Hitler Shrine in Walworth County
-
espeir wrote:
Actually it technically falls under genetics and is even actively (and acceptably) being in the UK today. Doctors have begun testing babies for "imperfections" in the womb so that they can be aborted if less than perfect. I agree that it is perverse, but it's definately a science and is based on the basis of physicalism.
Eugenics is a philosophy. It is not a science being practiced. It is a social issue. While genetic testing may aid it's acceptance/rejection, the fact that genetic tests are utilized does not a science make it. If anything, it's a social program.
espeir wrote:
Darwinism is the study of natural selection and eugenics is its practice. It's less of a leap than it is a step between the two.
Eugenics is not the practice of Darwinism. Eugenics is pre-selective breeding. There's a huge difference.
espeir wrote:
Physicalism is the metaphysics of science. It states what it believes science implies. Whether you give any thought to metaphysics or not is really irrelevant. The fact is that your statement that modern physics is "your bible" means that you adhere to the beliefs of physicalism. It does not imply that you support eugenics, but to imply that Hitler's fanaticism grew out of Christianity is absurd, because it was clearly an implementation of Darwinism.
Stating that I use modern physics as my bible is not philosophically tantamount to stating I believe in physicalism. Physicalism is monist theory in disguise (see: monads) for which we have Leibniz to "thank". Don't be fooled. While believers in metaphysics claim that they support physics, this isn't actually true. They accept the existence of stupid intangibles such as "qualia". It's ridiculous, not to mention nonphysical, and no better than a religious argument. You make think it's the same thing, but as a practitioner, I reject it utterly and completely.
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is a philosophy. It is not a science being practiced. It is a social issue. While genetic testing may aid it's acceptance/rejection, the fact that genetic tests are utilized does not a science make it. If anything, it's a social program.
Google disagrees: link[^] One of the supplied definitions (from the British Library) states that it is: "Derived from Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. The Nazis used false scientific arguments to discourage procreation by members who they considered were 'unfit' to live in society, either physically, mentally or socially." And another (from the NRDC) states: "the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding." Darwinism is the study of natural selection. In the early 20th century, eugenics was actually pretty mainstream science and was even advocated in the US.
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is not the practice of Darwinism. Eugenics is pre-selective breeding. There's a huge difference.
Explain that difference as I see none. Darwinism is natural selection. Eugenics is natural selection implemented. The relationship is identical as the one between science and engineering.
thealj wrote:
Stating that I use modern physics as my bible is not philosophically tantamount to stating I believe in physicalism. Physicalism is monist theory in disguise (see: monads) for which we have Leibniz to "thank". Don't be fooled.
Monism denotes oneness with God while physicalism denoted absolute godlessness, so the two are not equivalent. Physicalism is the belief that all attributes of the universe can be successfully described through physics and that our "soul" is a derivitive of those physical properties. The two are quite different.
-
espeir wrote:
imply that Hitler's fanaticism grew out of Christianity is absurd, because it was clearly an implementation of Darwinism.
Guffaw.
Are you being serious when you say that Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinism? Or do you truly adhere that blindly to your secular religion?
-
led mike wrote:
So you are saying that he didn't believe his own words from that speech? Are you suggesting that in his speech invoking his "Lord and Savior Jesus" he was lying? That he did not believe Jesus was his Lord and Savior? That he did not practice what he believed the Bible was telling him? And you know this .... how?
It's not known with any certainty. What is known, however, is that: 1) He did not attend church. 2) He actively put the secular state above churches. 3) He actively suppressed churches. 4) He vocally rejected the Catholic Church (the one under which he was raised) when he became a teenager and did not subsequently join any others. 5) The philosophy of the Aryan Nation is a eugenics-based philosophy, which is implemented Darwinism. It was very atypical of Christians of the day to accept Darwinism (let alone practice it) as there was little scientific evidence supporting it. Germany was a very Christian nation back then, and he would not have had any success with the people if he had publicly condemned Christianity. However, he actively rejected it in his personal life and in practice approached it similarly to a modern day leftist.
