[DerbyX]

$1:

How much time do you guys spend on writing replies to each other?

Shhhh. They might turn on us!

[GunPlumber]

I'll wade into this one more time. The points in Jaime's argument that I took issue on were:

1. Credentialism - a large part of Jaime's Anti-Argument is based on Britt's credentials. I've done extensive research on this, and nowhere does Britt claim or imply he has a doctorate. Every article that assigns him a doctorate seems to refer back to the interview in the Rochester City newspaper, where the interviewer refers to Britt as "Dr. Laurence Britt". I would suggest that that interviewer not only misspelled Britt's first name but, may have mistakenly assumed Britt had a doctorate. From that mistaken assumption the myth and it's counter's probably grew forth.

It's irrelevant!

If the strength of your argument rests in arguing the essay based on the credentials of the author, then obviously you don't have the courage to engage the context or content of said essay. Many great and widely accepted ideas in history were put forth by people who either didn't have credentials (degrees?) in the relevant subject or had no credentials at all.

A very famous example of this occurred in the early 1900's.

At that time, much of the body of the science of physics relied on shaky theories and illogical (by modern standards) explanations of the unexplainable. About this time, a German who had been trained as a schoolteacher and was working as a patent clerk in Switzerland, began contributing to the magazine, Annalen der Physik. His first article appeared in the same issue where Plank's Quantum Theory was published. Most of the German's work went unnoticed - why should a schoolteacher/patent clerk be allowed to question accepted theories of physics? The teacher/clerk was not using comparison with other works to come-up with his ideas though. One of his colleagues at the patent office later remarked that it was as if he "had reached the conclusions by pure thought, unaided, without listening to the opinions of others. To a surprising extent, that is precisely what he had done".

In 1905, the German was again published, in an article titled On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies (fans of the history of physics will, by now, have guessed of whom I am speaking). This work, too, was largely ignored - even when a supplement to it revealed the most famous formula of all time. Of course everyone has seen it --- E=mc[sup]2[/sup].

Of course, nowadays, that formula seems so obvious. It wasn't at the time. To quote from Bill Bryson's, A Short History Of Nearly Everything (a great book if you are at all interested in science, or even better, if you're not):

$1:

Physicists, as a rule, are not overattentive to the pronouncements of Swiss patent office clerks, and so despite the abundance of useful tidings, EINSTEIN'S[my emphasis] paper attracted little notice. Having just solved several of the deepest mysteries of the universe, Einstein applied for a job as a university lecturer and was rejected, and then as a high school teacher and was rejected there as well. So he went back to his job as an examiner third class, but of course he kept thinking. He hadn't even come close to finishing yet"

Well, it took Albert Einstein about twelve years before he came-up with his next big idea,... but it was a doozer (by his own admission, Einstein came-up with very few ideas). His, Cosmological Considerations On The General Theory Of Relativity was, again, largely unnoticed. However, when the academics finally came to understand it (about two years after it was released), this theory and the theories which followed (on special relativity) took the world of physics and basically turned it on-end and reordered it.

Not bad for someone who "lacked credentials"!

By the way, Galileo -as a mathematician - "lacked the credentials" to question the Ptolemic view of the world. Which is why the Pope had him excommunicated for suggesting the world was round and that the earth revolved the sun. As far as I care, anyone who attacks an idea based on the credentials of the author, should be given a lifetime membership to the "Flat Earth Society", which I'm told comes with an 'invitation' to visit a restorative facility (padded walls - no charge).

2. False De-Constructions - If an author proposes (based on his acknowledged research) that a state of being (in this case, fascism) can be proven when all of his listed conditions are met, it is false argument to say that the seperate conditions are not proof of that state. For instance, I'll say that combustion relies on the presence of three elements:
- Oxygen
- Fuel
- Source of ignition
If any of these elements are not present, combustion is not possible. To attack this idea by saying oxygen is everywhere but combustion does not occur everywhere that oxygen is present, is idiotic de-construction.

Britt argues, based on his research, that the fascist states all exhibited ALL of the fourteen conditions he listed. To cite any one of the conditions and then argue that it also occurs in other political states, can be correct. However, to go on and argue that any one of the conditions' existence in other political states is proof that Britt's fourteen condition do not prove fascism is a non-argument. Britt asserts that ONLY WHEN ALL FOURTEEN CONDITIONS ARE PRESENT, is the historical criteria for fascism met.

