(July 12, 2014 at 6:46 pm)Losty Wrote:

(July 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm)Blackout Wrote: I've done my research and critical thinking, I've concluded capital punishment is neither acceptable nor effective as crime deterrent, therefore my only choice is to manifest against it. But I'll admit some States might have so high crime rates that the death penalty is a necessity.

The death penalty is never a necessity and I don't think it lowers crime rates at all.

I completely agree. I'm tired of populists over europe wanting to bring it back. They all cheer and want violence and mass executions old medieval style. It sickens me.

(July 12, 2014 at 9:25 am)Blackout Wrote: What if I told you that there are people from the old regime that still like fascism, and letting these ideas be promoted freely could drive the majority of the population in support of fascism? Better not take chances. They can be underground and discuss their ideas all they want, but they won't have a chance doing it publicly. Sure you have a point when you say we could expose the dumbfucks, but what if our (ignorant) population liked these dumbfucks? What would we do now?

If I were you I'd move, because ideology doesn't bow to laws. Personally, I think those ideas are so hoary that they are easily dispatched in the discussion they'd certainly arouse. And if they have the critical mass to silence such a discussion, you'd best move.

However, the idea that restricting a polity's speech is an expansion of their freedom is silly.

(July 12, 2014 at 9:25 am)Blackout Wrote: It's your opinion...

Of course. This is a disucssion.

(July 12, 2014 at 9:25 am)Blackout Wrote: By the way, freedom of thought is absolute, my professor said well that we could all be fascists on the inside, we can even declare we are fascists in public, we simply can't promote by showing a positive side of it, I'd rather have things like this.

Quote:I think the greater good is served by allowing freedom of speech. I don't see point out the positives that may have arisen from a system as "promoting" it, insofar as its negatives are also discussed. In the case of fascism, the positives (higher employment by improved infrastructure and defense spending, mainly) are so obviously outweighed by its negatives (loss of freedom, and perhaps even life) that such a discussion would have a deep effect on waverers. The diehards will not change their minds, sure, but by not vocally demostrating their fallacies, you leave the public unequipped to reply to them.

[quote='Blackout' pid='706471' dateline='1405171501']And about the absence of action, promoting something is an action, the action of promoting.

Your unquestioned premise seems to be that discussing fascism is promoting it. I think that premise will not withstand questioning; we discuss Christianity constantly without promoting it, here.

[quote='Blackout' pid='706471' dateline='1405171501'] Absence of action being punishable would be if someone was sentenced to jail for being merely a fascist, only with an action can you get punished, that's the most basic requirement of the system, and propaganda is an action, whether it is trough speech, headlines or papers. This is not the only promotion crime, there is also crimes of promotion of suicide, promotion of murder (telling people to murder others), promotion of hatred against races (saying people blacks are inferior and incentive of violence)

If those crimes such as inciting to murder and other violence are committed, they are already prosecutable. Banning speech simply because the speaker is a fascist and wishes to promote his political system is not an expansion of freedom; it is a reduction of it.

(July 12, 2014 at 9:25 am)Blackout Wrote: You can think individual liberties should prevail all day long, but if you talked with someone who was arrested and tortured for being a protester against the fascist regime, they'd tell you clearly this prohibition is a requirement. Let alone the German case of nazism they took it very far indeed, maybe too far.

I lived in Iran for four years under the authoritarian regime of the Shah Reza Pahlevi, and I witnessed first-hand its repressions of the Iranian people. I find the idea of destroying freedoms in order to defend freedom to be laughably short-sighted, because once you have established the principle that freedoms can be abrogated for the "right" reasons, the only thing left is determining who gets to decide what is right. Trusting the government to not abuse that power is to me naive in the extreme, given the fact that governments have a tendency to abuse any power they may have.

Your opinion is, to me, unconvincing. You would not want anyone telling you what you could and could not espouse. You should extend that same respect to even those with whom you disagree.

As far as the NaZi regime, they certainly took it too far. One of the ways they managed to do that is by outlawing speech they found uncomfortable. Another example, from the other end of the spectrum, would be Stalinist Communism. Both systems stand as warning signs to citizens, that they abandon their essential freedoms at their own risk.

