Hitler Shrine in Walworth County
-
My grandmother, who is German, told me as a child that Hitler was misunderstood. She said 'sure, he didn't treat the JEws too well, but he did amazing things for the roads'. I remember that clearly as the moment I realised she was an idiot. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Headline "Hilter: Not A Very Nice Person, But Good For Roads!"
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
K(arl) wrote:
why does the US press systematically mention the Shoah
What does that have to do with me? I didn't do it. Why are you blaming Americans for our press's behavior? There are 300 million Americans, we all don't write newspapers. Why do you want to hold us all responsible for the behavior of a few? "You get that which you tolerate"
But the US is a free country, the newspaper market is ruled by supply and demand, if there is bias in reporting then because not enough US Americans demand balanced news. So it's all yur fault personally. ;P In related news, it's the same what happens when I'm asked to be grateful towards George W. Bush single-handedly rebuilding the country after WW2.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
He sounds just like a Muslim!
who? hitler or stan?
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
But the US is a free country, the newspaper market is ruled by supply and demand, if there is bias in reporting then because not enough US Americans demand balanced news. So it's all yur fault personally. ;P In related news, it's the same what happens when I'm asked to be grateful towards George W. Bush single-handedly rebuilding the country after WW2.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistpeterchen wrote:
But the US is a free country, the newspaper market is ruled by supply and demand, if there is bias in reporting then because not enough US Americans demand balanced news. So it's all yur fault personally.
Leftists don't care about supply and demand....But Fox News was eventually created in this way.
-
Hitler was an evil that we took care of. We got rid of him. That is how responsible people act. "You get that which you tolerate"
now you will take credit of his death which happened due to some sucidal attempt?everyone has to die like him.what are feeling proud of?
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
Just like the KKK, communism and now Mulism extremists. Taking care of leftists has proven to be a long and arduous task, but we're making progress.
CG was right about you.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
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.
Is "strawman" your only means of attack? You remind me of Adnan. But let's go to the horse's mouth and not his ass. Darwin himself rejected eugenics. I will even state that Francis Galton was Darwin's cousine and Darwin himself disagreed with the ideas of his cousin. Eugenics was floating about Europe even before Darwin published his book on the origins of species. It is not Darwinism. Period.
-
now you will take credit of his death which happened due to some sucidal attempt?everyone has to die like him.what are feeling proud of?
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
He committed suicide because allied forces were minutes away from capturing him.
-
CG was right about you.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
Who's CG and what did he say that you agree with?
-
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.
espeir wrote:
Not really.
Yes really
espeir wrote:
What Martin Luther did would match what you're saying.
You posted the 1 thru 4 of what Hitler did not me. I merely stated that logically those are all actions that would not be contrary for someone that believes his own definition of Christianity and that established religions are wrong. You claim I am wrong but make no attempt to point how any of the 1 thru 4 are NOT logical actions for a person believing in his own definition of Christianity. This is representative of the pseudo-intellectual junk that you post on here all the time, and your phantom voter seems very impressed with your abilities.
-
who? hitler or stan?
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
Hitler.
-
Is "strawman" your only means of attack? You remind me of Adnan. But let's go to the horse's mouth and not his ass. Darwin himself rejected eugenics. I will even state that Francis Galton was Darwin's cousine and Darwin himself disagreed with the ideas of his cousin. Eugenics was floating about Europe even before Darwin published his book on the origins of species. It is not Darwinism. Period.
It's not a strawman argument. It's another identical example of what you so absurdly deny in order to defend your faith. You're ignoring the very definition of eugenics. Seriously, though? Are you just joking about this? Because I find it hard to believe that a non-Muslim could be this fanatical about his faith.
-
espeir wrote:
Not really.
Yes really
espeir wrote:
What Martin Luther did would match what you're saying.
