Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hitler in the 21st century
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 46 of 136 (413076)
07-27-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
07-25-2007 4:07 PM


Controlling the masses
Ringo writes:
A "safe speed for the condtions" means that you should drive slower than the posted limit when the conditions are bad. It has never been a carte blanche for making up your own rules.
Noone's saying that it should be. Let's leave aside the official mantra for a minute and apply some common sense. "Safe speed for the conditions" should be a speed where you are in control of your car at all times and can respond to foreseeable danger in a timely manner. Put another way, a speed in which you pose little risk to yourself and other road-users. Do you agree with that?
I'm in no way suggesting making up your own rules. I'm simply suggesting use of common sense and analytical thinking instead of some blind, robotic adherence to generic, blanket-coverage limits imposed by semi-autonomous, unaccountable organisations with financial & political motivation.
Ringo writes:
Those courses are designed to show you how you are putting others in harm's way.
But they don't, that's the whole point! All they do is bombard you with statistics about how many people die if they get hit at 40mph, how many at 30mph, etc. Read the story.
They show you how other people put themselves in harm's way but not how driving at 30mph makes you more likely to cause an accident than driving at 20 mph. They try to make you feel guilty and shame you into compliance. They are concentration camps for the mind, modern-day Hitler Youth camps where you are taught to give up thinking and blindly obey the signs!
As you can see in the link above the majority of the offenders clearly aren't speed-mad, self-centred maniacs with no regard with human life, they are decent, law-abiding people who just happened, once in their lifetime, to marginally exceed the speed limit. They shouldn't be demonized and made to feel guilty and ashamed and forced to spend the rest of their driving life with their eyes on the speedometer instead of the road.
The government is inventing ways of criminalising people. See if you're a criminal, or made to feel like one, you have less credibility, it's harder to argue when measures are taken against you. If you've broken the speed limit then you can't seriously object to new, lower speed limits, right? Also, since you obviously have a tendency to disregard the law you don't have much ground for opposing, say, the new internment laws the government's proposing. After all, you would, wouldn't you? you're a criminal! On a more practical level, as a criminal you're also easier to track and control (re: my previous post on DNA sampling when arrested). The people who aren't criminals yet, live in fear of becoming one -as it's so easy- so they're much more compliant and obedient. For the establishment it's a win-win situation.
Drivers are punished for something that may or may not happen, even if it's not a result of their actions, in the future. What next ? Are we going to have Tom Cruise crashing through our window and arresting us on suspicion of future crimes ?
The only reason given for this is that you're less likely to kill someone at 20mph than you are at 30 mph. You're practically guaranteed not to kill someone at 0mph. So why don't we confiscate all cars and ban all drivers? To take it one step further, if you're locked away in a cell for life you can't kill anyone, can you ? Or just to make absolutely, positively, sure why don't we just execute drivers who we suspect might accidentally kill someone?
That's what I mean by the slippery slope of self-righteous justification. The difference between our society and Nazi Germany is that we are (for now) two steps removed from that 'final solution'.
Ringo writes:
My mother was killed by a driver who was going 30 mph when he should have been going 20 mph.
Hopefully, the course he was sent on "brainwashed" him into thinking about the consequences of his actions, so he won't kill anybody else.
I'm sorry about your mother. I appreciate that this is an emotive subject for you.
Drivers who kill others by dangerous or reckless driving (regardless of whether the driver was over or under the speed limit) should have the book thrown at them, they deserve everything they get.
Drivers who are involved in accidents where someone is killed through no fault of the driver (regardless of whether the driver was 5mph over the speed limit or not) should be given counselling and sent home to get on with their lives, not demonized and used as an excuse to punish all others and raise government coffers.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 07-25-2007 4:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-27-2007 3:37 PM Legend has replied
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 07-27-2007 4:10 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 47 of 136 (413082)
07-27-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
07-25-2007 4:07 PM


what it's all about
Ringo writes:
If you have a point to make about civil liberties, you need to get your act together. Drop the silly comparisons to Nazi Germany and drop the demonizing of speedbumps.
If you read back through my posts you should be able to see that comparisons to Nazi Germany are quite obvious and trends which echo Nazi Germany shouldn't be dismissed as 'silly'. It should also be obvious that the methodology employed (surrendering individual responsibility to the state, rallying around 'holy' causes that require relinquishing certain freedoms) is the same today as it was back then.
I could write a whole essay on this but I'll try to be succinct using the speeding case in point :
if someone wants to drive at a ridiculously low speed because they feel morally responsible for other people's behaviour or because they feel it is the 'right thing to do', that's fine. I don't agree with it but I'm not going to stand in their way. If however someone tries to force me to drive at a ridiculously low speed because they think I should feel morally responsible for other people's behaviour or because they feel it is the 'right thing' for me to do then that is fascism. Granted, it's a small and relatively harmless act of fascism, but an act of fascism nevertheless. And if people can get away with small acts of fascism you can bet they're going to get away with the big ones.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 07-25-2007 4:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 07-27-2007 4:18 PM Legend has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 48 of 136 (413090)
07-27-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Legend
07-27-2007 3:12 PM


