Quote from: quiller on May 13, 2012, 08:50:25 AM
I can hear you filing your teeth from here. 

I love it when these Canadian trolls pop in here and get their socialist asses handed to them.  Speaking of, I miss JNFM...

Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 08:50:59 AM
Not at all.  Obviously. 

Read this lecture from the University of Maryland  (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/oorhan/Lecture%206_Political%20Ideologies%20I.pdf)

It explains it quite clearly.

No it doesn't.  The person who wrote this is mentally challenged.  Please try harder.

Quote from: quiller on May 13, 2012, 08:52:48 AM
The opinion of one lecturer at a leftist college certainly convinces ME, yessir!

Thank you for making me realize how lucky I was to grow up in a country with one of the top education systems in the world.

In order to create a coherent argument, you can`t just make stuff up, and then call it a `fact`.   You have to be able to prove what you`re saying, often by doing what I did:  Citing a reliable source.  The University of Maryland is considered a reliable source.

Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2012, 08:54:36 AM
No it doesn't.  The person who wrote this is mentally challenged.  Please try harder.

Thank you for making me realize how lucky I was to grow up in a country with one of the top education systems in the world.

In order to create a coherent argument, you can`t just make stuff up, and then call it a `fact`.   You have to be able to prove what you`re saying, often by doing what I did:  Citing a reliable source.  The University of Maryland is considered a reliable source.

Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:02:06 AM
Thank you for making me realize how lucky I was to grow up in a country with one of the top education systems in the world.

How so?  Please explain how you are more educated.

Quote
In order to create a coherent argument, you can`t just make stuff up, and then call it a `fact`.   You have to be able to prove what you`re saying, often by doing what I did:  Citing a reliable source.  The University of Maryland is considered a reliable source.

Try again.  You explain how the support for smaller government, pro-Constitution, support of personal property rights and personal freedom, and free markets equals fascism.

Please, make this entertaining.

Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2012, 09:09:41 AM
How so?  Please explain how you are more educated.

Well, I come from Canada, which has one of the best educational systems in the world, so odds are I received a  better education than you did. 

One of the things that makes our educational system so good is that it is based on critical thinking.  Sadly, the American educational model has been based on memorization of facts, the lowest form of education.

If you want to learn more, read up on Bloom's Taxonomy.

Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2012, 09:09:41 AM
Try again.  You explain how the support for smaller government, pro-Constitution, support of personal property rights and personal freedom, and free markets equals fascism.

Please, make this entertaining.

Seriously?  You want me go through the myriad of right wing talking points and disprove them one by one, on a subject that is considered common knowledge?  That's just silly.

I quoted a reliable source:  The University of Maryland.  It clearly stated that fascism is a far right political ideology.

If you have a reliable source countering that, please present it.  BTW, you can't just make an ad hominem attack on a source, and consider it discredited, as you did here:  ''The opinion of one lecturer at a leftist college certainly convinces ME, yessir!''

Ad Hominem attacks are considered a logical fallacy, something you would know if you had received a Canadian education.   They carry no weight in an argument. 

Oh oh, the golf course is calling.

Cya later, have fun!

Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:38:38 AM
Well, I come from Canada, which has one of the best educational systems in the world, so odds are I received a  better education than you did. 

It's government run education.  It is all crap.  I'm sorry you hold value in it.

Quote
One of the things that makes our educational system so good is that it is based on critical thinking.

Yet, you can't articulate your ideology.

Quote
Sadly, the American educational model has been based on memorization of facts, the lowest form of education.

I know tons of Canadians.  You guys aren't that smart I hate to tell 'ya.

Quote
If you want to learn more, read up on Bloom's Taxonomy.

If you want to learn more, start using your brain and get some real world experience.

Quote
Seriously?  You want me go through the myriad of right wing talking points and disprove them one by one, on a subject that is considered common knowledge?  That's just silly.

You don't have the education to handle it.

Quote
I quoted a reliable source:  The University of Maryland.  It clearly stated that fascism is a far right political ideology.

Academia is not a reliable source.  Quit parroting what other people think and use your brain.

Quote
If you have a reliable source countering that, please present it.  BTW, you can't just make an ad hominem attack on a source, and consider it discredited, as you did here:  ''The opinion of one lecturer at a leftist college certainly convinces ME, yessir!''

You haven't made a case yet.  You just posted someone else's work.  We can post links back and forth all day long, but I would rather you think and articulate on your own.  Can you handle that?

Quote
Ad Hominem attacks are considered a logical fallacy, something you would know if you had received a Canadian education.   They carry no weight in an argument.

