Debate thread.

It seems as though some of us are having difficulty separating liberal social policy and liberal economic policy. It's not entirely 2 dimensional as 'left' and 'right' implies. There is actually 3 dimensions.

 Ironically enough, and I thought this was understood, is that the "left" and "right", when taken to the extreme often end up at the same place, like a horseshoe.

 This is because, at its core, the most liberal socio value you can have is that every person has the equal amount of worth to the country. Everyone shall always be put before the betterment of society as a whole. This is communism.

 The most conservative social approach one can take is that nobody matters, only the good of the country is what counts, and that nobody will be put before the betterment of the country. This is facism.

 The most conservative economic approach you can have is that everyone needs to be looked after. This is socialism.

 The most liberal economic approach is that nobody needs to be looked after, and we can leave them to their own devices. This is capitalism.

 What is commonly referred to as "the right" will take a liberal ecomic approach, with a conservative social approach. As you add more conservative economic  approach you will end up with facism eventually, not communism -  though most fascists are usually socialists as well. It's apples and oranges. Socialism and communism are not the same thing.

At no point does this actually cross back over center. It actually goes further and further right, so far back that; as you pointed out - starts to curve back on itself and ends up looking like some of the aspects of having a liberal-liberal social/economic approach, even though the way it derives its polices is the complete opposite.

 I'm sorry to say, but in no circles will anyone ever understand the conservative-conservative approach as being on any side of the house other than right, and as was stated, is a concept that is laughable at best.

 The reason it looks like its on the left is because you are seeing it as a 1 dimensional object with left and right, when in reality it is more like a 2 dimensional square  with left right, up and down.

Nice try, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Can we have a few concrete examples of BNP proposed policies from their manifesto which make them right wing, to clarify, please?

My logic is this: for the BNP to be on the far-right wing of the political spectrum, they would have to have at least 1 objectively right wing (defined as non-left wing (A cannot be B at the same time)) policy, can you name one to prove wrong my thesis that BNP is not right wing? If not then I will call a lie and find it personally offensive if someone falsely calls them right wing party, let alone far-right. I have proven my thesis not false by providing chiefly left wing proposals from BNP political manifesto.

,_, don't mess with the Admin bro. insulting someone on there own forum is not the smartest choice.

,_, don't mess with the Admin bro. insulting someone on there own forum is not the smartest choice.

True that. A bit like being invited to someones dinner party and proclaiming in front of the guests that the host is a moron and his wife is a fat bitch. Very unlikely that you would be invited to this house again

Do you guys think drugs should be legalized??

My answer is no and here are my reasons:

•Addiction rate would increase. When addiction rates increase, purchase related crime would increase as well.


•If legalization of drugs decreases the price of substances that more people will buy more less expensive products. However, addicts do not only steal money to buy drugs. They steal money to meet a standard of living

• If drugs become legalized, less expensive and more accessible, this may affect the drug-users’ habits. The use of drugs will increase more side effects like violence and paranoia etc.

•Criminals commit six times more homicides, four times assaults, and almost one and a half times as many robberies under the influence of drugs

I would like your opinions

Do you guys think drugs should be legalized??

My answer is no and here are my reasons:

•Addiction rate would increase. When addiction rates increase, purchase related crime would increase as well.


•If legalization of drugs decreases the price of substances that more people will buy more less expensive products. However, addicts do not only steal money to buy drugs. They steal money to meet a standard of living

• If drugs become legalized, less expensive and more accessible, this may affect the drug-users’ habits. The use of drugs will increase more side effects like violence and paranoia etc.

•Criminals commit six times more homicides, four times assaults, and almost one and a half times as many robberies under the influence of drugs

I would like your opinions

I would say it depends. I'd love to see some sources on your facts, too. Some drugs are a lot more harmful than others. Marijuana is an okay drug to legalise, bath salts or meth is most assuredly not.

@All-mana Mania weird is that there was no criminality increase in Holland after they legalized prostitution and soft drugs... Amsterdam is tourist paradise with beaitiful streets and almost no criminality..

It depends also on mentality in current society...

As I said, you are understanding the "right" amd "left" to be a 1 dimensional scale, when in reality it is really across 2 dimensions.  There is a socio scale of left right, and an economic scale of left right.

 What you understand as right is actually right-left.

Lol typical leftish propaganda, they will try to tell you that you are in fact an elephant. Why are you an elephant? Because they say so, and billions of others. Can you name one policy of BNP which is right on any bloody scale, will ya?

Do you guys think drugs should be legalized??

Yes, because nobody has the right to tell you what or what not you should do with your body. If an adult wants to take drugs, who am I to prevent that? It his choice not mine. He is not hurting anyone, no victim no crime.

When he harms other people while under drugs, he should be punished for harming other people, not for taking drugs.

Breaking the law in prevention of lawbreaking = goal justifies the means. No no

Besides, your predictions are dubious. What happened after legalisation of alcohol?

._. staying out of this one with my conservative republican self, but if you must know, I shall vote no, they should not be legalized because (according to my morals) it is wrong.

Quote from: Wizardmook on May 09, 2013, 08:57:14 AM

Quote from: Piotr on May 09, 2013, 07:42:37 AM

Logic and facts are the only things which have place in a serious debate, unfortunately you are not providing any.

Then you have not been using logic. If you are a UK resident then it is widely accepted that BNP is a far right organisation widely affiliated with other such organisations. UKIP is not openly right wing party as you suggest which is in poor taste. The representatives of UKIP have been found to have extremely distasteful xenophobic, homophobic views. The fact that you're polish and voting for UKIP is even funnier as if you look at their members a lot wanted nothing at all to do with Eastern Europe. Taking any parties policy as gospel is foolish as you also have to look at the driving force behind it as well. 😘

I am using logic: truth is determined by objective facts...


What you are doing is spreading false propaganda* on my forum and frankly I wont have that, this is your last warning.

* defined as spreading false information based on emotional view of the world not on logic and facts.

I am uncomfortable with this. I value logic and "truth [as] determined by objective facts" as valuable ASPECTS of thought. But limiting our discussion, even our forum, to this singular philosophy fails to account for what it is that makes us human. Piotr, what of value, and beauty, and belief? These exist largely OUTSIDE the realm of logic. I would go so far as to say humans exist largely outside of the realm of logic. Your law coincides fairly well with my own Christian, American, artistic, educational, domestic, CULTURAL, views and therefore I can honestly say I have lived by them. But Piotr, with all respect, I fear that logic (as the ultimate law) will swallow you whole and leave you empty if that is the entirety of your philosophy.

Opinion is not propaganda. Neither is disagreeing with your sense of logic. As much as it appeals to us rational minded individuals, we ARE emotional and subjectivity pervades all we do and say. It behooves any of us debators here who wish to learn from this experience to show tolerance and even acceptance of those views that contrast with our own.

But Piotr, with all respect, I fear that logic (as the ultimate law) will swallow you whole and leave you empty if that is the entirety of your philosophy.

It isn't entirety of my philosophy, logic is nothing without the Golden Rule*. Logic is only a tool to tell us how to apply golden rule, how to protect it too. It is also a common ground which can be used to judge two sides with opposite opinions, the best common ground I know of, sometimes the only one. It is the ultimate tool to tell us what is true and what is false. Logic is impartial.

Tonight I went out with a couple of friends to see my first Star Trek ever. I've fallen in love with Spock, but I'm not him, no worries


* do not do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to them is the Golden Rule.

I'm comfortable with that. Thanks.

(am I the only one sitting here like "who cares?")._.

I'm not irritated, I'm just stating that I have been reading this post for a while and I have lost interest in it

Drugs lower a persons self control and make them do things they wouldn't normally do. I personaly think they should increase the crack down (pun intended) on drugs.

Though this is probably a bias view, because someone I care about takes drugs and I wish and encourage them to get there GED, go to collage, and strive for a better life