Re: Controlling the masses
Noone's saying that it should be. Let's leave aside the official mantra for a minute and apply some common sense. "Safe speed for the conditions" should be a speed where you are in control of your car at all times and can respond to foreseeable danger in a timely manner. Put another way, a speed in which you pose little risk to yourself and other road-users. Do you agree with that?
actually, i think it's the speed at which the average driver will be able to appropriately control the vehicle and be able to stop sufficiently quickly to avoid an accident.
That's what I mean by the slippery slope of self-righteous justification. The difference between our society and Nazi Germany is that we are (for now) two steps removed from that 'final solution'.
for the last fucking time. controlling driver speeds has nothing to do with killing people based on ethnic or religious differences. in fact, it has nothing to do with killing people at all. stop comparing your whiny problem to genocide, you putz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Legend, posted 07-27-2007 3:12 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Legend, posted 07-27-2007 5:23 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 49 of 136 (413091)
07-27-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Legend
07-27-2007 2:53 PM


Re: loss of freedom
Legend writes:
But Hitler didn't disband Parliament and assumed dictatorial powers! He asked the people for them in a referendum and they gave them to him with an 85% approval rate!
And when that happens in Britain, you'll have a parallel - not before.
And, anyway, doesn't your last statement contradict what you said right before, i.e. that the Germans willingly, gladly discarded
their freedom (which is what I've been saying that the British have been doing, all along) ?
You've been claiming that the British people are discarding their freedom in a similar way. You haven't demonstrated anything of the kind.
in Nazi Germany you weren't allowed to say anything that 'glorified' Jews or you ended up in concentration camp.
Get serious. How many people do you think were in concentration camps for "glorifying" Jews? The vast majority were there for who they were, not for anything they said.
The DNA sample is stored in a database forever. In a free country I (should) have the right not to be monitored or otherwise 'tagged' by the police unless I'm under suspicion of a crime.
But how is that a loss of freedom? You never had the freedom to opt out of DNA databases. DNA databases represent a change in technology that makes it easier to identify you. They don't represent a voluntary relinquishment of freedom.
I (should) have the right to remain silent until the trial. It's up to the police/CPS to produce evidence showing my guilt.
As far as I know, the obligation to give a driver's name is for your benefit - otherwise you'd be responsible for the offense committed by your car. I don't see how the right to avoid self-incrimination includes the right to take the rap for somebody else.
And there are lots of ways for the police to "produce" evidence that you don't seem to be worried about. They can get a warrant to search your house, your car, your workplace, your gym locker....
Like I said before, it's when people belittle loss of freedoms, that you know you're heading down a one-way street.
First, you haven't shown any "loss" of freedom yet. You've shown lack of freedom in a few areas.
Second, I'm not belittling loss of freedoms. I'm belittling your utterly ludicrous comparison of modern-day Britain with Nazi Germany.
But freedom to travel from A to B at a reasonable speed at no risk to anyone, without being watched, impeded or punished, certainly is.
I notice how you ignore the evidence against your position. Allow me to repeat: My mother was killed by somebody who thought he was travelling at a "reasonable speed", who thought he was presenting no "risk" to anyone. I wish to God somebody had been watching him and impeding him.
Now tell me again how not wanting my loved ones to be killed by "reasonable", "risk-free" half-wits makes me just like a German Nazi.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Legend, posted 07-27-2007 2:53 PM Legend has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 50 of 136 (413095)
07-27-2007 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Omnivorous
07-23-2007 7:06 PM


Re: Things change
But the argument that was used - that if even one life is saved, then it will have been worth it - seems to be the thing that Legend is finding objectionable. I do too - because it isn't a very good argument at all, as far as I can see, because if saving lives through changing legislation relating to motor vehicles is the prime consideration, then it follows that all cars should be reduced to 0 miles per hour, because this is the speed at which they will cause the least fatalities... I think...
So people were swayed with a rubbish argument. Although thats fine and thats democracy, it still indicates fuzzy and slighty scary thinking on the part of the voters I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Omnivorous, posted 07-23-2007 7:06 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Legend, posted 04-02-2003 7:34 PM Tusko has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 51 of 136 (413098)
07-27-2007 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Legend
07-27-2007 3:12 PM