-
Actually we're trying to eliminate the hate in a peaceful and intellectual way. We don't like people being manipulated into hating us, so we're waging an intellectual counterattack for the minds of our youth.
-
Yes but 1 thru 4 all match someone that believes their interpretation of Christianity is correct and the established religions are wrong.
Not really. What Martin Luther did would match what you're saying. Hitler placed a secular state that oppressed churches of all sorts at the top while adopting a eugenics (Darwinist/atheist) based policy as one of the bases of his government. That's inconsistent with what I would expect from someone who is a theist of any sort.
-
Congratulations on your 34 word excuse. I don't think excuses are supported by Christ either, but that will be your problem not mine. good luck
Are you implying that ideological dissent is now a hate crime? Do you see why we want to ensure that your ideology is effectively countered and destroyed?
-
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is a philosophy. It is not a science being practiced. It is a social issue. While genetic testing may aid it's acceptance/rejection, the fact that genetic tests are utilized does not a science make it. If anything, it's a social program.
Google disagrees: link[^] One of the supplied definitions (from the British Library) states that it is: "Derived from Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. The Nazis used false scientific arguments to discourage procreation by members who they considered were 'unfit' to live in society, either physically, mentally or socially." And another (from the NRDC) states: "the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding." Darwinism is the study of natural selection. In the early 20th century, eugenics was actually pretty mainstream science and was even advocated in the US.
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is not the practice of Darwinism. Eugenics is pre-selective breeding. There's a huge difference.
Explain that difference as I see none. Darwinism is natural selection. Eugenics is natural selection implemented. The relationship is identical as the one between science and engineering.
thealj wrote:
Stating that I use modern physics as my bible is not philosophically tantamount to stating I believe in physicalism. Physicalism is monist theory in disguise (see: monads) for which we have Leibniz to "thank". Don't be fooled.
Monism denotes oneness with God while physicalism denoted absolute godlessness, so the two are not equivalent. Physicalism is the belief that all attributes of the universe can be successfully described through physics and that our "soul" is a derivitive of those physical properties. The two are quite different.
espeir wrote:
Google disagrees:
Good for Google. I am still correct when I assert that eugenics is not Darwinism. Darwinism is based on the idea of natural selection. Eugenics is unnatural selection. The two are not equivalent. Natural selection is not pre-selective breeding. It doesn't take a search engine to understand that.
espeir wrote:
Explain that difference as I see none. Darwinism is natural selection. Eugenics is natural selection implemented. The relationship is identical as the one between science and engineering.
It's a huge difference and it is not equivalent to the analogy of engineering and science. By canonical definition you cannot implement natural selection. It's as fundamental as the difference between the words "natural" and "pre-selective". Selective breeding implies three concepts: 1. isolation 2. artificial selection 3. inbreeding Not one of those qualifies as "natural selection". I fail to understand why the difference is not clear to you.
espeir wrote:
Monism denotes oneness with God while physicalism denoted absolute godlessness, so the two are not equivalent. Physicalism is the belief that all attributes of the universe can be successfully described through physics and that our "soul" is a derivitive of those physical properties. The two are quite different.
Seeing as you like Google so much, I'll refer you to wikipedia's entry on physicalism[^] where it clearly and directly states: Because it claims that only physical things exist, physicalism is a form of monism. Monists understand "God" to exist and operate within the universe. Hence, they believe God to be a physical essence.
-
thealj wrote:
In fact, the Bible, the Qu'ran, what-have-you are nothing more than allegorical stories to me. Sure, the ideas and morals are nice, but beyond that they aren't worth taking seriously or fighting over. My bible is modern physics. It's much nicer than your typical religion-of-the-month because people of all colours and races can practice it without killing one another. That's the beauty of it.
5! :) Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
Are you being serious when you say that Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinism? Or do you truly adhere that blindly to your secular religion?
espeir wrote:
Are you being serious when you say that Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinism? Or do you truly adhere that blindly to your secular religion?
