Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Today I Found Out" channel.

Actually, a psychopath would have self-preservation in mind still, sociopath and psychopath are just ways to define a generally dangerously low regard for human life beyond one's own person, in this case, he was mad for probably being thought as suicidal.
16
Banning things promotes it a lot more then subsidizing it, it'll just appear on the surface that it no longer exists instead, also that's a pretty massive disrespect for the right of free speech.
8
@V-V1875-h I'm talking about German censorship, there are things you can't say without facing serious consequences that are a right to be able to say, all humans, including Germans, have the right to claim the ideology of Nazism and Holocaust denial, it is not the job of the government to dictate morality nor to control the population. When you do this, especially with speech, you embolden the people who do or may be influenced to think that way to become unrepresented and underground, which makes them impossible to stop in any other way but violence. Without the liberty to say what you want you paradoxically promote the ideas in the shadows where it will never be opposed. Its been proven time and time again that outright banning things doesn't correct anything, it merely leaves people less represented, misinformed, and more likely over time to break the law. This is the definition of tyranny, to oppress a people and impose on their rights, it doesn't matter how immoral those rights may appear to anyone, the the German government is not and never will be the arbiter of morality. And neither should act like it. Also telling people to be responsible for preventing an ideology from spreading or existing is immoral, you should be able to teach critical thinking that allows every individual to think critically and question things without teaching responsibility on any specific thing. Also Germans will likely (or even are honestly) commit ignorance or direct support for atrocities again, all human populations do it because its easier to live that way and evil is in our bones, if someone can't accept and understand that, that it will happen again and will be ignored, that's when no one will speak out and let it happen again.
7
@Firebear31 Being arrested is not freedom of speech, that's a gross infringement of rights, you should have the right to be an asshole, to offend, and yes, to even call someone subhuman, that is the nature of freedom and liberty, if you lack the capability to say the most despicable things then you're not free. And let me give you two pragmatic reasons why this lack of liberty is bad aside from the fact you're oppressing people for a right: (because speech is not violence, so you can't justify react to speech with force) Foremost when you persecute people who hold immoral ideas, you embolden and martyr those ideas, those people will never change their mind when most of them are susceptible for being convinced and moralized to some extent, to refuse to do this is immoral as it means you're oppressing people you could've saved. This also shifts the speech to underground making them look nonexistent much like the opioid crisis in the US. The other thing is that opposition allows valid points (which yes, the Nazis did make valid points, just because someone commits evil actions and genocides people does not mean everything they said was invalid) to be brought up, debates, and questioned in a manner that can be revolutionary and devises better solutions, even if it starts from an immoral source does not mean that you can't devise proper solutions from it. By jailing you instead ensure that improvements can not happen and tyranny will forever reign. Freedom of speech is the only way to capably battle bad ideas, and the right to bear arm is the only manner to ensure that can't be taken away.
5
Also Germany is still censoring speech and ideas instead of fighting them directly, which is how you embolden those ideas actually, also Germany seems to be getting tyrannical again.
3
@regenbogentraumerin "A person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins, this includes freedom of speech." You do realize this means when you infringe on someone else's freedom right? That means you are free so long as you are not restricting or infringing someone else's freedom, which speech by itself can not capably do, hence why this does not pertain to freedom of speech, there is a case that has been made with specific calls to actions like fire in a crowded theater, however a philosophically consistent application of that requires that as being only relevant when an individual has already been injured by the call to action, it does not pertain to the speech itself. There are plenty of other edge cases which otherwise boil down to civil disputes, but the gist of the matter is you can not argue legal authority for restricting speech if you value freedom. Nazism is not even covered under calls to actions anyway, and even if it was, it would require a crime have already been committed at the behest of the speaker. You can not justify jailing someone for speech otherwise. This is mostly how it operates in the US without contracts. (which you have to sign onto to make them legally binding) "It's fine to be critical and to question things, it's not to spread hate and try to lessen the terrible consequences the Nazi regime and the holocaust had on millions of people while they are proven to have happened." This is not freedom, by the very definition of freedom or liberty this is not free. "Hate speech" is free speech, or put in another way, any speech that can spread hate is covered under free speech and otherwise means you don't have freedom of speech. The foundation of the principle of free speech was devised from the get-go with this subject in mind, as Voltaire has been paraphrased as saying "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." which means even those who are detestable in society, including Nazis and Marxists, are humans with rights to say as they please regardless of the offense and hurt it may spread, for words are not stones. This is a very vital importance of speech and freedom. You can not free people from their mental prison of evil if you aren't allowed to argue them out of the prison. And restriction of free speech merely pushes the fringes and the unorthodox into the underground, just because you banned them doesn't mean they don't exist nor can't cause damage, it just means they can't be argued against and won't act openly to be argued against. A righteous society does not need to insulate itself from the vile nature of man, weak societies however must silence them. I say Germany hasn't changed, it will commit atrocities again because its a nation of people, acting as if you're responsible to stop something specific isn't gonna help, especially when you remove moralism from society. "Also, denying facts does not contribute valid points to a discussion, is does not lead to better solutions or a better life for anybody, not even the person speaking." I see you've never experienced the value of free speech either, nor are you a truly compassionate nor considerate character, for you do not consider those who you hate. It is easy to provide consideration for those you love or care little for, its easy to be consistent and kind, but the people who need that the most are your enemies, who are not unidentified collective blobs of evil you treat them as, and to save people from bad ideas you need to put time and consideration into who the people are and what they're experiences are. A neonazi does bring up some valid points even if their solutions are wrong just as a marxist can bring up some valid points even though his solutions are wrong. Those who can not accept this fact are living in a unnuanced world of incorrect black and white that does not exist. As there are subjects of denial that does bring up valid points, and even to an extent denial of facts too can bring up some valid points most especially because of opposition, even if to validate those facts or perhaps make us question if those facts truly are as so claimed. And sometimes, if you take up the Socratic method, you find out that not always does the fact stand up to scrutiny, perhaps neither do their worldview, but at that point you must admit that you don't have the answer and instead must figure them out for yourself. As a amateur logical debater with many years of hashing out my arguments to both fools and intellectuals alike, I can tell you that is a better manner of achieving wisdom, one which I can not do in the German law.