Re: Controlling the masses
Legend writes:
"Safe speed for the conditions" should be a speed where you are in control of your car at all times and can respond to foreseeable danger in a timely manner.
You're talking woulda-shoulda-coulda. Fact, is, it ain't that way and it never was.
Put another way, a speed in which you pose little risk to yourself and other road-users. Do you agree with that?
It has never been left up to the individual driver to decide what that speed it. It has always been legislated. No change, no loss.
I'm simply suggesting use of common sense and analytical thinking instead of some blind, robotic adherence to generic, blanket-coverage limits imposed by semi-autonomous, unaccountable organisations with financial & political motivation.
You're ignoring the people who have no common sense and who are incapable of analytical thinking - or at least who have poor judgement of their own driving abilities. Those people are the reason we have traffic legislation.
Do we restrict the rights of the poor drivers by not allowing them to drive, or do we restrict the rights of all drivers equally?
Those courses are designed to show you how you are putting others in harm's way.
But they don't, that's the whole point!
No, that's not the whole point, or any part of it. The point is that some/many drivers are not aware of the consequences of their actions. The courses are designed to make people aware, though they can't force people to be aware. The effectiveness of the course is not the issue - the need for the course is.
They try to make you feel guilty and shame you into compliance.
If it works, it works.
They are concentration camps for the mind, modern-day Hitler Youth camps where you are taught to give up thinking and blindly obey the signs!
My my, how poetic.
Once again, the signs are not designed for blind obedience. They designed to make you think that maybe somebody knows something you don't know. Maybe there's a blind curve coming up that you didn't anticipate. Maybe there's a school crossing ahead.
... the majority of the offenders clearly aren't speed-mad, self-centred maniacs with no regard with human life, they are decent, law-abiding people who just happened, once in their lifetime, to marginally exceed the speed limit.
And the majority of traffic accidents are caused by those people. Traffic laws do have a deterrent effect on bad driving behaviour.
They shouldn't be demonized and made to feel guilty and ashamed and forced to spend the rest of their driving life with their eyes on the speedometer instead of the road.
Yes, they should. Everybody operating heavy machinery should constantly be aware of their responsibility. Awareness by guilt and shame is better than no awareness at all.
If you've broken the speed limit then you can't seriously object to new, lower speed limits, right?
Doesn't work that way though, does it? If people do protest a speed bump en masse, it's how many protesters there are that gets attention, not whether or not a few of them have a poor driving history. If anything, the speeders watching the news would be sympathetic to the protesting speeders.
What next ? Are we going to have Tom Cruise crashing through our window and arresting us on suspicion of future crimes ?
That's just the point. All we've seen from you is wild-eyed speculation about what's next.
Drivers who kill others by dangerous or reckless driving (regardless of whether the driver was over or under the speed limit) should have the book thrown at them, they deserve everything they get.
Again, those drivers are not capable of identifying themselves. That's why we have traffic laws.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Legend, posted 07-27-2007 3:12 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Legend, posted 04-02-2003 7:52 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 52 of 136 (413099)
07-27-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Legend
07-27-2007 3:22 PM


Re: what it's all about
Legend writes:
If however someone tries to force me to drive at a ridiculously low speed because they think I should feel morally responsible for other people's behaviour or because they feel it is the 'right thing' for me to do then that is fascism.
Nonsense.
Every concession of the individual to society is not fascism.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Legend, posted 07-27-2007 3:22 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 53 of 136 (413110)
07-27-2007 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by macaroniandcheese
07-27-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Controlling the masses
brennakimi writes:
for the last fucking time. controlling driver speeds has nothing to do with killing people based on ethnic or religious differences. in fact, it has nothing to do with killing people at all. stop comparing your whiny problem to genocide, you putz.
Yavol, mein Fhrer!!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-27-2007 3:37 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-27-2007 5:45 PM Legend has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 54 of 136 (413116)
07-27-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Legend
07-27-2007 5:23 PM


Re: Controlling the masses
asshole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Legend, posted 07-27-2007 5:23 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 55 of 136 (36139)
04-02-2003 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tusko
07-27-2007 4:05 PM


Re: Things change
Tusko writes:
if saving lives through changing legislation relating to motor vehicles is the prime consideration, then it follows that all cars should be reduced to 0 miles per hour, because this is the speed at which they will cause the least fatalities... I think...
why stop at that ? why not just imprison drivers? that would ensure they can't kill anyone regardless of whose fault it might be. If it saves one life wouldn't it be worth it?
See, the line between common sense and politically-correct absurdity has already been crossed and noone knows where it's now going to stop.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tusko, posted 07-27-2007 4:05 PM Tusko has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 56 of 136 (36140)
04-02-2003 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ringo
07-27-2007 4:10 PM


Re: Controlling the masses
quote:
But Hitler didn't disband Parliament and assumed dictatorial powers! He asked the people for them in a referendum and they gave them to him with an 85% approval rate!
Ringo writes:
And when that happens in Britain, you'll have a parallel - not before.

