Alright Augie ... i'll play

[MilesAway]

Is that a yes? You have conceded that peace for a very few at the expense of a great many fulfils your criteria for peace in ideal terms?

No, I'm not conceding that. I never said that. There was peace for the German people who were the majority of the population.

You've absolutely said that. There is tacit agreement for that in the principles you outline.

Denying it does not negate the obvious concession.

Interesting goal post shift into "majority" though. We both know it's a red herring though.

No goal-post shift. The majority benefited from the Nazi Regime.

Well, that's a whole new argument ... isn't it.

But to address the point at hand, totalitarianism and favourable outcomes for certain demographics (tha majority, you tell me, importantly) at the expense of all that was expended by other demographics does not equate to an ideal for peace.

Or are you conceding that you are arguing that peace is a mutable concept? That it only actually applies to some, and not others?

Mothra, how many times do I have to tell you? They were peaceful.

Stop being racist! There are no textual justifications for violence in Nazism.

Who were peaceful: the Nazis ?

People came to Germany from other countries for the specific purpose of joining their army to kill Jews!

[Auggie]

Augie, you have not outlined what supports your ideals for peace. You have described a rigid and totalitarian regime ... one that rejects other "types" of people by face value.

How does this support the ideal for peace?

It is peaceful because it ensures that society is harmonious and functions according to natural law. When the individual accords another with respect then peace is achieved. The National Socialist state aims to promote respect between individuals inter se and the individual and the state.

How did this ensurance not take place in Hitlers Germany?

It did.

How?

Oh, I know: by redefining society

By creating a peaceful and harmonious society??

Are you racist?

[MilesAway]

Augie, you have not outlined what supports your ideals for peace. You have described a rigid and totalitarian regime ... one that rejects other "types" of people by face value.

How does this support the ideal for peace?

It is peaceful because it ensures that society is harmonious and functions according to natural law. When the individual accords another with respect then peace is achieved. The National Socialist state aims to promote respect between individuals inter se and the individual and the state.

How did this ensurance not take place in Hitlers Germany?

It did.

How?

Oh, I know: by redefining society

By creating a peaceful and harmonious society??

Are you racist?

You’re a total spastic

[Auggie]

You’re a total spastic

No, you're racist. Criticising Nazism is racist!

You're racist!

[MilesAway]

You’re a total spastic

No, you're racist. Criticising Nazism is racist!

You're racist!

Dood, people ran to join their army to kill Jews!

[Auggie]

Ok.

So, no doubt some of you have realized the purpose of my experiment.

Islam.

When people claim that Islam is a religion of peace, I believe it's the same as claiming that Nazism is an ideology of peace.

Muhammad was pretty much like Hitler in his day, but for some reason we're willing to give him a pass, but not Hitler (nor should we give Hitler a pass).

Muhammad engaged in aggressive warfare, massacred people, and set up a totalitarian state. How is this different from Nazism?

Would someone like to explain the difference to me?

[Auggie]

No one?

[Aussie]

Muhammad engaged in aggressive warfare, massacred people, and set up a totalitarian state. How is this different from Nazism?

It's not. No different in any way from the aggressive warfare, people massacres done in the name of:

[Auggie]

Muhammad engaged in aggressive warfare, massacred people, and set up a totalitarian state. How is this different from Nazism?

It's not. No different in any way from the aggressive warfare, people massacres done in the name of:

Do you think that Christian doctrine seeks to establish a socio-political state? Does it compel its followers to spread Christianity by the sword? I know that people have spread Christianity by the sword, but was that because they were following the example of Jesus?

[Aussie]

Probably not, but there is no denial they used a great deal violence in his name.

Shall I go to the Inquisition?

[Auggie]

Probably not, but there is no denial they used a great deal violence in his name.

Shall I go to the Inquisition?

The other point is, to what extent have we in the Judeo-Christian world, moved on from our conquistadoring and spreading of Christianity by the sword???

Islam hasn't moved on. It might in 50 years, but it hasn't now.

[Aussie]

Probably not, but there is no denial they used a great deal violence in his name.

Shall I go to the Inquisition?

The other point is, to what extent have we in the Judeo-Christian world, moved on from our conquistadoring and spreading of Christianity by the sword???

Islam hasn't moved on. It might in 50 years, but it hasn't now.

I don't think Islam has changed. There are some extreme arseholes who claim to do things in the name of Mo.

(Off to bed for me. Unless I want to sleep in the dog house.)

[mothra]

Ok.

So, no doubt some of you have realized the purpose of my experiment.

Islam.

When people claim that Islam is a religion of peace, I believe it's the same as claiming that Nazism is an ideology of peace.

Muhammad was pretty much like Hitler in his day, but for some reason we're willing to give him a pass, but not Hitler (nor should we give Hitler a pass).

Muhammad engaged in aggressive warfare, massacred people, and set up a totalitarian state. How is this different from Nazism?

Would someone like to explain the difference to me?

Yet your comparison fell at the first hurdle.

[mothra]

Do you think that Christian doctrine seeks to establish a socio-political state? Does it compel its followers to spread Christianity by the sword? I know that people have spread Christianity by the sword, but was that because they were following the example of Jesus?

1.6 billion people have their swords out, do they?

