• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayDubya said:
Oh, okay then, Nazis just need to opine that Jews shouldn't be legal persons, then they don't run afoul of your stupid restrictions on free speech.

:peace

Thanks for clarifying why you fail so I don't have to.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Nazis would first have to change the law to state Jews are not legal persons. We already have laws stating fetuses are not legal persons. Get that changed, and then yes, what you wrote earlier would apply in my limited free speech proposal. But, since that law has not changed, your point is a strawman.


You really are terrible at this legal thing. Arrencha?
 
JamesBY said:
I don't believe you. You will argue for absolute free speech until you can shut it down.
Click to expand...

You sure you're not externalizing your desires?

One of the greatest rants about freedom, from Dennis Leary.


I don't know you and don't care about you. You could die five minutes from now and that means nothing to me. Your life, the lives of others I have no idea exist are meaningless to me. I don't know you, and to be honest don't want to. I want MY rights, to get them I need to respect others rights. This is otherwise known as the Golden Rule, Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Otherwise I got to kill everyone I meet to insure my rights are respected. That's tedious and inconvenient. Not to mention a detriment to my standard of living. I am a barbarian, I simply wear the mask of civility. My perspective is NOT a moral one, it is one based on need and mutual accommodation. I am not a moral man, nor do I care to be one, I simply do as I need or want. My wants do not include ruling the world, I am far to base for that sort of nonsense.
 
calamity said:
It was not meant for idiots to promote ideas to subjugate or even annihilate nearly half the population.
Click to expand...

Alright, then by that concept we need to disband nearly a full third of liberal, conservative, independent etc.. political groups. Because anyone can perceive their own standards in just that exact same way.
 
calamity said:
Nazi doctrine calls for the extermination of Jews and other people deemed "lesser" by White Supremacists. IMO, such speech should not be legal in the US. Period.
Click to expand...

Well democrats and progressives own pretty much all of that for the last century so if you get your way you will have to be silent.

"Today we consider Mengele’s crimes as unthinkable, unconscionable. We
readily assent to the slogan of the Holocaust, “Never Again.” And we’re
convinced that it can’t happen again and isn’t happening again because we
expect that, if it did, it would happen in the same way as before. We’re
looking for another guy today who executes twins and performs hideous eye
injections. Since we don’t find him, we complacently convince ourselves that
Mengele and the Nazis were a historical aberration.
Yet Nazism was a product of a time and a place, and we are in a different
time and a different place. As Robert Paxton observed earlier, an American
fascism, if it arises, is not likely to involve jackboots, raised-arm salutes, and
chants of Heil Hitler. It might not even target Jews but rather some other
group. An American fascism would be a fascism in American accouterment,
a fascism devised by our progressives and leftists instead of their
progressives and leftists. Our Mengele would do things no less horrific than
Mengele, but his cause would be protected by a new and fashionable
ideology of science and progress.
Actually, we do have our Mengele, and his name is Kermit Gosnell. Since
1979, Gosnell ran an abortion clinic called the Women’s Medical Society in
West Philadelphia. There he performed late-term abortions and partial-birth
abortions, mostly on poor women. If by some mistake children were born
alive, Gosnell killed them in a process he termed “ensuring fetal demise.”
Gosnell’s preferred technique for abortion was to heavily drug the premature
infants and then stick scissors into their necks and cut the spinal cord. Over a
period of three decades, Gosnell killed hundreds if not thousands of children
in this way, far more than Mengele killed during his two-year stint at
Auschwitz.4
If Gosnell is our Mengele, we also have our Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and
its name is Planned Parenthood. Gosnell didn’t work for Planned Parenthood,
but neither did Mengele work for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. Yet both men
had institutional legitimacy for their work that came from the longtime
support and advocacy of organizations like Planned Parenthood and the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. Both men saw themselves as pioneers working on
the scientific and progressive frontier; Gosnell carried forward the Planned
Parenthood vision in precisely the same way that Mengele viewed himself
carrying forward the vision of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.
Does it seem far-fetched, and wrong, to compare the core institution of
Nazi eugenics to Planned Parenthood? Not at all. In some respects, Planned
Parenthood’s conduct is worse. While the organization poses as a benign
promoter of “birth control,” its modus operandi was confirmed by a series of
undercover videos showing officials willing to sell fetal body parts resulting
from the organization’s nationwide abortion industry. The officials
represented in the videos showed no moral revulsion or compunction about
the practice.
In May 2017, the undercover group released a new video featuring
ghoulish admissions by Planned-Parenthood-affiliated abortion providers.
One spoke of ensuring death by using “a second set of forceps to hold the
body at the cervix and pull off a leg or two.” Another confessed, to laughter
from the crowd, that during a recent abortion procedure “an eyeball just fell
into my lap, and that is gross.” A third confessed that when stem cell
companies want to purchase brains, “we’ll leave the calvarium in till last, and
then try to basically take it, or actually, you know, catch everything and keep
it separate from the tissue so it doesn’t get lost.”5 The Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute, which regarded itself as a topnotch research organization, never did
anything remotely like this.
Progressives are keen to distance themselves from Gosnell even as they
fiercely defend Planned Parenthood. In a sense, the Left is giving up one of
its pioneers while attempting to save the premier institution that will carry on
his type of work. Bye, bye, Gosnell; keep going, Planned Parenthood. And if
you’re wondering whether the eugenic project of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
persists today, it does. As we’ll see, in suitably modified fashion, it continues
now under the banner of International Planned Parenthood."-Dinish Desouza
 