....?? Are you deliberately obfuscating now? Isn't that what I've been claiming all along ? That the British public are giving up their rights and freedoms in the cause of some self-righteous movements? That we elected this government that imposes those measures? That the majority don't object ? (it's a rhetorical question - the answer's yes!)
No-one in Britain is forcibly assuming dictatorial powers and imposing measures against the will of the populace. People are being conditioned to give up their liberties in the name of some holy cause. Just like in Nazi Germany. There's your parallel.
You're actually agreeing with me, you're just making it sound as if you're not. Spooky.
Ringo writes:
You've been claiming that the British people are discarding their freedom in a similar way. You haven't demonstrated anything of the kind.
Hello...? Didn't I already mention the increase in police powers, the suspension of habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, the increased surveillance, etc, ? By our elected government...? Without protest....? (again, rhetorical questions)
Ringo writes:
Get serious. How many people do you think were in concentration camps for "glorifying" Jews? The vast majority were there for who they were, not for anything they said.
You're not suggesting that a German could publicly say that he admired, say, the entrepreneurial spirit of the Jews and he'd still be ok, are you? Or that he finds the courage of the Jews inspiring, without receiving a visit from the Gestapo the next day? Like you say, let's try to remain serious.
Ringo writes:
Maybe there's a blind curve coming up that you didn't anticipate. Maybe there's a school crossing ahead.
Which is why I slow down when I approach an unknown bend or if I anticipate a crossing or other obstructions ahead. It's called driving at a safe speed for the conditions you're in. The problem is that speed limits in this country prescribe a much lower speed than what's necessary to go safely round a bend or ensure you can see in advance children trying to cross. There is no practical reason why speed limits should be set that low other than the ones I've mentioned, i.e. criminalisation, control and profiteering.
Ringo writes:
It has never been left up to the individual driver to decide what that speed it. It has always been legislated. No change, no loss.
Again, no-one's suggesting it should be left to people to make it up as they go along. I'm suggesting that the speed limits should be set to reflect the conditions of the road -not some self-righteous, PC notion of what's safe- and that they're flexible enough (or at least their enforcement is) to accommodate changing conditions. Speed limits and accompanying monitoring have been getting increasingly severe in the last decade or so. There has been change and there has been loss for the innocent, safe drivers who just want to get to their jobs and back in a timely manner without being treated like a criminal.
Ringo writes:
Everybody operating heavy machinery should constantly be aware of their responsibility.
Absolutely, agreed 100%. And would you prefer someone who operates a 6-ton digger next to you to be fully concentrated and focused on what he's doing and his surroundings or instead keeping an eye on the digger's safety manual which dictates to him at what arbitrary speed he should be moving that arm ?
Ringo writes:
First, you haven't shown any "loss" of freedom yet. You've shown lack of freedom in a few areas.
I've shown you freedoms that we had 10-20 years ago and now we don't. By any stretch of the English language that's not a "lack", that's a "loss"!
Ringo writes:
I notice how you ignore the evidence against your position. Allow me to repeat: My mother was killed by somebody who thought he was travelling at a "reasonable speed", who thought he was presenting no "risk" to anyone. I wish to God somebody had been watching him and impeding him.
I notice how you present a personal tragedy as "evidence" that lowering speed limits and installing speed bumps provides more benefits to society than the freedoms it takes away. I also notice that you haven't provided a single explanation as to how drivers are more likely to cause an accident at 30mph instead of, say, 20 mph on a straight, well-surfaced, well-lit road. You're just repeating the same old mantra of 'if it saves one life..'.
My brother's girlfriend was stalked and threatened by a Canadian guy she met on an internet forum. I think we should start restricting and monitoring the activities of Canadian internet posters. I know it may inconvenience you slightly, but if it saves one woman from harassment it will be well worth it, don't you think ?
Would lowering speed limits and installing speed bumps have saved your mother? As I don't know the circumstances I can't answer that. It would be a moot point anyway, as -to quote you- that would just be "talking woulda-shoulda-coulda".
I rest my case.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 07-27-2007 4:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 57 of 136 (413164)
07-29-2007 3:00 PM


Bringing it back
This is to bring back this thread to the present.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 58 of 136 (413167)
07-29-2007 3:05 PM