Eugenics is a perverse and incorrect interpretation of Darwinism. Eugenics is the flawed belief that steering the "evolution" of a species is somehow related to Darwin's theories of natural selection. However, when you look at it properly, you see that Eugenics requires some combination of the following in order to effect genetic improvement. This includes: 1. isolation 2. inbreeding 3. artificial selection Not one of those methods is consistent with Darwin's theory. It's a bloody social philosophy that advocates "evolution" (if you want to call it that) through external intervention. Not what Darwin had in mind at all. It's pure pseudoscience. How can you seriously ascribe eugenics as falling under the umbrella of Darwin's theory? It is the total opposite and is more aptly termed "unnatural selection". -- modified at 12:11 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
-
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is a philosophy. It is not a science being practiced. It is a social issue. While genetic testing may aid it's acceptance/rejection, the fact that genetic tests are utilized does not a science make it. If anything, it's a social program.
Google disagrees: link[^] One of the supplied definitions (from the British Library) states that it is: "Derived from Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. The Nazis used false scientific arguments to discourage procreation by members who they considered were 'unfit' to live in society, either physically, mentally or socially." And another (from the NRDC) states: "the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding." Darwinism is the study of natural selection. In the early 20th century, eugenics was actually pretty mainstream science and was even advocated in the US.
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is not the practice of Darwinism. Eugenics is pre-selective breeding. There's a huge difference.
Explain that difference as I see none. Darwinism is natural selection. Eugenics is natural selection implemented. The relationship is identical as the one between science and engineering.
thealj wrote:
Stating that I use modern physics as my bible is not philosophically tantamount to stating I believe in physicalism. Physicalism is monist theory in disguise (see: monads) for which we have Leibniz to "thank". Don't be fooled.
Monism denotes oneness with God while physicalism denoted absolute godlessness, so the two are not equivalent. Physicalism is the belief that all attributes of the universe can be successfully described through physics and that our "soul" is a derivitive of those physical properties. The two are quite different.
espeir wrote:
Eugenics is natural selection implemented
Other than the natural bit. Darwin lead to eugenics in the same way that Rutherford lead to the bombing of hiroshima - an application of a theory. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
espeir wrote:
Google disagrees:
Good for Google. I am still correct when I assert that eugenics is not Darwinism. Darwinism is based on the idea of natural selection. Eugenics is unnatural selection. The two are not equivalent. Natural selection is not pre-selective breeding. It doesn't take a search engine to understand that.
espeir wrote:
Explain that difference as I see none. Darwinism is natural selection. Eugenics is natural selection implemented. The relationship is identical as the one between science and engineering.
It's a huge difference and it is not equivalent to the analogy of engineering and science. By canonical definition you cannot implement natural selection. It's as fundamental as the difference between the words "natural" and "pre-selective". Selective breeding implies three concepts: 1. isolation 2. artificial selection 3. inbreeding Not one of those qualifies as "natural selection". I fail to understand why the difference is not clear to you.
espeir wrote:
Monism denotes oneness with God while physicalism denoted absolute godlessness, so the two are not equivalent. Physicalism is the belief that all attributes of the universe can be successfully described through physics and that our "soul" is a derivitive of those physical properties. The two are quite different.
Seeing as you like Google so much, I'll refer you to wikipedia's entry on physicalism[^] where it clearly and directly states: Because it claims that only physical things exist, physicalism is a form of monism. Monists understand "God" to exist and operate within the universe. Hence, they believe God to be a physical essence.
thealj wrote:
Good for Google. I am still correct when I assert that eugenics is not Darwinism. Darwinism is based on the idea of natural selection. Eugenics is unnatural selection. The two are not equivalent. Natural selection is not pre-selective breeding. It doesn't take a search engine to understand that.
I see the point you're trying to make, but from both a historical and scientific perspective it is false. The concept of Eugenics was born out of natural selection. Eugenics, as I said, is the implementation of natural selection (i.e. determining which characteristics will supposedly be most beneficial to mankind). It's a rudimentary form a genetic engineering that employs the concepts of Darwinism to actively breed out "negative" characteristics. I understand your unwillingness to accept this, since it's probably pretty unpalatable to you. And it's not just Google that disagrees with you...The "define" function points to numerous links from numerous sources that directly state you're incorrect.
thealj wrote:
It's a huge difference and it is not equivalent to the analogy of engineering and science. By canonical definition you cannot implement natural selection. It's as fundamental as the difference between the words "natural" and "pre-selective". Selective breeding implies three concepts: 1. isolation 2. artificial selection 3. inbreeding Not one of those qualifies as "natural selection". I fail to understand why the difference is not clear to you.