So, I am well and truely done on this subject. Having reviewed some of the other 'debates' which Jaime has involved himself in, there is a clear pattern. He seems to argue for the sake of argueing, without bothering to employ much (if any) capacity for reasoning or relevancy and, without any effort or intent to add to the debate or move it in a productive direction.

There's an old saying that applies to him:

$1:

Never argue with an idiot: he'll only drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

[Patrick_Ross]

There is one other thing I'd like to add, Jaime: if you knew anything about academic publishing, you would know there are essentially two types of essay collections: those by one author, and those by a number of authors. Those by one author can be found under the author's name. Those by many authors are found under the editor's name. That's why you can't find it.

Of course, we could find it if we knew the title of the essay.

Gun Plumber Gun Plumber:

By the way, Aristotle -as a mathematician - "lacked the credentials" to question the Ptolemic view of the world. Which is why the Pope had him excommunicated for suggesting the world was round and that the earth revolved the sun. As far as I care, anyone who attacks an idea based on the credentials of the author, should be given a lifetime membership to the "Flat Earth Society", which I'm told comes with an 'invitation' to visit a restorative facility (padded walls - no charge).

You meant Copernicus, do you not, GP?
...Also, please don't bring up the "Flat Earth Society". If you're referring to what I think you may be, that is a tactic of outright slander.

Gun Plumber Gun Plumber:

2. False De-Constructions - If an author proposes (based on his acknowledged research) that a state of being (in this case, fascism) can be proven when all of his listed conditions are met, it is false argument to say that the seperate conditions are not proof of that state. For instance, I'll say that combustion relies on the presence of three elements:
- Oxygen
- Fuel
- Source of ignition
If any of these elements are not present, combustion is not possible. To attack this idea by saying oxygen is everywhere but combustion does not occur everywhere that oxygen is present, is idiotic de-construction.

Actually, GP here is where I think you and I should clarify something. At one point you did in fact suggest that the 14 points must all be considered together. However, the language of Britt's peice tells us that "often" fascist societies meet this characteristic, and "sometimes" meet another.

...But it's going to be fun having an actual intelligent conversation about this with someone of actual intelligence. One other thing that has occured to me that I do not feel that Britt satisfactorily addresses, and that is the fascist state's attitude toward other countries. If I were to meet Britt, I would suggest a 15th point:

15. Contempt for the international community - it is my belief that fascist states typically show a disdain for international organization and international law. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, for example, all ignored practically every treaty that their respective states had signed up to the point when they took power, and were typically antagonistic and aggressive.

Also, Gun Plumber, which of the two essays do you personally prefer? Would you choose Britt's work over Eco's?

[GunPlumber]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Gun Plumber Gun Plumber:

By the way, Aristotle -as a mathematician - "lacked the credentials" to question the Ptolemic view of the world. Which is why the Pope had him excommunicated for suggesting the world was round and that the earth revolved the sun. As far as I care, anyone who attacks an idea based on the credentials of the author, should be given a lifetime membership to the "Flat Earth Society", which I'm told comes with an 'invitation' to visit a restorative facility (padded walls - no charge).

You meant Copernicus, do you not, GP?
...Also, please don't bring up the "Flat Earth Society". If you're referring to what I think you may be, that is a tactic of outright slander.

Actually I meant to say Galileo. Don't know where my brain was when I wrote that (woulda been kinda hard for any Pope to ex-c Ari and Coper avoided direct confrontation with The Church). Although Galileo was a student of Copernicus' theories, his work went well beyond it. I'll correct it in my post but the quotes will display my error.

As for some people having the apearance of belonging to the FES, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em.

[GunPlumber]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

Actually, GP here is where I think you and I should clarify something. At one point you did in fact suggest that the 14 points must all be considered together. However, the language of Britt's peice tells us that "often" fascist societies meet this characteristic, and "sometimes" meet another.

Actually Britt, in his essay Fascism, Anyone points out that the seperate conditions when applied singly to a regime are not proof of the existence of fascism. Only when all fourteen conditions are visible do we have overwhelming indications of similiarity to acknowledged fascist regimes.