2
@Firebear31 "in reality that doesn't work especially on those topics." Actually no, there is more proof against that claim then for it. "They have such a cancel culture" Cancel culture is a temporary result of American syndicalism (or crony corporatism) which without government intervention in the market would not exist, for two reasons. One the American government upholds corporations and raises them in economic and legal standing above normal business, and also marks them as immune to legal punishment, and two, the small American business generally has massive amount of regulations that massively raise the ceiling for starting a business thus reducing competition that could undermine this behavior. Also the big tech corporations controlling the public discourse is technically illegal, but nobody is filing a suit, if they did it be over instantly. This has nothing to do with free speech, also in current American law cancel culture is defamation and is very valid case. "spoiled/entitled unpolite people," Doesn't effect anything and I don't really care, spoiled people are the type of people I talk down to, unpolite people don't really make it as far as tv likes to act. Now fake people are a different story but that's not covered here, and it has nothing to do with free speech. "misinformation and all that crap that is getting harder and harder to see through with newer technologies like deepfake and such and people in general in the world being lazy and looking for easy ideas/solutions" Misinformation is left up to the individual to solve, I don't see how anyone else can solve it and I prefer that. Its up to each individual to solve their problems. That's what responsibility is, you can't have freedom without this responsibility. "Some may change their minds but that is not necessarily due to you teaching them/discussing with them but more because of personal events happening to those." Actually that doesn't often happen, its way more common for someone to be convinced out of it, like that man who convinced a hundred members of the KKK to stop being racist by merely debating and arguing them peaceably and considerately. There are plenty of cases where this has happened, I know a lot of people that I have either convinced to stop on specific thought trains or I have directly seen leave specific patterns of thought merely by our ability to speak to them. "There are problems with underground movements of course (NSU) but I think that wouldn't be better off when you could openly "discuss" the topic of the genocide with those." Free speech allows them to be public which actually reduces their capability because they're no longer martyrs and bold by just standing up, the less oppressed someone feels, the less need they feel to hold on to specific unacceptable beliefs, that's the core of most civilian revolts before the French Revolution. "The most people who e.g. say the holocaust is a lie or "critically think about it not being true" are not misinformed - they know their shit very well and they deny that." And that's their God-given right. "If I were to see a nazi in the US I would drag him to war memorials and tell him all those people died for him to be a fucking dickhead." I don't think you've argued with a very intelligent holocaust denier then, they exist, and they have a lot of historical context that does pose serious questions to consider that aren't entirely (sometimes not at all even) fabricated. And the memorials are limited in scope, they don't cover nuance nor do they give heavy context, most of the time its emotional manipulation which deniers (and neither a logical man) wouldn't regard. Personally I wouldn't be convinced by a plead to emotion anyway, if I was to start questioning the holocaust's existence with justifiably questions of the mainstream narrative and regular folks couldn't answer my questions, bringing me to a memorial or showing me pictures of the dead isn't going to convince me, you'd have to debate me with my questions. (just to clarify, I don't question its existence, that's a hypothetical, but I do question purpose, scope, and the mainstream interpretations and claims regarding it which I can very legitimately lead logical people to question if it was even real if they lacked certain bits of knowledge) "It just cannot be ever again." It will be done again, if you can't accept that you can and may even commit evil, then you are already susceptible to committing evil, if you don't accept the depravity of man, then you are already too depraved to stop it. "We don't forget in Germany just because you get in jail for openly saying you deny all holocaust and such." I have no idea what this is saying nor the intent of the statement. "We have memorials for the victims." Memorials are merely a temporary vestige to make us feel better about ourselves, also a good way to deflect evil. "We honor those, by not letting that hate get up again." You've already done so by promoting hate of men, if you don't love even the Nazis as people, then that behavior will always be capable of returning, evil resides in the hearts of guilt, shame, vengeance, and oppression. That is where tyranny rises. "That's what people should do with all the slavery statues in Uk and US." We have a binding Constitution in the US that prevents us from forcing our views on others and jailing people for dissents of state views. America is built on the principle of loving even our enemies because it is a Christian nation with Christian values at its core. This means we don't restrict the speech of someone no matter the topic of their speech. As an American I find it immoral that someone would do that and I would use violence with my firearms to ensure all our rights to say as we please. You'd need to kill upwards of millions of Americans to achieve this. Also most of the Confederate statues are about the causalities of the Civil War because both sides were Americans. "Replace it with victims - honor those who were wronged." They don't need it and we don't want it, our memorials for our wars pertain to our fallen soldiers, the slaves are not special and to treat them as if they were is foolish, not to mention that slave atrocities were not nearly as common as the mainstream narrative tries to claim, they weren't treated great, but there aren't any Auschwitz of slavery and outside of specific cases there isn't much emotionalism to pull from it. (and definitely nothing worth making a statue of) Instead we occasionally made a statue of the liberation of a slave, but they keep trying to burn those down because crazy people want to claim an abolitionist is having a slave kneel to him. "You can remember and have a discussion but you should lead it to the right direction. That's my opinion as it is how we were taught in school about that topic (like he said in the video)." I don't believe anyone should be taught what to think, critical think should be all that's necessary and I don't believe the state is capable of teaching that. Didn't work in Germany, the UK, France, or the US, I can pretty easily bet its gonna continue to not work. "Again, I agree with you on leading discussion and I would love that to work because I'm rather pacifistic and non-violent but it will just not work. There are people who are just plain evil." It does work, foremost if you have the right to bear arms, no one can threaten the liberty of a free nation. Also all men are pure evil, there is no good in man, I don't believe the government is capable of correcting that so I say take it out of their hands, especially since its not a legitimate role of government to do so. They are a punitive measure, not a preventative.
2
You know the ironic thing is that half a decade before the hyperinflation, they had a Laissez-faire leadership that opposed the inflation, but out of nowhere they were removed from office and replaced.
2
According to every standard I know, there is no difference between the definitions. Looking at the culture and given everyone I've met, they are generally also used interchangeably.
1
In my experience, there is no distinction, as if it was made up in some heads to explain the difference, but to which there was never anything proving it. I mean if you want to use that way, fine, but I've yet actually find any credible source distinguishing them. Also, war would be a playground for both types regardless, war is even pleasurable to a sadist, you'd probably even be able to find a lot of suicidal masochists, which is about as good at describing the video anyhow.
1
@k.a.3614 "like what kind of people the first settlers from the netherlands were" Irrelevant, this was not the US at the time, neither was the colonies under Great Britain. The US only existed after 1776 with the independence of the colonies and the ratification of the Constitution. (which I might add was the founding document that all other western nations based their Constitutions on, and still failed because they don't ensure the rights of the individual) "and what the US is doing outside of its own country." Also irrelevant, only American citizens have rights according to the Constitution, everyone else is ignorable to it, it is by sheer kindness that we treat non-citizens well enough to be nearly comparable to citizens, but that's the reason we can deport them. "Because the US foreigner policy is not build on "loving"" Irrelevant again, the Constitution, our government foreign policy has nothing to do with the people nor its values and more then majority of the population opposes this. We don't like being the world's police, but if we didn't do it then it would be only China. "I.m.o. but nearly soly on economics." What is "soly"? Also IMO doesn't need punctuation. "And I.m.o. are responsible for a big part of the destabilization and horrors in the middle east." No, you're actually pretty badly informed if you think its the fault of the US for the Middle East, that was Great Britain, France, and Russia's fault, the American hegemony causing problems didn't start until around the 70s, they've been killing each other since the 1920s, and made worse by Arab and Kurdish nationalism which Great Britain used to undermine the Ottoman Empire in World War I but never actually bothered to give them anything. The American policy in the Middle East doesn't help but its been like that for a century at least, where America was almost entirely isolationist. "Just look at iran an how the US abolished a democratic president in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize the iranian oil industry." We never fought Iran, and that was common for the Great Powers to do going back at least to the 20s, regardless that was originally at the behest of Great Britain and Eisenhower. And it didn't cause the instability that existed, that already existed by that point. "Instead the Shah got the power again, GB and the US continued to make profit of the oil industry, the shah mistreated the country and its people, they were suffering, and turned to the only thing they had, revolution and religion." You do realize every country that's been a Great Power has done this right? Even then the revolution was nonviolent. And that wasn't source of instability and chaos in the Middle East. "Or the taliban, they only hold so much power because of the US." The Taliban was a boogeyman, they weren't nearly as effective nor powerful as any of the other insurgencies, despite originally backing them. And they spawned from the already existing chaos. "he jemen war, a product of the support of the US to Saudi Arabia." You bring up more useless point about the American standard because foreign policy isn't relevant. (also wasn't started by the US) And most Americans want to get out anyway. So I don't see your point when mine had nothing to do with what the government does. "Sooo horrible, but as jemen holds no ecconomic value to the US they are not intervening unlike the irak war, which was over a lie the US made to get their oil resources under control." Not the first time a Great Power has done it and probably won't be the last, but the US has a population opposing it and a president that is currently working on more non-intervention foreign policy, and that's beside the fact it was entirely irrelevant. "And so much more. Arrg. It just makes me so angry when someone says the US is based on loving values." You don't know anything about the US it seems, you look at the last 60 years and claim that's what the US is about, and you only look at our foreign policy which has nothing to do with our values. "It is based on supression and egoism/capitalism." This is a stupid statement and lacks any historical basis, you don't know anything about the US if this all you can say. Also you know nothing about capitalism and you definitely can't claim egoism.
1
@k.a.3614 "Also there is no such thing as true freedom." The American Constitution as its defined was absolute in liberty, yes it does exist. "Because not having freedom is also a kind of freedom and having freedom is also a kind of not having freedom a lot of times." This is fallacious, you're making a circular argument, freedom, or liberty, is the principle of being capable to act on your own without interference, that is absolute freedom. Its as simple as that, otherwise you are not free at all, there is no spectrum of freedom, there is only freedom or authority, and without absolute freedom, you are not free. "Our world is build by physical laws and as such there are so many boundaries limiting every freedom." That's not true because that's not how you define freedom, we don't speak from the hypothetical nor the theoretical when we speak of freedom, those who do are manipulating the argument and have no idea what freedom nor liberty is. You are simply not free. "I don't value the freedom of free speech as the highest." Then you are not free. "I value the freedom of not being harmed far greater." Speech does not harm, you don't have the right to tell me what I can and can't say, what authority gets to define harm? If its government then it can be whatever the government decides, just because you have power to control what it says now doesn't mean you always will, this is how you get tyranny and authoritarianism, when you authorize and legitimize oppression by the state to silence speech you don't like, you have given them capability to oppress all speech. Anyone can get in power and control what you say. This is one of the principles behind Orwell's 1984. If you can't free speak then you can not freely debate nor argue, you can't freely decide for yourself. "And as such whenever the freedom of speech endangers the freedom of not being harmed I would forbid or only allow it with boundaries/special requirements." You haven't defined what harm is and how speech can cause harm, you seem to define it by capability to offend, but I have a right to offend you, I have right to say what I please, anything else is oppression and leaves me not free. I don't bow to government and government is not my God, and they don't get to define what is moral or right. Speech include. "We are not living in an individualistic world, we are living in a society." Wrong, we do living in an individualist world or personal responsibility wouldn't exist. But it does, and we direct evidence of it continuously, you can't consistently live as a collectivist, you can consistently live as an individualist. Also you do realize individualism doesn't ignore the substance of tribalism right? It merely argues that the individual's well being is superior to the collective's "greater good" which is always actually evil. (cause collectivists don't have a objective moral standard) "We are social creatures." Doesn't explained how the world isn't individualistic. "And while the individual is important," According to your arguments, it doesn't matter at all. The individual can be oppressed simply by the authority of the collective, you need to learn some logical skill. "the society needs to come first." Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Jingoism, Marxism, a society first mentality is immoral and lacks the capability to understand truth or good, it also ignores the capability for justice and seeks purely revanchism. It preaches the lack of personal responsibility and treats all of man like a animal to be curbed and controlled. But that's not what he is, unless of course you want more Nazism, this is how you get it, by removing the individual. (which was the Nazi ideology, there were no individuals, only the state and collective groups, that's how dehumanize and justify atrocities, the Communists did it, the Fascist did it, all Socialists do it, Marxists always do it, Nazis did it, Americans do not) You are so shortsighted and lacking in wisdom. "That does not mean that the wishes of the society sand over the needs of an individual," Given your ideology of speech, yes it does. A collective desire not to offend or "harm" is justified to regulate speech, this is exactly what you're doing. "needs are still higher but needs of society are higher than needs of an indivudual." Still didn't explain how you keep reiterating the same tripe. "If an individual needs to kill in order to feel good and continue with their life" There is no need to kill to continue life, and feeling "good" is not defined as a moral good, nor is righteous nor just. This is not a valid justification for collectivism. And almost every individualist standard invalidates this. You do realize individualism does not pertain to relativistic morality and claims of the greater good, this sounds more propagandized standards then anything. "they shouldn't be allowed as the society needs to feel safe and have rules otherwise it wouldn't function properly." Society does not need to feel safe, and rules are a natural extension of the capability to act social, its a natural result without ideology. You can't justify by a collectivist principle, it existed long before. "If some needs to be with a homosexual partner that is totally fine," This is neither a need. "even if most of society wished they wouldn't, as society doesn't need soly heterosexual couples." Actually this is extremely stupid because it does, especially in today's age, given our birthrates are below sustainable. Doesn't help that most countries have debt that is being passed onto the next generation which makes less descendants incapable of keeping up. Also homosexuality is a lifestyle that is unhealthy and highly based on lust. Also it is Sodomy. "Making certain speeches illegal is important, as sadly people are not meant to critically think everything through." Can't when you ban speech, and people think critically when you don't put the government in charge of education, monopolies don't work for well for advancement. "If you hear a lie often enough it will have it's effects on you," This one is only true if you already accept the lie, if you oppose or don't accept the lie, this doesn't happen. Its very easy to teach people to think critically, governments just don't do it. "even if you are to most critical person, and to those who are not very critical analizing everything... they often just take the easiest message and believe it." No, not really, critical thinkers relying on the Socratic Method don't have this problem, and even that aside moralists also don't have this problem. "If this massage is "cristians are bad and should be killed" and their get exposed to it enough it might end with action." Action is not speech, speech is not action, neither is speech violence, you can't justify authority based on that principle, its flimsy as it is. And no, speech does not justify action, so you can't claim its for that either. "Also words itselfe can be violence." No it can't, there is no capability for words to inflict damage nor violence. All power of words are given by the individual. Communication by itself has no ability to physically harm. And non-physical harm can not be legislated against. "And at the very least words are manipulation." Fabrication, words are communication, nothing more, nothing less. "So by limiting free speech, you are limiting manipulation (which is also manipulation but you want to protect society from certain manipulations)" You limiting freedom and liberty, you are not free if you do this. And you still haven't justify your position reasonably nor logically, you've mostly pleaded to emotion and tried to attack irrelevant subjects, instead of tackling the argument. That is by definition illogical and fallacious. Also government does need to protect society because society can take care of itself, the people don't and shouldn't need a government authority to tell them what is right or wrong, that's not a legitimate role of government, its role is punitive only, not preventative. Modern legal systems are mostly based on this fact and were later corrupted by state power for the sake of authoritarianism, that's where preventative measures come from. But the people don't need it, and you can see that with American society for the first 250 years of its existence at least.
1
@jennyh4025 "Germany is not the USA" It was based on the Constitution of the US and had things it didn't like (or the Great Powers at the time excluding the US didn't like) cherrypicked from it. "Freedom of speech is not directly a part of the German constitution." I'm aware, but it means Germans are not free and lack fundamental divine rights. Also means that Germany can and likely will become an authoritarian nation state again because the only protection against a tyrannical state is the capability of the people to threaten the state and its power, which is not allowed in most of Europe, especially Germany. My argument regardless is that Germany is not a free state and lacks fundamental rights, and does not have a culture nor consciousness of society that values such. While are totally able to have such lackings it means they can be ruled by a tyrant easily and rapidly, especially with how the German government is acting, and those acting as though it won't happen again or that they are responsible for not letting it happen are fools for they don't understand the cores of tyrant and authoritarianism, they only care about not letting the Nazis rule them again, a Fascist or Communist dictatorship could still easily make their way to power there, especially with the systems of oppression they have already implemented.
1
@k.a.3614 "Just as I though before, you just do not understand what I am saying, putting meaning behind my words which are not there while not understanding (or ignoring?) the actual meaning behind it. And not to forget take my points out of context, not seeing the response to a text in it." What you said is what you said, I responded and told you why you're wrong, if you can't explain your ideology and methodology in a consistent manner then that is your problem, I merely responded (with quotations) to what you had already said. I am not responsible for anything beyond. "Also you ignore scientific facts... but what do I expect from someone religious who proves my points... especially the one why the information about the settlers is important..." That's massive amount fallacies. The assumption of scientific fact that you did not explain nor have you described as being capable of invalidating anything, especially since you made many more assumptions in order to claim it opposes freedom when it doesn't, the only way it does is if you define freedom by your specific standard which you never defined and from implicitly interpretation is almost certainly incorrect. That aside that's an ad hominem attack, it holds no basis in argumentation and is purely used to undermine me personally especially when none of my personal character had anything to do with what I said. And bringing up the settlers is at best a red herring, it has no relevancy to the argument. The argument had nothing to do with the colonies as colonies. Also as an aside logical argumentation does not pertain to what I hold true and dear. "I do have something kind of positive to say... you are an equolent speaker, which doesn't make your speeches more right but makes them more manipulative and thus appearing more valid." I care not for charisma, I only care for truth, none of what I say is manipulative, you didn't answer of the things I asked of you and you assumed much more. Your worldview as explained so far is not remotely valid from a logical standpoint and the more you deflect, the more I desire to say its invalid. You still have no responded to my arguments. "I am no such equolent speaker sadly at least not yet and especially not in a language I'm not native in." The capability to type capably like I do has nothing to do with being a native speaker, I just naturally like to speak with a wide and varying vocabulary and spend a lot of time debating people otherwise. I love debating with people who oppose my views and have sharpened my perspective by the whetstone of ideological opposition. I was given a gift of being capable of receiving this manner of speech, and I appreciate the gift hence why I use it. "I have argumented a lot before and as such I know futher trying to debate will not get futher with this kind of communication. I wish you all the best and have a great life. Bye. Then you have not debate much with someone of the opposition, nor do you have a decent methodology for debate. You arguments were full of fallacies and faulty reasoning, and even more did not address any of what I had said, most instead being hand-waved. A decent man would debate for the truth, foremost, or at least would think critically, but you did not even ask questions, you have mostly assumed and ruined your sides capability. If you want to debate, you need consideration and to respond appropriately.
1
@jennyh4025 "we do not lack any rights. According to our constitution we are allowed to do anything we want - as long as it does not hurt or endanger others." You don't have the right of free speech, you don't have the right of free expression, you don't have the right to self-defense, nor do you contain the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, these are inherent rights which your Constitution does not support. Your ideal of hurt and endangerment includes speech as violence, which it is wholly incapable of committing, no, you don't have any rights. And your Constitution is not absolute. "All laws have to be reasonable, otherwise our highest court will say „that’s not okay, that does not follow the constitution, take it back, make a new one“." Reasonable according to your definition is relative and fabricated, a reasonable law would be punitive, not preventative, that is what the origination of laws were designed to do. Authoritarianism is what you get when you make a law preventative. "Just take the current rules trying to keep the COVID-19 numbers low." Irrelevant, the numbers regarding a virus have no relevance in the establishment of rights, in fact shutting down an economy for the sake of the "people" is immoral and a flippant disregard for the rights of the people. "What do you think, why do people follow and only very few protest? Because we got a reasonable explanation why we should follow the rules and not just an order." Still immoral, a people should be allowed to dissent with their government without being demeaned and undermined. But Germany has a strict authority that ignores the right of the individual. If you are incapable of speaking Nazi propaganda in public then you are not free and you have no rights. "Every single rule made up by the local and federal government has to restrict our freedom as little as possible." If its restricting freedoms, then you don't have rights, a right is the lack of restriction of a right, a right is not something granted to you by government, its something already existing, the government doesn't give rights. "So why do you think we don’t have freedom in Germany? Because there is a law that states it’s illegal to deny on of the biggest horrors ever done by humans when denying it hurts so many and goes against the very first article of our constitution? I do count the dignity of dead people to be as inviolable as a living person’s dignity." The dead are dead, they don't deserve the treatment of the living first off, worship of the dead, respect of the dead, consideration for the dead, they are all worthless, those who do so are committing immoralities of their own, the dead are but dirt for the tree, dust to the wind, nothing more. And the inability to say as you will in publc and to think as you please in public, if you don't have the capability to do this you are not free, you have no rights, and even more people will find ways around this and thus the hate speech laws must expand to encompass more and more otherwise legal speech until it controls the dialogue entirely, this is what happened in Germany already. Hate speech is free speech, otherwise you are not free. There is no getting around this, the government no right to tell you what you can and can't say, only a fool believes the powers that exist will not be used against him soon enough. Yet you also believe in democracy, that's a contradiction, the changing tides of politics even without a revolution proves you wrong, the Nazi used that exact system against the people, so it will happen again so long as you give such unlimited power to your unrighteous authorities. I have the right to offend you, you don't have the right to tell me what I can say. "And thanks to our election system we are less in danger to be ruled by a dictator than the USA." You're a goddamn retard then, the electoral college is the first of multiple steps to ensure a dictator can not happen, where Germany does not have any of this. First is the elector college, which ensures that only those capable of becoming President and lacking in authoritarianist ideals can not take charge. Next up is the branches of power which disallow any specific group of people from being capable of more then one specific thing. Then is the state's power which has the right to overrule the federal government. And lastly is our right to bear arms, if the government feels the need to oppress its people, we are given the authority to overthrow it and refresh the Constitution. This has lasted longer then Germany's system and does not enable a dictator to ever take power. It is a more effective opposition against tyranny then any other system ever devised for the people themselves have the right to ensure the system succeeds and are obligated to ensure that. "In Germany there is no electoral college, but the popular vote counts and everyone of the age of 16/18 (depending on the election) is allowed to vote (no need to register, you just need to live somewhere and follow the rules on that)." I don't see how a popular vote (which the Nazis used to get into power I might add) is anymore effective at ruling the people then a king, democracy is just the capability to buy votes with money nobody has and to justify taking the rights of the minority away, which always happens. In the US it is declared a state's right to pick the President, but if a state makes a rule about how the President is picked that is a good way to be overthrown, already happened in 2 states. (one by election, the other by revolt, and yes, our right to bear arms has already been used to do such) "A political party can also be „closed“ when they propagate things, that go against our constitution." Immoral and not free, that is a flippant abuse of rights, Nazis have a right just as much as anyone else and they should be allowed to do as they please if they aren't causing any actual violence (only physical harm is violence by the way, you don't get the change the definition of violence) "We have a political system, that more or less prevents one-party-ruling and things like gerrymandering...." You have no idea what gerrymandering is then. And you have no idea how the US works if you think it has any effect on our national political system. No gerrymandering has nothing to do with our national standard, and not every state has a problem with gerrymandering, generally only the left wing states do.
1
@jennyh4025 "wow, you had to go back to name calling, how impressive!" You have no idea how to debate and understand nothing of logical fallacies, trying to debate without any skill is just a fact, I call you what you are based on what you do and how you act, use some skill and thought and I won't criticize your behavior. "And you are right, if I can’t use hate speech, but am allowed to express myself in every other way (including constitutional rights to freedom of press and human rights) I don’t have freedom! (I hope you were able to read the sarcasm)" You are enslaved, you aren't free, you don't have rights, you have privileges, and they can and will be taken away from you, free speech is a hard line, once you sacrifice hate speech, there is no limit to the limitations of speech a government will impose on its people. You can't expect the government to continue to agree with your ideology and neither can you expect that government power won't expand, it never decreases willingly and you never oppose them, and you gave them the keys to silence state criticism, which is already starting to happen. Authoritarians are blind until the boot of tyrants are upon their necks, that is what I call brainwashing. "By the way, we are allowed to have firearms, the rules to get a license are just more strict than in the USA, just like for getting a drivers license." If you can't own them unrestricted, then you can't own them, if you have to tell the state why you want one or what its purpose is for, or that the state needs to authorize your ability to carry, then you can't own one, a privilege is not a capability, a right is not a privilege. And you are still incapable of overthrowing a new age Nazi regime. "And hate speech (all hate) encourages violence and is against the constitutional rights of others, which is why it can be punished, when brought to charges." Speech is not violence, hatred is not violence, you can't justify oppression of divine rights by the claim of offense, encouraging violence is not violence, until acts are made, there is no violence to exist, you anthropology and deontology is wrong and inconsistent. It also promotes oppression and underground revolts, banning a specific topic does not solve nor diminish the power of that topic, you merely make it more elusive and and dangerous, they're more likely to become violent as a result, and that ideology will never die, persecution strengthens an idea. Also all governments are wholly incapable of regulating and controlling society or reigning the people, from prohibition to banking to economics, its been proven over and over again that finite authority does not win against its enemies, and only oppresses the law abiding citizen. This is how tyranny gains power, and why Germany is such a rats nest.
1
@jennyh4025 "According to your logic it should be legal to steal or kill anyone and anything, because it would otherwise restrict your rights." Strawman fallacy, twisting what I say to be too ridiculous to defend so that you can make arguing with me easy is not a valid argument and anyone with half a brain would recognize this is extremely stupid, its not even worth retorting against. (you have proven you have no argument and can't defend your immoral ideology) "please stay in the USA and never ever go anywhere else!" Then pay for your own defense, get your own legal ruleset, and stop stealing from the American hegemony. I can go as I please, no government can hold me accountable, they hold no sway on me and I bow to no Earthly kings, and that is how I will continue to live. Your power is weak and worthless.
1
@jennyh4025 "I may be held accountable for lying about one of the biggest atrocities in human history, but at least I know I can protest peacefully without having to fear police brutality." Lies are no violence, it doesn't matter what the lie speaks of, there is no justification for a government to control what the people say so that they may not lie or manipulate the truth, if you give that power to the government then the truth is whatever they dictate it to be. This is what Orwell wrote 1984 about, this is literal newspeak, do the Germans even know of Orwell? Do you know of Huxley? I am seriously curious because this isn't the first time a Orwellian ideology has been made so blatantly in regards to the German government. Also the government isn't a god and neither is democracy, it will fail again, because it is made by man, and it will commit atrocities again and again because mankind will always resort to evil. Also I haven't ever worried about police brutality and if I felt it was a problem worth protesting (which it really isn't statistically, nor from any other objective standpoint you could pull from) I'd have the capability and would protest on it without fear because I feel no threat from man, foremost because I am with Christ, but also I don't go anywhere dangerous without at least one gun, enough rounds to ensure someone is dead, and a dagger. They can't threaten me unless they want a few bloody holes. Also our cops don't attack people, they're not racist, and they're are so few cases of police being brutal that more people are killed by sharks then unjustifiably by cops. (and holding a gun to a cop is a good way to enter that statistic, play stupid games, win stupid prizes) Now on the other hand I'd be concerned with a cop busting down a man's door without knocking because a politician told him to, but that's not my problem, outside of pointing it out it doesn't effect me. And besides, that only happens in cities that are trying to follow European doctrines regarding firearm ownership.
1
@shadowscreamer1 Which one? (also apologies for me messing up some grammar, I was sleep deprived writing most of it)
1
Makes you question why they'd go out of their way to silence ideas of Nazism, the warzones, and debate the points that the Nazis brought up that were valid even if implemented against terribly behind if the governments of Germany didn't believe it was a German fault. And to be honest, Germans were likely the only collective group that could come up with Nazism, aside from the fact it glorified Germans and made very particular analysis of false history and culture to do so, its take on the "Jewish Question" that it had was not a uniquely Nazi philosophy, but a rather common German one, (granted many people's despised the Jews, but the German philosophies had a different methodology and justification for it) and its overall philosophical structure and nihilism/fatalism and apathetic nature of reality was a uniquely German philosophy. The fact these philosophies are still incorporated in some manner in Germany more then any other nation also makes Germany still uniquely susceptible to similar ideological battles that can't be seen in other nations by direct contradiction of commonly accepted social values. Regardless Germany goes too far with censoring truth and speech, especially since free speech is the perfect opposition to bad ideas, granted you can carry a gun, so maybe Germany was doomed from the start.
1
@NothingtoseeHere.Movealong "I'll admit that we don't have complete freedom of speech here, but then again what is restricted is specifically Nazi ideaology and calls to incite violence," Doesn't matter, Nazis are humans that have rights as well. They have a right to be a Nazi and say what they want, a call to action is also mostly covered under free speech up. Also if I remember correctly, even video games that merely depict Nazi iconography or Nazi adjacent iconography gets unjustly banned. That's just purely evil. "Even then, the government is, atleast in my opinion, a bit too exact on what symbols are bannes, with many a neo-nazi at demonstrations using the Hitler salute with a clenched fist or using saying 88 in clear reference to "Heil Hitler" to get around being ounished while clearly representing Nazi Ideaology(Ideology?Excuse me for my incorrect writing)" You can't capably ban speech because people will find new ways to circumvent a ban, the underground and evil will continue to exist regardless of ban, correction required ideological opposition, not legal opposition, it doesn't stop them. And government can't go far enough without doublespeak and newspeak, 1984 is the only result of such manners of authority. And I'm completely fine with a Nazi doing as they please, allow them to be public, we can argue with them and if they start acting violent, we have self-defense justification to shoot them, beyond that they should keep their rights because they are human. "But what interests me more is your statement that the government shouldn't dictate morality. I agree with you that it shouldn't be dictated, but the general population agrees with the sentiment of forbidding the spread of Nazism and Holocaust denial. Is that still the government dictating morality? " Yes, for two reasons, one the government teaches you that morality in schooling and through propaganda, and also the government can not justly dictate what is and isn't said by the people through a moral standard, it is not a moral arbiter and should not be able to dictate moral demands no matter what the people want. This is because we also don't believe the people define morality, we know this because we think the Nazis, Communists, and Fascists wrong, which you can't consistently do unless you believe in an objective morality beyond the people. This aside the government is incapable of figuring out moral standards just as the people can not define a moral standard. And lastly the government is an authority irrelevant to the people, a democracy does not determine society and society does not determine a government. In fact they are more in opposition then anything. But too many people like to treat the government like a Mother. I see this as immoral especially since it gives power to the government to do as it pleases without oversight. "Unfortunately I'll have to disagree with the statement that ideas will go unopposed if banned, referring partly to my first paragraph," Except they don't because you can't argue with them without breaking the law. You can't consider their opinions and experiences and you can't be kind to them, which allows them to spread in the underground without opposition. And both sides can and will use the government's claimed authority to try and undermine the other in lieu of actually debating. "with those groups often finding loopholes to still present their ideology in public." You don't argue against them, you can't and feel no need to if you ban them, but you must in order to oppose tyrants and authoritarianism. "Furthermore, discussion on those topics,specifically nazism, are heavily encouraged in school, as shown in the video." "Discussion" by opposition and dictation is not discussion nor debate. "Admittedly, yesy the teachers of course will try to convince you that Nazism is not a sound ideology or evil, you're still free to make up your own mind." Being able to think what you want does not mean anything. Also that does not teach critical thinking nor does it encourage debate and intellectually consistency and honesty. "Lastly, most likely due to not entirely believing in this democracy and being similarly cynical about the nature of humanity as you are, I honestly wouldn't mind people who believe in Nazism or in general fringe extremists on the left and right to commit crimes and to ostracize them from society, and to use violence on against them." I do because I believe in the rights of all men to be equal, and that the fight of ideals can battle in the public square without sacrificing reason and truth. I also don't believe any speech nor ideology is equal to violence, and that only an individual can commit violence. I don't believe either that its the government's job to bulldoze and clear the way society and its offense. I believe it is the right of the individual to stand responsibly, and if that is not held to strong, then regardless of the government, the society will fall. "And yes, I know I sound extremist myself. And I am. Extremist pragmatic centrist.(Yes, I am aware of the centricide meme. Hilarious, look them up yourself, can only recommend them)." I'm a Christian libertarian, I believe God has given each individual the right to act for himself and decide for himself. This also means each life has the right to their own autonomy alone, I vehemently oppose government intervention in all things for I don't believe a legitimate role of government is to be a preventative measure, merely a punitive one. This leaves the individual as the truly preventive measure, that is the right to self-defense which the American 2nd Amendment ensures. (which also protects the right to liberty, which opposes tyranny and invasion as well, and ensure the other rights absolutely) A society which stands without Christ shall too fall to chaos. I'm a radical and take no quarter for this ideology and yet I will always attempt to act with compassion and consideration, out of respect for human life and the divine rights. I believe no man is good and hence why no man should be able to hold almost any power. "And lastly, Germany is a Wehrhafte Demokratie/defensive democracy, which means we won't accept opinions that oppose democracy, and I'm fine with that" Not free, also democracy is not an ultimate good, just because a methodology or ideology is accepted does not mean its right. Often times democracy can and will be used to oppress the minority because there is no morality for it not to. Also democracy was never designed for nation states and anyone who uses them for it are stupid, they were designed for city-states where each individual is engaged and capable of understanding the issues, it was meant for a highly intelligent capable society where free thought is allowed, a nation state is incapable of preserving this, and even in its time democracy was questioned as the most optimum method of rulership, hence why the Roman Republic was founded as it was.
1
@RavenLuna89 "This is a very American thought process though." Actually no, it was devised principally before the establishment of the US, (in Great Britain, France, and the HRE) the US adopted it because it was the first totally independent nation with an opposition to a ruling authority, being one of the first nations founded after the Enlightenment. That however does not mean the mindset is unique to the US nor that its purely designated for the US or its people. Remember Voltaire wrote his biggest stuff before 1776, (in which he did write on the absolute value of free speech, often being paraphrased, He was French) he died in 1778, only two years after the Declaration of Independence was signed in the US. He was dead for a whole decade before the Constitution or its Amendments. "This is the foundation of our 1st Amendment which is Freedom of Speech." Its also not based on Americanism, it was based on Christianity, the principle being that all men are giving divine rights, and that the Constitution upholds this for those citizens validated by the nation state. "We are losing our 1st Amendment our right to speak openly and honestly so I dont think it's very fair for us to criticize the German government if our own people are trying to suppress thought at the moment, especially with big tech companies suppressing us the most." This is a massively unfair statement, you can't claim by being oppressed at home means you can't argue regarding oppression in anywhere else, that's a logically vapid argument. That aside I don't really believe you have a right to free speech regarding the internet, my issue with it comes down to government interventionism which allowed this to happen in the first place, they have many government provisions that enabled them to easily monopolize the environment and take it over and they were also given legal qualification to manipulate the legal framework so they can't be prosecuted, once again the fault of government. Remove both these issues and they lose everything instantly and competition can return. "I understand what you are saying because I am 1st Amendment absolutest but we have to secure our own rights that are currently under threat before we can lecture other nations about our ideas that are no longer considered sacred to ourselves." Massively inconsistent here, I can criticize any government for having problems regardless of what my government does, by this metric, France and the UK aren't allowed to even question the American hegemony nor having overseas troops in places like Afghanistan or Iraq. I am not bound by the standards of my government, they aren't my God and the only power they can hold on me is power that I give them. Also what do you think happens when you allow the infringements of the 2nd Amendment? Regulating and restricting the right to bear arms opens the door to the regulation and restriction of every other right based on subjective measure. There is no justification for this and this logic is foolish and flawed at best. "We have to recognize that we are the only nation that holds these values and need to learn where to draw the line." I'd rather not because that's not what the values are designed to do nor is that even remotely true, every major nation that has a Constitution to this day stole or based it on ours and cherrypicked the elements of our values to do so. You can't do that, that's why Europe is such a mess of stupid nonsense and one of the many reasons why I will berate them. You don't get the concepts of rights established for a nation state without US existence, and everyone else failed because they still don't understand all the nuance and checks that the US provides. Where it took centuries to undermine the Constitution, it took less then a few decades to oppress Germany multiple times. (even with a Constitution) This aside we can't start from the principle that a nation is free if it does not uphold the right to say as you please for any and everything you wish to say, and that's an important point to be made, you are either free to do that or you aren't free at all, you don't get both, there is no spectrum. That is what freedom is. "It is not our place to tell Germany what to do and I will loop this with why do we have 36k American troops in Germany currently today 7/29/2020." It kinda is since they stole so much from us in terms of values and ideology now, we even forced them to adopt two Constitutions based on ours, we've already done this twice at least, its like how the Jews told Christ "we've never been enslaved" you don't get to just say that and get away with it. That aside I actually have nothing against having trooped in Germany, my problem is Europe is a economic and political deadweight that won't carry its share and expects us to do everything for them. If they want that then they should be forced to follow our dictations, otherwise they should defend themselves. No nation should get NATO and to do what they want, it should be our way or the high way. "We have zero business being in Germany, we dont have German troops in America and we have zero business telling Germans what to do." Already explained why this is a bogus methodology, also if they want American military might, they need to follow our rules. I also don't really like the idea of American militarism, I'd rather argue for citizen militias only, but nobody cares, personally I'd rather let Germany fall to Communism again if its gonna steal from us and contribute nothing tho. But if its gonna steal from us and get advantages from us, it needs to be what we say. I don't see an argument otherwise. "If they want to Censor people that is on them, we need to worry about our own censorship 1st." Why not do both? You're not saying very reasonable things, I don't think you know what you're even arguing. "We need to stop worrying about the world and let other nations be other nations and worry about ourselves," We're directed not to do this, both from a Christian methodology and by word of the founders, who believed in American isolationism, but also believed in American rebuke of failed European institutions, that's why they still criticized Britain and France despite being isolationists. "if something pops off like what is happening in China. Fine, I totally get that let's go do our thing and then go home." That's not consistent, also just start a bunch of individual PMCs and volunteer militias, they'd easily be able to wreck China, its a paper tiger anyway. "But policing Germany or any other nation that is not a direct threat to us is ridiculous at this point. We need to learn our own boundaries." You don't have a consistent worldview and also you don't know what you're arguing about nor have any philosophic, historical, or methodological basis for your opinion, Germany is not free, it does not get to claim that its free, and those who try to push it need to be corrected and explained what freedom is and how it can be ensured, also they have no right to steal our values and doctrines, claim them for their own, and act like they have a free society that they don't have.
1
@NothingtoseeHere.Movealong "Please don't see this as an attempt at being adversarial, I'm just genuinely interested in your reasoning and beliefs." I generally don't mind nor care about it, all I really care about is truth and righteousness. "To your first response, in the German Grundgesetz/Constitution the right to free speech has asteriks'(what's the plural of asteriks?), so legally there is basis for denying them the capability of espousing or glorifying Nazi ideology( sorry if I repeat myself)." Yeah which is problematic for two reasons, one it required oppression of a people that will by necessity be expanded, and two the German Constitution, as with all major national constitutions, rips a lot of the US Constitution and values off without understanding the meaning and purpose behind them nor applying specific logical reasons behind any aspect of it. This result in its failure to mean anything comparable to what the US Constitution means. (which gives us a right and duty, and even tells us, to overthrow a tyrannical government) And my arguments around of course pertain nothing to the current legal or moral standards set by the German government, I believe in standards superior to a world government. "There is also a significant difference to a call to action and calling for or inciting violence, which as far as I know is also disallowed by the American constitution." Actually no, calls to actions and inciting violence are still covered under free speech even in the US, there is a problem of selective application of this standard in some cases, however if no action (as in violence) is taken then there is nothing that can be done. As a result I can tell people I'm gonna kill them in public and I can't just be jailed for that. However I'm way more absolutist on that and so were the founders, that standard has been twisted rather far. "And yes, video games, movies or media that depicted specifically Nazi iconography have been banned or altered to comply with german law," The fact it could and did happen is the problem. "but over the last few years the ministry responsible for that has become a lot less zealous and stingy about it." Cool but its still at the behest of the "Ministry of Truth" so I find it abhorrent. "Nowadays most media can portray Nazi iconograph aslong as it doesn't glorify the Nazis or portray them as good guys." Very easy to abuse, also still oppression of a people. They have their rights to produce, say, and do what they want if it doesn't infringe another person's rights. "To your second and partly your third paragraph, there is both legal and ideological(thank you for the correct way to write) opposition, with pro-Nazi/extremist right wing demonstrations often being met by a larger number of counter-demonstrators with those confrontations remaining for the most part peaceful." Doesn't sound like argumentation nor debate on a local scale though, being able to protest doesn't mean much and personally I actually kinda despise protesting and "demonstrations" because they mean very little and mostly get in the way of the average citizen, you shouldn't need to demonstrate for anything because just showing up to a house of politics and threatening them with a right to bear arms should be all you need to tell a government what you think of something. Counter-demonstrations and non-government targeted protesting is stupid and contributes nothing. Also "far-right" is a worthless term, by its claims I'm very far-right, but I'm not an identitarian, I just merely believe the government is the worst representative for interventionism and preventative measures (and also terrible with finances) and that while promoting liberty I also highly promote traditionalism and Christian moralism. I mean at least its peaceful unlike Antifa. "A greater risk I think is allowing those fringe groups to publicly speak their mind, with the danger being that their exposure and presence on discussions and debates will be disproportionately larger than it should be due to their fringe nature." What? There is no risk, bad ideas lose in the public sphere, they require oppression to ensure in the public sphere which is how Nazism became acceptable and then required in the public discourse. This does not happen if you can debate bad ideas and prove their evil, that goes all the way back to Martin Luther proving it again after continuous suppression. People don't just adopt ideas because they hear them, and if you give people real facts, most people tend to accept moderate position unless forced otherwise. And if you have the capability to defend yourself being forced stop beings a problem. "Also allowing them onto the political stage runs the risk of seemingly legitimizing them." No, this is a massive fallacy in the argument against free speech, you do not (and nobody thinks you do) legitimize an idea just because it is unrestricted, Count Dankula has a perfect video that deals with free speech and this is one of the arguments he debunks. Freedom does not and never has constitute support nor legitimization. "Unfortunately the possibility of shooting them is quite low in Germany, due to different self-defense laws and more stringent control on access to guns(although I'd love the opportunity to plink through some of my 8mm Mauser)." I find this a more evil methodology actually because it treats them as less then human, when they are human by all rights. No one should be harmed for what they say and nobody should be attacked no matter what they believe. In fact I love them just as much as I love you because they are endowed with divine rights because they are a man. As well all men are evil and deserve a fate worse then death, no one is good, no one is redeemed, if pure justice was served the Nazi, me, and you, we would all serve eternity in Hell, but because we don't just believe in pure justice, we can't apply this standard to anyone and thus should apply it to no one ourselves, for it is not our judgement. "And I guess you're referring to Universal Human Rights?" And no, I'm referring to divine rights established by the Christian doctrine, which the Constitution recognizes and upholds. These rights establish that all men are spiritually equal and deserve equal justice in their depravity, but by love and mercy are spared, and thus we are given opportunity to be saved, which is also a reason why we are given reason and logic even if the man version is flawed and incomplete. "For your third paragraph: Is any information gained through school propaganda and morality training then? " When it comes to government provisions, yes, government provisions are never based on the benefit of the people, its based on the desires of the government. "That incendiary question aside:We're for the most part confronted mostly with just the objective information of the time, and alot of visual media, ranging from Nazi-era propaganda reels and movies to various pictures taken by correspondents, journalists and soldiers from all sides of the war. (You'd be surprised by how many Germans still think that the Highway was a Nazi-initiated infrastructure programm)." Objectivity can not be known nor is it true in schools. Even if they teach you some truth in school, it is always biased towards the current government and victors. "We are allowed and in some states it's even mandatory to read Mein Kampf(with the caveat that it is commented, but the main text remains unchanged). Of course the teachers will somewhat try to instill their own morals and opinions on the students in this context, but for the most part we're left to make up our own minds." Mandatory reading is stupid and problematic, also having notation for it is extremely stupid. Its not that hard to teach critical thinking using Mein Kampf as an example without any notation, especially since the book constantly undermines its own arguments. And of course if you have any economic, political, historical, or ideological knowledge, its extremely easy to point out how stupid Hitler actually was. Also I don't like the idea of the teachers teaching morals and opinions on students. "I'd like to think this promotes what is considered critical thinking, also I'm unsure when it comes to the semantics of 'critical thinking'" It really doesn't, critical thinking is developed by understanding logic and reason, fallacies and logical consistency, the principles of logical debate are the basis of critical thinking, you don't need a book to teach it, you could use it for an example or reinforcement of critical thinking skills, but reading it in such a biased (and yes, its very biased which harms critical thinking) way does not promote critical thinking.