I still see no difference. Darwinism clearly implies that humans are natural beings, so if humans kill off certain other creatures/humans, then it is by definition "natural selection". To equate it to another branch of science... Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in the sun. It does not occur naturally on earth. The fact that a fusion reaction can be initiated by man does not imply that it is no longer nuclear physics. Your argument is just absurd.
thealj wrote:
Seeing as you like Google so much, I'll refer you to wikipedia's entry on physicalism[^] where it clearly and directly states
But you just disregarded 20 Google definitions that demonstrated your argument about Eugenics to be incorrect! I'll admit that I'm probably wrong about this. Why? Because I'm a bigger man than you.
-
espeir wrote:
Eugenics is natural selection implemented
Other than the natural bit. Darwin lead to eugenics in the same way that Rutherford lead to the bombing of hiroshima - an application of a theory. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
I never said Darwin caused Eugenics. I said Eugenics was born by atheists out of Darwin's theories.
-
espeir wrote:
Are you being serious when you say that Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinism? Or do you truly adhere that blindly to your secular religion?
Eugenics is a perverse and incorrect interpretation of Darwinism. Eugenics is the flawed belief that steering the "evolution" of a species is somehow related to Darwin's theories of natural selection. However, when you look at it properly, you see that Eugenics requires some combination of the following in order to effect genetic improvement. This includes: 1. isolation 2. inbreeding 3. artificial selection Not one of those methods is consistent with Darwin's theory. It's a bloody social philosophy that advocates "evolution" (if you want to call it that) through external intervention. Not what Darwin had in mind at all. It's pure pseudoscience. How can you seriously ascribe eugenics as falling under the umbrella of Darwin's theory? It is the total opposite and is more aptly termed "unnatural selection". -- modified at 12:11 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
thealj wrote:
It's a bloody social philosophy that advocates "evolution" (if you want to call it that) through external intervention. Not what Darwin had in mind at all. It's pure pseudoscience.
Uhhhh...How does evolution work if not through "external intervention". You're just trying to distance the two (because it points to the obviously monstrous behavior that is born from atheism), but they are the same thing. Sorry.
-
thealj wrote:
It's a bloody social philosophy that advocates "evolution" (if you want to call it that) through external intervention. Not what Darwin had in mind at all. It's pure pseudoscience.
Uhhhh...How does evolution work if not through "external intervention". You're just trying to distance the two (because it points to the obviously monstrous behavior that is born from atheism), but they are the same thing. Sorry.
espeir wrote:
Uhhhh...How does evolution work if not through "external intervention". You're just trying to distance the two (because it points to the obviously monstrous behavior that is born from atheism), but they are the same thing. Sorry.
Fine, let's be semantic. External intervention implies: 1. deliberate inbreeding 2. deliberate isolation 3. deliberate artificial selection Sorry, but I'm still right. Your little tirade on "monstrous behavior that is born from atheism" is quite humorous.
-
TOWN OF SUGAR CREEK - A man in Walworth County has built a shrine to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in a building in his backyard. Ted Junker, 87, says history books have it all wrong and Adolf Hitler was really a hero and he's going to hold an open house on June 25th to allow people to tour his Hitler shrine.[^] Subsidiary question: why does the US press systematically mention the Shoah when referring to Nazism and WW2 and not the other persecuted groups or individuals? Why this unique distinction?
It is easier to make war than to make peace. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
espeir wrote:
Uhhhh...How does evolution work if not through "external intervention". You're just trying to distance the two (because it points to the obviously monstrous behavior that is born from atheism), but they are the same thing. Sorry.
Fine, let's be semantic. External intervention implies: 1. deliberate inbreeding 2. deliberate isolation 3. deliberate artificial selection Sorry, but I'm still right. Your little tirade on "monstrous behavior that is born from atheism" is quite humorous.
I didn't say that Eugenics = Darwinism. I said Eugenics = implemented Darwinism. Just like nuclear fusion != nuclear bomb but nuclear fusion implemented = nuclear bomb. Every single person familiar with this subject agrees with me. In fact, eugenics was a mainstream science back in the 20's and was even advocated in the US by many Americans. Being a Christian nation, however, the grotesqueness of the required acts were saved for other less Christian nations.
-
thealj wrote:
Good for Google. I am still correct when I assert that eugenics is not Darwinism. Darwinism is based on the idea of natural selection. Eugenics is unnatural selection. The two are not equivalent. Natural selection is not pre-selective breeding. It doesn't take a search engine to understand that.
I see the point you're trying to make, but from both a historical and scientific perspective it is false. The concept of Eugenics was born out of natural selection. Eugenics, as I said, is the implementation of natural selection (i.e. determining which characteristics will supposedly be most beneficial to mankind). It's a rudimentary form a genetic engineering that employs the concepts of Darwinism to actively breed out "negative" characteristics. I understand your unwillingness to accept this, since it's probably pretty unpalatable to you. And it's not just Google that disagrees with you...The "define" function points to numerous links from numerous sources that directly state you're incorrect.
thealj wrote:
It's a huge difference and it is not equivalent to the analogy of engineering and science. By canonical definition you cannot implement natural selection. It's as fundamental as the difference between the words "natural" and "pre-selective". Selective breeding implies three concepts: 1. isolation 2. artificial selection 3. inbreeding Not one of those qualifies as "natural selection". I fail to understand why the difference is not clear to you.
I still see no difference. Darwinism clearly implies that humans are natural beings, so if humans kill off certain other creatures/humans, then it is by definition "natural selection". To equate it to another branch of science... Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in the sun. It does not occur naturally on earth. The fact that a fusion reaction can be initiated by man does not imply that it is no longer nuclear physics. Your argument is just absurd.
thealj wrote:
Seeing as you like Google so much, I'll refer you to wikipedia's entry on physicalism[^] where it clearly and directly states
But you just disregarded 20 Google definitions that demonstrated your argument about Eugenics to be incorrect! I'll admit that I'm probably wrong about this. Why? Because I'm a bigger man than you.
espeir wrote:
I see the point you're trying to make, but from both a historical and scientific perspective it is false.
If you think it's false, then falsify it. Write a paper and publish it pointing out your scientific method and how, scientifically, the two are equivalent.
espeir wrote:
The concept of Eugenics was born out of natural selection. Eugenics, as I said, is the implementation of natural selection (i.e. determining which characteristics will supposedly be most beneficial to mankind). It's a rudimentary form a genetic engineering that employs the concepts of Darwinism to actively breed out "negative" characteristics. I understand your unwillingness to accept this, since it's probably pretty unpalatable to you. And it's not just Google that disagrees with you...The "define" function points to numerous links from numerous sources that directly state you're incorrect.
Sure, eugenics was derived from Darwin's ideas, but it was derived incorrectly. Galton interpreted what Darwin wrote with grave errors. It was born out of 19th century ambition to "improve society" - a social policy, nothing more. This comes from the same guy who advocated measuring skull size as an indicator of intelligence. You're free to believe his ideas if you like, but I would advise you against it. The only way it is unpalatable to me is that naive people continue to mistakenly interpret it as a valid offshoot of Darwin's theory without properly understanding the basic concepts.
espeir wrote:
I still see no difference. Darwinism clearly implies that humans are natural beings, so if humans kill off certain other creatures/humans, then it is by definition "natural selection". To equate it to another branch of science.
You need to take an introductory biology class.
espeir wrote:
Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in the sun. It does not occur naturally on earth. The fact that a fusion reaction can be initiated by man does not imply that it is no longer nuclear physics. Your argument is just absurd.
That is not at all what my argument implies.
-
espeir wrote:
I see the point you're trying to make, but from both a historical and scientific perspective it is false.
If you think it's false, then falsify it. Write a paper and publish it pointing out your scientific method and how, scientifically, the two are equivalent.
espeir wrote:
The concept of Eugenics was born out of natural selection. Eugenics, as I said, is the implementation of natural selection (i.e. determining which characteristics will supposedly be most beneficial to mankind). It's a rudimentary form a genetic engineering that employs the concepts of Darwinism to actively breed out "negative" characteristics. I understand your unwillingness to accept this, since it's probably pretty unpalatable to you. And it's not just Google that disagrees with you...The "define" function points to numerous links from numerous sources that directly state you're incorrect.
Sure, eugenics was derived from Darwin's ideas, but it was derived incorrectly. Galton interpreted what Darwin wrote with grave errors. It was born out of 19th century ambition to "improve society" - a social policy, nothing more. This comes from the same guy who advocated measuring skull size as an indicator of intelligence. You're free to believe his ideas if you like, but I would advise you against it. The only way it is unpalatable to me is that naive people continue to mistakenly interpret it as a valid offshoot of Darwin's theory without properly understanding the basic concepts.
espeir wrote:
I still see no difference. Darwinism clearly implies that humans are natural beings, so if humans kill off certain other creatures/humans, then it is by definition "natural selection". To equate it to another branch of science.
You need to take an introductory biology class.
espeir wrote:
Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in the sun. It does not occur naturally on earth. The fact that a fusion reaction can be initiated by man does not imply that it is no longer nuclear physics. Your argument is just absurd.
That is not at all what my argument implies.
thealj wrote:
If you think it's false, then falsify it. Write a paper and publish it pointing out your scientific method and how, scientifically, the two are equivalent.
Uhhh...I don't need to. It's universally accepted (except by people like you who are apparently so fanatical that they're willing to rewrite history and science).
thealj wrote:
Sure, eugenics was derived from Darwin's ideas, but it was derived incorrectly. Galton interpreted what Darwin wrote with grave errors. It was born out of 19th century ambition to "improve society" - a social policy, nothing more. This comes from the same guy who advocated measuring skull size as an indicator of intelligence. You're free to believe his ideas if you like, but I would advise you against it. The only way it is unpalatable to me is that naive people continue to mistakenly interpret it as a valid offshoot of Darwin's theory without properly understanding the basic concepts.
Nuclear weapong were also born out of social policy (to win a war). That doesn't mean that they don't work. Your argument is simply absurd.
thealj wrote:
You need to take an introductory biology class.
So you're saying that humans did not evolve? Are we not natural?
thealj wrote:
That is not at all what my argument implies.
It certainly does. You're stating that if science is implemented, then it nullifies the science. Your argument is simply absurd and I'm beginning to think that you're just being satirical at this point. Note that I'm not stating that Eugenics is "good science" or effective. I'm saying that it was born out of Darwinist/Atheist philosophies and it was. I just find it curious that people bash religion for being so violent, but in the span of a couple decades, atheism lead to the most violent behavior in human history.
-
SOrry, I no longer consider it my responsibility. If a billion muslims can be allowed to shrug off their responsibility, so can I. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
SOrry, I no longer consider it my responsibility. If a billion muslims can be allowed to shrug off their responsibility, so can I.
Fine then you should not open your mouth to advise me or others for the things which you are not cable to do in your own capacity.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
TOWN OF SUGAR CREEK - A man in Walworth County has built a shrine to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in a building in his backyard. Ted Junker, 87, says history books have it all wrong and Adolf Hitler was really a hero and he's going to hold an open house on June 25th to allow people to tour his Hitler shrine.[^] Subsidiary question: why does the US press systematically mention the Shoah when referring to Nazism and WW2 and not the other persecuted groups or individuals? Why this unique distinction?
It is easier to make war than to make peace. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
Subsidiary question:
It's the same in germany, e.g. Berlin has a huge year-old holocaust memorial - explicitely for remembering the jews killed. But it would be totally anti-semitic to suggest the jewish establishment has certain advantages from monopolizing he holocaust.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist