JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

論壇

原先發佈於:Sapphire
3/13/2013 4:36:50 AM
20
Nope.
English

文章張貼語言:

 

以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • You can't just say no, you have to say why.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • The existence and maintenance of "social class" is not fascist. Socialism and fascism are not entirely mutually exclusive either.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • [quote]The existence and maintenance of "social class" is not fascist. [/quote]Except that it is.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • You can't just say yes, you have to say why.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • True. But I explained myself already in the OP :3

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • No you didn't. You stated your position.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • >Fascism is the establishment of social class (and among other things such as high nationalism) >Opposing gay marriage creates social tiers, and a federal law blocking the right makes it state-backed >This kind of placement in society (backed by law) leads to hate and murder (which we have experienced), to the extreme, it can lead to a Holocaust (there's been no shortage of mentions to put homosexuals in their own little area imprisoned from the rest of the country).

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • I'd like your reasoning behind how you are choosing to define fascism.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • [quote][url=http://people.howstuffworks.com/fascism-movement1.htm]Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.[/url][/quote]Plenty of definitions all over the web.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • I wouldn't say that opposition to same-sex marriage fits with that definition as an inherent property of that position; one is perfectly capable of supporting the rights of gays to be married and also be a strict fascist.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • 由Dustin編輯: 3/13/2013 6:13:40 AM
    Yes, because whatever human aspects deemed worthy or likable are chosen to be at the top in a fascist state (there is no such thing as a set definition of who belongs in the Master Race), but there is no saying that it can't be homosexuals. However realistically, it just isn't the case. It's a problem because, not only does it show a lack of care for civil rights from a first world country, but it shows that there is social class, that factions of human beings are better than others based on no real reasoning, and most importantly, that leads to violence and possibly genocide.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • The existence of social classes on their own is not evidence of fascism. Humans are social creatures with an innate tendency to create social hierarchies. Fascism is that tendency embraced by the State and taken to the extreme. A personal belief that opposes same-sex marriage is not fascist because it does not compel the believer to use the State as a vehicle for enforcing that belief on others. Plenty of libertarians or social conservatives have a personal opposition to same-sex marriage but nonetheless have no desire to have the government turn that belief into law. Furthermore, the genesis of homosexual focused violence in fascist regimes is not an opposition to same-sex marriage, the same way that the cause of lynchings in America near the beginning of the 20th century were not caused by the beliefs that blacks should drink from different fountains. That is, they are two distinct symptoms of a broader belief, and embracing the less severe position does not imply embracing the more severe one. Homophobia and homohatred (and the moderate variations thereof) are hardly uniquely fascist positions. Homophobia with fascism simply calls for the creation of a homosexual class that would be exterminated. Homophobia without fascism ranges from personal distaste, to denial of government services, to privately initiated violence. Fascist homophobes will of course incorporate that view into their fascism, but that doesn't make other homophobes "more fascist".