akyron said:
Well democrats and progressives own pretty much all of that for the last century so if you get your way you will have to be silent.

"Today we consider Mengele’s crimes as unthinkable, unconscionable. We
readily assent to the slogan of the Holocaust, “Never Again.” And we’re
convinced that it can’t happen again and isn’t happening again because we
expect that, if it did, it would happen in the same way as before. We’re
looking for another guy today who executes twins and performs hideous eye
injections. Since we don’t find him, we complacently convince ourselves that
Mengele and the Nazis were a historical aberration.
Yet Nazism was a product of a time and a place, and we are in a different
time and a different place. As Robert Paxton observed earlier, an American
fascism, if it arises, is not likely to involve jackboots, raised-arm salutes, and
chants of Heil Hitler. It might not even target Jews but rather some other
group. An American fascism would be a fascism in American accouterment,
a fascism devised by our progressives and leftists instead of their
progressives and leftists. Our Mengele would do things no less horrific than
Mengele, but his cause would be protected by a new and fashionable
ideology of science and progress.
Actually, we do have our Mengele, and his name is Kermit Gosnell. Since
1979, Gosnell ran an abortion clinic called the Women’s Medical Society in
West Philadelphia. There he performed late-term abortions and partial-birth
abortions, mostly on poor women. If by some mistake children were born
alive, Gosnell killed them in a process he termed “ensuring fetal demise.”
Gosnell’s preferred technique for abortion was to heavily drug the premature
infants and then stick scissors into their necks and cut the spinal cord. Over a
period of three decades, Gosnell killed hundreds if not thousands of children
in this way, far more than Mengele killed during his two-year stint at
Auschwitz.4
If Gosnell is our Mengele, we also have our Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and
its name is Planned Parenthood. Gosnell didn’t work for Planned Parenthood,
but neither did Mengele work for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. Yet both men
had institutional legitimacy for their work that came from the longtime
support and advocacy of organizations like Planned Parenthood and the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. Both men saw themselves as pioneers working on
the scientific and progressive frontier; Gosnell carried forward the Planned
Parenthood vision in precisely the same way that Mengele viewed himself
carrying forward the vision of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.
Does it seem far-fetched, and wrong, to compare the core institution of
Nazi eugenics to Planned Parenthood? Not at all. In some respects, Planned
Parenthood’s conduct is worse. While the organization poses as a benign
promoter of “birth control,” its modus operandi was confirmed by a series of
undercover videos showing officials willing to sell fetal body parts resulting
from the organization’s nationwide abortion industry. The officials
represented in the videos showed no moral revulsion or compunction about
the practice.
In May 2017, the undercover group released a new video featuring
ghoulish admissions by Planned-Parenthood-affiliated abortion providers.
One spoke of ensuring death by using “a second set of forceps to hold the
body at the cervix and pull off a leg or two.” Another confessed, to laughter
from the crowd, that during a recent abortion procedure “an eyeball just fell
into my lap, and that is gross.” A third confessed that when stem cell
companies want to purchase brains, “we’ll leave the calvarium in till last, and
then try to basically take it, or actually, you know, catch everything and keep
it separate from the tissue so it doesn’t get lost.”5 The Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute, which regarded itself as a topnotch research organization, never did
anything remotely like this.
Progressives are keen to distance themselves from Gosnell even as they
fiercely defend Planned Parenthood. In a sense, the Left is giving up one of
its pioneers while attempting to save the premier institution that will carry on
his type of work. Bye, bye, Gosnell; keep going, Planned Parenthood. And if
you’re wondering whether the eugenic project of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
persists today, it does. As we’ll see, in suitably modified fashion, it continues
now under the banner of International Planned Parenthood."-Dinish Desouza
Click to expand...
You really believe that garbage. Don't ya?
 
