• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What If ..... Aliens landed and took over the earth

Status
Not open for further replies.
As with all of my contingencies...Option C:

Assemble a team of crack commandos and begin rampant cannibalism.

Human, alien...whatever goes with bbq sauce and bacon.
 
About logical fallacies, people who care about logic (I don't, paradoxes are much more interesting) virtually never mention it and just do it. Second nature kind of thing.
This is not true, learning to recognize and refute logical fallacies is a key component to making a valid argument, be it a silly (but fun) internet debate, a legal trial, a philosophical quandary, or scientific pursuit. Pinpointing and addressing specific formal and informal logical fallacies in one's opponent's position is a skill, and with some of the more difficult fallacies it is actually the exact opposite of second nature; some examples of logical fallacies that would fit this description are post hoc ergo propter hoc, No True Scotsman, Correlation does not Equal Causation (which is similar but not the same as the post hoc fallacy), Argument from personal Incredulity, and false dichotomy, etc. These are all logical fallacies that are extremely common specifically because what seems logical, common sense, or second nature is often not so. Simply by the multitude of logical fallacies you've made in this one debate, you offer a good illustration of that point.
To satisfy you, point one is irrelevant as you'd find similar responses wherever you asked people how they would have behaved under fascism, oppressive aliens or in general a nasty regime of power. More people would claim to be resistance fighters to convince themselves or to meet social standards and less people would claim to be opportunistic followers relative to how it would actually be. And this is bullshitting not something bad but just the way culture works.
I agree with this.
Yet you've been claiming this doesn't happen for the entire thread.
The reasons vary, for some it might a protective shield whereas others consider this to be a way to gain recognition. I doubt that saying that you would be an opportunistic guy and join the nazis meets any of these points though. It is rather a safe way to lose all respect of your fellows and seems to be caused by blunt honesty or serious confusion ... or it is just plain trolling.
This is a reasonable position, but again a clear deviation from your previous position. I still don't see how the statement could be viewed as any more honest than stating the opposite, however, which goes back to my initial argument.
Who cares.
Seriously...after debating the point in this thread for several days this is your final statement? Clearly you care something about it or you wouldn't have spent so much time discussing it.
You do not have to lecture me about logic, I am well aware of how it works. But Aristotelian binary logic brings you only so far and has little to do with actual thinking.
As you enjoy so much to claim that I made ample of logical errors I will show shove some of it back into your throat. Your claim that said that there aren't any people who pretend to be worse than they actually are is wrong. Feel free to prove me wrong via pointing out where I said it.
 
Horatio, I understand that you feel passionately about this subject, but this is right on the borderline for a flaming infraction. You and I have spoken about this before. Dial it back in the future.
If somebody accuses me of having made logical errors, an indirect word of saying you are stupid I will be blunt and use the word directly. Feel free to ban me for it.
 
About logical fallacies, people who care about logic (I don't, paradoxes are much more interesting) virtually never mention it and just do it. Second nature kind of thing.
This is not true, learning to recognize and refute logical fallacies is a key component to making a valid argument, be it a silly (but fun) internet debate, a legal trial, a philosophical quandary, or scientific pursuit. Pinpointing and addressing specific formal and informal logical fallacies in one's opponent's position is a skill, and with some of the more difficult fallacies it is actually the exact opposite of second nature; some examples of logical fallacies that would fit this description are post hoc ergo propter hoc, No True Scotsman, Correlation does not Equal Causation (which is similar but not the same as the post hoc fallacy), Argument from personal Incredulity, and false dichotomy, etc. These are all logical fallacies that are extremely common specifically because what seems logical, common sense, or second nature is often not so. Simply by the multitude of logical fallacies you've made in this one debate, you offer a good illustration of that point. I agree with this.
Yet you've been claiming this doesn't happen for the entire thread. This is a reasonable position, but again a clear deviation from your previous position. I still don't see how the statement could be viewed as any more honest than stating the opposite, however, which goes back to my initial argument.
Who cares.
Seriously...after debating the point in this thread for several days this is your final statement? Clearly you care something about it or you wouldn't have spent so much time discussing it.
You do not have to lecture me about logic,
Clearly someone does...
I am well aware of how it works. But Aristotelian binary logic brings you only so far and has little to do with actual thinking.
As you obviously don't understand it. You can't exercise critical thinking skills without logic. Magical thinking, sure, but not "actual thinking."
As you enjoy so much to claim that I made ample of logical errors I will show shove some of it back into your throat. Your claim that said that there aren't any people who pretend to be worse than they actually are is wrong.
I never said that. I've been arguing that very point this whole time. You seem to be getting rather emotional about all this (what with the name calling and all, the first instance of which I let slide), so maybe it's time we drop it. If you can't debate without getting all worked up (or at the very least, using language that suggests you're getting all worked up, a la calling me stupid or "shove some of it back down your throat"), then I'm not really interested anymore. Good-spirited debating is fun. Petty name-calling is for kids. If you would like to continue the debate maturely, however, I'm all for it.
 
Horatio, I understand that you feel passionately about this subject, but this is right on the borderline for a flaming infraction. You and I have spoken about this before. Dial it back in the future.
If somebody accuses me of having made logical errors, an indirect word of saying you are stupid I will be blunt and use the word directly. Feel free to ban me for it.

You don't get a ban for one infraction.
 
Horatio, I understand that you feel passionately about this subject, but this is right on the borderline for a flaming infraction. You and I have spoken about this before. Dial it back in the future.
If somebody accuses me of having made logical errors, an indirect word of saying you are stupid I will be blunt and use the word directly. Feel free to ban me for it.

Oh...and just to add, making logical errors has nothing to do with intelligence. Brilliant people make logical errors all the time for the very reason that I mentioned before: a lot of logical errors seem correct, and go against our intuition. Some logic just has to be learned. I certainly don't believe that making a logical error makes one stupid...I know I've made them before and am bound to make them again. You are being oversensitive if you think I was indirectly calling you stupid.
 
Horatio, I understand that you feel passionately about this subject, but this is right on the borderline for a flaming infraction. You and I have spoken about this before. Dial it back in the future.
If somebody accuses me of having made logical errors, an indirect word of saying you are stupid I will be blunt and use the word directly. Feel free to ban me for it.

That's right, you keep fighting THE MAN in the most pointless venue and the most ineffectual way imaginable, internet rebel. Solidarity!

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzaZkRnrQA8&feature=related[/yt]
 
Wow reading these arguments about logic in this thread, kinda reminds me about vulcans:vulcan: talking about logic.

First of all to you politically correct types in this thread, let me restate my views to you in a more detailed way.

If i was a frenchmen, norwegian, dutchman or any european living in occupied europe during ww2 and it was 1940/1941 period where germany & her aillies japan & ltaly were seem to be winnning the war, i would certainly join the Waffen SS, because of the paycheck and NOT for Ideology.

But if it was 1944/1945 period, i would not join because the Axis were losing the war by then and the only people who joined the SS during this late period were those who believed in nazi Ideology which i don't.

Another thing that i would like to add is that the SS (Schutzstaffel) means defence corps and it had various arms.

Allgemeine-SS = the political force that had doctors, administration staffs ,archaeologists and other experts who carried out general non military orders of the Nazi party because they can be politically trusted. They also carried out the racial policy of the nazis.

Totenkopfverbände-SS = the force that run the concentration camps and carried out most of the mass killings of jews (around 5 millions according to historians) and other folks.

Waffen-SS = the military force that fought battles. Sure some units committed atrocities but it's MAIN purpose was to fight wars and NOT run death camps or enforce racial laws like the previous two. THERE WAS A DIFFERANCE ! Many non germans joined it.

There was another group called Einsatzgruppen that consisted of volunteers from the Wehrmacht, SS and police forces that went around shooting jews while the concentration camps were being built. Around a million jews were killed in this way. These guys were the real ARSEHOLES.

I have stated my position and i stand by it. I am NOT a NAZI.

And another interesting fact that i came across during my study of right wing groups is that the largest far right organization in the world right now is not in europe or north america but in India, The RSS. Far Right politics is not exclusive to folks of european descent. The japanese have right wings groups that have actually killed people in post war japan.
 
Last edited:
if i was living in Occupied Europe between 1939 and 1944, I'd've done my damnedest to get to a neutral nation like Sweden, Switzerland or Spain and then got from there to Britain and joined the Free (insert nation) Forces or joined the local resistance forces. Screw joining up with the Nazis.
 
if i was living in Occupied Europe between 1939 and 1944, I'd've done my damnedest to get to a neutral nation like Sweden, Switzerland or Spain and then got from there to Britain and joined the Free (insert nation) Forces or joined the local resistance forces. Screw joining up with the Nazis.

To each his own.
 
First of all to you politically correct types in this thread, let me restate my views to you in a more detailed way.
No need to, they have been quite clear.

If i was a frenchmen, norwegian, dutchman or any european living in occupied europe during ww2 and it was 1940/1941 period where germany & her aillies japan & ltaly were seem to be winnning the war, i would certainly join the Waffen SS, because of the paycheck and NOT for Ideology.

But if it was 1944/1945 period, i would not join because the Axis were losing the war by then
So by your own words, you are a mercenary and a coward?

Another thing that i would like to add is that the SS (Schutzstaffel) means defence corps and it had various arms.
Well jolly good, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.


I have stated my position and i stand by it. I am NOT a NAZI.
Yes, you are.

Let me quote you again:
i would certainly join the Waffen SS

You join the SS, you are a Nazi. Period. Being a Nazi is not some kind of onthological issue. To misquote a fictional someone named for another racist arsehole, "Nazi is as Nazi does".

Far Right politics is not exclusive to folks of european descent.
Again, it has nothing to do with anything here. You seem under the impression that only German (or at least European people) can be Nazi. This is patently untrue.
 
If i was a frenchmen, norwegian, dutchman or any european living in occupied europe during ww2 and it was 1940/1941 period where germany & her aillies japan & ltaly were seem to be winnning the war, i would certainly join the Waffen SS, because of the paycheck and NOT for Ideology.

But if it was 1944/1945 period, i would not join because the Axis were losing the war by then and the only people who joined the SS during this late period were those who believed in nazi Ideology which i don't.

Hey, Einstein, there was no frenchmen in the Waffen SS before 1943/44.

The recruitement of the Waffen SS was ideologically driven, too bad, you might even not qualify.

Waffen-SS = the military force that fought battles.

That's what they said at Oradou-sur-Glane.
 
Shaytan is french & iguana_tonante is italian. I understand that both of you are emotionally connected to this issue as your countries did suffer alot during WW2 but i will stand by what i say. If you want to be emotional about it, then it is your problem, not mine.

How about those indians who joined the Indische Legion on the german side and fought in the Waffen SS. Could they be called nazis? Is it racially possible? The Romani people aka Gypsies are also from india and they were killed in large numbers by the nazis.

The indians who joined the germans during WW2, did not see nazis as the enemy. Their enemy was the british imperialist who ruled india. The russians who joined the nazis considered the soviet communists as the enemy and the bosinans who joined the Nazi 13th SS "Handzar" division considered the serb nationalists as the mortal enemy.

Can those turncoat russians, muslims bosnians and rebelious indians be considered NAZIS ?

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The enemy of many indians, arabs, russians, bosnians, croats, ukrainians and baltic people were not the nazis nor the japanese but members of the WW2 allies.
 
Last edited:

Emoborg's nonsense looks like a Nazi apologist argument.

i like to study right wing groups. i am not a nazi but i do read their literature to try to understand their mindset. FYI i am a social liberal, i am a straight guy who strongly support gay marriage and gay adoption rights. i also respect the jewish religion because it has no concept of hell, the same concept which Christianity and Islam uses to frighten non believers into converting to their belief system.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top