Wtf Brits not teaching Holocaust because of Muslims?!?

honestly, what the hell?

How stupid.

Yeah, cause if we don't talk about it, it didn't happen, right?

some people just can't handle the truthiness

Well, this is a bit saddening.

Like they say, if you control the past, you control the future.

What crap.

gah, stupid stupid political correctness...

do none of these teachers have any balls (females teachers of course excluded from that statement but a similar (but less specific) statement is aimed in their direction...)

if the students don't like what they are hearing then, well, stuff them, the holocaust is fact, no matter what some stupid idiots may like to preach otherwise.

Damn you Brits are nuts.

****ing nuts.

Ooooh I read this out to Izzy (she's a teacher for those who don't know) and she was fuming. You shouldn't drop a subject for fear that you'll provoke a negative reaction from a minority.

That said I suspect the "unnamed Northern city" is somewhere like Bradford where you might find a majority of muslims, and a minority of them mouthing off could still be a large amount of people.

It's all s***e though, the Holocaust is undeniable fact and is something that should never be brushed under any carpet for any reason.

I suspect the negative reaction they're fearing is being blown up.
It's just so ****ing stupid. This PC crap is getting ridiculous.

What? Its about time these PC liberals get a foot put up their backsides. The horrors of the Holocaust should be taught to all. Its a terrible chapter in history and it needs to be understood. But the new generation of kids would not even care.

There's so much trash that comes out of our politicians who think they are trying to be heroic. Our pathetic tax-wasting government here in the UK needs be overthrown. Our government is a joke :argh:.

Bloody wusses.

The country was once an empire ruling the seas and vast land masses, and now they don't have the guts to teach foreign history in schools. You can tell at some point they made a few wrong choices.

Blow up parliament.

Hahaha!

Voted "Most likely to revert to totalitarianism" by their graduating class.

They're a PC pseudo-socialist nanny state. Social institutions are being progressively worn down - the church, the government, the police, the family, and now the school. As this is happening, the very fabric of British society is becoming unraveled.

At the same time, the power of the nanny state is getting stronger. You aren't allowed to do or say or think anything that might possibly hurt someone else. Surveillance in the UK is greater than any other nation, yet crime rates haven't been affected. (Perhaps because it's not criminal activity the authorities are looking for?)

Sooner or later the Brits are going to get sick and tired of this, and they're going to vote for a party that swings too far in the other direction. Authoritarian. And they're going to use all of those handy-dandy tools set up by the PC nanny state to enforce their agenda and the UK will officially be an Orwellian writeoff.

On the plus side, the article is on about GCSE, which means it's only Wales and England and doesn't effect Scotland in the slightest.

Um...the other direction would be libertarianism. What you're headed to now is authoritarianism.

Answer me this: How in the hell does the Holocaust offend Muslims? They weren't even there! Is it because they are taught something completely different? Showing the religious leaders who twist the religion for the complete farces that they are offends them? GOOD!

I truly believe PC is an evil in this world. It's a means by which others can shut down the freedom of speech and shame, guilt, and deceive people against protesting against something they believe is wrong simply because there is now a TABOO against looking insensitive, even if you are factually right. I also believe PC is the cause of many deaths of soldiers, but that's a discussion for another time.

"You're?"

Authoritarianism isn't the opposite of libertarianism.

In a nanny state you have civil freedoms but you are denied social freedoms. Technically the opposite of a nanny state would be a minarchy, but shifts in government are rarely shifts in magnitude and more often a shift in paradigm. What you'd be looking at is a nanny state that relinquished civil freedoms in addition to social freedoms.

Also, the opposite of libertarianism would be republicanism. (With a lower-case 'R')

It offends Arabs because naziism is ingrained into their society. Hitler had a very strong impact on the middle east and even spoke highly of them as a people (that they were very malleable and open to his ideals). You can read more about it here.

What about jews does it offend jews? But then they're the ones who'd have a right to be offended, so obviously they shouldn't be listened too.

I remember some Jewish faction being like "HOLOCAUST WAS A PUNISHMENT FOR DISOBEYING GOD!". Perhaps Naturei Karta, perhaps not.

That's what they believe about their enslavement by the Babylonians. Not a huge surprise that some of them would believe the same thing about the Holocaust.

I have just really really lost hope in mankind.

So, time to kill yourself then?

Yes it is. Authoritarianism is more government control over both social and economic aspects of the nation. Libertarianism is less government control over both of those.

Minarchy is a type of libertarianism that focuses on a need for minimum taxation for what are considering bare bone necessary institutions, such as police and military.


Republicanism is an idea so capitalization is a difference of placement in a sentence. The only difference between "Republicanism" and "republicanism" is the first is at the beginning of a sentence. Any idea that comes around that uses a lower case first letter as some kind of differentiating mark from another idea is grammatically incorrect. More likely it has a more differentiating name, such as neo-republicanism. And since you made a point of differentiating, I assume you aren't talking about classical republicanism and are talking about neo-republicanism. However, neo-republicanism was not a different idea from republicanism, but was a revival of republican thought. While libertarianism does disagree with republicanism on some things, it does agree with it on other things.

Oh I see, you're a LOLbertarian.

No. This is like saying that the opposite of "cold" is "energy." Yes, a form of energy is the opposite, but I'm not warming you up if I impart explosive kinetic energy into your sternum. Authoritarianism is the opposite of classical liberalism but it is not the opposite of libertarianism specifically.

Well done, you can read.


Thank you for the grammar lesson but I was differentiating between republicanism and the Americans' special brand of fear-driven totalitarianism.

We already did that in 1776. Sorry we didn't hop across the pond and overthrow the rest of it, but we clearly didn't give a ****.

No, libertarianism still puts restraints on social behavior. For example, narcotics would be legal - but you still couldn't drive under the influence.

I think what you're describing there is conservatism.

Please keep in mind that America does not have a conservative party.

Since I purposely kept what I said as dry as possible and you decided to come back with an attitude, I'll assume you feel threatened that you made an error.

You dodge the fact that authoritarianism = more government control in everything while libertarianism = less government control in everything. Exact opposites. Also, cold and heat are used as measurements of energy, so cold can't be an opposite of energy since it is one of the definitions of energy. Your analogy would work if we were talking about authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and facism.


You stated the nanny state was the opposite of authoritarianism. I said libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism*. You then came back and said the minarchy was the opposite of the nanny state, thus showing that if Britain were to "swing the other way", it would not be in the direction of authoritarianism, which you formely said was the "other way", but would now go towards minarchy, which is a form of libertarianism. Thank you for agreeing with me.

It's not my fault you can't get your political concepts straight.

edit: * which I then said if the nanny state(a restrictive political philosophy) swung the other direction, it would thus be in the direction of libertarianism.

He didn't agree with you. You just totally ignored the whole rest of the paragraph. I suppose I should stop typing now, because you won't bother to read anything but the first two sentences. I could start insulting your mother or something, and you wouldn't know. I would go on, but I am already bored. This is another statement. Questioning of your sexual preference. Further useless cruft. Etc.

Instead of putting up a pointless post, how about you actually point out what I misinterpreted.

Which paragraph was it?
This one, the original one that started it?

I'm being completely passionless about this, yet both of you have copped an attitude. Very telling.

Jon'C says: People will get sick of the nanny state, so they will swing to be authoritarian. (this in and of itself makes no sense, btw, since if people get sick of a restrictive nanny government, why would they vote in an even more restrictive one?)

Recognizing this, I point out that authoritarianism would be going deeper into the restrictive state, so thus libertarianism, the less restrictive philosophy, would be the way the british would swing based on his own argument that the british will go the other direction of the nanny state.

Jon'C says minarchy(libertarianism) is the opposite of the nanny state(which rightfully contradicts his earlier statement that authoritarianism and the nanny state are in different directions). So if people are to go the other way of the nanny state, they would, in fact, go to libertarianism.

Point out where I'm wrong.

That is what you ignored.

And I'm not copping an attitude. I am supplying levity.

I didn't address that because that wasn't what I was arguing against. I agree that a massive shift like that won't happen. I was arguing the point about what would happen if there was a massive shift.

Jon'C: btw, classical liberalism is a libertarian philosophy as well, since classical liberalism maximizes both economic and social freedom. In fact, classical liberalism is pretty much the parent philosophy of the other libertarian philosophies.

Also, Isuwen:

I said less control, not complete uncontrol. However, anarchy(the extreme libertarianism) would still not have that kind of law, obviously.

I think I see where there is confusion. I see libertarianism and authoritarianism as broader categories, where different specific ideologies(such as fascism, classical liberalism, etc) are within that category. You(specifically Jon'C) see libertarianism and authoritarianism instead as specific ideologies. Am I anywhere in the ball park?

No, you responded to my post with functionally useless semantical pseudo-pendantry. The crux of your counter-argument was a vague grammar lesson and a series of assumptions about what you think I actually meant (when you really have no idea what you're talking about) and a miserably poor misunderstanding of what I meant by "in the other direction" (meaning a move away from the PC nanny state toward a hostile nanny state, similar to what is already happening in France).

Finally, I don't need a political sciences lesson from someone who earnestly believes that classical liberalism is a branch of libertarianism. You have this (and most things) backwards. Furthermore, even the assertation that minarchism is a branch of libertarianism is debatable. Libertarianism is not anarchy, it is not small government, it is about limited intervention from both government and from other citizens. You are a LOLbertarian.

WE WERE ON VACATION

The thing about republicanism was a side note. If you hadn't noticed, in my other summaries of the argument I didn't include them because it wasn't part of the original argument. And you have yet to answer the main question of why a society sick of a restrictive nanny state would knowingly vote in an even more restrictive(and now presumably violent) authoritarian government. Until you answer that, you show you're just trying to salvage as much of your argument as can and deflect onto me so you don't look as ignorant as you do right now. I know it hurts to swallow your pride sometimes and admit you made a simple mistake, but I believe you can do it.

It is. Libertarianism may have once been its own specific ideology, but so many modifications have been made to the original idea that, while the main ideas are still present in all of them, the specifics are tweaked to create a slightly different specific ideology. By the very definitions of minarchism, libertarianism, classical liberalism, and anarchy, it is the limited of government intrusion and maximization of personal freedom. Every single one of those philosophies advocate exactly that with varying degrees(anarchy being the extreme, of course) and with slightly different focuses. You know what else can limit personal freedom? Other individuals infringing on those freedoms such as stealing and murder. With the exception of anarchism, each one of those philosophies acknowledges the fact that citizens need to be protected from each other as well. These philosophies are all related. They are not their own completely independent philosophies. The fact that you are trying to use your famous belligerence to try to smother me into submission does not make this any less true. Also, what makes you think I'm a libertarian? Just because I know what I'm talking about does not necessarily mean I prescribe to that philosophy.

And that right there proves you know nothing about libertarianism since the core of it is to minimize government intervention and infringement on personal rights. By definition if you give government more responsibility over people's lives(like welfare, healthcare, etc) you are making it bigger while privatizing those aspects makes it smaller.

The fact is you are wrong and you can't bear that thought(both on what libertarianism is and your original statement). You don't even need to know jack about political science to know that a society sick of a restrictive government is not going to knowingly elect an even more restrictive and violent one.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=classical+liberalism+libertarianism&btnG=Google+Search

You see how many hits(one of them on the front page even being a published book) talk about classical liberalism and libertarianism as one?

Oh, "but the internet is full of nothing but lies". Well, here are some books that talk specifically about libertarianism/classical liberalism and the other forms of libertarianism since they are all related. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-2545399-6876827?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=libertarianism+classical+liberalism&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

I didn't even touch wikipedia yet because it's "never ever credible", even though the pages on libertarianism and it's offshoots are all well sourced and cited(seriously, go look it up. Look up authoritarianism while you're there). Or pull out ANY book encyclopedia.

Everyone realizes they are in the same category and that authoritarianism and libertarianism are opposites. You're the only one denying it. But of course, that doesn't matter. Everyone is wrong but you, that's how it's always been and that's how it always will be in every discussion, every thread. Get over yourself. Fact is, I know this is all futile because it will never happen. So it's pointless to continue to entertain you about the most basic facts. I'm done.

However, if you can find sources saying libertarianism and the other forms we've discussed here are not actually related and that authoritarianism and libertarianism are in fact not opposite, please feel free to PM their links to me.

