Alright Augie ... i'll play

[mothra]

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1517542818/4#4

Perhaps you like to begin by telling me the tenets of Nazism that support your ideals of peace?

And then yuo can move on to why Hitler is a good guy.




.... i know precisely where you're going. But i'll play.

[MilesAway]

How can Auggie shun violence if he is a Nazi?

[mothra]

How can Auggie shun violence if he is a Nazi?

He claims he can. It's, apparently, all there in the texts.

I'm tremendously looking forward to him highlighting the relevant passages.

[Auggie]

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1517542818/4#4

Perhaps you like to begin by telling me the tenets of Nazism that support your ideals of peace?

And then yuo can move on to why Hitler is a good guy.




.... i know precisely where you're going. But i'll play.

Ok, fine.

Nazism is a nationalist ideology that values order, authority and moral objectivity. The Nazi State believes that everyone has a role to play, and that each person should respect other people in spite of their roles. Nazism respects the nation-state, and believes that each nation has a defining set of values. These values should not be mixed with outside values, and the state should ensure that the nation's values endure.

Your turn.

[HBS Guy]

ensure that the nation's values endure. . .by killing those that dispute the nations values.

[Auggie]

ensure that the nation's values endure. . .by killing those thatdispute the nations values.

The Holocaust was an unfortunate event that was perpetrated by rogue elements within the Nazi regime. The original intention of the concentration camps was to imprison the regime's enemies. It was to be a temporary solution. The Holocaust cannot be seen as a logical step from Nazism: it was perpetrated by extremists within the Nazi party.

[mothra]

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?

[HBS Guy]

ensure that the nation's values endure. . .by killing those thatdispute the nations values.

Can you cite an example of your claim, please?

Look at the angry old men on OzPol. I am not hinting at the Holocaust, playing by your rules.

A holocaust of Muslims in Germany—how unlikely, given say 5 years of high unemployment?

[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.

[HBS Guy]

ensure that the nation's values endure. . .by killing those thatdispute the nations values.

The Holocaust was an unfortunate event that was perpetrated by rogue elements within the Nazi regime. The original intention of the concentration camps was to imprison the regime's enemies. It was to be a temporary solution. The Holocaust cannot be seen as a logical step from Nazism: it was perpetrated by extremists within the Nazi party.

Holocaust was an unfortunate event that was perpetrated by rogue elements within the Nazi regime. . .like Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels etc.

[mothra]

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.

There's no natural law about it that i can see.

It's a totalitarian regime that excludes people on face value, arresting their assets, livlihoods, potential and ultimately their lives because theyy exist in the state of the totalitarian regime.

How is this peace?

Are you arguing that if a select few are in a state of peace, then a general state of peace is reached?

May i ask who would be the select few?

Is there where you start talking about Hitler being a good guy? I've been looking forward to that.

.. but i think i've got ahead of myself.

[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?

[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.

There's no natural law about it that i can see.

It's a totalitarian regime that excludes people on face value, arresting their assets, livlihoods, potential and ultimately their lives because theyy exist in the state of the totalitarian regime.

How is this peace?

Are you arguing that if a select few are in a state of peace, then a general state of peace is reached?

May i ask who would be the select few?

Is there where you start talking about Hitler being a good guy? I've been looking forward to that.

.. but i think i've got ahead of myself.

Not true. Citizens in Nazi Germany felt a sense of completeness and association with the nation-state. The German people welcomed the Nazi Regime, as given by the fact they were elected into power and had support.

Regarding Hitler: he was strong leader for his people. He brought Germany from the Great Depression to an industrial powerhouse. He secured the interests of Germany, and made Germany strong.

[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.

[mothra]

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.

There's no natural law about it that i can see.

It's a totalitarian regime that excludes people on face value, arresting their assets, livlihoods, potential and ultimately their lives because theyy exist in the state of the totalitarian regime.

How is this peace?

Are you arguing that if a select few are in a state of peace, then a general state of peace is reached?

May i ask who would be the select few?

Is there where you start talking about Hitler being a good guy? I've been looking forward to that.

.. but i think i've got ahead of myself.

Not true. Citizens in Nazi Germany felt a sense of completeness and association with the nation-state. The German people welcomed the Nazi Regime, as given by the fact they were elected into power and had support.

Regarding Hitler: he was strong leader for his people. He brought Germany from the Great Depression to an industrial powerhouse. He secured the interests of Germany, and made Germany strong.

Augie, you continue to fail to demonstrate peace. Dan we get back to that?

Or have tou conceded that peace for a very few at the expense of a great many fulfils your criteria.

[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.

There's no natural law about it that i can see.

It's a totalitarian regime that excludes people on face value, arresting their assets, livlihoods, potential and ultimately their lives because theyy exist in the state of the totalitarian regime.

How is this peace?

Are you arguing that if a select few are in a state of peace, then a general state of peace is reached?

May i ask who would be the select few?

Is there where you start talking about Hitler being a good guy? I've been looking forward to that.

.. but i think i've got ahead of myself.

Not true. Citizens in Nazi Germany felt a sense of completeness and association with the nation-state. The German people welcomed the Nazi Regime, as given by the fact they were elected into power and had support.

Regarding Hitler: he was strong leader for his people. He brought Germany from the Great Depression to an industrial powerhouse. He secured the interests of Germany, and made Germany strong.

Augie, you continue to fail to demonstrate peace. Dan we get back to that?

Or have tou conceded that peace for a very few at the expense of a great many fulfils your criteria.

I have demonstrated it.

The German people felt a renewed sense of completion and nation.

I mean if you have any concerns, you're more than welcome to raise them.

[mothra]

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?

[Auggie]

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.

[mothra]

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.

[Auggie]

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.

[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.

You’re a nut buddy!

[img]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge#/media/File%3ABundesarchiv_Bild_183-N0619-506%2C_Paris%2C_Jüdische_Frauen_mit_Stern.jpg[/img]

[mothra]

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?

[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.

Why did Germans change their surnames when they left the country if they weren’t ashamed of what Hitler did to Germany and it’s people?

[Auggie]

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.

[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