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • Well it should be made clear that the DOMA law is fairly small scale compared to the shit that went on in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] Germany. You mentioned that opposing gay marriage [i]not[/i] as a law isn't fascist, and I can't say you'd be wrong. However, if your post is also trying to say that a state-backed law, as opposed to a mere individual opinion (notice I'm being nice by calling it an opinion), that restricts gay marriage isn't a form of fascism, then it'd be wrong. Once a state is supporting a belief and enacting a law that creates social rates and tiers, it is acting in a fascist manor.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • [quote]You mentioned that opposing gay marriage [i]not[/i] as a law isn't fascist, and I can't say you'd be wrong.[/quote]So as far the question in your OP is concerned, you would say that I am correct, yes? [quote]However, if your post is also trying to say that a state-backed law, as opposed to a mere individual opinion (notice I'm being nice by calling it an opinion), that restricts gay marriage isn't a form of fascism, then it'd be wrong.[/quote]Why? [quote]Once a state is supporting a belief and enacting a law that creates social rates and tiers, it is acting in a fascist manor.[/quote]Only if you present the false dichotomy that any piece of legislation that isn't actively working to eliminate social distinction is fascist. By this standard, progressive taxation is fascism (it isn't), affirmative actions is fascism (it isn't), welfare is fascist (it isn't), and a host of other liberal, conservative, socialist, etc., principles that are not actually fascist.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • Those examples are different. They are there to help people or to make things more fair. It is very unlike DOMA which actively shuts down certain relationships, adding no happiness, but sheer sadness to life. Further, it puts them at a lower rate in society, and that leads to hate crime, and if history repeats, then it also leads to genocide.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • Well according to you: [quote]Once a state is supporting a belief and enacting a law that creates social rates and tiers, it is acting in a fascist manor.[/quote]Seems pretty clear to me. By your own definition, those policies are fascist in nature. You either need to accept that or admit that you've been operating with a flawed and incorrect definition of fascism. [quote]Further, it puts them at a lower rate in society, and that leads to hate crime, and if history repeats, then it also leads to genocide.[/quote]1) What do you mean by "social rate"? 2) These are baseless assertions. Support for same-sex marriage, and homosexuality in general, has only been on the rise since the passage of DOMA (not that I'm saying there is a correlation there, because there is not). In fact, I would go so far as to say that DOMA did not actually increase the amount of harassment or suffering incurred by homosexual Americans from their fellow citizens during day-to-day life. It's discrimination to be sure, but hardly a national effort to rally the country through shared homophobia so as to send them to concentration camps and exterminate them. Discrimination, even on the state level, is not even a uniquely fascist trait. It has been present in all governments throughout human history, including those that predate fascism.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • I already answered your first assertion. DOMA is unique because it does not add to society, it actually subtracts freedom from a certain group. Taxation rates don't cause discrimination (unless you're talking about discrimination among the poor), and affirmative actions are the exact opposite of DOMA where they try to close a social gap. DOMA is fascism, get over it. I'd recommend you look into the court ruling "separate but equal." It basically showed that even though two groups were given the same rights (for the record, gays hardly get the separate but equal programs i.e. civil unions), there was still the less noticeable, but very apparent social gap. Now in this case, the state gave both sides equal rights, however, gays aren't even given that. Again, this leads to acceptable racism as in it allows people to think it's okay to hate a minority. This then leads to hate crime, and once again (if everyone was opposed to gays) it wouldn't be that far off say that there would be some sort of relocation or even Holocaust.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • 由Baph編輯: 3/13/2013 2:55:13 PM
    [quote]I already answered your first assertion. DOMA is unique because it does not add to society, it actually subtracts freedom from a certain group. Taxation rates don't cause discrimination (unless you're talking about discrimination among the poor), and affirmative actions are the exact opposite of DOMA where they try to close a social gap.[/quote]So then your original definition of fascism is incorrect. [quote]DOMA is fascism, get over it.[/quote]No, it isn't, and you've done nothing to convince anyone otherwise other than state "It's discriminatory", which on its own does not make something a fascist policy or not. [quote]I'd recommend you look into the court ruling "separate but equal." It basically showed that even though two groups were given the same rights (for the record, gays hardly get the separate but equal programs i.e. civil unions), there was still the less noticeable, but very apparent social gap. Now in this case, the state gave both sides equal rights, however, gays aren't even given that.[/quote]And what's your point? This is hardly relevant. [quote]Again, this leads to acceptable racism as in it allows people to think it's okay to hate a minority. This then leads to hate crime, and once again (if everyone was opposed to gays) it wouldn't be that far off say that there would be some sort of relocation or even Holocaust.[/quote]This is pointless conjecture. All you're doing is reasserting your points without adding any actual substance.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • Discrimination creates social class. Just because you are incapable of understanding does not change that. Actually you never respond with an actual counter argument, all you've been doing is either saying that I don't make sense or that you don't like it. This is hardly a debate if you're going to behave like this. It's a simple concept. Laws, such as DOMA, create social inequality which in turn creates social class. Social class supported by law is the basis for fascism. Other things such as wealth disparity is different from fascism because it is something that isn't supported by law. You could say that there is social class because of it, but it is not supported by law, nor is it anything we look of. Again, just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's wrong. All it means is that you don't get it.

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

  • Well done, son

    文章張貼語言:

     

    以禮待人。發佈文章前請花點時間查看我們的行為準則 取消 編輯 創立火力戰隊 文章

你無權檢閱此內容
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon