Bush Admin. students of Nazi propaganda tactics?

all systems are the same, they just use a different name

Published on June 19, 2005 By Toblerone In Politics

The quote speaks for itself:

Comments (Page 12)

166

drmiler

on Jun 26, 2005

#163 by Champas Socialist
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, all vegetarians are Nazis."

I agree! (I'm a vegetarian). I also wear socks. Hitler wore socks too. Do you wear socks? If so, you may as well draw a swastika on them.

By the way did anyone else notice that the title of this article finishes with a question mark, not an exclamation mark? Did those same people happen to notice the words "students of", not "users of"? And what about that word in between Nazi and tactics...did you notice it? Not many, if any, not many, if any.

Try looking at the "subtitle" and tell me again that this article is just asking questions!

Bush Admin. students of Nazi propaganda tactics?

all systems are the same, they just use a different name

167

bakerstreet

on Jun 26, 2005

Excellent point Dr. M.

168

drmiler

on Jun 26, 2005

Excellent point Dr. M.

Thank you. Occasionally I do have a point to get across. Just not all the time.

169

Toblerone

on Jun 27, 2005

Or maybe you could take note of the fact I explained about 50 thousand times what the actual intention of my article was.

The all systems are the same, they just use a different name bit I put in because it rhymed. It meant that all systems use the same techniques to sway the public, you have to take it in the context of the headline, duh.

I just love how everyone (well almost) is caught up on telling me what my intentions are, but fail to actually debate me on the points I have raised.

170

zinkadoodle

on Jun 27, 2005

I just love how everyone is caught up telling me what me intentions are that that fail to actually debate me on the points I have raised.

It's called jingo spinning and twisting. God forbid you may have an actual point, particularly when it comes to points not flattering to the dubya dummy.

171

drmiler

on Jun 27, 2005

Or maybe you could take note of the fact I explained about 50 thousand time what the actually intention of my article was.

The all systems are the same, they just use a different name bit I put in because it rhymed. It incidently mean that al system use the same techniques to sway the public, you have to take in the context of the headline, duh.

I just love how everyone is caught up telling me what me intentions are that that fail to actually debate me on the points I have raised.

You can say it anyway you want to. But I'm not the only one seeing this.

172

Toblerone

on Jun 27, 2005

You can say it anyway you want to. But I'm not the only one seeing this.

Err, I think I made that point already, I am well aware that you're not the only one that sees it that way. I wrote whole a bloody mock transcript showing that am quite aware of what people think I think . Just because lots of people see it that way doesn't make them mind readers, which is what you'd have to be to KNOW what my intentions were. At the very least you'd have to know me better to guess my intentions merely from what I've written as opposed to meeting me and dabting me in person, and guess what Champas has known me for 11 years and has actually talked to me about it on the phone. He isn't a yes man we disagree about a lot of things and if he thought I was wrong he would say so.

It's called jingo spinning and twisting. God forbid you may have an actual point, particularly when it comes to points not flattering to the dubya dummy.

No, I'd kill for it to be at the level of jingo spinning and twisting. That would assume that they actually took in anything I wrote enough to put spin on it. All they see is the words Bush and Nazi and mentally insert an equals sign between them. If I wanted to do that I would NOT have spent my time trying to say that wasn't what I wanted to say. Instead I would say "Yeah I do think Bush is a Nazi" and find evidence to back it up, of course I'd be screwed in that case because I DON'T THINK BUSH IS A NAZI AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO HE IS but if I did I would try to prove it anyway. I would actually, you know, argue my point ...a novel concept I know.

But no that have to argue a point I'M NOT MAKING because they can't or can't be bothered to argue the point I am making (well most of them, not all).

This is fun

P.S. I never called Papa Smurf a dirty old man and Smurfette a trannie so stop saying I did. Thankyou.

173

Leauki

on Jun 27, 2005

"Defending the US and our freedom is brave. The BS in Iraq has NOTHING to do with our freedom."

I was born in Germany, West-Berlin to be most precise.

I can assure you that what the US have done in Germany had also NOTHING to do with your freedom, only with mine.

But I can also assure you that had the US acted against Germany earlier, before our own moustache dictator forced everybody's hand, then your freedom would never have been threatened and mine would have been saved earlier.

If you clearly realise that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with your freedom, then thank your lucky stars that you live in a country where your freedom is so safe that even a fascist dictator cannot take it away from you and thank G-d that your country has decided to intervene a bit earlier this time to ensure that your freedom remains safe.

174

Leauki

on Jun 27, 2005

"These are people that think they will get 72 virgins when they blow up a busload of children. You don't think that's crazy?"

"Is it any crazier than the millions of supposedly sane people that believe you go to heaven or hell when you die?"

Yes, it is.

I always found delusions that are based on no scientific evidence even crazier when they are specific.

Good people go to heaven.

Fine. I can accept that. There is no evidence for that. But why not?

Good people receive 17 dollars and 12 cents as well as two Bus tickets for three stages each and also 13 pounds of bred and a can of coke, on the other hand, implies a greater level of insanity.