---

(July 12, 2014 at 2:41 pm)Blackout Wrote: I don't think so. The problem is europe still has a big nazi heritage, people underground that share the ideals of nazism and fascism [....]

That would seem to imply that laws banning hate speech and pro-fascist sentiment aren't particularly effective, considering how many European countries have had such laws for so long.

---

(July 12, 2014 at 3:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Grand Duchy of Tuscany abolished the death penalty in 1786. The Europeans have been at it a long time.

Perhaps some day the US will finally mature....although I have no hope for Texas.

I know it's trendy to bash my home state, but there's a good amount of us working to change it. The condescension of others may help insofar as it fuels our drive to spread reasonability, but it's a little galling all the same, thanks.

Now pardon me while I go hunt up some paint-thinner ... I think I just got swabbed by a broad brush.

Quote:If I were you I'd move, because ideology doesn't bow to laws. Personally, I think those ideas are so hoary that they are easily dispatched in the discussion they'd certainly arouse. And if they have the critical mass to silence such a discussion, you'd best move.

However, the idea that restricting a polity's speech is an expansion of their freedom is silly.

Firstly, there is some heritage, but the majority of the population isn't fascist. Secondly, the purpose is to make security prevail. Dispatched? Do you really think so? Have you heard of populism? It tends to work during crisis. If propagated correctly, fascism could (even using another definition to put aside the prejudice associated with the word 'fascism') influence a large majority of the population. I'd like to see if americans started liking dictatorship ideals thanks to propaganda, destroyed the government trough revolution and made an authoritarian constitution. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it... The problem here is not only the government, but the people, usually fascists are common people that start rising while spreading ideas.

Quote:I think the greater good is served by allowing freedom of speech. I don't see point out the positives that may have arisen from a system as "promoting" it, insofar as its negatives are also discussed. In the case of fascism, the positives (higher employment by improved infrastructure and defense spending, mainly) are so obviously outweighed by its negatives (loss of freedom, and perhaps even life) that such a discussion would have a deep effect on waverers. The diehards will not change their minds, sure, but by not vocally demostrating their fallacies, you leave the public unequipped to reply to them.

You'd be surprised by the amount of people I could convince that fascism is a good idea, and I'm not a fascist. It's extremely easy. The idea is to avoid propagating ideas so that less people become fascist. In america it works better because of territorial dimensions. I live in a country that is probably smaller than New York, it's too easy for such ideas to spread vigorously. We had a party called the national front, they were nationalists but not fascists, or at least they said... The party was made illegal after.. Why? Because their members were jailed, accused of murders and other violent crimes against gays and black people, drug trafficking, sexual exploitation, they were members of nazi brotherhoods all over europe, and of course with all members arrested the party had to end. And I will repeat something you may have not read, this isn't solely a national prohibition, it's implicit in the EU policies, the EU doesn't like fascism (even though I sometimes suspect they are fascists of some kind), the EU likes democracy and human rights, any EU member that allowed fascism would have to restrict it or they would bail out immediately

Quote:Your unquestioned premise seems to be that discussing fascism is promoting it. I think that premise will not withstand questioning; we discuss Christianity constantly without promoting it, here.

Discussing fascism is not promoting, you are free to discuss fascism, did you even read the argument? Propagating actively is punished, not debating it or talking about it

Quote:If those crimes such as inciting to murder and other violence are committed, they are already prosecutable. Banning speech simply because the speaker is a fascist and wishes to promote his political system is not an expansion of freedom; it is a reduction of it.

It's reduction for the common good. And the main focus is not about free speech, but prohibiting fascist parties and associations (and racists, nazis). I never say there wasn't a reduction, but if we felt all rights unrestricted there would be immeasurable collisions and conflicts

Quote:I lived in Iran for four years under the authoritarian regime of the Shah Reza Pahlevi, and I witnessed first-hand its repressions of the Iranian people. I find the idea of destroying freedoms in order to defend freedom to be laughably short-sighted, because once you have established the principle that freedoms can be abrogated for the "right" reasons, the only thing left is determining who gets to decide what is right. Trusting the government to not abuse that power is to me naive in the extreme, given the fact that governments have a tendency to abuse any power they may have.

