Even atheists can be deulsional/ OP ED

[Brian37]

Panda: Yeah... I know what you mean.

I was shocked when I found out we have a load of unelected goobers running things in the House of Lords. That makes us like a semi dictatorship. Why the fuck do we have them again?

That's why here in Canada were working to abolish the senate. The senate here is the same idea as the house of lords, but I don't think its ever weilded as much real power as the house of lords. That's what I hate about the British style of Parliament, its not a style that was designed from the ground up like the American system, but rather it sort of evolved over time and as such it carries a lot of baggage and unstated or unclear rules, or traditions that straight up contradict the written rules.
E.g the queen is technically the head of state, but has no real power.

See that is the problem with humans. Scrapping a system will not insure whatever power vacuum results will lead to anything better. I think it is simply better to get rid of the crooks and enforce anti monopoly concepts and increase oversight. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting no change, but just that even with what you do accomplish, that too is also run by humans and also subject to potential abuse.

[abaris]

The only thing I am conceding here is that the ME still hast to list the mode of death and weapon but it is still a homicide.

Yes, and your "example", for lack of a better word, also shows how simplicity is a sure way to error. It's understanding and analysing what makes people tick, in order to prevent the next generation of Bundys or Gaceys. Simply saying they're the same because, well, they both killed, is simple minded and misleading. Same goes for totalitarian regimes. They're fundamentally different in their inner workings and motivations.

[Brian37]

The only thing I am conceding here is that the ME still hast to list the mode of death and weapon but it is still a homicide.

Yes, and your "example", for lack of a better word, also shows how simplicity is a sure way to error. It's understanding and analysing what makes people tick, in order to prevent the next generation of Bundys or Gaceys. Simply saying they're the same because, well, they both killed, is simple minded and misleading. Same goes for totalitarian regimes. They're fundamentally different in their inner workings and motivations.

No actually again, it is not right or wrong. The bible is "complicated" too, but it also starts with the naked assertion that a god is real or even required. Start a formula with bad data, it does not matter if parts of that formula appeal to some. 

Saying that a car is a combustion engine is not saying cars cant be complex. Older ones are simple compared to newer ones. What I am talking about is starting from Occam's razor with fixing the car regardless of age or complexity says you go from simple to complex. The mechanic should not take apart the entire car as a default position. They will start by checking the battery cables, battery. We don't view humanity the same way which makes weeding through the complexities almost impossible.

So again, while political views and religious views do get complicated they still stem from our evolutionary pattern seeking. So calling them monsters should be the starting point and that undermines the complexities they hide behind. The complexities ARE important, but not as important as starting with the battery. It does you no good to start in the middle.

[Brian37]

The starting point is why do humans get violent or cooperate. Because we evolved to seek patterns. THEN you move on to motivations and complexities.

Un, Stalin, and Hitler are monsters. Their motivations aside it came from the cruel side of our species and a sense of selfishness and lust for power. The complexity you might argue is what allowed them to mask their horrors in the guise of justice.

This is why humans stay divided and murder each other. We don't see ourselves as the same species once we start creating these artificial differences and then conflate them to deeply complex excuses and it still amounts to justification to get at power and resources. It is good for that group, but it sucks for global stability.

[Jenny A]

Hi Brian. Fascism is a set of right-wing totalitarian ideologies (e.g. National Socialism) whereas North Korea is a Communist state which has adopted a totalitarian left-wing ideology, that of the Supreme Leader Kim Il Sung. Technically, your friend is correct.

You confirmed my suspicions. It is semantics and getting picky. Like I said, the difference between Ted Bundy and Jeffery Damher. On a non fascist note, this is like when my mom called a foot stool an Ottoman. Way to stare at my finger while I am pointing to the sky. 

My point is that that family are monsters. Pick any fucking negative word about them and it is apt. Dicks, assholes, murderers, thugs, criminals all apt descriptions of that family.

Semantics is not a dirty word.  Or at least it shouldn't be. 

North Korea isn't a fascist country but any reasonably definition.  The words you want are isolationist, dictatorship, totalitarian and perhaps brutal.  It's all of those things.   But it isn't fascist.  And fascism is theoretically possible without a dictatorship.

[Brian37]

You confirmed my suspicions. It is semantics and getting picky. Like I said, the difference between Ted Bundy and Jeffery Damher. On a non fascist note, this is like when my mom called a foot stool an Ottoman. Way to stare at my finger while I am pointing to the sky. 

My point is that that family are monsters. Pick any fucking negative word about them and it is apt. Dicks, assholes, murderers, thugs, criminals all apt descriptions of that family.

Semantics is not a dirty word.  Or at least it shouldn't be. 

North Korea isn't a fascist country but any reasonably definition.  The words you want are isolationist, dictatorship, totalitarian and perhaps brutal.  It's all of those things.   But it isn't fascist.  And fascism is theoretically possible without a dictatorship.

Again not making the argument NOW that I used the wrong word. I admit that. But again, it is still like arguing the difference between Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacey. Fascism without a dictatorship is mob rule by vote. But the end result of Hitler and Stalin and Un are that dissenters got/ get fucked over and at best live in silence and at worse murdered by the state. Ugly no matter what.

I think we are not on the different pages as much as we think. I got it.