Fascism - Why...

[SkepticThinker]

Those are our opinions which was not proven in a court of law.

The January 6th attack has most definitely been adjudicated as an insurrection in many courts of law across the country. There are people serving great deals of time for it, as we speak.
That is not opinion. That is fact. Give your head a shake.

 

[metis]

I never said the attack on the capital was fine, I said just because they attacked, does not mean the attackers prefer dictatorship over democracy.

So, if they had negated the results of the election, what do you think that would leave us with?

 

[Kfox]

I see -- you're having reading problems. You asked one question in #445: "Though violence didn't result, if it did; would you claim those black people reacting to this practice were rejecting democracy?" The response from @fantome profane was direct and very much to the point in the context of this thread: "If they attacked the capital and tried to replace the government, yes."

My question had nothing to do with replacing the government; yet his response did. When his response included something outside of the question I asked, he responded to a different question than I asked. It’s like me asking which do you prefer; apples or bananas? And you respond; bananas with peanut butter on it. Did you answer my question? No; you answered a question I did not ask.

And here is where you simply have it dead wrong. They did not like the result that democracy delivered, and therefore decided to dictate the result that they preferred.

But the result they preferred did not include getting rid of congress and installing a dictator; now did it!

 

[fantome profane]

My question had nothing to do with replacing the government

Which is why your question was irrelevant. People who are using violence to replace a democratically elected government are rejecting democracy. People using violence of other reasons are not.

Is that somehow unclear?

 

[Kfox]

They attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power from the outgoing democratically elected President to the incoming democratically elected President. If not for Pence forcing the vote in the middle of the night, they almost succeeded.

Does that sound democratic to you? Why do you think they wanted to stop the peaceful transfer of power to the new President, if not to subvert democracy?

Let me put it this way; it was not attempt to install a dictator.

The January 6th attack has most definitely been adjudicated as an insurrection in many courts of law across the country. There are people serving great deals of time for it, as we speak.
That is not opinion. That is fact. Give your head a shake.

Was it proven that they were attempting to get rid of congress and install a dictator? No.

 

[Kfox]

So, if they had negated the results of the election, what do you think that would leave us with?

Trump as President' not dictator.

 

[Kfox]

Which is why your question was irrelevant. People who are using violence to replace a democratically elected government are rejecting democracy. People using violence of other reasons are not.

Is that somehow unclear?

That particular question was about black people from the 1950's having a problem with Jim Crow laws and how they affected the voting process; it had nothing to do with January 6.

 

[fantome profane]

Trump as President' not dictator.

A President that was not elected. Which is clearly a rejection of democracy.

But the point is not just about the President, it is also about the precedent. (see what I did there)

The point is that if they could decide who would be President by attacking the capital, what happens next time? Or the time after that? The point is that it is no longer a democracy, that is over.

That particular question was about black people from the 1950's having a problem with Jim Crow laws and how they affected the voting process; it had nothing to do with January 6.

Perfectly clear and perfectly irrelevant.

 

[Valjean]

In my defence, it's the definition on Wordnik.

Understood, but implementation and philosopy don't correspond to the common usage of the terms.
Comparison and contrast:

Philosophy. Gentile and Mussolini:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My question had nothing to do with replacing the government; yet his response did. When his response included something outside of the question I asked, he responded to a different question than I asked. It’s like me asking which do you prefer; apples or bananas? And you respond; bananas with peanut butter on it. Did you answer my question? No; you answered a question I did not ask.

But the result they preferred did not include getting rid of congress and installing a dictator; now did it!

I'm not stupid -- I see what you are doing. It is exactly the same thing as saying that when John shot Bob, and Bob didn't die, then John should not be charged with attempted murder because, he will argue, he really only wanted to wound (or maybe just frighten) Bob.

Tell you what -- try that, and see how you fare in court.

You are, I have to say it, trying with real desperation to be an apologist for people that the courts of the nation are sending to prison. The difference between you and the courts? The courts are examining the evidence, you are looking for excuses.

 

[Kfox]

A President that was not elected. Which is clearly a rejection of democracy.

