If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
As for the point about 21st century dictators, Robert Mugabe anyone?
I hate that fucker.
It's estimated 20 million people died under Stalins rule.
Lets face it, if Hitler didn't suddenly go nuts and invade half of Europe and kill the Jews he'd be looked on as one of the greatest leaders ever. Stalin just pissed on his own people and didn't fuck all for the USSR.
:yeees:
You're misunderstanding me...if that wasn't a philosophy of his Nationalist Socialist party they'd be very successful. Of course there'd be more ready to step in.
Dictators don't resign! They usually either die in office or are forced out by revolution.
Idi Amin (Uganda)
Merigistu Haile Mariam (Ethopia)
Hissine Habre (Chad)
Daneil Arap Moi (Kenya)
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone)
Paul Kagame (Rwanda)
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
Isais Afewerki (Eritrea)
Yoweri Museveni (Uganda)
Gnasimbe Eyadema (Togo)
Mobutu Sese Seko (Congo)
Jean-Badel Bokassa (Central African Republic)
Good book on the subject: "African Dictators - The logic of tyranny & lessons from history" by Arthur Nwankwo
For the most part, the major world powers have done very little, or in some cases, nothing, to counter these evil dictators who have impoverished their people and in some cases committed genocide.
What the fuck are you on about? Seriously. Where have I said anything that's contradicted that?
Hitler was a megalomaniac, there's no disputing it.
Nope, not totally. What I'm saying is that if those aims weren't a part of his ideology he would be a very good leader.
Have you not read what I said? I said if those things weren't part of his ideology he'd be a very successful leader. Stalin was just a cunt. In all respects.
close thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
A big difference.
Or intolerant whining horseshit from a liberal bigot and idiot.
Same difference.
Or to put it another way I agree with the views one and don't agree with the views of the other.
Freedom of speech and conscience either cover odious opinions (and comparing Bush to Hitler is pretty odious as well in my view) or it's worthless.
Or would you take action against them (legal or otherwise)?
If they named an individual Catholic Piest - they'd better have strong evidence...
The bigot it -
You are a liberal fascist. Your views are obstensibly moderate, but you insistence that everyone holds them, or ones that are so close to them as you can be comfortable with means that you are actually truly intolerant.
The idiot bit refers to your inability to see that this is the case.
You have no belief in freedom whatsoever, advocate (state) violence to get your own way and are generally a loon with no morals.
Did you see that? :wave:
You make things up as you go along or simply misinterpret and twist things to suit your extremely warped world.
You claim there is 'violence' and 'theft' everywhere where none is to be found.
You don't even fucking know what a fascist actually is and wouldn't if he came and kicked you in the balls. :rolleyes:
It is entirely futile to discuss any real world situation with you since not only you claim that there is not such thing as psychological harm (or that it's the victim's 'fault") but you believe such absurdly stupid notions as ''there is nothing wrong in trying to shoot somebody so long as they keep missing the target''.
In short, you simply are quite, quite mad.
Now kindly fuck off.
I don’t think the two cases are that comparable. The teacher said “Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say, we’re the only ones who are right, everyone else is backward and our job is to conquer the world. Now I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they're not. But there's some eerie similarities to the tones that they use.", and then invited the class to disagree with him. His students say he’s a teacher given to exaggeration and hyperbole when he tries to stimulate debate and get the class thinking, so in that context I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what he said.
I think the professor in Leeds has got a right to free speech as well, he’s got a right to give interviews to newspapers to put his view across, he’s got a right to publish his views in books, and he’s got a right to travel to the USA and speak at white supremacist rallies there, and he’s exercised all those rights.
If, as a consequence of him using his right to free speech, the students of Leeds University decide they no longer wish him to be employed as a professor there, what's so terrible about that?
But what difference is there between you objecting to someone claiming you were a child rapist, and people objecting to some other cunt claiming black people are less intelligent or worthy, when it's all a load of bollocks and nothing more than racist rubbish?
There's no difference in my mind. There is such thing as freedom of expression. But there is also such thing as slander, abusive terms and unnaceptable lies. We can't have it both ways. Either we accept a total freedom of expression where people can call other cunts and rapists and murderers even if it is not true, or we don't accept others saying that people of other races are less worthy when it is not true.
Not at all. There are abstractions, and there is the real world. Abstractions aren't real, and the real world, is of course, real. Any basing of a system, be it thought, or actual construction that is based on abstraction over and above reality will be either useless or simply not as good as one that IS based on the real world.
This is why you onsistently come out with guff, advocate violence against people you don't like and are detached from reality in general. Your probably not a bad person, you just have a very faulty view of the world.
Describe to me a single thing done by the government that isn't either direct violence or paid for by threats of violence. Name a single thing done by the government that isn't paid for by taxation and describe me to the factual differences between theft and taxation.
Unfortunately you always look for content, and disregard process. The process of saying I am right, you are wrong and have no rights is where facsim begins. It's not where it ends, and you probably think it's the specifics of the last fascist regime that was in power somewhere. Because as i said, your kind of stupid.
As opposed to a pschotic who sees things that aren't there, advocates theft and violence ona daily basis, and places abrstarctions over the real world.
Well, thanks Freud. :rolleyes:
Hmm so offending people is bad but it's ok if it's you doing it?
Hypocrite.
There's a difference in my mind between claiming something about a named indivdual and suggesting its a group. Same as I think there's a difference between someone saying that they don't like Blacks and someone saying I don't like them and I'm trying to arrange a lynching party.
Also where do you stop. I personally find it pretty insulting that virtually everytime Private Eye says 'Ulsterman' it puts 'dour' in front of it. And I'm not a massive fan of some of the comments people make on anyone who joins ther army asbeing either apyschotic or a misfit. But I'm not sure that we should stop people saying this.
We may think that what people say is odious and wrong, but its a slippery slope when we start stopping them saying it. With slander and incitment to hatred we've already gone someway down that slope (which I'm quiet happy with) I'm not convinced we know to go any further down.
freedom of speech never annoys me
gives me a chance to backchat, and correct them for all their stupid mistakes