You posted the 1 thru 4 of what Hitler did not me. I merely stated that logically those are all actions that would not be contrary for someone that believes his own definition of Christianity and that established religions are wrong. You claim I am wrong but make no attempt to point how any of the 1 thru 4 are NOT logical actions for a person believing in his own definition of Christianity. This is representative of the pseudo-intellectual junk that you post on here all the time, and your phantom voter seems very impressed with your abilities.
led mike wrote:
Yes really
Great argument. :rolleyes:
led mike wrote:
You posted the 1 thru 4 of what Hitler did not me. I merely stated that logically those are all actions that would not be contrary for someone that believes his own definition of Christianity and that established religions are wrong. You claim I am wrong but make no attempt to point how any of the 1 thru 4 are NOT logical actions for a person believing in his own definition of Christianity. This is representative of the pseudo-intellectual junk that you post on here all the time, and your phantom voter seems very impressed with your abilities.
You're intentionally ignoring #5 (the most important) while claiming that I post pseudo-intellectual junk. He threw away religion as a youth and put atheist doctrines in its place. In your pseudo-intellectual world, this may imply that he's merely against organized religion, but in the real world it strongly indicates that he was an atheist. He certainly adhered to atheist government policies.
-
Is "strawman" your only means of attack? You remind me of Adnan. But let's go to the horse's mouth and not his ass. Darwin himself rejected eugenics. I will even state that Francis Galton was Darwin's cousine and Darwin himself disagreed with the ideas of his cousin. Eugenics was floating about Europe even before Darwin published his book on the origins of species. It is not Darwinism. Period.
thealj wrote:
Darwin himself rejected eugenics.
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
-
Hitler was a very religious person.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Hitler was a very religious person.
Funny. He wanted to replace religious by his ideas. He tried to replace christmas songs and many priests were gassed. He didn't like the churches, in fact he had some special ideas. If you call him religious you shouldn't just quote "Mein Kampf" but you should take a deeper look at the things he did. Then you will see that he tried everything to remove religion from the German minds. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Did you get that rumor from Indiana Jones?
Look at the Nazi symbols and their festivities - there are many Germanic rites in them. And he had specialists for Germanic, and - well even that is true - some where searching for Germanic occult objects. Perhaps he didn't searched those things from the Indiana Jones Movies, but you can see many parallels. :) Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
thealj wrote:
Darwin himself rejected eugenics.
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
espeir wrote:
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics One of these two statements is erroneous. Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed. Which scenario is Darwinism and which one is eugenics? Oh wait. I forgot. For you Darwinism = eugenics. I apologize for the trick question because in your view where Darwinism = eugenics both scenarios are correct. Consequently, seeing as you can't distinguish between the two statements and consider them equivalent, you should have no problem declaring me the victor. Thank you, I'm honoured.
-
espeir wrote:
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics One of these two statements is erroneous. Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed. Which scenario is Darwinism and which one is eugenics? Oh wait. I forgot. For you Darwinism = eugenics. I apologize for the trick question because in your view where Darwinism = eugenics both scenarios are correct. Consequently, seeing as you can't distinguish between the two statements and consider them equivalent, you should have no problem declaring me the victor. Thank you, I'm honoured.
thealj wrote:
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics
Absolutely wrong. I clearly stated numerous times that Eugenics is the implementation of Darwinism. Just like a nuclear bomb is the implementation of nuclear physics. Why you can't follow that and why you reject the very definition of eugenics is beyond me.
thealj wrote:
Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed.
This depends on humans being non-natural. You're suggesting that our interference in other life forms is different (which suggests that we are exempt from Darwinism...which I'm sure is not something you want to suggest). Here's another example: 1) A lion does not eat a gazelle so it is allowed to breed. 2) A lion eats the gazelle so it is now allowed to breed. So apparently the lion is Darwinistic even though it separates the gazelle from breeding whereas when a human separates a pig from breeding, it is mysteriously exempt from the rules.
-
thealj wrote:
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics
Absolutely wrong. I clearly stated numerous times that Eugenics is the implementation of Darwinism. Just like a nuclear bomb is the implementation of nuclear physics. Why you can't follow that and why you reject the very definition of eugenics is beyond me.
thealj wrote:
Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed.