Damn, you really didn't read the argument did you? Please go read the article 18 I presented from my constitution, that clearly stops the government from taking away our rights, restrictions are allowed exceptionally if they threaten a common good. And what's right is defined in my constitution, it's not up to the government to decide, if they disrespect the constitution, they can be fired by the president. The constitution is clear in it's exceptions, the prohibitions I mentioned being some of them, and is also clear that human/fundamental rights must never be taken away, and there are no restriction to those, so your argument to 'not trust my government' largely fails. And it's truly naive of you to make your point without reading the restrictions and guarantees constitutions in europe have. Do you really think europeans were dumb enough to not predict slippery slope? Of course they weren't, we have rights to protects us from exaggerated restrictions.

I will repeat this, the emphasis is not on restricting a specific right, but on banning anything that promotes going against human dignity. Human dignity is clearly defined in the constitution and those articles are unchangeable by revision. So there is no way for the government to turn things against us, we thought very well on how to deal with this. If the constitution praises human dignity, there is no reason to allow people to promote behavior that is against the most basic constitutional principles. And the constitution is not subjective to acceptance, you may disagree with it's content, I partially disagree with some things, but you have to accept it as a fundamental law.

Quote:Your opinion is, to me, unconvincing. You would not want anyone telling you what you could and could not espouse. You should extend that same respect to even those with whom you disagree.

I tolerate people thinking differently, I don't tolerate them promoting violence, against me or other people. Tolerating the intolerant could lead to an intolerant society that doesn't tolerate the tolerant. Think about it

Quote:As far as the NaZi regime, they certainly took it too far. One of the ways they managed to do that is by outlawing speech they found uncomfortable. Another example, from the other end of the spectrum, would be Stalinist Communism. Both systems stand as warning signs to citizens, that they abandon their essential freedoms at their own risk.

Misunderstood. I wasn't talking about the nazi regime, but about German's restrictions after WW2, they consider human dignity sacred. They went as far as banning a laser tag game for simulating murder, something I consider too much

(July 12, 2014 at 9:53 pm)Blackout Wrote: Firstly, there is some heritage, but the majority of the population isn't fascist. Secondly, the purpose is to make security prevail. Dispatched? Do you really think so? Have you heard of populism? It tends to work during crisis. If propagated correctly, fascism could (even using another definition to put aside the prejudice associated with the word 'fascism') influence a large majority of the population. I'd like to see if americans started liking dictatorship ideals thanks to propaganda, destroyed the government trough revolution and made an authoritarian constitution. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it... The problem here is not only the government, but the people, usually fascists are common people that start rising while spreading ideas.

You're right, I wouldn't like it. The difference between you and I is that instead of lending the idea a rebellious cache by outlawing its expression, I'd speak out against it, which is what we typically do in democracies.

Quote:You'd be surprised by the amount of people I could convince that fascism is a good idea, and I'm not a fascist. It's extremely easy. The idea is to avoid propagating ideas so that less people become fascist. In america it works better because of territorial dimensions. I live in a country that is probably smaller than New York, it's too easy for such ideas to spread vigorously. We had a party called the national front, they were nationalists but not fascists, or at least they said... The party was made illegal after.. Why? Because their members were jailed, accused of murders and other violent crimes against gays and black people, drug trafficking, sexual exploitation, they were members of nazi brotherhoods all over europe, and of course with all members arrested the party had to end. And I will repeat something you may have not read, this isn't solely a national prohibition, it's implicit in the EU policies, the EU doesn't like fascism (even though I sometimes suspect they are fascists of some kind), the EU likes democracy and human rights, any EU member that allowed fascism would have to restrict it or they would bail out immediately

I have no problem barring an operational party that encourages or supports the violation of laws on the books barring violent crime etc.

I don't like the idea of shutting up the expression of ideas out of fear. I think the best antidote is reasoned argument, perhaps coupled with mockery and/or humorous scorn.

I understand the EU not wanting member-states adhering to a fascist national model, and I have no issue with that either. I am discussing the limitation of the right of individuals to freely express themselves.

Quote:Discussing fascism is not promoting, you are free to discuss fascism, did you even read the argument? Propagating actively is punished, not debating it or talking about it

I may have missed that, and if so I apologize.

Quote:It's reduction for the common good. And the main focus is not about free speech, but prohibiting fascist parties and associations (and racists, nazis). I never say there wasn't a reduction, but if we felt all rights unrestricted there would be immeasurable collisions and conflicts

I never argued for unrestricted rights. That's a strawman representation of my point.

Quote:Damn, you really didn't read the argument did you? Please go read the article 18 I presented from my constitution, that clearly stops the government from taking away our rights, restrictions are allowed exceptionally if they threaten a common good. And what's right is defined in my constitution, it's not up to the government to decide, if they disrespect the constitution, they can be fired by the president. The constitution is clear in it's exceptions, the prohibitions I mentioned being some of them, and is also clear that human/fundamental rights must never be taken away, and there are no restriction to those, so your argument to 'not trust my government' largely fails. And it's truly naive of you to make your point without reading the restrictions and guarantees constitutions in europe have. Do you really think europeans were dumb enough to not predict slippery slope? Of course they weren't, we have rights to protects us from exaggerated restrictions.

I came late to this discussion, it's true. I opined about what I consider to be an unhealthy restriction of the freedom of speech. I wasn't opining about your constitution directly, but simply one particular element of it.

However, I stand by my opinion that trusting any government is dangerously naive.

Quote:I will repeat this, the emphasis is not on restricting a specific right, but on banning anything that promotes going against human dignity. Human dignity is clearly defined in the constitution and those articles are unchangeable by revision. So there is no way for the government to turn things against us, we thought very well on how to deal with this. If the constitution praises human dignity, there is no reason to allow people to promote behavior that is against the most basic constitutional principles. And the constitution is not subjective to acceptance, you may disagree with it's content, I partially disagree with some things, but you have to accept it as a fundamental law.

I understand that. I hope your faith in the rectitude of your government is well-placed.

Quote:I tolerate people thinking differently, I don't tolerate them promoting violence, against me or other people. Tolerating the intolerant could lead to an intolerant society that doesn't tolerate the tolerant. Think about it

Rather than interpret any support of fascism as a call to violence or genocide (a postion which strikes me as overbroad), I think the appropriate solution is to prosecute the crimes (threats, assaults, etc) as they actually occur.

Quote:Misunderstood. I wasn't talking about the nazi regime, but about German's restrictions after WW2, they consider human dignity sacred. They went as far as banning a laser tag game for simulating murder, something I consider too much

My apologies for misreading you in this passage.

@Blackout

Rather than go point by point I think the real difference between us (you and me; the U.S.A. and most of Europe) is that we fundamentally distrust placing too much power in the hands of one man or group including the voters. Our Constitution is set up to check unbridled power. It is the ability to accumulate power that leads to dictatorships and totalitarian regimes of any kind including military dictatorships and fascist governments. This is why not only is power divided between the three branches of government but the legislative branch is further divided. In addition elections of House and Senate representatives are staggered so that a sudden change of public opinion can only change them so much at once. These restrictions in power do not restrict personal liberties, but do impede totalitarianism and dictatorship (the problem our founding fathers were really worried about).

With these restrictions in place, free speech no matter how ugly the opinions expressed serves as a check on government, not a threat to democracy.

I see any constitution or system of government that places power in the hands of the few and dangerous regardless of the restrictions in place because with enough power, all restrictions can be overcome.

What Jenny wrote is a very accurate summation of my views, and I should have been as efficient with my words.

(July 13, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Jenny A Wrote: @Blackout

Rather than go point by point I think the real difference between us (you and me; the U.S.A. and most of Europe) is that we fundamentally distrust placing too much power in the hands of one man or group including the voters. Our Constitution is set up to check unbridled power. It is the ability to accumulate power that leads to dictatorships and totalitarian regimes of any kind including military dictatorships and fascist governments. This is why not only is power divided between the three branches of government but the legislative branch is further divided. In addition elections of House and Senate representatives are staggered so that a sudden change of public opinion can only change them so much at once. These restrictions in power do not restrict personal liberties, but do impede totalitarianism and dictatorship (the problem our founding fathers were really worried about).

With these restrictions in place, free speech no matter how ugly the opinions expressed serves as a check on government, not a threat to democracy.

I see any constitution or system of government that places power in the hands of the few and dangerous regardless of the restrictions in place because with enough power, all restrictions can be overcome.

I do respect it, but I'll stick to the european view. And regarding separation of powers, we have it divided too, usually by parliament, government and president, the only difference with the US is that we have a unicameral parliament. And considering the dimension of the US and the form of government (federation) I believe your solution to be effective. I guess even if a fascist party won the elections, they couldn't go against the federal constitution. The problem here is that a single fascist party winning (not too hard in times of crisis) would lead to abolishing the constitution and implementing a new regime, our territory is too small and far more centralized than the US, freedom of expression is widely spread nationally and it's easy to have access to the mainstream ideas, while in the US I'm betting it's impossible to keep noticing all events from all States and you'll just focus on your own federation. I can agree that maybe allowing promotion trough expression could be an option in the future, once we are sure fascism's popularity is lower, but I'll stick to my view that fascist parties shouldn't be allowed to exist, after all, why let a party in the parliament that is against our constitution? It makes no sense. As for europeans giving more power to the state, indeed we could argue our states are more interventive, have a more social characteristic and interact with citizens more, but almost all european constitutions had in mind the problem of too much power (as you mentioned) being placed in a single person/institution, and so they made an effective complexity and connection between articles that protect fundamental rights to ensure that even if restrictions exist, they must not affect what's considered essential for humans beings. Hence why we can restrict fascism or it's promotion, but our constitutions won't allow the government to affect our fundamental liberties, we have rights in our constitutions that are not able to be changed even with revision (It's prohibited) that protect what's considered essential about human dignity. For instance, our government can and has restricted our right to work strikes by demanding workers to make a schedule 2 months before, to avoid compromising the economy and affecting third parties (but it isn't very strong, job strikes have been very frequent and people are free to do it), but they can't change our article regarding the right to live, the right to physical integrity, the prohibition of torture, democracy, legality, separation of powers, those kind of things can't be compromised.

Your system is actually very well made, your founding fathers were indeed perceptive and smart, but our system is also made in a way that the only restrictions made are for the benefit of the higher good, and the higher good isn't measured subjectively, it's measured according to what the constitutions says objectively and that can't be violated by our governments, the constitutions after WWII were very specifically aimed at restricting the government's power, the Germany case being the most noticeable

Thanks for the debate, I enjoyed the conversation with you guys and it was intellectually stimulating

A fascist party did win, how do you think Obama became president? America is now a socialist nation with a communist government and those darn liberals won't wake up until the death panels start killing off their grandparents...

On a more serious note, I can understand both sides to this debate. I can't decide for sure which I prefer.

(July 13, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Blackout Wrote: Thanks for the debate, I enjoyed the conversation with you guys and it was intellectually stimulating

Likewise, absolutely interesting to me as well. I especially appreciate your ability to disagree without being disagreeable; it's a quality that certainly earns my respect.

One thing I enjoy about this forum is that unlike too many atheist forums, disagreements don't seem to descend into shitti- er, shouting matches all that much. Kudos to you, bud, and all others as well.

(July 13, 2014 at 10:20 pm)Losty Wrote: A fascist party did win, how do you think Obama became president? America is now a socialist nation with a communist government and those darn liberals won't wake up until the death panels start killing off their grandparents...

On a more serious note, I can understand both sides to this debate. I can't decide for sure which I prefer.

"darn liberals"?

You kinda lost any credibility as a conservative conspiracy nut by using "darn".