But the point is not just about the President, it is also about the precedent. (see what I did there)

The point is that if they could decide who would be President by attacking the capital, what happens next time? Or the time after that? The point is that it is no longer a democracy, that is over.

Your "slippery slope" argument doesn't work because this conversation is about the intent of the original people storming the capital; not what it could have eventually lead to

 

[Kfox]

I'm not stupid -- I see what you are doing. It is exactly the same thing as saying that when John shot Bob, and Bob didn't die, then John should not be charged with attempted murder because, he will argue, he really only wanted to wound (or maybe just frighten) Bob.

No, no, no! Where are you getting this??? I ask you which do you like better; "A" or "B" and you respond that you prefer "C". Did you answer my question? NO! How do you not understand this?

 

[fantome profane]

Your "slippery slope" argument doesn't work because this conversation is about the intent of the original people storming the capital; not what it could have eventually lead to

It is not a slippery slope argument. You can't just reject democracy "a little bit" or "just this once". It is not like cheating on a diet.

You reject the election one time, it is done. And that is what they were doing, that was their intent, to reject the results of the election and substitute they own guy for the duly elected leader. Maybe they didn't understand what it would lead to, maybe you don't understand what it would have lead to, doesn't matter.

The fact is, the indisputable facts are, this was an insurection with the goal of rejecting democracy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, no, no! Where are you getting this??? I ask you which do you like better; "A" or "B" and you respond that you prefer "C". Did you answer my question? NO! How do you not understand this?

You should go back and re-read your own apologetics. I understand quite well.

 

[fantome profane]

No, no, no! Where are you getting this??? I ask you which do you like better; "A" or "B" and you respond that you prefer "C". Did you answer my question? NO! How do you not understand this?

I understand. We are talking about fascism, the events of Jan 6th, and using violence to reject democracy.

You asked a question that was not about fascism, not about the events of Jan 6th, and not about using violence to reject democracy, and asked if it was the same situation. It was not.

If you want to discuss that further, start another thread.

 

[Kfox]

It is not a slippery slope argument. You can't just reject democracy "a little bit" or "just this once". It is not like cheating on a diet.

You reject the election one time, it is done. And that is what they were doing, that was their intent, to reject the results of the election and substitute they own guy for the duly elected leader. Maybe they didn't understand what it would lead to, maybe you don't understand what it would have lead to, doesn't matter.

The fact is, the indisputable facts are, this was an insurection with the goal of rejecting democracy.

They were not rejecting democracy, they were rejecting that particular election.

 

[Kfox]

You should go back and re-read your own apologetics. I understand quite well.

Post #483 I explained why he did not answer my question.

 

[Kfox]

I understand. We are talking about fascism, the events of Jan 6th, and using violence to reject democracy.

You asked a question that was not about fascism, not about the events of Jan 6th, and not about using violence to reject democracy, and asked if it was the same situation. It was not.

If you want to discuss that further, start another thread.

You keep getting this wrong. I didn't ask if this was the same situation, I gave a scenario of what constitutes rejecting democracy. My point was; in 1960 black people were objecting to how elections were held in their areas due to Jim Crow laws. they were not rejecting democracy, their complaint was about how those particular elections were held.
Jan 6; those rioters weren't rejecting democracy, their complaint was concerning how that particular election was held.

 

[fantome profane]

Jan 6; those rioters weren't rejecting democracy, their complaint was concerning how that particular election was held.

Lol, it wasn‘t “complaint”,

It was an insurrection.

Do you see the difference? The first is not a rejection of democracy, the second is.

Yes, I understand they had a “complaint“ about how the election was run. What you are refusing to see (and is obvious to everyone else) is that they responded to this by rejecting democracy. They rejected democracy because they had a “complaint“.

 

[Kfox]

Lol, it wasn‘t “complaint”,
View attachment 82346
It was an insurrection.


View attachment 82347



Do you see the difference? The first is not a rejection of democracy, the second is.

Yes, I understand they had a “complaint“ about how the election was run. What you are refusing to see (and is obvious to everyone else) is that they responded to this by rejecting democracy. They rejected democracy because they had a “complaint“.

What you seem to have trouble understanding is; to reject how a particular democratic election is done is not the same rejecting democracy.