And if you can't see the qualitative difference between a rather un-specific belief that any representative from the religion in question will tell you they are not sure about but believe in anyway and a very specific statement that promises you a clearly defined reward for a clearly defined crime, then I'm afraid you will never understand religious people and they will never understand you.

I myself believe in G-d and some form of reward for good people when everything is over. But I am not insane enough to believe that I am able to give you details of that reward in "number of virgins" or similarly ridiculous measures.

175

Toblerone

on Jun 27, 2005

I always found delusions that are based on no scientific evidence even crazier when they are specific.

You seem to be very specific about why you find one unfounded theory crazier than another unfounded theory. The above belief that people that believe specific unfounded claims are crazier than people that believe general unfounded claims is also unfounded. How about this for a theory: maybe you wrote the above quote because my reasoning is actually sound and you are SCRAPING THE BOTTOM OF THE ARGUEMENT BARREL to refute it OR maybe you are completely right and you are crazy by your own reasoning....your choice. *evil grin*

176

Toblerone

on Jun 27, 2005

Okay maybe I'll argue without the "Sophie's choice" at the end.

And if you can't see the qualitative difference between a rather un-specific belief that any representative from the religion in question will tell you they are not sure about but believe in anyway and a very specific statement that promises you a clearly defined reward for a clearly defined crime, then I'm afraid you will never understand religious people and they will never understand you.

First things first I'm not an atheist I just don't follow any organised religion.

Okay, onto the "arguement". How does specificity change the qualitative difference? You haven't actually told me what it is, you have just told me you believe there is one. Marvellous, have a cookie.

An uneducated guess is an uneducated guess. If we judged them based on pure logic you might say one was more likely than the other sure. If I showed a smallish wooden box to 2 people and one guessed it contained matter and the other guessed a dead mouse you might say that the former guess was more likely than the later and judge the people accordingly. However if you take their life histories/personalities into account you might judge it differently. Maybe the first guesser is just a very unimaginative concrete thinker with a science background, maybe the second has had a long history of burrying their dead pet mice in small wooden boxes and simply associated boxes strongly with dead mice. Both of these people base their beliefs on their life experience. In the face of limited information we are forced to make guesses based on our experience. The less the guess matters in the immediate future or the more unlikely it is that we will know the answer, the more likely we may be prone to throwing caution to the wind when guessing.

Besides I think most religions have very specific components, think about some of the implied/explicit specificity in religions:

Very specific about what acts are good and bad, though in the real world these things tend to have grey areas.

Specific about the number of god/s.

Specific about the number of fates your soul has after death.

Specific about the way you should pray.

Etc. etc. etc.

Beliefs specific or not are just a part of human nature and not an accurate gauge of sanity. How you might aquire those beliefs is a different matter, for instance if you believe your fridge came to life told you will get 72 virgins after you die that may be another story.

177

Leauki

on Jun 27, 2005

"Very specific about what acts are good and bad, though in the real world these things tend to have grey areas."

Given that in the Bible there are rules that apply to all children of Noah and rules that apply only to Jews, and religions that believe that some of the rules but not all of them apply to everyone, and that there is literally thousands of years of essays and books written by rabbis and church thinkers interpreting these rules, I cannot find that the Bible is very specific when it comes to good and bad.

Perhaps you are talking about other religions? More specific ones?

"Specific about the number of god/s."

The Bible often refers to G-d referring to Himself and others like him. Ancient Judaism did not deny the existence of other gods, merely believed that the Jewish god was the one who created the world (the other gods might still exist though). At least one of the words in Hebrew that refer to G-d is plural. Many other religions have very many gods, the original celtic religion apparently had to number them.

And Christianity still cannot agree whether the one true G-d is one or three.

"Specific about the number of fates your soul has after death."

I have seen hundreds of rabbis' opinions on that.

"Specific about the way you should pray."

All Jewish prayer books appear to be based on interpretations of what the Bible commands prayer should be like. Yet they are all different.

I still think it is more sane to believe in some unspecified reward for good people after death than to be able to measure the reward in virgins.

178

Toblerone

on Jun 27, 2005

Okay, I will concede that there are many different interpretations of different religions. Still each of those different interpretation has quite specific components. Even though christians may argue above whether there are 3 gods or one both side are taking a specific standpoint. From your line of arguement they should be considered more insane because not only do they have specific beliefs but they also bother to argue about it.

I still think it is more sane to believe in some unspecified reward for good people after death than to be able to measure the reward in virgins.

My question is why. In this case one person's guess is as good as another because nobody knows the truth and the possiblities are infinite. As I said before you should either show me some foundation for your belief that specificity versus generality in regards to unfounded beliefs say something about your sanity or you should admit to being insane yourself by your own reasoning.

179

-----

on Jun 28, 2005

Even though christians may argue above whether there are 3 gods or one both side are taking a specific standpoint

--religion/# of gods can essentially be simplified to two groups...Theists and Diests (check my article...)

180

Toblerone

on Jun 28, 2005

--religion/# of gods can essentially be simplified to two groups...Theists and Diests (check my article...)

Yeah I remember reading that in 3001: A Final Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!