May i suggest Ozpol is a more receptive audience to lies, half-truths and utter misunderstanding about Islam. There's a significant number of folk over there who will buy, even be impressed by comparisons of Islam to Nazism.

[mothra]

Let me ask you this, Augie:

If you were to rank Ozpol members according to their ethical integrity, patience and human decency, where would Gandalf fit?

[Auggie]

Ok.

So, no doubt some of you have realized the purpose of my experiment.

Islam.

When people claim that Islam is a religion of peace, I believe it's the same as claiming that Nazism is an ideology of peace.

Muhammad was pretty much like Hitler in his day, but for some reason we're willing to give him a pass, but not Hitler (nor should we give Hitler a pass).

Muhammad engaged in aggressive warfare, massacred people, and set up a totalitarian state. How is this different from Nazism?

Would someone like to explain the difference to me?

Yet your comparison fell at the first hurdle.

Explain it.

[Auggie]

Do you think that Christian doctrine seeks to establish a socio-political state? Does it compel its followers to spread Christianity by the sword? I know that people have spread Christianity by the sword, but was that because they were following the example of Jesus?

1.6 billion people have their swords out, do they?

May i suggest Ozpol is a more receptive audience to lies, half-truths and utter misunderstanding about Islam. There's a significant number of folk over there who will buy, even be impressed by comparisons of Islam to Nazism.

Mothra. It has never been about the majority; the majority who are disorganised don’t matter. What matters is the militant minority who are organised. Look at Nazism, communism etc, the majority of people in those countries weren’t nazis or communists but the organised minority were able to commit atrocities.

So, you’re dodging the issue if you talk about the ‘peaceful’ majority’. The majority are always peaceful. It comes down to ideology and the organised minority.

[Auggie]

Let me ask you this, Augie:

If you were to rank Ozpol members according to their ethical integrity, patience and human decency, where would Gandalf fit?

I would say that Gandalf was in the top 5.

[mothra]

Ok.

So, no doubt some of you have realized the purpose of my experiment.

Islam.

When people claim that Islam is a religion of peace, I believe it's the same as claiming that Nazism is an ideology of peace.

Muhammad was pretty much like Hitler in his day, but for some reason we're willing to give him a pass, but not Hitler (nor should we give Hitler a pass).

Muhammad engaged in aggressive warfare, massacred people, and set up a totalitarian state. How is this different from Nazism?

Would someone like to explain the difference to me?

Yet your comparison fell at the first hurdle.

Explain it.

Already put to you. You evaded.

[mothra]

Do you think that Christian doctrine seeks to establish a socio-political state? Does it compel its followers to spread Christianity by the sword? I know that people have spread Christianity by the sword, but was that because they were following the example of Jesus?

1.6 billion people have their swords out, do they?

May i suggest Ozpol is a more receptive audience to lies, half-truths and utter misunderstanding about Islam. There's a significant number of folk over there who will buy, even be impressed by comparisons of Islam to Nazism.

Mothra. It has never been about the majority; the majority who are disorganised don’t matter. What matters is the militant minority who are organised. Look at Nazism, communism etc, the majority of people in those countries weren’t nazis or communists but the organised minority were able to commit atrocities.

So, you’re dodging the issue if you talk about the ‘peaceful’ majority’. The majority are always peaceful. It comes down to ideology and the organised minority.

Oh of course. We judge an entire ideology or religion based on the worst behaviour of the puppets we've put into place.

And don't we look nice?

[mothra]

Let me ask you this, Augie:

If you were to rank Ozpol members according to their ethical integrity, patience and human decency, where would Gandalf fit?

I would say that Gandalf was in the top 5.

I'd struggle to think of anyone who tops him.

And, he's a Muslim.

But you'd prefer to undermine his existence in deference to nasty dictatorships that happen to share a single commonality with him.

Nice.

Amazes me, when people pitch for the highest common denominator and when they resonate with the lowest.

I find such variables are often strongly influenced by melanin.

[johnsmith]

So, no doubt some of you have realized the purpose of my experiment.

yes, it was obvious before you even started

and all you succeeded in doing is making a fool of yourself

[Auggie]

Oh of course. We judge an entire ideology or religion based on the worst behaviour of the puppets we've put into place.

So, do you judge Nazism based on the worst behaviour of the puppets we created? Do we judge Communism on the worst behaviour of the puppets we've put into place?

You're willing to say in one sentence that Nazism is evil, even though it was practised by a minority, but in the next sentence completely give a pass to the ideology of Islamism?? Why?

Islam compels its followers to slay infidels and to establish a totalitarian state worldwide. Not all Muslims follow this call; doesn't mean that the ideology doesn't teach it.

[Auggie]

And, he's a Muslim.

Yes, and he's conceded that he is limited in how he can interpret the Quran and the textual traditions of Islam.

But you'd prefer to undermine his existence in deference to nasty dictatorships that happen to share a single commonality with him.

How am I undermining his 'existence' by criticizing an ideology to which he subscribes?? I believe his religion is a totalitarian, militant ideology. Shouldn't I criticize the ideology?

[Auggie]

So, no doubt some of you have realized the purpose of my experiment.

yes, it was obvious before you even started

and all you succeeded in doing is making a fool of yourself

So, you agree that Islam doesn't compel its followers to slaughter infidels? I'm not saying that all Muslims subscribe to this, but doesn't mean that the ideology doesn't call for it.