From Fascism, Anyone?:

"Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances."

and

"Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity."

This is why I stated, and reiterated, that you cannot say "well this condition exists in some democracys and that condition exists in some monarchys" and use that as a basis for deconstructing the need for all fourteen conditions to be met, in order to label the eligible regime as not being (or very much appearing to be) fascist. I used the reference to combustion to show what I meant. Sure you can note that oxygen is everywhere and combustion isn't. However, that does not invalidate the fact oxygen needs to be present for combustion to occur. As long as all three conditions are met - oxygen, fuel, source of ignition - combustion can, and most likely, will occur.

[GunPlumber]

lily lily:

Patrick Ross Patrick Ross:

The votes are in, Jaime. 5-0. You lose.

It seems very important to you that others agree with you. Do you seek internet forums as a sort of validation?

And WHY EXACTLY did you join this thread and what is it that you are adding to the debate?

lily lily:

Patrick Ross Patrick Ross:

]Which one of us is screaming, Jaime? Here's a better question: which one of us is actually angry?

Would it be the one who realizes he has no arguments, no evidence and no ideas, so he resorts to accusing the other of being a liar?

I think it's the one who felt the need to start a thread as a means to personally attack another poster.
I think it's also the one who has to resort to name calling and ridicule.

And I think it's the person who joins in an ongoing debate and engages in self-righteous (but ultimately clueless) posturing to try and demean a poster convinced that doing so (somehow) involves her in the debate.

lily lily:

Patrick Ross Patrick Ross:

I still just knocked your fucking head off with that one -- because everyone here knows it.

... and again with the validation.

Again with the inflated sense of self-importance and condescending criticism. Did you come here simply to be smacked upside your ego or did you have something worthwhile to say?

lily lily:

You also seem rather obsessed with the notion of "winning" and "owning". It seems to be a common theme in your posts. It comes off as rather pathetic, in my opinion.

You seem more than obsessed with the pathetic notion that your opinions of conduct are somehow relevant to the debate, even when you seem to have no interest in the subject of debate.

lily lily:

One final thing, Patrick... posting in yellow is rather dumb. It's too hard to read.

What's really DUMB is not knowing that the "internet colors" option in YOUR browser may be set incorrectly. Patrick's text displays as blue in my browser and I have absolutely no trouble reading it. In fact, as a means of highlighting his latest additions, when nested quotes may stretch to three or more levels, it ranks as an effective and well-thought means to an end.

Lily, dear, try looking-up hypocrite sometime. Don't be shocked to find your picture there. When you're done you can crawl back under the rock where you've so ably cultivated your arrogant, self-centered, smug, bitchy, attitude.

Thanks for playing, though.

[GunPlumber]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

If I were to meet Britt, I would suggest a 15th point:

15. Contempt for the international community - it is my belief that fascist states typically show a disdain for international organization and international law. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, for example, all ignored practically every treaty that their respective states had signed up to the point when they took power, and were typically antagonistic and aggressive.

Also, Gun Plumber, which of the two essays do you personally prefer? Would you choose Britt's work over Eco's?

I suppose adopting fascism would tend to make a regime standout from the international community, but I'm not sure that all of the regimes that Britt studied were any more contemptuous of the international community than some recent examples of democracy. Which is not to deconstruct your condition so as to exclude it from the list. Rather, by modern standards of acceptable/tolerated conduct, it may be that Britt unintentionally overlooked that aspect of a regimes character. The regimes he studied were: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. At least five of the seven meet your condition. I'm not sure about Franco's Spain and have no familiarity with Salazar's Portugal. Guess I'll have to do some more reading myself.

[GunPlumber]

Personally, I'm becoming a fan of showing disdain for international organizations. They become a joke of irrelevancy when their agenda is driven by the self-interest of a single nation who can veto any dissenting opinions.

On a more local scale, I wonder how our economy might be faring if we had opted not to join the G6, and it's condition that the BoC had to conform to IMF standards. Our debt would be self-administered and our currency's value would be determined without the negative influence of profit-driven speculation. I can begin to understand why China is so reluctant to de-link the yuan, when I see the number of times we've approached catastrophe since 1975.

[GunPlumber]

lily lily:

$1:

[quote="Ja, MeSoVain"][color=yellow]It's not a lie, and you're not fooling anyone.[/color][/quote]

If it shows up as blue, then you're the one whose browser is set incorrectly. It clearly reads "yellow".

Stop to look at the code snippet you chose to post. The post that Patrick is quoting is in yellow, and Patrick chose not to alter it (well, ok, a little, hehe). The choice to post in yellow was not his.

D'oh!

$1:

The rest of your post was filled with silly childish insults.
Good for you!

And that differs from ANYTHING you've posted in this thread? The difference is I come right out and say something, instead of trying to hide it's meaning behind some pithy little piece of self-righteous arrogance.

And ya, I'm an arrogant SOB, so what?.

Your rock is waiting.

[GunPlumber]

lily lily:

$1:

Stop to look at the code snippet you chose to post. The post that Patrick is quoting is in yellow, and Patrick chose not to alter it (well, ok, a little, hehe). The choice to post in yellow was not his.

Go back to page 2 and read the post he quoted. The choice to post in yellow was indeed his. He's the only one to post in yellow.

Jheeeesh! That was so easily checked, and you got it wrong not once but twice. What does that say about you and the reliability of your "facts"?

So now that you've suckseeded in hijacking the thread, is there anything of substance you care to add to the original thread topic?

Didn't think so!

Your rock is still waiting and it's getting cold under there.

[Patrick_Ross]

lily lily:

Patrick Ross Patrick Ross:

The votes are in, Jaime. 5-0. You lose.

It seems very important to you that others agree with you. Do you seek internet forums as a sort of validation?

Patrick Ross Patrick Ross:

Which one of us is screaming, Jaime? Here's a better question: which one of us is actually angry?

Would it be the one who realizes he has no arguments, no evidence and no ideas, so he resorts to accusing the other of being a liar?

I think it's the one who felt the need to start a thread as a means to personally attack another poster.
I think it's also the one who has to resort to name calling and ridicule.

Patrick Ross Patrick Ross:

I still just knocked your fucking head off with that one -- because everyone here knows it.

... and again with the validation.

You also seem rather obsessed with the notion of "winning" and "owning". It seems to be a common theme in your posts. It comes off as rather pathetic, in my opinion.

One final thing, Patrick... posting in yellow is rather dumb. It's too hard to read.

And what are you, another of Jaime's buddies trying to get on my case now because I took it to him and beat him?
...Even more so...
Who asked you?

GunPlumber GunPlumber:

Actually Britt, in his essay Fascism, Anyone points out that the seperate conditions when applied singly to a regime are not proof of the existence of fascism. Only when all fourteen conditions are visible do we have overwhelming indications of similiarity to acknowledged fascist regimes.

I see. I should have caught that myself. What you are saying (I think) is that fascism can in fact occur without all 14 characteristics, but when all 14 is present it is overwhelming evidence of potential fascism.
Or maybe we aren't completely agreeing on this particular point, but then again we're allowed to disagree.

GunPlumber GunPlumber:

And WHY EXACTLY did you join this thread and what is it that you are adding to the debate?

And I think it's the person who joins in an ongoing debate and engages in self-righteous (but ultimately clueless) posturing to try and demean a poster convinced that doing so (somehow) involves her in the debate.

Again with the inflated sense of self-importance and condescending criticism. Did you come here simply to be smacked upside your ego or did you have something worthwhile to say?

You seem more than obsessed with the pathetic notion that your opinions of conduct are somehow relevant to the debate, even when you seem to have no interest in the subject of debate.

What's really DUMB is not knowing that the "internet colors" option in YOUR browser may be set incorrectly. Patrick's text displays as blue in my browser and I have absolutely no trouble reading it. In fact, as a means of highlighting his latest additions, when nested quotes may stretch to three or more levels, it ranks as an effective and well-thought means to an end.

Lily, dear, try looking-up hypocrite sometime. Don't be shocked to find your picture there. When you're done you can crawl back under the rock where you've so ably cultivated your arrogant, self-centered, smug, bitchy, attitude.

Thanks for playing, though.

Ouch! Thanks for the assist, GP, but don't concern yourself with it. I handle my own business.

GunPlumber GunPlumber:

I suppose adopting fascism would tend to make a regime standout from the international community, but I'm not sure that all of the regimes that Britt studied were any more contemptuous of the international community than some recent examples of democracy.