This depends on humans being non-natural. You're suggesting that our interference in other life forms is different (which suggests that we are exempt from Darwinism...which I'm sure is not something you want to suggest). Here's another example: 1) A lion does not eat a gazelle so it is allowed to breed. 2) A lion eats the gazelle so it is now allowed to breed. So apparently the lion is Darwinistic even though it separates the gazelle from breeding whereas when a human separates a pig from breeding, it is mysteriously exempt from the rules.
espeir wrote:
Absolutely wrong. I clearly stated numerous times that Eugenics is the implementation of Darwinism. Just like a nuclear bomb is the implementation of nuclear physics. Why you can't follow that and why you reject the very definition of eugenics is beyond me.
I am still absolutely right. If eugenics is "implemented Darwinism", then it is Darwinism in practice which is still Darwinism. Of course, if we accept your definition, then "going to church" is an implementation of Christianity and so really isn't Christianity at all. Good job defending your religion, heathen.
espeir wrote:
This depends on humans being non-natural. You're suggesting that our interference in other life forms is different (which suggests that we are exempt from Darwinism...which I'm sure is not something you want to suggest). Here's another example: 1) A lion does not eat a gazelle so it is allowed to breed. 2) A lion eats the gazelle so it is now allowed to breed. So apparently the lion is Darwinistic even though it separates the gazelle from breeding whereas when a human separates a pig from breeding, it is mysteriously exempt from the rules.
No, it depends on the process being non-natural. It has nothing to do with humanity. Again, you divert the argument from the main point. The point is not that humans are exempt from Darwinism, the point is that eugenics is directed "evolution" which is not Darwinism. It's called selective breeding. The English language even has a word to distinguish this particular characteristic under certain circumstances. It's called "domestication". Domestication is not Darwinism. Your example only reinforces my point. Lions will preferentially hunt the weakest individuals from a group. Hence weakness is eliminated thereby increasing the "fitness" of the population. Conversely, I am free to choose two related pigs and force them to breed repeatedly - inbreeding. I could repeat this experiment on a large scale and over a large number of generations. This is not Darwinism. It is you who do not accept the definitions of the concepts we are discussing.
-
espeir wrote:
So? Einstein opposed the nuclear bomb. What's your point?
The question is: "what's your point?" My point: Darwinism != eugenics. Your point: Darwinism = eugenics One of these two statements is erroneous. Now, let's see if we can figure out which one it is. I observe a group of pigs in the wild and leave them to breed amongst themselves. In the other scenario, I select 2 of them from the wild and subsequently isolate the ones of my choosing and "let" them breed. Which scenario is Darwinism and which one is eugenics? Oh wait. I forgot. For you Darwinism = eugenics. I apologize for the trick question because in your view where Darwinism = eugenics both scenarios are correct. Consequently, seeing as you can't distinguish between the two statements and consider them equivalent, you should have no problem declaring me the victor. Thank you, I'm honoured.
thealj wrote:
I am still absolutely right. If eugenics is "implemented Darwinism", then it is Darwinism in practice which is still Darwinism. Of course, if we accept your definition, then "going to church" is an implementation of Christianity and so really isn't Christianity at all. Good job defending your religion, heathen.
I've previously said that religion is implemented Christianity (which is an abstract concept). But, just as eugenics retains the principles of Darwinism, Christian religions retain the principles of Christianity.
thealj wrote:
No, it depends on the process being non-natural. It has nothing to do with humanity. Again, you divert the argument from the main point. The point is not that humans are exempt from Darwinism, the point is that eugenics is directed "evolution" which is not Darwinism. It's called selective breeding. The English language even has a word to distinguish this particular characteristic under certain circumstances. It's called "domestication". Domestication is not Darwinism.
Your argument falls apart because it requires humans to be non-natural. If you accept this assertion, then you reject Darwinism in entirety. Domestication and the breeding of animals is a form of eugenics that was practiced without an underlying theory for millenia.
thealj wrote:
Your example only reinforces my point. Lions will preferentially hunt the weakest individuals from a group. Hence weakness is eliminated thereby increasing the "fitness" of the population. Conversely, I am free to choose two related pigs and force them to breed repeatedly - inbreeding. I could repeat this experiment on a large scale and over a large number of generations. This is not Darwinism.
I hate to break it to you, but we're talking about the holocaust here. I think it fits the definition you just gave perfectly. You tripped when you forgot what we were talking about and decided to apply your argument to domesticated animals instead of removing "weakest individuals from a group".