It is not uncommon for Canadians to interpret a request for dialogue or thought as an attack.  The last Canadian who came here tried to tell us about "Demand and Supply" and didn't know the Democrats swept the House and Senate in 2006, yet told us we were wrong.  Sorry, Canadians haven't exactly been a shining pillar of smarts.  Hopefully, you can change that and start sharing and discussing your own thoughts.

Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:40:23 AM
Oh oh, the golf course is calling.

Cya later, have fun!

Enjoy it while your weather permits.  I play year round.

Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:38:38 AM
Well, I come from Canada, which has one of the best educational systems in the world, so odds are I received a  better education than you did. 

One of the things that makes our educational system so good is that it is based on critical thinking.  Sadly, the American educational model has been based on memorization of facts, the lowest form of education.

Yes I can understand where you might find he other side, having the actual facts at hand, disconcerting. However, they are still the facts. Fascism was a left wing statist philosophy, having little if anything in common with  any right wing conservative or reactionary movement.

QuoteIf you want to learn more, read up on Bloom's Taxonomy.

Of course. Why we'd be glad to have our opinions handed to us by a fifties left wing academic, who was simply regurgitating the "conventional wisdom". BTW, that's what's called an Appeal to Authority, considered a fallacious argument.

QuoteSeriously?  You want me go through the myriad of right wing talking points and disprove them one by one, on a subject that is considered common knowledge?  That's just silly.

Why is it silly to note what the NAZI's called themselves. Is it your argument that their total government control of all industry and all workers, was not in fact left wing? Is it your argument that because they allowed businessmen to make a profit they, were not socialist? That would be news to the democratic socialist regimes in Europe. Or is it that Fascism was a particularly nasty form of leftist ideology, and you woul prefer that particular can to be tied to the tail of the right?

QuoteI quoted a reliable source:  The University of Maryland.  It clearly stated that fascism is a far right political ideology.

In that case I'd like to quote a reliable source on Fascism, by the name of Benito Mussolini. who stated his philosophy as: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State". Feel free to explain how such a philosophy - with it's total lack of any civil society - is rightist.

QuoteIf you have a reliable source countering that, please present it.  BTW, you can't just make an ad hominem attack on a source, and consider it discredited, as you did here:  ''The opinion of one lecturer at a leftist college certainly convinces ME, yessir!''

Ad Hominem attacks are considered a logical fallacy, something you would know if you had received a Canadian education.   They carry no weight in an argument.

As I note above, your Argument from Authority, is also considered fallacious. In any case it seems your vaunted Canadian education didn't give you the ability to think for yourself, or else you would have asked the obvious question of why, for a "rightist" philosophy Fascism and Nazism are almost indistinguishable from left wing philosophies such as socialism and communism. Hint - all are totalitarian statist.

As the Weimar Republic did its slow-motion implosion in the late 1920s and early 1930s, single-party rule or even a dual-party system like ours was unthinkable. Most elections for national seats featured a field of many candidates, sometimes dozens, from a mind-boggling array of political parties. Government happened only as a coalition of parties, as opposed to what we're used to.

In this byzantine political landscape, the Nazis struggled and gained ground, and eventually established enough power to put Hitler in the Chancellery in January 1934. But the government Hitler oversaw was still a coalition government. The Reichstag fire -- very likely engineered by the Nazis -- and the death of President Paul von Hindenburg were the events that really put the Nazis over the top.

But all through the struggle years, the Nazis fought (literally, via the SA) the various communist parties (there were more than one) the hardest because they were competing for the exact same voters. It's simply not possible to be much more left-wing than the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Consider some of Nazi Germany's prominent institutions:

• nationalized industries
• a Ministry of Propaganda, for Christ's sake
• gun control
• state control of banks
• attempts to substitute secular "made-up" rites for religious holidays
• concentration camps (sometimes called "gulags" in other places)
• wage and price controls
• mandatory youth organizations
• the suspension of elections
• summary executions of political prisoners

The list goes on and on. If you notice a remarkable similarity to the features of places like the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, you're paying attention.

The Nazi Party is today so widely described as "ultra-right-wing" precisely as a result of the efforts of left-wing historians and educators who have spent nearly 70 years attempting to re-write history, and redefine the meaning of the word "liberal." I note that the linked presentation illustrates "Liberalism" as being the exact center of the political spectrum (or, if you like, the political "horseshoe"), when in modern terms it certainly is not. This is the re-education I'm talking about.

The state-run, state-funded, prog/lib managed University of Maryland is not exactly what I'd toss out as an authoritative source on the political spectrum.

There is nothing that is more vicious that competing branches of the same religion. Nothing is worse that two armies of true believers who are positive that the people on the other side are "heretics" who have betrayed the true faith. Witness the Sunni/Shia of the current day. Or the Catholic/Protestant of the era of Religious Wars. Or the Nazis/Communists on the Eastern Front. There is always something particularly ruthless about people who believe ultimate truth is "on their side".

Obama doesn't need to stage an assassination attempt to instigate riots among "Inner City blacks. All he has to do is lose the election - fair and square! Whether he loses by a little or by a landslide it will be blamed on "Angry White Men" and corrupt "Corporations" and "Banker Gangsters of Wall Street" (code words for Jews).

You think the election of 2000 was a fiasco, you ain't seen nothing yet!

There will be riots if Obama loses - bet the house on it!

-Dr Watt

Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 08:29:26 AM
Just thought you should know that Nazis were fascists, and fascism is a Right Wing political ideology.

Hope that helps.  :D

Indeed it did - haven't had a laugh like that for a while. I always get a pretty good chuckle when I see this line of logic.
Right wing = Fascism = Nazism and Right-wing = Republicans therefore Republicans = Nazis

It is actually quite logical, however incorrect, as there are equal signs between terms which aren't equal.
Kinda like old worn out example - that they give you when they teach you reasoning to accompany you newfound logic knowledge, at least if they taught you properly -
All dogs have four legs and hair AND All cats have four legs and hair therefore all dogs are cats.
Just based on the logic, tell me it's wrong - can't - gotta apply reasoning.

Applying a little reasoning and doing a little reading (any PoliSci textbook will do) you'll find that Politcal science 'right-wing', which the first term refers to (sorry about the broken infinitive there, ACanuck, but I'm American) is waaaaay different than our everyday language definition.

ACanuck took the logic back as far as he needed to to prove his point, applying no reasoning to it. They go hand in hand. Actually he only supplied half the argument he was trying to make - he left the other half to implication.

Take it from the top and apply a little reasoning -
What is Nazism? Fascism.
What is Fascism? Right-wing.
Ummmm,  what's the next logical bit of reasoning here?
That's right! What is Right-wing? Political science and politics will give different answers here, so the logic doesn't work.
It a tricky point, but a common mistake with a half-assed comprehension of logic. They only teach you the first part.

Then - this is a hoot too - ACanuck tries to single-source it to credibility. That's just bad practice. All it is is what one guy thinks about it, I don't care who the guy is.

I got another chuckle over the ad hominem attack and the logical fallacy thing. While his superior education provided him that nugget of knowledge, , and he is quite correct, it apparently left him unprepared to actually recognize an ad hominem attack. The attack was on the source's position, which would go towards credibility.
'I don't believe that guy because he has a big nose' is an ad hominem attack.
Doesn't matter the method of 'attack', I'd question any single source reference, just as a matter of course.

But anyhow, Fascism is a mix of political ideals, some left, some right, but actually the mix comes out quite distinct from both. The case that fascism is left wing is just as easily made as the case that it's right wing. How someone argues the case normally depends on which side they start with.

It intersects with our concept of right-wing at the social conservatism point and diverges from there.
It's differentiated from both the left and the right, and probably better defined by what it is against
It's anti-capitalist, but also anti-proletariat, for example.
Fascism differs from modern day conservatism, just for one example, in the form, size and scope of government, Fascism works for a totalitarian single-party state and the modern right-wing moves the opposite way, towards smaller central government,  if you use the tenets of the Tea Party as in indicator of modern right wing thought.
Nazism is a much nuanced version of fascism, and differs in substanial aspects and in no way represents our concept of 'right-wing'.
In short, to equate fascism with modern conservativism is incorrect.

Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:02:06 AM
Thank you for making me realize how lucky I was to grow up in a country with one of the top education systems in the world.

In order to create a coherent argument, you can`t just make stuff up, and then call it a `fact`.   You have to be able to prove what you`re saying, often by doing what I did:  Citing a reliable source.  The University of Maryland is considered a reliable source.

A lecture can be done anywhere, so what makes the declarations of a single person so authoritative that it would sway the masses into accepting ANY idea? Try that out on either side of a political argument.

You mean you Canuckistanis really DO put all your Canadian eggs into one basket?

You sound simply awesome, lauding your "superior" educational system while concurrently citing an AMERICAN source.    (We're #1, we're #1!")

Have you no national pride up there any more?