Home Politics & Debate
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.

fascism anyone?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    I don't think its wise for addicts to have children while struggling with a drug problem, no.
    The rest of your list is silly, totally different things.


    So do you think it should be prevented by law?

    And why are the others silly? Surely someone who can't make a rational, informed decision can't be expected to vote in an election, for example?

    Addicts aren't addicts for life you know. :rolleyes:



    I was under the impression that once you are addicted to something, even if you quit it, you are still technically addicted to it since you cannpt use that same substance/phenomenon/act again without retaining control. Hence why alcoholics don't drink once they've "gone dry" and smokers don't smoke after they quit, etc etc
    While there are some studies that suggest that there may be a genetic component to addictive behaviour, that is a very different thing to saying that addiction is hereditary.



    Of course I wasn't suggesting that every child of an addict will become addicted to something themselves, I was just saying its an established trend.
    Doesn't bother me. I bet theres a few disabled people who would have something to say to you on the matter as well.
    Who are you to judge who is disabled/deformed and who isn't. Slippery path to fascism that

    I wouldn't judge, those people who were disabled or qualified doctors would, since I don't have comprehensive medical knowledge.

    And as I pointed out before, it isn't fascism you're talking about, its eugenics.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    So do you think it should be prevented by law?

    And why are the others silly? Surely someone who can't make a rational, informed decision can't be expected to vote in an election, for example?

    They're silly because being sterilised/having children is very different. They are permanent things. If you can't see the difference...
    Originally posted by carlito
    I was under the impression that once you are addicted to something, even if you quit it, you are still technically addicted to it since you cannpt use that same substance/phenomenon/act again without retaining control. Hence why alcoholics don't drink once they've "gone dry" and smokers don't smoke after they quit, etc etc

    You'd be under a false impression then.
    Originally posted by carlito
    Of course I wasn't suggesting that every child of an addict will become addicted to something themselves, I was just saying its an established trend.

    Really? News to me. Environment is a much bigger factor than genetics.
    Originally posted by carlito
    I wouldn't judge, those people who were disabled or qualified doctors would, since I don't have comprehensive medical knowledge.

    Why do they have the right to decide what the is acceptable and what isn't? Its morally repugnant.
    Originally posted by carlito
    And as I pointed out before, it isn't fascism you're talking about, its eugenics.

    Belief in eugenics is a very common strand of fascist belief.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    They're silly because being sterilised/having children is very different. They are permanent things. If you can't see the difference...

    .

    Well voting for a government last for 5 years, and voting in certain governments can have very permanent effects.

    You'd be under a false impression then.

    Ok, care to show me some kind of evidence to the contary? I thought this was a fairly established medical view.

    Really? News to me. Environment is a much bigger factor than genetics.

    Yes, I didn't say it wasn't, but anyway its irrelevant because the parents constitute a large part of the environment of their child.

    Why do they have the right to decide what the is acceptable and what isn't? Its morally repugnant.

    Because they are the people with the greatest and most precise knowledge on suffering

    Belief in eugenics is a very common strand of fascist belief
    So what? Thats a 5 year old's argument.

    Belief in a controlled economy is a very common strand of fascist belief, but I think you'd get laughed of any serious political discussion if you suggested that if you believe in a controlled economy you're a fascist :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    Well voting for a government last for 5 years, and voting in certain governments can have very permanent effects.

    The difference is that there is no monetary incentive.
    There is also another difference, but I'll leave that one for you to figure out.
    Originally posted by carlito
    Ok, care to show me some kind of evidence to the contary? I thought this was a fairly established medical view.

    There are different models of addiction, certainly (look them up). But my opinion is that some people can control their drug use after having an addiction. That is a personal as well as professional opinion.
    Originally posted by carlito
    Yes, I didn't say it wasn't, but anyway its irrelevant because the parents constitute a large part of the environment of their child.

    Children in care? Children brought up my extended family?
    Originally posted by carlito
    Because they are the people with the greatest and most precise knowledge on suffering

    I'd have thought that the people to ask would be the disabled people. Its no one's right to make those kind of decisions.
    Originally posted by carlito
    So what? Thats a 5 year old's argument.

    Belief in a controlled economy is a very common strand of fascist belief, but I think you'd get laughed of any serious political discussion if you suggested that if you believe in a controlled economy you're a fascist :rolleyes:

    Read some history. Specifically Germany in the 30's and 40's. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    The difference is that there is no monetary incentive.
    There is also another difference, but I'll leave that one for you to figure out.



    Nomonetary incentive invoting for government? Why the hell do you think most people vote?
    There are different models of addiction, certainly (look them up). But my opinion is that some people can control their drug use after having an addiction. That is a personal as well as professional opinion.

    Yes of course people can control their drug use, but like I said they're still technically addicted. Whats your profession?

    Children in care? Children brought up my extended family?

    Whats the point in flinging up a couple of exceptions? Unless your advocating putting all children born to drug addicts into care or forcing the "extended family" to bring them up, these are irrelevant.


    Read some history. Specifically Germany in the 30's and 40's. :rolleyes

    O...k.....What exactly are you disputing with my point here? That fascism doesn't involve control of the economy? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    Nomonetary incentive invoting for government? Why the hell do you think most people vote?

    Hopefully to help make life better. Doesn't work though.
    Originally posted by carlito
    Yes of course people can control their drug use, but like I said they're still technically addicted. Whats your profession?

    No, they are not technically still addicted. I work in drugs counselling and rehab btw.
    Originally posted by carlito
    Whats the point in flinging up a couple of exceptions? Unless your advocating putting all children born to drug addicts into care or forcing the "extended family" to bring them up, these are irrelevant.

    Because your argument is absurd.
    Originally posted by carlito
    O...k.....What exactly are you disputing with my point here? That fascism doesn't involve control of the economy? :confused:

    *bangs head against wall*

    I haven't got time now, I'm about to go out. But arguing in favour of eugenics shows fascist tendencies IMO.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta



    *bangs head against wall*

    I haven't got time now, I'm about to go out. But arguing in favour of eugenics shows fascist tendencies IMO

    .

    Well it may demonstrate fascist tendencies to you, but it doesn't make someone who advocates it a fascist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    Well it may demonstrate fascist tendencies to you, but it doesn't make someone who advocates it a fascist.

    Its a very close call.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i'm an ex heroin addict. EX... i don't go along with the current medical view that once an addict always an addict. these views change with the wind.
    i have produced a pile of kids who are all hard working and sucsessful. they smoke a bit of weed but their families and carears and in once case, property speculations come first. if anything, because of my addiction they won't go near the stuff. they are well balanced adults.
    heroin addicts believe it or not are perfectly capable of thinking straight most of the time. if i could perform now the way i performed as an addict i'd be almost unstoppable in business or whatever.
    i was a well off addict on the whole but if desperate i would willingly have had my nuts removed for 200dollars!
    this idea is outragous.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    >>>Eugenics is a seperate thing from fascism (although the two can be intertwined). Its not that its particulary important, I just get irritated with everyone calling everything and everyone nazis or fascists.

    Eugenics originated in America, the "Land of the Free" actually.
    Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide. During the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany's program. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists. Once WWII began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia to genocidal murder. One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in the program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was Josef Mengele who continued his research in Auschwitz, making daily eugenic reports on twins. After the world recoiled from Nazi atrocities, the American eugenics movement — its institutions and leading scientists — renamed and regrouped under the banner of an enlightened science called human genetics.

    http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    >>>Really? News to me. Environment is a much bigger factor than genetics.

    This is preposterous.

    >>>Why do they have the right to decide what the is acceptable and what isn't? Its morally repugnant.

    LOL morality. There is no such thing as objective morality. Progress should not be subordinated to this relic of theology either.

    >>>Belief in eugenics is a very common strand of fascist belief.

    You are obviously quite ignorant of fascism as an ideology. There are various forms of fascism. Its a mistake to equate National Socialism with Fascism, eugenics especially. Eugenics was by far more widespread in the UK and America for decades than in mainland Europe which rushed to "catch up" with the West.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Heydrich
    >>>Eugenics is a seperate thing from fascism (although the two can be intertwined). Its not that its particulary important, I just get irritated with everyone calling everything and everyone nazis or fascists.

    Eugenics originated in America, the "Land of the Free" actually.



    http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

    LMFAO!

    Go away, BNP troll.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    quote from the article...."We don't allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children,"

    You could always replace the words drug addict with 'jew', 'gypsy', 'Person in poverty', 'brown eyed person', 'black person' 'dyslexic people'


    thats why this kind of programme is wrong and it is exactly what the Hitler regime tried to do!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about short sighted people? being short/far sighted is a birth defect, will those be neautered too?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    >>>Go away, BNP troll.

    Sure thing 'dawg.'

    >>>You could always replace the words drug addict with 'jew', 'gypsy', 'Person in poverty', 'brown eyed person', 'black person' 'dyslexic people'

    A world without Jews, gypsies, persons in poverty, dyslexic people, blacks. . . . in essence. . . a world looking better by the day.

    >>>thats why this kind of programme is wrong and it is exactly what the Hitler regime tried to do!!

    This kind of programme is exactly right, that is, if we actually wish to substantially improve the quality of life in the world in which we live.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A world without Jews, gypsies, persons in poverty, dyslexic people, blacks. . . . in essence. . . a world looking better by the day.

    I feel sorry for anybody who's racist... it shows weak-mindedness and above all, fear.
    This kind of programme is exactly right, that is, if we actually wish to substantially improve the quality of life in the world in which we live.

    How will this make society change and improve? (I ask again)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    >>>I feel sorry for anybody who's racist... it shows weak-mindedness and above all, fear.

    Actually, just the opposite is true. To enunciate such a politically incorrect position is not a sign of 'weak-mindedness' in the slightest, but intellectual independence and strength. The notion that such a position is traceable to "fear" is also preposterous. It is nothing more than liberals projecting their own thoughts onto the positions of others. Liberals FEAR racialism and eugenics because it undermines their humanitarianism, their ridiculous notion that all people should be liked regardless. Above all, it is a projection of the irrational liberal fear of authority, which all varients of liberalism presuppose.

    >>>How will this make society change and improve? (I ask again)

    Compare the old South Africa and the old Rhodesia to the hellholes those countries have become today since blacks took over. Virtually all of Sub-Saharan Africa is an immiserated, impoverished, disgusting wasteland and it is that way because of the derth of general intelligence in those backward archaic populations. If we colonized that entire area with white Europeans, as we did South Africa or Rhodesia, we could lay the foundation of a superpower on that continent. We wiped out the indians and aborigines to build Australia and America, two first world nations. The world is much better off for it as well. We should extend this great principle to the Southern Cone of Africa.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually, just the opposite is true. To enunciate such a politically incorrect position is not a sign of 'weak-mindedness' in the slightest, but intellectual independence and strength. The notion that such a position is traceable to "fear" is also preposterous.

    Sure it is, racist people, are afraid of change in most instances, or are hateful of other people because of trivial things such as skin colour. Hatred shows a weakness because people are unable to accept the existance of others in their own little world. Hate springs from fear and fear is the inability to accept a certain element of life.

    'Tis how I see it.
    It is nothing more than liberals projecting their own thoughts onto the positions of others. Liberals FEAR racialism and eugenics because it undermines their humanitarianism, their ridiculous notion that all people should be liked regardless.

    But liberals are entitled to their own opinions too and it's because these people have opinions that facists fear them, as they want change for an equal society (in my opinion). Why should all liberals fear racism? Whilst I'm not really a liberal myself, I know many of them who're white and who have nothing to fear from racism.

    As for their humanitarianism, people have died for that, which makes them plenty braver than somebody who goes out with a group of thugs to kick the shit in to some poor black lad. Another thing I've noticed about racists from my own experience, they work in packs whereas the humanitarian is noble enough to stand alone and take the blow.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Heydrich
    >>>You could always replace the words drug addict with 'jew', 'gypsy', 'Person in poverty', 'brown eyed person', 'black person' 'dyslexic people'

    A world without Jews, gypsies, persons in poverty, dyslexic people, blacks. . . . in essence. . . a world looking better by the day.

    >>>thats why this kind of programme is wrong and it is exactly what the Hitler regime tried to do!!

    This kind of programme is exactly right, that is, if we actually wish to substantially improve the quality of life in the world in which we live.

    This looks like incitement to racial hatred to me. Something which is illegal in the UK and for which the site owners could be prosecuted for.
Sign In or Register to comment.