Bringing this thread back to the present...
Enjoy!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 59 of 136 (413196)
07-29-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Legend
04-02-2003 7:52 PM


Re: Controlling the masses
Legend writes:
Isn't that what I've been claiming all along ?
No. It @#$%ing well isn't.
Hitler disbanded the Reichstag. Has the British Parliament been disbanded?
Hitler assumed dictatorial powers. Has the British Prime Minister assumed dictatorial powers?
A few setbacks in civil liberties do not in any way, shape or form resemble the events in Germany.
People are being conditioned to give up their liberties in the name of some holy cause.
That "conditioning" is just your unsupported opinion.
You're not suggesting that a German could publicly say that he admired, say, the entrepreneurial spirit of the Jews and he'd still be ok, are you? Or that he finds the courage of the Jews inspiring, without receiving a visit from the Gestapo the next day?
I'm saying that the vast, vast, vast majority would never have had such a thought cross their minds, so it's useless to speculate. Once again, the centuries-old habit of never questioning authority in no way resembles today's situation in Britain.
The problem is that speed limits in this country prescribe a much lower speed than what's necessary to go safely round a bend or ensure you can see in advance children trying to cross.
Says you. Even if that was true, it doesn't support your fantasy of impending dictatorship. You have established no correlation between the "what" and the "why". We have only your word that the speed is "too slow" and that it is accepted because of "conditioning".
I've shown you freedoms that we had 10-20 years ago and now we don't.
You were free to refuse a DNA sample before anybody ever asked for a DNA sample? You were free from video cameras before there were any video cameras. What freedom did you lose?
I've been trying to get you to focus on the serious problems, like suspension of habeas corpus, but you keep trivializing them with your nonsense about speed limits and comparisons to Hitler.
I also notice that you haven't provided a single explanation as to how drivers are more likely to cause an accident at 30mph instead of, say, 20 mph on a straight, well-surfaced, well-lit road.
Stopping distance.
Would lowering speed limits and installing speed bumps have saved your mother?
Yes.
But we don't set our traffic laws to prevent every accident. Y'know why? Because we don't go by the principle that any sacrifice is justifiable if it saves one life. We go by the principle that our elected representatives can achieve the best compromise between traffic flow and safety.
As long as we have those elected representatives, you have no case to rest.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Legend, posted 04-02-2003 7:52 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Legend, posted 07-31-2007 5:04 PM ringo has replied
 Message 62 by Legend, posted 07-31-2007 5:51 PM ringo has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 60 of 136 (413606)
07-31-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
07-29-2007 5:11 PM


Let's get this straight
Ringo writes:
Hitler disbanded the Reichstag. Has the British Parliament been disbanded?
Hitler assumed dictatorial powers. Has the British Prime Minister assumed dictatorial powers?
A few setbacks in civil liberties do not in any way, shape or form resemble the events in Germany.
For the last time, make up your mind! Did Hitler seize power or did the German people gave it to him ? You can't have it both ways whenever it suits your argument.
Once more, for the record: Hitler didn't forcibly disband the Reichstag, he turned it into a one-party arena after being democratically elected into it and appointed chancellor by the lawful president. The Nazi party in 1932 had the largest share of the popular vote. Just like the Labour government has today. Being a democratically-elected representative doesn't preclude being a fascist.
Hitler didn't assume dictatorial powers. He asked for them by drafting legislation that was not only voted in by the democratically-elected parliament but also approved by 85% of the people in a referendum! He was given dictatorial powers by both parliamentary and popular consent!
You're just brushing off any comparisons to Nazi Germany on the fallacious premise that Hitler somehow forced his way into power
and unlawfully disbanded the democratic institutions against the will of the people. He didn't. He was allowed to be a dictator. By a democracy!
Your fallacy is just a way of alleviating concern in western countries ("another Hitler can't happen here, we have a democracy, which prevents such things from happening") while it lulls people into a false sense of security and complacency so they can sleepwalk into the arms of the next dictator, elected or not.
Once again: I'm not claiming that we, as a nation, currently are on the brink of a Nazi-style regime. Nor am I claiming that our current politicians have the same motivation or drive as Hitler did. I'm claiming that we, as a people, are being subjected to the same methodologies and pressures by our political leaders as the Germans were by theirs. The holy causes have changed, so have the end-results, but the methods and attitude of people in power has sadly remained the same. There aren't going to be Nazi-style massacres of 'speeders' or people who drive SUVs anytime soon but the moral justification for it has already been put in place.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 07-29-2007 5:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ringo, posted 07-31-2007 5:20 PM Legend has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024