I can agree with this, but I would also argue that since Britt's essay is partially a cautionary work warning us about how dangerously close some "democracies" are teetering toward fascism. I think part of what I am referring to also falls under the "Contempt for Human Rights" characteristic. For example, when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, they used chemical weapons against Ethiopians. When Hitler invaded Eastern Europe, slavic POWs were treated like absolute garbage (but still marginally better than Jews, homosexuals or Gypsies). This is all well and good -- Britt does, in his own way, address this.
But I don't feel that he suffiiently addresses the stance of the fascist state toward international organization, particularly diplomacy.[color=blue]

lily lily:

The rest of your post was filled with silly childish insults.

[color=blue]Ah, yes. The kettle calling the pot black. Perfect, really.

lily lily:

Go back to page 2 and read the post he quoted. The choice to post in yellow was indeed his. He's the only one to post in yellow.

There was a point to that. It had to do with Jaime's cowardly tactics used in not only this thread (which, for your information, was written for four purposes: 1.)to continue the debate about Britt's 14 Points of Fascism, 2.)Expose Jaime's disinformation tactics, 3.)Force Jaime to stay in the argument through to its conclusion without the opportunity to play "topic police" (as he is keen to do), and 4. Give Xerxes back his "Fox News" thread (the failure of which is as much my fault as Jaime's -- but then again, at least I tried).

lily lily:

Besides, this thread was less about the 14 points of Fascism than it was about attacking fellow posters and crowing about who has the most "friends".

Which, ironically happens to be Jaime's specialty. The funny thing is: do you know what typically happens when you defend a coward? They turn tail and leave you fighing their battle.
Shit happens, though, right?

[GunPlumber]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

GunPlumber GunPlumber:

Actually Britt, in his essay Fascism, Anyone points out that the seperate conditions when applied singly to a regime are not proof of the existence of fascism. Only when all fourteen conditions are visible do we have overwhelming indications of similiarity to acknowledged fascist regimes.

I see. I should have caught that myself. What you are saying (I think) is that fascism can in fact occur without all 14 characteristics, but when all 14 is present it is overwhelming evidence of potential fascism.
Or maybe we aren't completely agreeing on this particular point, but then again we're allowed to disagree.

Nope I think he was saying was "all or none" and I'd agree with that,

" ...fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power .... are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity" which "reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi"

[Patrick_Ross]

I think we can agree to disagree on that one.
Another two points I feel that Britt fails to address properly:
-Fascism (true fascism) can only truly exist where significant populations of the majority grant the government a mandate for fascism. As such:
-Fascism is ideologically based, and requires the populace to be indoctrinated, usually at a young age through the education system. Through education, the virtues of the fascist government are impressed upon students, while political rivals (persons, groups, and systems) are villified.

[Scape]

12 warning signs of fascism

Rampant sexism - Governments of fascist states tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Traditional gender roles are made even more rigid and exaggerated. Condemnation of abortion and a virulent homophobia are commonly built into broad policy.

So how does Condi and the other female members of the government figure into this? Bush has appointed a more diverse set of top advisers than any president in history. Yet Roe vs Wade is on shaky ground with the recent appointment of supreme court justice John G. Roberts Jr who has refused to disclose his position and from his history shows that he will most liky overturn it. It is Bolton, not Rice, that is the real face of the Bush administration.

[Patrick_Ross]

Interesting point. However, as it refers to the Bush administration, I would agree that this is the weakest argument for fascism in the United States (which is COMPLETELY arguable).

Also, one further thing: it is my opinion that fascist states often masquerade as legitimate versions of whatever system they have co-opted (I believe that fascism rarely, if ever, has developed independantly of another system, be it democracy (Hitler) or communism (Stalin) -- Spain as an exception comes to mind. It came to fascism through civil war). As a result, fascist states are forced to (in some degree) adhere to the liberal ideal of the rule of law (whereas in typical dictatorships, the word of the dictator is law). This is despite the fact that fascism is typically an ideological rejection of the ideals of the Enlightenment (from which traditional Liberalism can be traced). As a result, it is necessary for the fascist government to put in place protections against the law (Pinochet's immunity from prosecution, for example), so that they may continue to act above it.