that: A theory.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I want to ban Mein Kampf, but I'm not afraid of nazis, so I'm afraid you're wrong. If I was a Pakistani, maybe. Seeing I'm blonde, no. Hmm so you’re against free speech?

Freedom of speech protects the Fascists, the KKK, and Christians alike. While we are at it lets ban Maxiam it portrays a negative image of women and the Bible it promotes beleving in a god or your going to hell. Lets just ban books all together, because everybody might not like what they have to say.

The simple fact here is. If I want to be a Christian, a Nazi, a Communist, or a Capitalist. I have that right in the USA. It’s on paper it’s the law. If I want to read about it, or talk about it, or demonstrate about it. As long as I’m not hurting anyone or causing trouble I am free to do so. If you don’t want to read the “Mein Kampf” guess what you have the freedom not to read it also. Nobody in this country has the right to tell me what I can and can not read. It’s the law. If this country starts banning books it’s on its way to fascism in a hand basket. Might as well get out your swastika.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
This whole "if we ban this, we'll ban that and pretty soon we'll be a dictatorship" thing is simply not valid. Norway, for example, outlaws burning American flags. They don't, however, plan to outlaw saying something bad about America or Americans. Your theory of a "domino effect" is just that: A theory. Heil Dagobahn Eagle. I ve ian Berliner ? <--- That was just wrong of me:o

That was just wrong of me

1. Weird.
2. Du bist nicht eine Berliner.
3. Du mussen Deutsch lehren:D, but your spelling is already addressed.
4. Pointless. Banning nazi books doesn't make me a nazi :), or what? Maybe I'm in favour of dictatorship (in your opinion), but you do realize it's not very nazistic to ban nazist ideas, right? Because how would I do it? First I'd have to ban my own speech, and then I'd be stuck!

Lets just ban books all together, because everybody might not like what they have to say.
I don't think that's a good idea.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
3. Du mussen Deutsch lehren:D, but your spelling is already addressed. That's how it showed up on Yahoo search. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
4. Pointless. Banning nazi books doesn't make me a nazi :), or what? Maybe I'm in favour of dictatorship (in your opinion), but you do realize it's not very nazistic to ban nazist ideas, right? Because how would I do it? First I'd have to ban my own speech, and then I'd be stuck! Not necessarily you can be a fascist without being a Nazi. They don’t have exclusive rights over fascism.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I don't think that's a good idea. :rolleyes: Neither is banning a book, because you don't agree with it.

That's how it showed up on Yahoo search.
LOL:D!
It's "Ich bin ein(e?) Berliner."

Facist, nazi, or just pro-censorship. Point is, banning it doesn't make me a facist OR a nazi. Like a facist, maybe, but not necessarily an actual facist.

Neither is banning a book, because you don't agree with it.
Well, it's not that I don't agree with it, otherwise I'd have banned every Republican book out there:). Problem is, keeping it legal to society destructive to society more than not banning it is constructive. In my opinion:).

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Well, it's not that I don't agree with it, otherwise I'd have banned every Republican book out there:). Problem is, keeping it legal to society destructive to society more than not banning it is constructive. In my opinion:). Like I said before... Regardless of being negative or positive it has equal protection under freedom of speech that's just the way it is. If you ban it for whatever reason you are denying that freedom. People have the freedom to read and think hate field things if they want.

During the rise of Christianity the early christens ram sacked a Library in Alexandria. At the time a center of knowledge. They did that, because they considered the science and reading there to be pagan and against Christianity. At the time paganism was viewed as bad fascism is now. The problem here is if they had not done that The Dark Ages may never have happened. We could have been on the moon a few hundred years ago.

It was a Nazi scientist that built the rocket that took the US to the moon. In fact allot of advancements came from the Nazis, however; bad they may have been there is allot of things we wouldn’t have right now if WWII had never have happened. We might not even have Computers.

Many good points there, CJ.

I'm familiar with the 1st Amendment, but I believe the question of the thread is "but should it stay that way"?

It was a Nazi scientist that built the rocket that took the US to the moon. In fact allot of advancements came from the Nazis, however; bad they may have been there is allot of things we wouldn’t have right now if WWII had never have happened. We might not even have Computers.
I get your point.
However, we can't know that the USA wouldn't have built rockets if Nazi Germany didn't. True, war is a good reason for promoting research, but let's say that the USSR built the first long-range rockets, beating the USA, and even ended up landing on the moon ("a small step for me, a huge step for the mothers' land":p), just to beat the States.

True, computers are also inventions that we can "thank" WW II for, but again, we don't know how things would have been different without WW II.

This is an argument I haven't used before, just as a side note.

Let's say you run from school one day, late for the bus. As you run into this road intersection, wham, a bicyclist hits you and runs over your arm, breaking it, causing you to be unable to play for your team, which affects the game because they have to insert someone else who's not doing too well in center-position.

So let's say you turn back time. This time, too, you run away from school, but stop before the intersection. You see the bike pass you harmlessy and move on into the intersection







where the bus hits it, killing the biker. You, on the other hand, moves on to play for your team, which wins the cup.

IMO, you winning the cup = computers and moon landing, while the dead biker = the deaths and horrors of WW II. If I were you, I'd not turn back time in that scenario.

I know that doesn't refute your argument, but I find it interesting.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm familiar with the 1st Amendment, but I believe the question of the thread is "but should it stay that way"? I think I said it should. If in one way or another. ;)
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I get your point. However, we can't know that the USA wouldn't have built rockets if Nazi Germany didn't. True, war is a good reason for promoting research, but let's say that the USSR built the first long-range rockets, beating the USA, and even ended up landing on the moon ("a small step for me, a huge step for the mothers' land":p), just to beat the States.
Well the Nazis built the 1st working usable rockets. The USA and the USSR bothe used Nazi scientist and technology to build them. The Russians did launch the 1st long ranch rocket into space putting Sputnik in orbit beating the US, however; they started the space race and the US one out in the long run.

So the Russians did build a long ranch rocket first and the US still beat them to the moon... So I'm sorry but the bottom of your statement is a little off.

So as for WWII being responsible for many of the nifty things we have today. Whether they would have come about if not for war is unknown. Space travel was believed to be utterly impossible since combustion could not occur in space. If someone had not invested the time in making a working rocket even if for war nobody may have been able to.

Necessity is the mother of invitation. Nobody is going to break their necks making something happen that isn’t needed, and war is the ultimate needy thing. All kinds of things come from war and the need to do it better than your opponent. We wouldn’t have the ballpoint pin if not for war. It was invented for early fighter pilots.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
C' Jais: I didn't say Communism was good, did I?

So you'd want to ban Das Kapital as well?

And every even remotely extremist right-wing political propaganda poster?

Most christians practice chrisitanity in a way that doesn't really hurt people, apart from being a different view (ie. believing in God, not Allah), which is not offensive. A few think the Bible is a facist handbook.

I'm not talking about Christians as individuals.

I'm talking about the Church as an institution. An institution which discriminates, feed on its members, twists their minds and stands like a roadblock in the way of science. It's dangerous, though very few are willing to see it. As ST said, it's accepted because we're used to it, just like Communism is through some strange turn of fate more accepted than Nazism even though it's done far more evil. Because many Russians grew up with Stalin during their entire lives, he's a "great leader", compared to Hitler who's a fascist monster. I was recently in Spain, and I talked to an old lady - she liked Franco's dictatorship far better than the current democracy "because back in the day, the police would take care of all the thugs on the street". Weird, but possible only because people had become used to it.

All around the world, we scoff at the Moonies for "brainwashing" people and instilling a dangerous sense of righteousness into people. Yet most are not aware that their Church next door does the exact same thing. It's done far worse, but as its been forced into submission it no longer has the influence it desperately wants.

All nazis are anti-semitistic, racists, and so on.

All churches will install a theocracy with its own moral doctrines had they the power.

Body count... The christians killed that many people, yes, but that was houndreds of years ago.

Even today, churches are making people die and kill for them, disrupting education and destroying cultures.

I want to ban Mein Kampf, but I'm not afraid of nazis, so I'm afraid you're wrong. If I was a Pakistani, maybe. Seeing I'm blonde, no.

You're obviously still afraid of Nazis, even though they're not interested in harming you specifically. One doesn't exclude the other.


Um.. or maybe he's been to churches and seen them work? IMO, all the sermons I've been to in Christian Norway "worked". What's your definition of a "working" church anyway (just curious)?

I haven't seen any "working" churches, that's the entire problem. You haven't seen any "working" dictatorships, have you?

Anarchy deserves a whole thread of itself, IMO.

Yes, but you'd still want to ban it if it was up to you, no?

And about the rape book in my example, haven't you considered that it's not that "we think rape is wrong", but that it might increase the amount of rapes in the country, give the rapers a "leader"/"hero", and glorify rapes to the rapists?

If you value Democracy over as low a rate of sexual abuse as possible, well, tell that to girl who've been raped. "Yeah, the rape rate went up 10% but we're a democracy, so it's okay?"

The point is a good one, though very academic in my eyes.

Who would want to publish such a book? Do you think any publisher would foresee it selling very well?

Besides, such a hero figure have already been created. Look at the internet - I'm willing to bet that a lot of rape-glamourizing porn and fan fiction has been made already. Anyone can view this. But do you see an increased rate of rape? No, the people commiting rape are not looking for a hero figure, and even if the decidedly sick people were, it wouldn't matter- they'd be sick enough to have raped any way.

Again, the internet is used for spreading political propaganda, but we don't see an increase in Nazi supporters, do we? No, because if you're looking for this in the first place, you're sick enough already. It won't convince normal people in the slightest, just like a book glorifying rape wouldn't convince every male to go out and rape women.

The rape example will never be realized - there'd have to be something inherently wrong with all peope if they're willing to throw their morals on the fire just for a book they'll never read anyway.

Let's say we ban My Struggle and Nazism. You were right, and the exact same people remain anti-minority groups, but under new names. Pointless? No. Because although their opinions are the same still, their message will be different when they can't publicly call themselves "nazis", recognizing Adolf Hitler as their leader. Their message will be different when they can't use swastikas as symbols.

Eagle, you know that isn't going to happen. You can't just call yourself a "Flazi" and expect to be ignored if your opinions are the same as Nazistic ones. You want to ban extreme political views - you can't just ban a group of people and expect to be rid of the problem. Everyone will still be offended by these new "Flazis", and you'd have to ban them as well. Until you banned the wrong views, you wouldn't be rid of the problem.

You can say the exact same things about Jews (unless anti-semitism is banned too, which I'd like to see:)), but you'll be "just another racist", not a "member of the faction that killed 6 000 000 Jews". It might not be different to you, but I ensure you it'll be a big difference to those hit by their remarks (such as me).

Eagle, what you're doing is erasing history. As long as the name "Nazi" doesn't exist anywhere, you're satisfied? Once the new group publishes a book with the exact same ideas that Hitler had, are you saying you wouldn't ban it?

Also about rape: You may value democracy, but if 5000 more girls are raped in the States annualy because of Molesting for Dummies, what's wrong with banning it?

Again, that would never happen. The political examples are valid, but the rape one is way out there.

And political control should never happen.

This whole "if we ban this, we'll ban that and pretty soon we'll be a dictatorship" thing is simply not valid. Norway, for example, outlaws burning American flags. They don't, however, plan to outlaw saying something bad about America or Americans. Your theory of a "domino effect" is just that: A theory.

It's not a domino effect.

Where do you draw the line? Who decides which movie promotes, and which one doesn't? Who decides if American History X promotes Nazism? You'd have to constantly ban every new extremist political stance - it's not a domino effect, it's just something that'd naturally occur every once in a while as the wrong people are always looking for the right excuse.

I was eating tortilla chips with spicy salsa just now and was thinking about how allot of people I know don't like hot & spicy salsa. :p

It has an odd parallel to free speech. Freedom to eat what you want is like the freedom to say and read what you want. Say you're a Republican you might like nice fancy restaurants or you're a Democrat you can't afford to much so you eat fast food allot.

I might have a taste for them capitalistic McDonalds guys or choose to go Commi Burger King. Maybe I'm just down right Fascist and go to Taco Bell.

The point here is you have the freedom to eat what you want. If you don't like what McDonalds has to eat you don't have to go there. If you don't like any of the choices you have the freedom to fix for yourself what you want to eat, and nobody has to like it but you.

If I right a book about the pros of eugenics and planned parent hood it might not be to popular with all the christen crowd. They don't have to read it neither does anyone else, however; I have the right to think that I even have the right to speak out about it. If my ideas are truly viewed as wrong I'm not going to get much support.

Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. What’s right is what the majority thinks is right same for what's wrong. All the people in history who have done bad things only did bad things; because they didn't win and go on to right the history. Christians for example think they have saved the world and if you read the more popular crap you would think they did. There are millions of dead Native Americans who would argue that.

ShadowTemplar:
And in some underdeveloped places, like the US, porn is against the norm of society. But if the "norm of society" was not merely dictated by a little group of priests and other no-good well-fare abusers, then this norm would be embraced by the majority without needing the bother of censorship.

What I'm getting at is that 99.99+% of the population will be able to read the book and still won't commit rape. This says to me that the rapists are wrong, not the books. Which again says to me that the rapists would probably commit rape anyway. Which says to me that you're sacrificing something valuable for little or no gain. Which is a stupid thing to do.

If you're not agreed with these censorers become one yourself and change the damn thing.
Majority is a superstition. Those not very clever people who are propagaded with doing rape might find suitable to rape not because of their mind desease (they are not with high probability to become rapists) but because of their inability to follow their own decisions resulting in the persuadence of ideals of some horrible book (ocassionally). These things happen with many people. Some are just not as smart as you. Face it.

Objection: Relevance?

I don't know maybe you're too much sticking with the words. Understand, many of us can follow with great accuracy, logically, imaginatively the illness of Hitler with high relevance concerning of his acts in history. Actually concerning to the point where relevance is defined by our assumptions. I can follow the facts about Hitler as any shrink can do to say that Hitler was an ill person (but very capable nonetheless I think). If you can't postulate that facts (measurement) are subjective too (highly inaccurate) then I can say for fact (with very high probability and "high level" relevance) that Hitler was ill and had mixed conception of good and bad (ill conceptions) resulting in WWII (missing purposely many leads) which of course is subjective but to which we attribute "high" relevancy which is logical I think.
And the WAY those ideas are propogaded in Mein Kampf should be banned and his illness is one reason for that.

Or these goals are also subjective because author of a school book was a human?
Yes

Again we must consider not the facts that these observations of history were made by men so that facts are subjective but that facts are made accurately in time and place and that the conclusions from them were made with logic and high accuracy. If you don't trust these things then whom to trust. Or is it again not relevant? Or we can trust no one?. Something paranoid I think

Yes. But that's not relevant either.

It is relevant. We can make more accurate assumptions with all possibilities concerning. And now through historians studying it we can tell with great accuracy that anarchy won't work. Of course it is all probability. But what is not then?

C'Jais:
It did not. Anyone can see how virtually every society arrives at the same basic morals, with or without religion.

Ok. Let's look at the "world religion". First every worldview comes out of a myth. Later the society forms it's worldview taken from the conjunction of myths that circulate in their group. Then religion shows up which is the next step of a society evolution. It's adopted by the society to fit the norms (Christianity when comes to some other culture) or necceseties to create other norms(look at Buddhism and Brachmanism). Christianity is young, it's made to be all uniting world religion, a bit weaker is islam, then judaism, then buddhism then others. Then I say that the Christianity unites any of these except islam perhaps. And these basic ideas that circulate in the society are coming from the same myths Christianity inhereted and furthermore we no longer even use these myths to defy our worldview but the Bible which is propagaded to us without intent by our parents or with one by the church.
It comes to the same look worldwide because of Christianity's "universality". so as Christianity prevails I may say that nowadays these norms come from it. Of course I forgot about the opposotion of christianity (that Shadow mentioned) which played its role but it doesn't change a thing.

So did Christianity. Your point?

Sure but without the amendment on it's "universality" which we can't by any mean attribute to nazism.

Yes, but we have to draw a line somewhere. I think we should make everything public in this regard. Keeping the "Anarchists cook-book" etc banned is okay, as this is gun control (like ST pointed out). Banning "Mein Kampf" is political control.

I agree. I meant that if you want you have a freedom to become a censorer for such books, prove yourself right to those censorers that oppose you and restrict anything you want. You can't eliminate political control, you can only make it smoother. It all depends on you. If you really try you can do it.
But there's another thing. This political control is not opposing us, cauze we're the ones who can read Mein Kampf without problems resulted in a change of our worldview and further participation in a world nazistic revolution. We have a base (our primary upbringing,history knowledge, ability to make logical conclusions and will to make them) as I already mentioned earlier that not all people have. Furhermore the majority do not. That's why I'm for banning Mein Kampf.

1) Let censors decide which books and which political parties are banned. The problem here is that this will udavoidably lead to conflicting opinions - if Mein Kampf is banned, why isn't Das Kapital banned as well? If a book promoting rape is banned, which isn't the Holy Bible banned as well? All promote a destructive change in society which will gnaw at the fundament of Democracy. Banning MK but not Das Kapital only shows that the censors have no idea what they're doing - Das Kapital promotes an equally dangerous society, one which will replace democracy and remove the government. It shows that the censors are biased towards Communism, and inflicts this bias upon the democratic society which they are supposed to protect and uphold (all the while promoting, through censorship, an anti-democratic government). Is this fair?

But I think you're too pessimistic. I can only refer to my early sinusoidal view on such tendencies. It's economy, nothing must stand in place, it must always move. And this movement leads to these points of max (people's extreme) and min (their indifference). But this is micro level. On macro level you will see an autonymously balancing machine which'd formed recently that gives no opportunity to these tendencies to prevail completely. It's mine and not soly mine view

2) On the other hand, we can let every political text be open for public use and abuse. There is no bias here, and democracy is upheld, but there's the danger that some people might be swayed and persuaded by these texts to commit crimes and try to destroy democracy.

Right. So you see these are the same two points of max and min (resulting in destruction of democracy) but the balance is in the middle.

It is this very self-sacrificing idea behind democracy which must be protected in my eyes. Choice No. 1 has a huge democratic loss in the form of free speech, but it has the gain of upholding the current government. It relies upon faith - the faith that through tight censorship, peace in the system is attained. I am of the belief that a peace through this can never be attained, and that such a government will never find the strengh to support itself, and will gradually spin itself into a censoring hole from which it cannot recover and will ultimately breed terror groups.

Again maybe you're too pessimistic about it. With great probability You will never see in your lifetime anything like nazist doctrine. I hold to that.

Who gave them that right, and on which basis? Would society crumble if they weren't there?

Sorry, but it's political control of the state you live in. You live in it, it gives you rights it takes something instead. But you're nothing without it. Don't mean any offense

So why not explain that Communism can't work either? Or a Church? Again, unneeded, biased censorship.

Some are just incapable of listening as some fighting muslim terrorists (perfect example). And in the case of Church - unfortunately it is working.

I mean that the only reason you believe Anarchy can't work, and a Church can work, is because of biased censorship.

No, I don't believe anarchy can't work because I CAN'T read a book where anarchy is glamorized and it's "good" things are explained imlicitly and maybe even prevail over the bad ones. But because I've been introduced to all of it's goals and at present moment I can decide for myself whether Anarchy is right or wrong not thinking about my historian professor saying it's wrong but relying on my conclusions about it. Maybe my conclusions miss some data for calculation than I make a terrible mistake. But I think that our BELIEF in something is a justification for that missing data. Although I try not to miss it happens. But it could also happen that I was still right ocassionally not concerning the missing data.

That's actually why I'm hear I'm looking for something that'd been missed and if someone would convince me of it I would only appreciate it.

P.S. My mouth is numb I can speak no more or I lose my myself.

Whoa, long post:)

Elementary school? Not so. Gymnasium? Hardly. University level? Maybe, but as they've never f*cking read the damn thing, how can they possibly hope to make an informed, factual opinion of it? They know it's a bad book, because people told them so. So much for warping history.
Not so.
Well, here's what an elementary school child knows:
MK is Hitler's book.

Middle/High school:
MK is the book that Hitler wrote when he was jailed for nazism before WW II.

College:
Probably have it summarized for them.

No, I don't believe anarchy can't work because I CAN'T read a book where anarchy is glamorized and it's "good" things are explained imlicitly and maybe even prevail over the bad ones. But because I've been introduced to all of it's goals and at present moment I can decide for myself whether Anarchy is right or wrong not thinking about my historian professor saying it's wrong but relying on my conclusions about it. Maybe my conclusions miss some data for calculation than I make a terrible mistake. But I think that our BELIEF in something is a justification for that missing data. Although I try not to miss it happens. But it could also happen that I was still right ocassionally not concerning the missing data.
Good point. Even if books are banned, we can still educate people on the good and bad sides of the subject, can't we?

A school can disallow promotion of bullying and still teach about bullying. You're right, letting kids bully would be the best way to teach them about it, but face it: Which one is the most constructive? Which one leaves the most people feeling bad and hurt?

And about burning books.. well, look at vires scientists "make extinct". When they can't, they don't make them extinct, they preserve a few of them in laboratories, where they can keep studying them.

I don't think in any way that we should eradicate all copies of My Struggle and completely forget what the Red-White-Black Nazi flag looked like. Include them in museums, history books, and otherwise, but ban possession of them and promotion of them (except to gain a somewhat more biased view of them ). However, it shouldn't be promoted.

If a teacher stood up and said: "Okay, today, to get a full view on bullying, I'll tell you why you should bully people", and then went on to ignore all bullies, would you like that? No. Why? Because you know bullying is bad. Same with banning books like the Protocols of Zion (Jewish propaganda) and My Struggle (Hitler's book).

If you don't agree with the censoring the current party is doing, let that party or another party know it will get your votes by allowing the work. Let it be up to the ruling party to carry out the wishes of the people. Democracy.

You can't just call yourself a "Flazi" and expect to be ignored if your opinions are the same as Nazistic ones. You want to ban extreme political views - you can't just ban a group of people and expect to be rid of the problem. Everyone will still be offended by these new "Flazis", and you'd have to ban them as well. Until you banned the wrong views, you wouldn't be rid of the problem.Okay, I'm wrong. So, are you for banning anti-semitism then?

I was eating tortilla chips with spicy salsa just now and was thinking about how allot of people I know don't like hot & spicy salsa.

It has an odd parallel to free speech. Freedom to eat what you want is like the freedom to say and read what you want. Say you're a Republican you might like nice fancy restaurants or you're a Democrat you can't afford to much so you eat fast food a lot.
It goes a bit deeper than that. We want certain books prohibited because we think they are harmful, not because we just dislike them.

If I suspected your chips were salmonnela-infested, I'd want you not to eat it. If it was safe, heck, I've heard about eating places where they serve whale meat, for crying out loud! But unless it's harmful, and even if they're harmful, it's their right to eat it. Still, if the whale meat gave you diarrhead, I'd speak up against eating it.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
It goes a bit deeper than that. We want certain books prohibited because we think they are harmful, not because we just dislike them. No it really doesn't go deeper there guy. That's pretty much rock bottom. It's also like people wanting to ban firearms. If you ban guns to people that can legally own them at the moment. It's not going to get rid of all the illegally ones. There are also a lot of people that know how to make guns. So all you do is create a underworld market for such things. Wait a minute there already is one. If I want to kill someone do you really think I'm going to get a gun registered to me. Nah I'm going to Joe Shmowe he has a tone of them from where he buys and trades them on the street.

Ban all the books you want. Little "Albert" when he grows up is going to be "Albert Heckler" and be the 1st Fascist Dictator of the U.S.A. Them dam Flazies. Not only did he not ever read about fascism. He came up with it out of his little head. No matter how many negative ideas you ban there will always be someone in the future that will come up with that same idea. Maybe even add a new twist and make it worse.

Telling someone they can't think or read a certain thing is like telling a guy with gun to your head to not pull the trigger. It's up to them what they do with what they think. Not all people are going to pull the trigger, and you can't do a dam thing about the one that does.

Ban books on how to rape it doesn't take a guy with a 200+ IQ to figure out how to rape a woman. It's not like you have to read a book. I seriously doubt most rapist read a book on how to rape.

Ban books on how to make bombs. Joe Smuckitly a cross the street was a combat engineer in Vietnam. He made bombs all the time. He is going to teach little "Albert" how to make them, because the government went against the right to free speech, and it needs to be overthrown. Go ahead ban books that teach about fascism. Joe Smuckitly hates Christians, because they run the country. He thinks they tell people what to say and think. Joe wants little "Albert" to grow up and wipe them out. Gee though where did they get all these nasty ideas if they couldn't read about them.

Not only are you going to have to ban books, but you better ban the e-net as well. Someday there won't be books. While you're at it figure out how to control what people think, because at the heart of everything here. It's what people come up with in their own heads that does the damage not what they read. Someone came up with the KKK, and someone came up with Fascism. Before there were books about it there was a guy with an Idea. I wouldn't doubt if some day someone is going to make the Nazis look like fairy god mothers. Banning books on how to be that way isn't going to stop hate field "Albert" from growing up to put that illegal off the street gun to your head. After he blew up the 7/11 down the road with the bombs Joe taught him how to make.

Originally posted by Homuncul
Those not very clever people who are propagaded with doing rape might find suitable to rape not because of their mind desease (they are not with high probability to become rapists) but because of their inability to follow their own decisions resulting in the persuadence of ideals of some horrible book (ocassionally). These things happen with many people. Some are just not as smart as you. Face it.

Are you implying that if some loonie managed to get his rape-glorifying book published, every loonie with access to a shady bookstore would seek it out and start raising the rape statistics? That sounds very pessimistic to me.

With all respect, I think the point is an academic one. When someone does write such a book, every person who's mentally disabled enough to actually go out and rape someone because of it, will have plenty of access to equally "dangerous" works on the internet. You can't stop it, I feel.

Furthermore, I infer that you want to ban murder-promoting books and internet sites as well. Do you have any idea how hard that's going to be? It's nigh impossible, and a quick look at the latest blockbusters will reveal plenty of movies with stumped, murdering people in the lead roles.

If you can't postulate that facts (measurement) are subjective too (highly inaccurate) then I can say for fact (with very high probability and "high level" relevance) that Hitler was ill and had mixed conception of good and bad (ill conceptions) resulting in WWII (missing purposely many leads) which of course is subjective but to which we attribute "high" relevancy which is logical I think.
And the WAY those ideas are propogaded in Mein Kampf should be banned and his illness is one reason for that.

Hitler was a crazy man, no doubt there, but you can't ban books because of the mental condition of the author alone. His views are widely regarded as skewed, but because you and I don't agree with them doesn't mean they're ripe for banning. It's yet to be proved that banning Mein Kampf will lower the amount of Nazis.


And now through historians studying it we can tell with great accuracy that anarchy won't work. Of course it is all probability. But what is not then?

Anarchy has never been in a position to prove itself as a working political system. Why do you want to ban it?

Communism has been proved worthless - you want to ban Das Kapital as well, I infer.

And how about theocracies and dictatorships - in the light of Democracy, they don't work and are furthermore dangerous to the state. You want to ban litterature, movies and computergames that promote these? Good luck, again.

It comes to the same look worldwide because of Christianity's "universality". so as Christianity prevails I may say that nowadays these norms come from it. Of course I forgot about the opposotion of christianity (that Shadow mentioned) which played its role but it doesn't change a thing.

Sure but without the amendment on it's "universality" which we can't by any mean attribute to nazism.

Theocracies do not work, history has proved this on many occasions.

Christianity is no more universal than other religions, and the fact that every time it has tried to be that, it's broken apart (remember the dark ages, and the seperation of church and state?).

We have a base (our primary upbringing,history knowledge, ability to make logical conclusions and will to make them) as I already mentioned earlier that not all people have. Furhermore the majority do not.

You don't think most people are quite able to see for themselves that Nazism doesn't quite work, and that glorifying rape is going to get them behind bars pretty damn fast? I think they do.

I think it's only crackpots who can't make those conclusions, and they'd wind up doing school shootings from playing Doom anyway ;)

In other words, I think you're gearing your book banning towards individuals so stumped they'd be placed on asylums at the age of 4.

On the other hand, the masses are easily swayed in times of conflict. Yet when such a troublesome time comes (Germany in the 20's etc), people are willing to look anywhere for guidance and blame to place. Anyone can do this, and in this regard, a church state is just as likely to form if that isn't banned as well.

Again maybe you're too pessimistic about it. With great probability You will never see in your lifetime anything like nazist doctrine. I hold to that.

What do you mean? No, I don't think I'll ever see a Nazist rule, and even though it could still happen, I honestly don't think a state which supresses it is going to deter it.

Some are just incapable of listening as some fighting muslim terrorists (perfect example). And in the case of Church - unfortunately it is working.

By the same line of thought, Saddam's police state worked as well. For many years. So many years in fact, that people had gotten used to it and didn't see a point in fighting it.

P.S. My mouth is numb I can speak no more or I lose my myself.

:D

How has this turned into another debate about Christianity? I am all for discussions, but this has been done to death and it has little to do with the topic. Why is it always Christianity that is brought up and ridiculed (not by all, SkinWalker and C'Jais are respectable fellows, who both just happens not to be Christian, and I respect them and I hope they respect me) whenever a religious topic is brought up? There are other world religions ya'know and it is hard for me to keep on defending it (it takes alot of typing :D ) Can we please lay off? Pick another religion to be the sponge for your, generally, ignorant complaining. Better yet, make an anti-Christianity topic, where y'all can all go and complain.

It is hard for me to enjoy myself here when every thread I go into turns into a ridicule of Christianity. This forum is for "intelligent discussion", I would think staying on topic is part and parcel of that statement, eh chaps? Thankyou :)

" It's yet to be proved that banning Mein Kampf will lower the amount of Nazis."

I think that keeping Mein Kampf on the market may actually dissuade people from becoming Nazis. Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was a maniac, I lost count of how many times he said "racial poisoning" and how Germany would become "Lords of the Earth". That sort of rhetoric would certainly stop me becoming a Nazi.

It's because christianity permeates many facets in our lives. I don't think this discussion is turning into anything religious. You can have a discussion that mentions religion without being a religious discussion.

Originally posted by BrodieCadden
How has this turned into another debate about Christianity? It didn't get turned into another debate. It was used as a wiping boy, and that's where it belongs.
Originally posted by BrodieCadden
Why is it always Christianity that is brought up and ridiculed Well there is so much to bring up and ridicule about it.Originally posted by BrodieCadden
There are other world religions ya'know and it is hard for me to keep on defending it (it takes alot of typing :D ) Yes there are many other wonderfully ignorant religions out there, but christianity has a special place in my heart. As for all your typing don't waste your time.
Originally posted by BrodieCadden
Can we please lay off? Pick another religion to be the sponge for your, generally, ignorant complaining. Ignorance is bliss and that's why christians are so happy.

:snear:I don't know if that was borderline flaming, but on a scale of 1 to 10%. I was holding back 100%

Cosmos Jack the insults you are throwing around are serious grounds for a banning. Watch yourself, you are coming off as seriously bigoted.

