Death Penalty

Now you're just talking out of your ass, oh studied one, that document you cite was the Magna Carta and who gives a fuck about what it says...it doesn't mean a thing in the real world. Just another document that gave hope but changed nothing.

As for knowing who on here, has or hasn't experienced "real Nazi's" again you talk out of your ass, for we have had holocaust survivors on this very site commenting on different things...but I guess you've read all of the tens of thousands of posts on here to know that right? Shut your yap, read more, listen more, I have a really hard time believing somebody that writes as horribly as you do, does extensive studying of anything....I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it.

 

*sigh* magna carta? dude, look whos talking out of their ass, http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ <-second paragraph, 1st sentance... and if you read the first paragragh to i think youll find it to be much more then "capitalist propaganda"

and to your point about the doccument solving nothing... the DOA liberated america from britian, maybe if you shut your yap and maybe opened up to a little bit you would realize your not all-knowing, and apparently dont know to much about historical doccuments either. the magna carta established parliment.. in the medevil era if i rember correctly

as for the halocaust surviviors, i have a hard time believing that, not becasue im cynicall, but becasue the halocaust ended around 1945, and the "who are we" page was published in 2009 (im assuming that was sometime around the founding of this site) so, thats a rough esimate of 64 years, so if someone was 13 at the end of the halocaust, then they would be about 77, and im not aware of that many 77 year olds signing up on a anarcho-punk website... i mean its possible, but imporbable, a kid of a halocaust surviviour would be more likely, but i dont know everything an i dont claim to.

my typing is pretty terrible, admittedly. but just because someones typing isnt the best doesnt justify judgement of their mental capabilities. and your actually right, there isnt much i do exensive research on, but diversity of knowlage is much more powerful then a focoused area of expretiese, i can justify anarchy using my own countrys constition. you cant ever rember what doccument gave your country its covernmental system. If you want to beat the system, you have to understand it, and learn your roots

 

you justify anarchy with a piece of paper written by a bunch of slaveholders "blessed by god"? the same piece of paper now actually used by the us-imperialists to justify each and every aggression against "rogue states" we've seen in the last 64 years?
Somehow I get the idea that typing isn't your worst problem... and i wonder what the nutzis of your country will give about your fine idea of free speech for racist thugs and white supermadheads using their "right to be nazis" on your liberal skull - good luck!

 

The bill of rights is academically credited to following the Magna Carta, pendejo. I know exactly where your federalist bullshit comes from, "your country's constitution" isn't my country's constitution because I am an anarchist that recognizes no state as "my country". So you call yourself a green anarchist and have 666 in your avatar because you promote the christian belief in "evil" and consider the constitution of the United States as yours, very fucking interesting. Yes we had a doctor that has written many books on the subject as a forum member for several months, she was a holocaust survivor and it was more than a pleasure having her here teaching us and learning from us. You on the other hand wanted to welcome Nazi's here to debate in a thread which was promptly deleted. I'm done with you and your oh so wise ways. I was trying very hard to have patience with a person that obviously knows much more than all the other anarchists on here combined, and that even after repeated warnings, decided to ignore the forums charter arguing for the rights of Nazi's to free speech.

 

so you talk about this magna carta???:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

quite some progress for the "free men" and the barons - but what about the serfs???

free men again - what about the blacks and natives???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
it's just that easy - except you take "anarchism" as a box to pick up and choose pieces justifying your apathy and frustration...

 

how is it cotradictary to haver rules in anarchy oh wait are you one of those people that thinks anarchism is to be without rules??? because it is quite the contrary anarchy is to be without RULERS rules are of course there but made and chosen by the people themselves by direct democracy it's may not be a strict rule in anarchy to not let nazi's have free speech but it is a rule on this site so either go with it or fuck off



nutz!

 

something about "free speech" and the nutzis way to cover the topic - example: the poet Erich Mühsam:

 

There's two different perspectives being argued.

Glenndanzig666 sez no censcorship. I agree with this, in the sense that nothing should be "off limits" or stifled or erased by any sort of administrative body. Free speech means that its a basic human right to communicate your ideas. I don't think danzig666 knows what he's talking about.

On the other hand, while I don't think a governing body should stop you, I am not opposed to the idea of having your ass beat wherever you show your face for trying to poison the world. That's different. That's off the cuff so to say. You can say what you want, but accept the consequences. A website paid out of personal pocket counts.

Why would you ever defend a nazi anyway? Jeez. Talk about idealism to its extreme.

 

Also, if you don't think someone who has raped and murdered 300 children should be executed, you should be put in the same cell. You'll change your opinion. Fast.

 

Da point is: is it an "idea" to wish, plan, promote the mass termination of "subhumans", no matter how the actual definition of subhuman is - but there is one thing about the masterrats - they always need someone "below" the mark of basic humanity.
Deserves racism - an ultimate violation of human rights - any kind of tolerance, or - as xxx-666 wrote - is being a nazi a human right? Sorry, for me this is no idealism, but pure stupidity, the guy obviously didn't knew what he was talking about.
If you argue that a serial rapist and murderer should be executed for killing 300 children - what about people still "honouring" the german holocausters - responsible for around 70 million deaths between 1932 and 1945?
How many people are killed or seriously harmed because of their skin, their ethnic heritage, their language each year?

serial rapists/murderers and nazis are still humans - who are we to decide about life and death in their case? I don't argue with morals or the old "evading to put ourselfs on the same footing" - but keeping capital punishment as a tool of justice never worked and it's side effects, the everpresent possibility of a fatal error or a deliberate judical murder is just too much to risk.

Murderers and nazis should be studied, put to meaningful activity and kept safe from being a walking danger to the community they live in. Punishment isn't convincing and never brought the victims back to life, the only thing that really works is isolation from the community they endanger, they ask for it - so they might get it if necessary.
No free speech for nazis, not an inch on the street for them - beat them where ever they show up!

 

The point is, thought is not a crime. It just isn't. From a moral administrative standpoint, you can never justify burning books, no matter how heinous it is. But like I said, if a few folks feel like knocking some boneheads, no harm no foul. You get what you deserve.

Free speech is not always pleasant. Its not supposed to be. It is not defined as positive and uplifting. It is defined as anything conceivable by the human brain. That is because right and wrong are subjective. Those terms don't exist. You must acknowledge that there are many people in the world who believe that what you say is just as bad if not more poisonous than what nazis say. Whether you believe it to be true and just and misunderstood is irrelevant. Its your word against many and its only because that we have the
luxury of living in a place that more or less believes in free speech that we're able to have this conversation and have access to radical
literature. When you start to impose restrictions of any kind, you have taken a step in a very very
bad direction and the window of opportunity for
that to be pushed will always be there and that scared me considering how many people don't
see much difference between me and a nazi

Tl;dr : vigilante justice is better than censorship


As far as prisoners go, you can only really justify life in jail is if they're producing more than it costs

to keep them there. That goes into iffy territory about slavery. What if they just refuse to work? What then? Also, how exactly is keeping someone locked up until they die so much better than just
killing them. Raises philosophical questions about if life really is so much better and what is more cruel

 

And you can't cite unethical death sentences considering the only frame of reference is the current institution. We're debating about a hypothetical system where people are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and only exceptionally severse cases.

 

The concept of "justice" never worked well, not in the Russian Revolution, not in the Ukraine, not in Spain - we are humans and you can't guarantee for everybody involved in the process of making a verdict.
It's not acceptable for me especially if the question is life vs. death, and there were lots of Anarchists executed because of faked indications - we shouldn't risk the same because we can't exclude the possibility of errors slipping in.
This won't change even in Anarchism because people still will follow personal preferences - "beyond reasonable doubt" is a relative thing as long as you aren't a saint and doing all the investigatory work personally yourself - and you would still have to deal with witnesses and their personal realities - so where's the justice/ the truth in details that might be important?
And why should we punish someone for deeds that aren't reversable and won't make anything undone? Punishment don't work, it just satisfies revenge and might ease the horror and helplessness witnessing just another crime, but executions won't help with that.
Why should we kill people unable to live in a community if we can keep them from doing crimes by simply keeping them isolated?
Instead of putting them on deathrow we should have them writing their biographies, so we can learn about what makes murderers, maybe we can learn enough to prevent it in the futures.

 

I highly disagree, any thoughts or speech that would cause any other human or animal harm, suffering, or death, is not acceptable....period. And If you persist on disseminating such garbage you forfeit all human consideration. I'm not advocating death to such people , just severe consequences to the point of exclusion.

 

instead of burning books we should keep them in libraries to study, like the famous ravings of adolf h. for example, so everybody can see how heinously crazed and boring the stuff really is.
don't remember right know who said "we're fighting against the ideas, not the people" in context with fighting fascists and nazis, so beating some sense into them might be okay, killing nazis is necessary only in self-defence.
it's very objective if someone is screaming "i will kill you" right into your face, just because your skin is of a different colour, or because you're "a red" or "a jew" or what ever else these idiots are after.

even while i still have some understanding for the somehow naive "free speech for everyone"-position, i know that it doesn't works in realitiy, so we have to defend our little luxury by shutting up the brown idiots at every opportunity.

how much difference will fascists see between you and a "commie-subhuman" if they ever get the chance to decide about your freedom? - that's a perspective that really scares me, especially because it happend already before and we know what our chances would have been - see comrade gobbles Erich-Mühsam-example.

i think there is some rethinking necessary about the way we deal with serious offences against individuals and communities. following your argument about subjectivity/objectivity we end up with the idea that there is no such thing as justice, which is okay with me - but the point is, that people have the right to live unharmed from inhumane idiots and communities don't really need the trouble having endless discussions with racists. so the solution with the smallest damage possible is to lock them away if they ask for it.
holding them under lock doesn't mean to exploit their manpower for cheap production (some claim the 1.000.000.000 prisoners in the u.s. are part of a "prison industry" and exploited just for profits) - but they need to reintegrated into the community, so they should be given the chance to learn something useful and stop being a walking h-bomb. if someone refuses to reintegrate inot the community - well, then he's asking to be kept away some more time, it's up to him or her?
the big philosophical question would be:
what happens to communities and societies that are evaluating the "worth" of their delinquent members to be left alive or not or calculate the efficiency of their confinement in economical terms - and i think there are some examples far more worse than slavery...

 

Yes, they are subjective, but that doesn't mean commonly agreed on subjective decisions aren't any less binding.

There is a key distinction to be made between what nazis think and how they organise.
You can't obvious 'criminalise' those who hold Nazi beliefs, largely cos how could we? We'd need telescreens or something to 'out' the closet nazis. If someone wants to go on believing that shit, whatever, there's really fuck all i can do to convince them otherwise.
This is, however, distinct from, say, the production and distribution of Nazi propaganda, holding public Nazi rallies, etc, etc. The aim of such activity is to promote and organise genocide. Such activity is thus not 'free speech'.

 

Thomas Jefferson did have an affair with many of his slaves though.

 

jefferson helped to criminalize the international slave trade 1807 as far as i remember, sometimes he called slavery "abominable crime," and a "moral depravity", but he never let the slaves he "owned" go and during his lifetime he had more than 700 - only Sally Hemmings and her two sons Eston and Madison were declared free in 1826 - the boys were jeffersons sons and both emigrated 1835 from virginia to slave-free ohio.
Sally Hemmings was the half-sister of jeffersons wife Martha Wayles fathered by john wayles and "nature" had 1998 three independent labors testing the DNA of hemming-descendants - the test showed a match between the Jefferson male line and descendants of at least one of Sally Hemings' children, so jefferson is definitely the father of at least one of the hemming boys.
"a nation under god" and founding fathers in biblical relations...

 

Jefferson did not believe in god. Jefferson was also a Philosophical anarchist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_anarchism#Notable_philosophical_anarchists
I doubt Jefferson did not want freedom to the slaves if he had sex with one of his slaves.
The founding fathers ideas where not so bad if they had not took the land from the British which was stolen from the Native Americans who were ripped off of their land which they did not believe had a owner which is true. So, the Americas should belong to the Native Americans, but were stolen by the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian, Danish, and Swedish. Hailing Christopher Columbus as a hero and discoverer of America in public schools is one of the darkest lies in history. Christopher Columbus was a murderer, a dictator, a rapist, and one of the worst people on earth.
He killed more people than Adolf Hitler. America conceals this because America is corrupt, and definitly racist.

 

A philosophical anarchist who was two times president of the u.s. and started a war with the french - dunno?!
And didn't jefferson say that "slavery is like keeping the wolf by it's ears" - because the "blacks" are inferior to the "whites" and unable to be civilized?