Let's be a bit fair here. According to the article itself, it's a bunch of "fears", unsubstantiated at that, of some unknown number of teachers who voluntarily don't teach the holocaust. There is no evidence the Arabs held a protest, or made some gesture of resistance that sparked this, and our only source of information on this specific incident does not suggest this.

Hell, they can deny the holocaust all they want on their own, their ignorance, but there is no evidence here that they directly prevented the teaching of the truth. The article itself reeks of propaganda. The Muslims didn't do crap here, it was of the pansy teacher's own volition.

Just because some Arabs rabidly support holocaust denial does not make the group as a whole a bunch of Nazis either (always nice to use a loaded term like that). And then, even if they were, in this case they are innocent because they didn't do anything. There is was no direct pressure on teachers, no rallies, nothing. So let's not go ape about those evil nazi a-rabs who want to shroud the world in ignorance. For once it's an overreaction that isn't on their part.

Dudeeee, this is like not teaching theory of evolution because of the Christians in the USA.

I already explained how a society sick of a liberal PC nanny state would vote in a conservative nanny state, and I have cited a specific example of this happening (France). Instead of reading what I am writing you are perpetuating an absolutely retarded semantics debate.

Please use the enter key more often.

The fact that you believe anarchism is the "extreme form" of libertarianism illustrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Small government doesn't automatically mean libertarianism, just like how a large government doesn't automatically mean it's a dictatorship. You can have a positively enormous bureaucracy dedicated to maintaining civilization without that government infringing upon the personal freedoms of others.

Beyond that, libertarianism sets solid and well-defined restrictions on what you can do (namely that you cannot infringe upon the wellbeing of other citizens, which just so happens to be a limitation placed upon government as well).

Anarchism sets no limits. There are no restrictions. There is no government. The only political ideology I know of outside of anarchism itself that advocates the abolishment of government is late-stage Marxism. Libertarianism does not. In fact, the complete dearth of governmental authority is directly contradictory to many of the objectives of libertarianism.

Except it is happening, it has always happened and this is exactly how dictatorships throughout history have been formed from democratic societies. [1] [2] (I can find more examples if you need them)

oh hey look this web search exists and therefore I am right http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=kieran+horn+is+wrong

When did I deny that classical liberalism and libertarianism are related? You stated, and I quote,

"Jon'C: btw, classical liberalism is a libertarian philosophy"

and I responded to your statement with,

"You have this (and most things) backwards."

You should consider improving your critical reading skills before producting yet another ill-contrived page-long paragraph about how I am wrong even though you never actually read what was posted.

I am full of myself because I disagree with you and dare to provide evidence to back up my arguments. :downs:

Hey. Toolbox. Not everybody will always agree with you. Learn to live with it. And, by the way, posting that I am wrong because I am full of myself is an ad hominem (i.e. "smother you in my indignation".)


EDIT:

Everybody always posts this whenever they have a dead end argument. I wonder why.


EDIT 2:

My opinion of you as a toolbox is unrelated to your argument specifically and more to do with the fact that you chose to argue what I meant. Especially when you're talking about opposing philosophies. Indeed, to "go in the opposite direction" I could have meant no fewer than 3 different things. You are being a jerk and I am acting defensive because you tried putting words in my mouth like the jerk you are. Jerk.

Guh, I was gonna just post 'toolboxes' but after scanning that last post, apparently Jon`C already has, so:

Toolsheds.

And this is why I vote Monster Raving Looney.

Hahaha, you guys are taking an article like that from the Daily Mail seriously? The Brits here will probably agree with me when I say it spends most of its time trying to scaremonger the middle classes.

I worked in a newsagent for 4 years as a teen and the Daily Mail's headlines were invariably "generic food stuff causes cancer" (which is based upon a scientific paper recording a negligible increase in cancer rates) or "illegal immigrants are stealing jobs and raping our children" or "Blair's new stealth tax on the middle class". They frequently take isolated examples and try to blame the entire govt. with it. Don't get me wrong I can't stand New Labour (nor any of the other parties) but this is nearly always down to very few people.

A typical example is that story of a town changing it's Christmas Fair to Winter Fair "so as not to offend other faiths". It wasn't an order that came from on high, it was the stupid actions of an over-zealous council worker in one town yet it got blown out of proportion and I still hear it being used as ammo in the "the Brits are PC nuts" arguments.