The Nazi Party was not Right-Wing

Yes reducing an argument to the point of absurdity is a logical fallacy. Hate to tell you the truth.

 

In peace time, prior to 1938, the free market was pretty much untouched in Germany. The selves were full of product for the average person. Even when the military buildup began, the market was left alone. Wage controls were instituted and unions outlawed, but those are not left wing tactics but right wing.

 

I am not a "conservative" but,

abortion : there is more than one party involved.
same sex marriage : government should not be involved in marriage at all.
assisted suicide : you don't need a doctor to do it.
marijuana : i don't care what you put in your body as long as you don't infringe upon me
voting registration : it's not hard in its hardest form.

killing millions of your own people to acquire and maintain power, authoritarian.

 

I didn't reduce it to that. The "right wingers" who we now know are actually left wingers by their own arguments, made those arguments. I'm just applying it as they do. Funny how you can't see the fallacy when your side does it.

 

Thats abject bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The Nazis put in place many leftist economic policies including price controls prior to the war. Thr price controls were used to ckntrol the run away inflation that plagued the country due to massive government spending.

 

Ad hom.

 

If it's a logical fallacy when I do it then it's been a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing logical fallacy when the "right wingers" in here have made the exact same argument. Can't have it both ways. All you've done is prove my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing point.

 

All politically motivated, designed to fit the right wing rhetorical newspeak. Funny to watch them make up their own definitions.

 

No you are again engaging in reduction to absurdity. When people like Johnny nade their arguments they were reasoned and supported. Your argument was absurd.

Further proof that you are arguing a false premise.

You cant make an argument so you are reduced to various fallacies.

 

And you are not politically motivated?

God forbid people realized that most all modern leftists ard economic fascists.

 

Saying, "The commies did it so the Nazis were socialists!" is a well reasoned argument?

Ok, the republicans are socialists because Stalin executed people.

There, exact same (*)(*)(*)(*)ing argument.

 

Superficial, ill considered, rewrites of history motivated by contemporary politics are always complete nonsense.

 

Yes going down the Nazis 25 points is a very reasonable argument.

Im sorry thay you dont know how to make an argument without using logical fallacies. Thag should telk you that you ard arguing a false premise.

 

And what do you calk what you are doing. Is it just a rewrite or correction because leftwing intellectuals got there first.

Take Rome for example. Our understanding of Roman history includes the understanding that contemporary roman historians engaged in a good deal of propoganda.

We can say the same about socialist academics.

 

The OP is saying that Right-wing=Libertarian and Left-wing=Authoritarian.

Meanwhile, American Conservatives want to ban abortion, ban marijuana, ban gay marriage, ban doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally-ill, force women to get an invasive sonogram before having an abortion, spy on Muslims, make voter registration harder, make voting harder, make immigration to the USA harder.

Looks like American Conservatives are Leftists.

 

You mean the 25 points they came up with to entice socialists to their side and then when they got into power executed those very same socialists and barely implemented a thing on it?

What a well reasoned argument! I guess Ian Kershaw and the like are just liars!

 

Indeed, but we have actual historians and linguists to interpret the writings of Suetonius, Caesar, Livy, Tacitus, Cicero, and Polybius based on many years of academic research. Very different from the pop culture nonsense of political operatives.

 

I've given examples of centralized and decentralized violence and my preferences regarding the two, you just keep saying vague retorts of 'history shows...government bad' comments without real examples and so resort to semantics, usually a sign of desperation due to lack of facts in a debate.

You see, where I live(Puerto Rico) most people already have guns and that doesn't seem to make things safer. In fact the opposite has happened, we have one of the highest per capita gun-related homicide rates in the world.

All under the auspice of the Second Amendment of course.

 

OK, I am talking about facts and data and realities not trying to quote someone who does my thinking for me. You know?

 

Do you know what else is more alike than different? Jonah Goldberg is very much like Joseph Goebbels and other Nazis; they both tried to rewrite history to fit their rhetoric.

 

What didnt they implement of it?

 

The rightists who refuse to acknowledge that the Nazi Party was a rightist regime - or Mussolini's, or Franco's for that matter - appear incredibly silly, of course. (We all know that Neo-Nazis in America promote such "socialist" programmes as Medicare and Social Security big time, and are incredibly enthusiastic about 'affirmative action', bless their little hearts! )

​

.

They must be singing 'Kumbaya.' Everybody sing along with the 'Liberals!'​

Just to increase the mirth, perchance the denialists might provide examples of what are rightist regimes if the conspicuous ones of the twentieth century aren't.

Name just one or two.

{(This should be hilarious!)

 

And I'm saying made up definitions don't matter.

 

It's been pointed out to you in here time and time again. You just hand wave it off as, "Nah ah!"

- - - Updated - - -

What, redefining the left wing as authoritarian and the right wing as small government (and then adding a scale to the right wing to allow for authoritarian beliefs of the Republican party but still keep them on the right) doesn't matter?

It matters very much. It just shows how dishonest they're being.

 

what do i care of that ?