calamity said:
You really believe that garbage. Don't ya?
Click to expand...

It is well sourced and can be found at your local library..If you and your friends have not decided to burn it down yet.

"Back to Gosnell and Mengele. In the progressive narrative, Gosnell “went
too far,” but this is like saying Mengele went too far. Would Mengele be
acceptable to these people if he had merely held back a little? In truth, as the
Left knows, both Mengele and Gosnell simply travelled down a path that the
progressives in their respective countries had prepared for them. Both thought
they were getting rid of disposable people to advance the cause of progress.
Mengele’s cause was “in” among leftists and progressives in Germany then;
Gosnell’s cause is “in” among American leftists and progressives now.
Writing in Slate, the progressive columnist William Saletan raised the
question: what precisely was Gosnell’s crime? What did he actually do that
was so bad? From the Left’s point of view, it couldn’t just be late-term
abortion because many leftists and Planned Parenthood enthusiasts support
late-term abortions. Saletan cites reproductive rights activists Steph Herold
and Susan Yanow, arguing that “women have no obligation to make a
decision as soon as they possibly can” and should be allowed to choose
abortion even in the eighth or ninth month of pregnancy. In the same vein,
Marge Berer, editor of Reproductive Health Matters, insists that regardless of
time limits “anyone who thinks they have the right to refuse even one woman
an abortion can’t continue to claim they are pro-choice.”6 Here, then, is the
Planned Parenthood ideology that helped produce Gosnell just as surely as
the Nazi eugenic ideology helped produce Mengele.
Gosnell was tried and convicted on three charges of murdering infants at
his clinic. These were merely the most clear-cut cases that the state decided to
prosecute. Gosnell is currently serving a life sentence for first-degree murder.
In my view he deserved the death penalty to pay for all the infants he
murdered. Had Mengele been captured after the war, he would surely have
been executed. But Mengele evaded capture by fleeing to Argentina where he
became, interestingly enough, an abortionist.7 In 1979, he died of a stroke at
the age of sixty-seven in San Paulo, Brazil."--Dinesh Desouza
 
calamity said:
Uh, no. Nazis would first have to change the law to state Jews are not legal persons
Click to expand...

Right, so assuming there were people with this desire, they would have to state this opinion and convince others it was a good idea and make it law...

But you say that should be illegal.

Hrrm.

You're a special snowflake - you want your bigotry, and only your bigotry protected.
 
calamity said:
Nazi doctrine calls for the extermination of Jews and other people deemed "lesser" by White Supremacists. IMO, such speech should not be legal in the US. Period.
Click to expand...

In that case, Islam calls for the killing of all infidels. should we ban them from free speech, too?
 
JayDubya said:
Right, so assuming there were people with this desire, they would have to state this opinion and convince others it was a good idea and make it law...

But you say that should be illegal.

Hrrm.

You're a special snowflake - you want your bigotry, and only your bigotry protected.
Click to expand...

Uh, no to the bold. You've once again failed, Jay.

Read the post below very slowly. You just might catch your error. But, I'm not betting on it.


calamity said:
I have no problem with being disagreed with on this issue. Free speech, after all.

My core point:

Free speech rightfully encompasses things like saying the government is corrupt, the president sucks, this or that political view (or religion) is terrible or great, martians are coming or they have already landed, etc.

Questionable speech, IMO, that needs further review (not necessarily illegal but certainly not put on airwaves or given a platform by reputable sources--google bans for example would be A-OK here) is saying things like all blacks are inhuman, all Jews are reptiles, all Muslims are goat ****ers, and all Christians screw little boys in the butt. Note the emphasis on the broadbrush and group hate.

Illegal speech, speech which should be criminal, IMO, would be calling for the deaths of said groups. Kill Jews, Blacks, Christians, Muslims, etc.
Click to expand...

Note where I differentiated between illegal speech and questionable speech. Take your time. We still have another day-half left of the weekend.
 
Maccabee said:
In that case, Islam calls for the killing of all infidels. should we ban them from free speech, too?
Click to expand...

Saying "kill infidels" would certainly fall under my idea of banned speech. But, since not all Muslims say that, you painted with too broad a brush. Try again.

It is interesting to see exactly where your mind went with that though. :roll:
 
calamity said:
Uh, no to the bold. You've once again failed, Jay.
Click to expand...

Hasn't happened yet, chief.

You want to criminalize speech; you think the hatred of others is unacceptable, whereas your own equally hateful and disgusting bigotry you think should be protected.

It's utter hypocrisy.
 
akyron said:
It is well sourced and can be found at your local library..If you and your friends have not decided to burn it down yet.

"Back to Gosnell and Mengele. In the progressive narrative, Gosnell “went
too far,” but this is like saying Mengele went too far. Would Mengele be
acceptable to these people if he had merely held back a little? In truth, as the
Left knows, both Mengele and Gosnell simply travelled down a path that the
progressives in their respective countries had prepared for them. Both thought
they were getting rid of disposable people to advance the cause of progress.
Mengele’s cause was “in” among leftists and progressives in Germany then;
Gosnell’s cause is “in” among American leftists and progressives now.
Writing in Slate, the progressive columnist William Saletan raised the
question: what precisely was Gosnell’s crime? What did he actually do that
was so bad? From the Left’s point of view, it couldn’t just be late-term
abortion because many leftists and Planned Parenthood enthusiasts support
late-term abortions. Saletan cites reproductive rights activists Steph Herold
and Susan Yanow, arguing that “women have no obligation to make a
decision as soon as they possibly can” and should be allowed to choose
abortion even in the eighth or ninth month of pregnancy. In the same vein,
Marge Berer, editor of Reproductive Health Matters, insists that regardless of
time limits “anyone who thinks they have the right to refuse even one woman
an abortion can’t continue to claim they are pro-choice.”6 Here, then, is the
Planned Parenthood ideology that helped produce Gosnell just as surely as
the Nazi eugenic ideology helped produce Mengele.
Gosnell was tried and convicted on three charges of murdering infants at
his clinic. These were merely the most clear-cut cases that the state decided to
prosecute. Gosnell is currently serving a life sentence for first-degree murder.
In my view he deserved the death penalty to pay for all the infants he
murdered. Had Mengele been captured after the war, he would surely have
been executed. But Mengele evaded capture by fleeing to Argentina where he
became, interestingly enough, an abortionist.7 In 1979, he died of a stroke at
the age of sixty-seven in San Paulo, Brazil."--Dinesh Desouza
Click to expand...

Nonsense in nonsense out must be a specialty for some people. Isn't Dinesh the moron who came up with that crazy movie about Obama destroying America?
 
JayDubya said:
Hasn't happened yet, chief.

You want to criminalize speech; you think the hatred of others is unacceptable, whereas your own equally hateful and disgusting bigotry you think should be protected.

It's utter hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

What hateful rhetoric is that, Jay? You were the one who wrote in these forums that you want to kill people who try to boost your car stereo.
 
calamity said:
Saying "kill infidels" would certainly fall under my idea of banned speech. But, since not all Muslims say that, you painted with too broad a brush. Try again.

It is interesting to see exactly where your mind went with that though. :roll:
Click to expand...

Their holy book says so. Plus that wasn't even my point. Just because an ideology calls for something, doesn't mean the individual agrees with every tenet of that ideology.
 
calamity said:
Nazi doctrine calls for the extermination of Jews and other people deemed "lesser" by White Supremacists. IMO, such speech should not be legal in the US. Period.
Click to expand...

In my world people can make what ever argument they want with some slim exceptions in attack of other peoples reputation through known lies. Generally speaking there should be no such thing as criminal speech.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
In my world people can make what ever argument they want with some slim exceptions in attack of other peoples reputation through known lies. Generally speaking there should be no such thing as criminal speech.
Click to expand...
In studying hate literature, there is the belief, but no call for action. Once a call for action goes out, all Nazis can be dragged in.
 
JamesBY said:
In studying hate literature, there is the belief, but no call for action. Once a call for action goes out, all Nazis can be dragged in.
Click to expand...

I believe that the American Justice System made a mistake (Charitably, most days I call this abuse) when it made "inciting" an illegal act a crime. This was an act of making the idea criminal, and I dont go there. I argue that others should not either and that the Constitution does not support it. I likewise claim that so-called hate crime law is unconstitutional, that by allowing the justice system to go so rotten SCOTUS long ago abandoned the people they are supposed to be serving, they have facilitated the infantilization of the society and as well the abuse of the citizens at the hands of the state.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I believe that the American Justice System made a mistake when it made "inciting" an illegal act a crime. This was an act of making the idea criminal, and I dont go there. I argue that others should not either and that the Constitution does not support it. I likewise claim that so-called hate crime law is unconstitutional, that by allowing the justice system to go so rotten SCOTUS long ago abandoned the people they are supposed to be serving, they have facilitated the infantilization of the society and as well the abuse of the citizens at the hands of the state.
Click to expand...

It does not matter that "dont go there." We are "there" and we remain "there".
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I believe that the American Justice System made a mistake (Charitably, most days I call this abuse) when it made "inciting" an illegal act a crime. This was an act of making the idea criminal, and I dont go there. I argue that others should not either and that the Constitution does not support it. I likewise claim that so-called hate crime law is unconstitutional, that by allowing the justice system to go so rotten SCOTUS long ago abandoned the people they are supposed to be serving, they have facilitated the infantilization of the society and as well the abuse of the citizens at the hands of the state.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Incitement is a form of collusion/co-conspiracy.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
In my world people can make what ever argument they want with some slim exceptions in attack of other peoples reputation through known lies. Generally speaking there should be no such thing as criminal speech.
Click to expand...

So, a mob forming in front of your house chanting "kill Hawkeye!" wouldn't concern you?
 
Maccabee said:
Their holy book says so. Plus that wasn't even my point. Just because an ideology calls for something, doesn't mean the individual agrees with every tenet of that ideology.
Click to expand...

"Illegal speech, speech which should be criminal, IMO, would be calling for the deaths of said groups. Kill Jews, Blacks, Christians, Muslims, etc."
 
calamity said:
What hateful rhetoric is that, Jay? You were the one who wrote in these forums that you want to kill people who try to boost your car stereo.
Click to expand...

Has never happened, in terms of either anyone trying nor me saying that I want for any such thing to occur.

If it did, I could shoot them. Were I aware of such a thing happening, I would shoot them. Castle Doctrine. Great thing, in a great state that would also ban the discrimination you promote.

But in the depths of your bigoted, perverse authoritarianism, it's no surprise you would also seek to ban the opinions of others from being stated.
 
calamity said:
"Illegal speech, speech which should be criminal, IMO, would be calling for the deaths of said groups. Kill Jews, Blacks, Christians, Muslims, etc."
Click to expand...

Disagree. There is a difference between philosophical statements, such as Alt Right should be neutered as opposed to "Neuter them now!"
 
JayDubya said:
Has never happened, in terms of either anyone trying nor me saying that I want for any such thing to occur.

If it did, I could shoot them. Were I aware of such a thing happening, I would shoot them. Castle Doctrine. Great thing, in a great state that would also ban the discrimination you promote.

But in the depths of your bigoted, perverse authoritarianism, it's no surprise you would also seek to ban the opinions of others from being stated.
Click to expand...

We know you would. It's your own strange misinterpretation of that law. Anything that feeds your hate will do, apparently.
 
JamesBY said:
Disagree. There is a difference between philosophical statements, such as Alt Right should be neutered as opposed to "Neuter them now!"
Click to expand...

Calling for the death of all X is a long way past philosophical. Now, discussing the concept of why all X should be killed might fall under what you term a philosophical statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom