1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe1) Your epistemic framework is utterly puerile if that's the conclusion you draw. Grow up.
Does this mean you also support the old Nazi ideas in a new jacket of "lives not worth living", presented and advocated on this site by Bbarr ?
2) It seems Bbarr is only a Nazi by virtue of his disagreement with you, his position (ignoring the fact that it is in opposition with yours) is tenable, non-contradictory and not in the slightest bit backed by the same nationalist fervour, unnatural manipulation and downright hatred that the Nazis used. Grow up.
3) As to agreement, whilst I am unfamiliar with the extent of Bbarr's argument, the likelyhood is that I share many (if not all) of his views. I do not presuppose my considerations on either a belief in magic, or the prescriptions of dogmatists. Your constant claims to a 'culture of death' are exaggeratory and unjustified by anything other than your faith.
4) Your conduct is as repulsive. Calling someone a Nazi because they disagree with you over a subject, and a subject on a debating forum at that, is appalling. Not to mention that it followed a perfectly unassociated post concerning a very sensible opinion on love.
Please get off your sanctimonious high horse and act like a reasonable human with reasonable opinions for once.
Originally posted by StarrmanI agree. Ivanhoe is a pathetic creature. The hoe doesn't have any intention to debate this topic constructively (which would require him to actually present considered argument). He is just interested in bringing slander:
1) Your epistemic framework is utterly puerile if that's the conclusion you draw. Grow up.
2) It seems Bbarr is only a Nazi by virtue of his disagreement with you, his position (ignoring the fact that it is in opposition with yours) is tenable, non-contradictory and not in the slightest bit backed by the same nationalist fervour, unnatural manipulation ...[text shortened]... sanctimonious high horse and act like a reasonable human with reasonable opinions for once.
Thread 68106
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI present historic facts in that thread. Philosophers are not used to that.
I agree. Ivanhoe is a pathetic creature. The hoe doesn't have any intention to debate this topic constructively (which would require him to actually present considered argument). He is just interested in bringing slander:
Thread 68106
If you call presenting facts slander then I wonder who is pathetic.
Originally posted by RagnorakRagnorak: "I don't like your blatant bigotry against Islam and non-white people, .... "
I don't like your blatant bigotry against Islam and non-white people, ......
I don't like people who constantly try to fabricate accusations against me and repeating them without actually showing that these accusations are true.
Show the alleged bigotry on my part against Islam and non-white people with quotes of mine ánd references please ! ....
Start a thread and prove that you are right .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd I say again it seems Bbarr is a Nazi only in virtue of his disagreement with you.
It seems you didn't read the thread dealing with the subject, wherein I present the historic facts.
"First they came":
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68106
3 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanBbarr also doesn't wear a Nazi uniform and he doesn't speak German. So what ?
2) It seems Bbarr is only a Nazi by virtue of his disagreement with you, his position (ignoring the fact that it is in opposition with yours) is tenable, non-contradictory and not in the slightest bit backed by the same nationalist fervour, unnatural manipulation and downright hatred that the Nazis used. "
I'm talking about his ideas about "Lives not worth living" and his ideas about the moral permissibility to kill disabled people. I compare them to the Nazi-ideas ("Lebensunwertes leben" ) during the twenties, thirties and early forties of the twentieth century and detect striking similarities.
Furthermore I'm looking for an explanation why now, same as then, the "progressive" part of the intellectuals agreed with those ideas. They didn't have any fundamental objections. Same is the case now.
Again, please read the thread "First they came ..... ":
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68106
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanYou haven't read the relevant thread "First they came ..... "
Calling someone a Nazi because they disagree with you over a subject, and a subject on a debating forum at that, is appalling. Not to mention that it followed a perfectly unassociated post concerning a very sensible opinion on love.[/b]
You simply got the facts wrong including the reasons why I made the comment on Bbarr's hypocritical "Love&We" post.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have read it, and no I didn't, your post is utterly off-topic.
You haven't read the relevant thread "First they came ..... "
You simply got the facts wrong including the reasons why I made the comment on Bbarr's hypocritical "Love&We" post.
I'm not entering into a discussion with you about how Bbarr's ideas relate to Nazis for two reasons:
1) Plenty of people have plenty of things in common with Nazis. Eg: moustaches, a like of black clothes, they speak German. Even in the ides market this is true: National identity is important, so to are discipline and public order. None of these things makes those people a Nazi.
2) The motivation behind the actions of Nazis was hatred, insecurity, a desire to dominate, and we could generally consider their morals to be ill founded and disgusting. Bbarr is none of these, his ideas are reasoned, do not sanction hatred, misdirection or the removal of rights. He does not support the extinguishing of human life for the cause of a national identity.
In short, and thricely, Bbarr's position is a Nazi in your eyes only by virtue of your disagreement with his views. I have alerted all your posts in which you suggest he is a Nazi as it is a vile pernicious and appalling thing to suggest.
Originally posted by StarrmanWell done Starrman i applaud you !!!
I have read it, and no I didn't, your post is utterly off-topic.
I'm not entering into a discussion with you about how Bbarr's ideas relate to Nazis for two reasons:
1) Plenty of people have plenty of things in common with Nazis. Eg: moustaches, a like of black clothes, they speak German. Even in the ides market this is true: National identity is im ...[text shortened]... in which you suggest he is a Nazi as it is a vile pernicious and appalling thing to suggest.
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanStarrman: "Bbarr is none of these, his ideas are reasoned, do not sanction hatred, misdirection or the removal of rights."
I have read it, and no I didn't, your post is utterly off-topic.
I'm not entering into a discussion with you about how Bbarr's ideas relate to Nazis for two reasons:
1) Plenty of people have plenty of things in common with Nazis. Eg: moustaches, a like of black clothes, they speak German. Even in the ides market this is true: National identity is im in which you suggest he is a Nazi as it is a vile pernicious and appalling thing to suggest.
.... but they do entail the removal of rights, the Right to Life. Exactly my point.
You didn't read the relevant thread.