1
@NothingtoseeHere.Movealong "I still think that especially in a democracy the morals it 'dictates' or adheres to are reflective of and decided by its population, with people who are considered immoral not being elected into offices. " You don't consider that true by direct opposition to Nazism, you can't argue that the people establish the morality because if you do that then you have no justification for what is moral in another country (or even in history) and can't criticize anyone. As an example you are not allowed to criticize Female Genital Mutilation in another country. You can't stand on a moral platform saying Nazis were bad and then also say morality is determined by democracy. We all know it isn't, if a democracy decides murder is okay, that doesn't make it morally okay. The people do not decide the morality and its foolish to act like we can do that. You have no standard of morality if you do. "Furthermore, I, for my part do not believe in the existence of objective morality, primarily due to the vast breadth of morality systems that exist," Then Nazism can't be wrong in your eyes. This is called cognitive dissonance, you are holding two contradictory ideas at the same time, you can't claim there is an evil that must never be allowed to happen and that morality is subject to the desires of the people, if the people decide what is evil then if the people decide murder or genocide is good, then it is not evil. A society of relative morality does not stand and hence why no society truly believes in relative morality. "although it remains a concept I wish were true." It is, and there is demonstration of it, we already know in our hearts what is good and evil, (as its a gift to know) and by the doctrines of Christianity I stand on I can say absolutely that evil is defined very specifically and particularly and that all men are evil and none are in fact good. That being another reason I will reject moral democracy. (and also why I reject general democracy too) "Morality seems to me be more of a social conteact and aet of rules that people set themselves so as to have a functioning community, atleast that's what antropology leads me to believe." Which isn't true, those taught that philosophy don't understand the nature of man nor are they given experience in the doctrines of moralism. The reason morality exists is to guide the individual to be more righteous and just, and to know how depraved all men really are. That's the purpose morality, to know our depravity. As an extension is enabled kindness and consideration which enables us to deal with each other fairly and honestly and protect ourselves from those who wish to cause us physical harm. "I also believe that the main reason for Nazism and Communism being widely considered immoral nowadays is primarily due to the fall of these systems from government, and not due to beinh inherently wrong." That's not what was said after the war, that doctrine only really came about in the later part of the 20th century and the reason you couldn't do that is because morality is not determined by relative acceptance, we know to a certain degree what is moral because we are given a glimpse of that standard naturally, but without the doctrines of Christ, you can't even understand yourself nor why those systems exist. "Who knows, if Nazism somehow survived as the reigning ideology in Germany I would have very different views(although i probably wouldn't have existed anyway)." It would survived longer because it was designed to outlive Communism, and China is actually Fascist proving that Fascism will always outlive it, also Franco Spain is another good example. (tho it was less Fascistic then China currently is) "Going to a much later paragraphs of yours, you say that all humans are equal, so shouldn't you theoretically oppose ideologies such as Nazism that definitely do not give all humans equal rights? Well, I guess they do to what they define as human." By humans being equal (in spirit) that means all men should be left capable of saying and thinking as they please, they have the right to be what they want and say what they want. Even if they promote ideas of supremacy or oppression over other humans, they have a right to do so. My opposition is to treat them as a man and inform them about the truth and problems with their ideology. "And in my experience there are many ideologies that expouse violence as the way to their goal, be it wanna-be Red Army Faction, neo-nazis, fundamentalists of various religions or other extremists. I think we can all agree that organizations such as ISIS or the Lords Revolutionary Army should be seen as having non-violent ideologies. And who holds the individual responsible, if not the community through the government?" Individual responsibility is under purview of the individual, and no community can be held responsible for the actions of an individual alone. Even those speaking on violence need not be considered if we have the capability of self-defense for no longer can they enact force and violence for a means without push back. (which is why the smart ones take over the government and push gun regulations) "I'm a bit unfamiliar with american definitions of some ideologies. What is libertarianism(did i spell it right?) I know it only so far as to that it's more on the conservative side of the traditional political spectrum and that there are some Republican Representatives that say they are Libertarian. On a sidenote, may I know which branch of Christianity you follow?" Libertarianism in the US is defined more in support of Government Non-Interventionism, and often the abolishment of almost every government authority in the US, most especially economic. Instead we believe that the individual is the only subject capable of operating an economy and society, and that government is wholly incapable at every level of doing so, including at the regulatory level. Most Libertarianism believes in the idea that our government should be limited in scope, taxes, and control over import and export, and should only be capable of a very specific set of systems, usually being immigration/citizenship, tariffs (maybe), and a singular flat tax, and maybe a currency. In many case Libertarians in the US may not align with conservatism or traditionalism because the idea is purely a socioeconomic principle for government behavior, not necessarily a social doctrine. However there are a large amount of traditionalists, especially Christian traditionalists, that reside under some Libertarian principle because of their belief in the rights of the individual and the supremacy of the free market over the government regulations. (especially with how much draconian regulatory power the government has added to it in the past 60 years, our healthcare is one of most overregulated things in the world, more then any western nation, and it makes it totally non-competitive) As for my branch, technically I'm a Presbyterian, but in reality I'm really just a very hardline Non-denominational Calvinist. "While I general share your distaste of democracy due to the necessity of everyone being engaged in politics and not falling prey to demagogues and the need for an educated population was already stated by Plato for Athens, what would you suggest as an alternative? Benevolent dictatorships?" I say a Constitutional Citizen Republic, the expectation is that it will only work for so long if not refreshed in blood, but there is no other manner to eradicate tyranny and ensure the rights of the individual. Personally I'm fine with a libertarian theocratic (as in its understood that the head of state is a representative of God, not that he enforces "God's will" on his people by his decree) monarchy where the people can carry any weapon (or vehicular weapon) and say what they want, but that type of freedom is frowned upon, and in time even that system would fall apart without the doctrine of Christ. "Furthermore, democracy didn't even work out for city-states either, with most of te classical examples of Greece being replaced by oligarchies or monarchies. And the Roman system of appointing a dictator almost never went well, with most instances plunging the republic into civil war or terror, but I get your point" Yeah, its human systems, as Jefferson said, "Liberty must be washed in the blood of patriots and tyrants" but I believe if the citizenry is given capability to defend itself and the responsibility of the society, then of course we can achieve this, it will only fall apart when the nation falls away from the truth.
1
@NothingtoseeHere.Movealong "I would humbly suggest that much of the American constitution was based heavily on the English one." Not really, the US operated under English law and legal speak, but the Constitution as implemented had nothing to do with the English documents other then inspiration, specifically relating to things like the Magna Carta, but there are no documents that you can point to that define more then inspiration of the American Constitution. The entire document stands on its own. "US Constitution were already in english legal documents." No English document enshrines the rights of every citizen or individual, and none of them recognize inalienable rights to all men being divine in nature. The closest you get is the Magna Carta and that only pertains to Lords, Nobles, and other specific land owners. "it's quite arrogant of you to name other nations as nonsensical messes." I don't think I said nonsensical messes. I don't see it as arrogant anyway since its just plain fact. "And just from a historical perspective, the Weimar Constitution was mostly impressed on Germany by the Entente powers, with alot of somewhat forced input from America, so you can't entirely put the blame on us." I put the blame partly on the American government which I have always had a problem with, and the French and British government has always been made of retards. But the American government even at that time didn't actually believe in the American values, but it is still true that it was based on the American Constitution that was cherrypicked. "Furthermore, if the US Constitution was so finely made, how come Amendments had to be made?" The Constitution was made so to establish a ruleset for states to be able to rule themselves and agree to immediately, the Amendments were designed while the Constitution was being written so that nobody could alienate the rights of the individual after the fact, but they needed a document that explained the rules and process of rulership over the states and how it was to be organized and what it held as its ultimate value first. Hence why the Amendments were written. It was also to allow rules that all the states agree to carry as much power as the Constitution. However the Constitution was designed to both validate and work alongside the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) from the start. "Reading a bit further in your response, saying that we 'stole' ideologies or constitutions" Those are two different things, I never said anyone stole ideologies, but it is made clear that European powers stole the idea of our Constitution, most prime example being France where a lot of European Constitutions were even more directly based on. (which was an entirely cherrypicked version of the US Constitution) "the one for the Bundesrepublic though is distinctly self-made, without interference from the Allied nations that time (considering what a mess the first one was)." Self-made doesn't mean it didn't try to reflect the US. "Furthermore, you're arguments for Europe being a political and military deadweight are also msotly due to American startegic interests." I don't think I called it a political deadweight, but they don't spend that much on the military, which is unjustified since it means our taxes don't even slightly go to our benefit anyway. "Continued American interest in NATO was/is to maintain strategic depths, power projection capabilities and to curb the influence of other global powers." Eh, kinda. "We are also collectively your biggest trading partner, so maintaining cordial relationships seems to be in everyones interest." Honestly trade value doesn't really pertain to nation relations, as China can attest to. Especially if you adopt a free trade policy. "What just startles me is the decision to move the US headquarters for Eurooe out of Germany. All the infrastructure and facilities are already here, why move most of the personnel to new bases? Just fiscally seems weird." The American budget is already beyond anything regular people can pay back, at this point money in our government's eyes doesn't exist. "Also NATO doesn't have a mandatory percentage of GDP that members have to pay for defence expenditure," Actually that is 2% of GDP, it goes unenforced, but the treaty does outline it as 2%. "so your argument saying that Europe doesn't pull it's military weight is also unfounded." Even if the expenditure wasn't in treaty documents, if its paying less then its percentile budget and resources into the alliance, it would still not being pulling its own weight. "If anything, the NATO alliance has mostly served as a form of legitimization for american-led wars through an international alliance." Eh, I guess, NATO on that front is being abused, personally though I don't believe in state alliances anyway.
1
@NothingtoseeHere.Movealong "Oh, don't worry, my plinking comment was meant in the case of self-defense only, as you said😅" Fair enough, still its a bit off to talk about in a manner that nears targeting, was a bit confusing to read. "And in regards to relative morality, I am fully aware that I then don't have any 'real' basis for saying that other people's beliefs are evil except for my opinion, but that is all I need." The acceptance of inconsistent worldviews creates social collapse overtime, this is what the removal of moralism has done, because there is no consistent framework for action and ideals which in turn allows anyone to devise their own and try to attack the society. And without an objective standard, you have no justification for authority. And people aren't capable of establishing this for themselves. "I can still criticize the moral systems of others and other countries, even if they in their sense of morality are doing nothing wrong. I do not feel the need for an absolute assurance in my morality system." Using an inconsistent worldview its intellectually dishonest and does not pertain to a reasonable outlook of the world, and a pragmatic argument doesn't cover most forms of morality, and none without an objective standard. Even Nietzsche tried to do this and failed, it drove him insane, and from a logical standpoint within a moral framework you simply can not devise one otherwise. And I feel more secure knowing I have a hardline capability to define what is and isn't moral, it makes it easy to life and know when I am acting in the wrong and when I am acting in the right, I do not question my actions and there is no ambiguity, I (and others) are either in the right in which I will quite literally die for the righteousness, or I am in the wrong and I accept my fallibility and depravity. There is no middle ground. This also enables me to quickly and readily act consistently to any problem or question thrown my way. And if I ever need to question that morality, I question the standards I have individually, which are once again proven to be upheld objectively, and further clarify wisdom and knowledge on the subject. This is what objective morality has given me capability to do, I need not make a single hard decision because all decisions are weighted as either moral or immoral. As well I do not need to question the existence of my morality and have a consistent standard to rebuke others from. (especially without fear inconsistent changing standards that) "And there have been several societies where murder/killing of others was not seen as a moraly objectionable thing, but rather is encouraged. I think if one grows up in a system that encourages such thinking, for example Nazism, your sense of morality might be different." Without an objective moral standard, you can not consistently criticize this, but with the standard that I believe in, I am not only capable of this, nor am I only demanded to stand up, I am even left capable of upholding truth and justice. "I've grown up in a culture and enviroment that has deemed such actions immoral and including my own thoughts and research on the topic so I believe it as such as well. Even the most 'monstruos' of people will believe themselves to be just figures, and according to their sense of morality they might be, even if the majority of people disagree. I do not claim that my sense of morality/moral platform is the only 'true' one, it's just how I see the world." I don't declare my sense of morality as the standard, I declare there is a power above me that has established the rules and told us already what is moral and immoral, and this has even left those who were properly adhering to that morality to realize how much of a monster they were and turn against it. There is no other moral standard that upholds this as a core tenet, though there aren't even any other moral standards that see humans as evil and incapable of good and still puts itself out there to save it. But I would say better not to argue for moral relativism, there is no logical argument you can make to justify it once you start down that road. And besides its not even how any nation lives, the existence of any intersecting laws points to an objective moral standard that's already been de facto accepted, which actually was the Christian moral standard in the west. "Thanks for sharing your denomination, I'll have to read up on presbytarianism. In general I'm unfamiliar with alot of the protestant denominations." Presbyterians can vary a bit more then many other denominations, but generally they are much more true to the Bible then Methodists, Pentecostals, and sometimes even the Baptists, but it does still sorta depend on the leadership. "Hm, would you consider yourself a deontologist regarding moral philosophy?" I don't think honestly I could, this is just a common topic that most true Christians will end up arguing that they need to know how to deal with it, especially with how flippantly prevalent moral relativism is. It doesn't tend to promote very intelligent discussion because as soon as moralism gets brought up, the relativism shuts it down with the claim that "you're standards don't apply and can't apply" as if that argument makes any sense. I'd consider my approach to this be more theological and doctrinal in nature, and most of it isn't really my words, I merely report the Words of God and what he speaks for on the topic. I mean Paul talks extensively on these type of topics, moral relativism is even addressed particularly by him. And that's just a snippet of all the things the Bible says on so many subjects people never realize it addresses. "Edit: Either way, I think we have come upon an impasse, with our differing beliefs in regards to the absolute nature of morality. Still thank you for the discussion. It was quite interesting, if at times somewhat insulting" I don't think I have, but this tends to happen with relativists. And this isn't really that distinct from a debate, politeness is unnecessary in the argumentation of reason and truth and only hinders discussion.
1
@Mr-Trox Actually tbf, military psychology in the sense of training someone to not be a person didn't much exist before the Victorian era, like Rome never really promoted the idea that they were less then human to their soldiers, instead they just got their soldiers to disregard all human life.
1
Its not even blood money, its quite stupid that people get offended over the selling of Mein Kampf.
1