Dont mind cosmos jack, he just likes to irk people ;)

From what I can tell you asked questions and I gave you answers. I'm sorry if you didn't like them, but they were true and straight from the heart. They were also as soft as I can make them.

I'm sorry if you're a christian, but that is your problem. If you think what I said was bad. Than you have no true idea of what I really feel on the subject. As for being a bigot. If I'm a bigot than I'm not alone in a world full of christians.

If you really have anything else like above to say to me PM me and keep it off the boards.

Bigot you say.......... Only "by God"

Originally posted by ET Warrior
Dont mind cosmos jack, he just likes to irk people ;) Gee Wiz:rolleyes:

Are you implying that if some loonie managed to get his rape-glorifying book published, every loonie with access to a shady bookstore would seek it out and start raising the rape statistics? That sounds very pessimistic to me.
It's about culture, I think, C' Jais. Maybe it doesn't bring it up too much, but it certainly doesn't lower them.

Look, in the USA, some prisons' webpages publish every little detail on their prisoners on the Web, especially those on Death Row. What they eat, what they think, any point they want to make. Look at the attention already.

Loonies will walk into a bookstore and go "whoa, 500 000 people read this book about how I raped C'Jais's sister?" and then go rape someone, too, just to get the attention. How would you feel?

With all respect, I think the point is an academic one. When someone does write such a book, every person who's mentally disabled enough to actually go out and rape someone because of it, will have plenty of access to equally "dangerous" works on the internet. You can't stop it, I feel.
Neither can you stop people from doing drugs. Should drugs be legalized?
Neiter can you stop people from stealing and robbing. Should stealing and robbing be legalized?

Of course there will always be "those" sites. The same goes for child porn and websites selling illegal narcotics. If someone went and legalized them "because it's hopeless to keep them illegal because they show up anyway", how would you feel?

In my personal opinion, it's just as much about the victims. A couple of years ago (just to give an example) two girl, 8 and 10, were raped and killed in a forest in Haugesund City, Norway. If one of the two rapists, say, Viggo Kristiansen, was to publish a book on how he raped those girls, glorifying it troughout the whole book, I'd speak up.

Why?
1. Well, how would family and friends feel?
2. People would go out and do the same thing. Why? Public attention.

Someone put my school on fire once. How many people claimed responsibility? Over a dozen. How many were guilty? Well, neither of those who turned themselves in. Just for attention. See how it works?

Glorifying rape isn't a political view anyhow, and I refuse to believe that there aren't people out there who commit crimes because others do.

Hitler was a crazy man, no doubt there, but you can't ban books because of the mental condition of the author alone. His views are widely regarded as skewed, but because you and I don't agree with them doesn't mean they're ripe for banning. It's yet to be proved that banning Mein Kampf will lower the amount of Nazis.
We're not in favour of banning it judging on mental condition and our opinion, but on the fact that he set off WW II.

If he never set off WW II, fine, it'd be another forgotten racist book which no one would read. Still anti-semitic and offensive, but not as good an example.

I think it's only crackpots who can't make those conclusions, and they'd wind up doing school shootings from playing Doom anyway

In other words, I think you're gearing your book banning towards individuals so stumped they'd be placed on asylums at the age of 4.
A lot of people can be insane and hide it for a long time. Did Sarah Yates get into an asylum? No. She was even allowed to have kids and ended up drowning them in the bathtub.

I know you didn't necessarily mean it literally, but that's my response.

Anarchy has never been in a position to prove itself as a working political system. Why do you want to ban it?

Communism has been proved worthless - you want to ban Das Kapital as well, I infer.
Frankly, I was using nazism as an example. I have yet to consider Das Kapital and anarchy books.

There is, however, the law banning books that are incentive to riots (spreading panic at an airport by persuading people into believing that there's a dirty bomb there, for instance).

Let me say it this way: I won't get in the way of a ban of any books written by Stalin advocating the slaughter of all those workers.

How has this turned into another debate about Christianity? I am all for discussions, but this has been done to death and it has little to do with the topic. Why is it always Christianity that is brought up and ridiculed (not by all, SkinWalker and C'Jais are respectable fellows, who both just happens not to be Christian, and I respect them and I hope they respect me) whenever a religious topic is brought up?Seeing this thread was not a religious thread in the first place, I second that.

Can't someone merge all the christian stuff in a Christianity thread or something? I never started 10 threads on Buddhism, and I have yet to derail a single one by mentioning it. I respect the teachings of Christ, but there's a time and a place for everything, right?

For one... Christianity isn't being debated. It is being used as an example. It can be just as destructive as anything else, and it is widely excepted. I don't recall any forum rules that state "No using of examples"?:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Gee Wiz:rolleyes:

.I was just kidding..........:(

I don't want to ban the world, only something I consider dengerous for common people. Glorifyed rape and Mein Kampf are in my banning list. The line between banning the book or let it live is too unstable as you mentioned and we have to draw it somewhere. There're many "yes" and "no" and the way censorer put accents on them defines whether the book would be published or banned. I also mentioned earlier that it's not banning we should fight. It's only for now. When the desease is cured and not the simptoms we would not need any restrictions. You want to drop people into the water and let them swim while they can't. Some will swim, many will drown. I hold to a more stable future way where freedom is achieved step by step and every single step takes efforts and test to define whether people can sustain themselves on that level. They're learning now to swim with help of their teachers and someday they will need there help nomore. That's main point about banning. If you say again that you will never ever would want to be tought by such teachers-censorers then I say (knowing some of your points) that you can swim faster than them, that you're selfsustained person and now look at those who can't swim...

C'Jais:
Furthermore, I infer that you want to ban murder-promoting books and internet sites as well. Do you have any idea how hard that's going to be? It's nigh impossible, and a quick look at the latest blockbusters will reveal plenty of movies with stumped, murdering people in the lead roles.

I can't jump over my head. I love murder myself when it's funny in the movie but I don't remember any movie where murder was actually glorified.

Communism has been proved worthless - you want to ban Das Kapital as well, I infer.

Yes... well maybe no. But at least it must be studied early in school.

Christianity is no more universal than other religions, and the fact that every time it has tried to be that, it's broken apart (remember the dark ages, and the seperation of church and state?).

I was talking about present day Christianity. Of course I remember history. I say then and now that it became universal nowadays.
Again dark ages where anyone speaking something out of the line was sentenced to death for heresy. I guess it's not the way today it's done. You may be ignored but not punished with death. Christianity overlooked it's methods (again long ago these were methods of single crazy old man).

munik:
I think that keeping Mein Kampf on the market may actually dissuade people from becoming Nazis. Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was a maniac, I lost count of how many times he said "racial poisoning" and how Germany would become "Lords of the Earth". That sort of rhetoric would certainly stop me becoming a Nazi.

It won't help cauze some people really don't understand that Hitler was maniac . I know a lot of such people

BrodieCadden:
It is hard for me to enjoy myself here when every thread I go into turns into a ridicule of Christianity. This forum is for "intelligent discussion", I would think staying on topic is part and parcel of that statement, eh chaps? Thankyou

Christianity was only mentioned because it's very associative and from my opinion is easy to deal with and that's all. We stick to the topic perfectly. Just don't take it on your account. I' m christened non-christian who let Christianity live. Maybe you should stop worrying too.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
.I was just kidding..........:( I forgive you. ;)

C'Jack: You may want to note that Facism is a particular political movement. The catch-all word that you're looking for is 'Totalitarian' (which is, with a little light reasoning, synonymous with 'Religious'). Not that it matters much, I just like to get the terms right.

I don't know when I think of christians i think of Nazis and the like. So Facism best discribes how I feel about them. They both have their own form of cross. ;)

C'Jack: I'm thinking along the very same lines, but I still think that you are confusing Facism and Totalitarism:

Communism is Totalitarian.

Facism is totalitarian.

Nazism is totalitarian.

But Communism isn't Facistic

Neither is Nazism.

*Note* Somewhere else on this board I proved that religion will always be totalitarian, and that totalitarian regimes wil always be religious. I could try to dig it up for you, if you're interested.

Why I think Christians are Fascist...

fas·cism n. 1. Often Fascism. a. (1)(_A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator_), (2) (_stringent socioeconomic controls,_) (3)_suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,_) (4)(_and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism._)

(1) The Dictator here is Jesus or God whatever you prefer.

(2) Socioeconomic control. They want to control everything from what we buy, to what read, and watch on TV. Even the games we play on computers.

(3) Suppression where to begin with Christians. Like above they want to control everything we see and think. In the past they have done this in some very cruel ways. Burning people at the stake isn't very godly if you ask me. Kind of goes hand in hand with shoving Jews in an oven wouldn't you say. The Christians did it before the Nazis.

(4) Each demented little branch on Christians think they are holier than all the rest and certainly holier than any other religion. Racism if made a little more broader to include religion would cover this. I have known very few Christians to tolerate people of other religious backgrounds. They do this to the point of segregation and shunning of people of other religions. The all time ketch fraise "Your going to hell."

Christians are by birth right Bigots. Bigot comes from "BI-GOT" which is old English for "BY-GOD"

Why I think you're blaming the past and again single crazy old guys of Christianity. Is it that totalitarian these days?

CosmosJack:
The Dictator here is Jesus or God whatever you prefer

Dictators are always people who interpret god's words differently.

Socioeconomic control. They want to control everything from what we buy, to what read, and watch on TV. Even the games we play on computers.

Quite agree. They would want to if they could. You can measure their fascism by the amount of control they really have. It's insignificant.

Each demented little branch on Christians think they are holier than all the rest and certainly holier than any other religion. Racism if made a little more broader to include religion would cover this. I have known very few Christians to tolerate people of other religious backgrounds. They do this to the point of segregation and shunning of people of other religions. The all time ketch fraise "Your going to hell."

I know alot of christians who tolerate other non-christians. And I don't see Holy Inquisition in white cones flaming the non-christian world with terror. Thing's changed. It's not fascistic anymore neither it's totalitarian (not sure about the last one. I'd like to see what ShadowT can dig up.).

ShadowTemplar:
*Note* Somewhere else on this board I proved that religion will always be totalitarian, and that totalitarian regimes wil always be religious. I could try to dig it up for you, if you're interested.

I'd like to listen

Originally posted by Homuncul
Why I think you're blaming the past and again single crazy old guys of Christianity. Is it that totalitarian these days?

[...]

I know alot of christians who tolerate other non-christians. And I don't see Holy Inquisition in white cones flaming the non-christian world with terror. Thing's changed. It's not fascistic anymore neither it's totalitarian (not sure about the last one. I'd like to see what ShadowT can dig up.).

Lemme put it this way (approximate years are added, incase you want to doublecheck with your historybook):

When Christianity was a newly fledged cult in ancient Rome (yr 0 - approx. 400) it was suppressed, because it was an enemy of the state. It behaved much like it does now. Charity, counsiling, ect, along with a massive advertisement campaign.

Once it had outmatched all other cults in size and power (approx. 400), it was no longer oppressed. Then it began a regime of utter terror, as all other cults were brutally suppressed, and it consolidated its position as the greatest power factor in the Empire.

When it wanted to get into Scandinavia (I don't have a year range on that, records vary, but it set it's eyes on Scandinavia pretty soon after having conquered the rest of Europe), it played nice again. It bought slaves and set them free, it cured people (by herbs, not miracles, mind, it preached tolerance and understanding.

Once it had a foothold (approx. 1000), it started brutally suppressing the old faith and culture.

Then came the Reformation (15-something, I think), during which Christianity was kicked hard in the butt. Once again it was oppressed, and it remains so to this day. And it suddenly started playing nice again.

The pattern that I'm seeing is: When out of power, Christianity (and, for that matter, all other religions as well) behaves nicely, preaches tolerance, forgiveness, and understanding. But when it is in power, it behaves in a way that doesn't leave Nazism or Communism anything behind.

Now, I'm not saying that this will happen instantly, but power corrupts, and it attracts the corrupted. And Christianity (and religion in general) has a notoriously poor history of ferreting out corrupt(ed) leaders.

So, I'm predicting that, should religion achive power over a society, it will gradually degenerate until it is (both mentally and technologically) at the stage of the Inquisition. And if you look at what's happened to those countries that have had Islamic revolutions, you'll see that they lend credibility to this theory.

Originally posted by Homuncul
Dictators are always people who interpret god's words differently.

Well, the priest is a pocket dictator. By the very fact that he claims to preach the truth. The-one-and-only-be-all-and-end-all-thruth. Sounds pretty dictatoric to me...

Originally posted by Homuncul
Quite agree. They would want to if they could. You can measure their fascism by the amount of control they really have. It's insignificant.

So, because Nazism is not in control, it's no longer totalitarian? Hmmm... And because Fascism is no longer in control, it's no longer facistic? I'm sure that you can see where the logic fails.

Originally posted by Homuncul
I'd like to listen

Sure, here goes:

1) A religion is a group of people sharing similiar beliefs.

2) In order for a group of people to share similiar beliefs, these beliefs must be invented (or defined, if you like that word better), as they cannot be documented.

3) In order for the beliefs to be fairly uniform (crossref: pnt 1), they must be defined by a relatively small group of people.

4) Since the decisions made by this group of people concerns faith, they must be taken unquestioningly, on face value (questioning them/trying to prove them would be an application of rationalism, which would mean that the end result would be deviod of faith, regardless of the outcome).

5) Since any group of people will, over time, work to obtain greater power (crossref: Social classes), the priesthood will, over time, consolidate its position at the top of society*, unless another class keeps them from getting to the top of society (ie: Keeps them at the bottom of society).

*Remember that there is no way that you can talk back to them without being branded a heretic (crossref: pnt 4)

6) Any class which is allowed to consolidate its position at the top of society unopposed will, over time, become permanently reactionary (if you're at the top, you desire a status quo, (crossref: pnt 5)).

7) Since the priesthood will become permanently reactionary over time, if they are at the top of society, society will become permanently reactionary over time.

8) Any permanently reactionary society is a totalitarian society.

9) Totalitarian regimes survive on the ignorance of the people.

Therefore:

All religions will become totalitarian unless they are kept at the bottom of society, ie: Are being oppressed.

And

All religions promote ignorance, as it serves the dual role of making people more suceptible to their preachings, thereby making it harder to oppress said religions, and enforcing totalitarian ideologies once in power.

q.e.d.

EDIT: I forgot: The above only proves that religion is totalitarian, but not that Totalitarism is religious. That goes as follows:

1) Totalitarism is based on irrationality (Nazis saying that they are the ьbermenchen, Commies saying that wheat planted in a cornfield will become corn over a few generations, because all that matters to your development is you environment, not your inheiritance (no wonder they ended up starving)).

2) Since it is irrational, it cannot be proven, and so must be believed.

3) Religion is the organised preaching/adherance to irrational beliefs.

4) Pts 2) and 3), when put together, lead, logically, to the following conclusion: Totalitarism is always religious.

q.e.d.

I posted this in the Ravening beast called Ignorance (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=92263&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) thread (which by the way I’ve just bumped).

ShadowT, I liked your post. Quite a mind job and thanks for history lecture. Think you're right, well if not thinking too carefully (always a sceptic). I was confused first by the common thinking of the word religius. Still dictator's only Jesus and god's a method and a very clever one if people follow it for 2000 years.

So, because Nazism is not in control, it's no longer totalitarian? Hmmm... And because Fascism is no longer in control, it's no longer facistic? I'm sure that you can see where the logic fails.

NO, no, no! I never wanted to questioned logic, I just ment that their control is now as you say and I call associatively in a "sheep stage". It's insignificant because we live in scientific era, the most profound of all times, and I think that it's highly unklikely to be another totalitarian regime (I mean big one leading to WWIII or something). Humanity has experienced much of it already. I'm optimistic about that.

Originally posted by Homuncul
ShadowT, I liked your post. Quite a mind job and thanks for history lecture. Think you're right, well if not thinking too carefully (always a sceptic). I was confused first by the common thinking of the word religius.

Ok, that didn't make much sense to me, but I reckon that you say that you agree on at least part of it, right?

Originally posted by Homuncul
Still dictator's only Jesus and god's a method and a very clever one if people follow it for 2000 years.

Very, very clever. Has worked for far longer than 2kyrs. Christianity didn't invent that. And it still works.

Originally posted by Homuncul
NO, no, no! I never wanted to questioned logic, I just ment that their control is now as you say and I call associatively in a "sheep stage". It's insignificant because we live in scientific era, the most profound of all times, and I think that it's highly unklikely to be another totalitarian regime (I mean big one leading to WWIII or something). Humanity has experienced much of it already. I'm optimistic about that.

When I look around the world, I see religion on the rise, not on the wane. In Europe, the arrival of radical Muslim immigrants/refugees have caused a responding radicalisation of the local Christian groups, the ethnic/religious conflicts in ex-Jugoslavia, the clearly religiously motivated conflicts in Israel and Northern Ireland, the rising Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, the Shiiti (sp?) powergrap in Iraq, Bush's Christian-fundamentalist rethoric. All of this points towards a new Dark Age. Never have I so hoped that I am being wrong and overly paranoid, but I cannot help but wonder what should become of the current world order.

When I look around the world, I see religion on the rise, not on the wane. In Europe, the arrival of radical Muslim immigrants/refugees have caused a responding radicalisation of the local Christian groups, the ethnic/religious conflicts in ex-Jugoslavia, the clearly religiously motivated conflicts in Israel and Northern Ireland, the rising Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, the Shiiti (sp?) powergrap in Iraq, Bush's Christian-fundamentalist rethoric. All of this points towards a new Dark Age. Never have I so hoped that I am being wrong and overly paranoid, but I cannot help but wonder what should become of the current world order.

Nothing bad'll happen. Hey, rush up! You're focusing only on the negative. Mtv's still alive. As long as it lives no other Inquisition could compete with it. No I mean it, there's nothing to worry about. Sure it's a bit crisis around the world, it's just we're facing something new.
But consider that, muslim terrorists don't bring sympathy for their religion. Bush speaks christian only as an opposition to the same muslim terrorists and personally I think it's a needed action for his part (for now). Israel is always in war, this permanent situation has encreased due to worldwide terrorism encrease. Iraq is so weak now that this powergrap is not surprising at all.
Pneumonia is everywhere, it may also be terrorist weapon, still China is not gonna adopt islam.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
(1984....book by Orson Wells..least I think he was the author....good book, read it if you haven't, it might change some of your minds on banning nazism and such)

LOL, George Orwell, hehe good one man!!!:D

Originally posted by Jah Warrior
LOL, George Orwell, hehe good one man!!!:D

Oh yeah.....I......knew.....that..........GAH!!!

Sometimes I get confused with author names ;)