Certain topics should not be allowed on sciforums

quadraphonics said:
LOL crybaby much?

That's your problem - nobody else is having much difficulty with it.
Click to expand...

quadraphonics said:
That sounds like a real lame excuse, on its face.

But regardless, if you aren't even going to try, then you also don't get to hang your argument on such a premise. You're just refusing to engage, asserting superiority, and then waving interlocutors off. It's dishonorable, not to mention unimpressive. Go ahead and cite a book or something, if you can't formulate a forum post that says what you want it to.

I've spent plenty of time in Europe, and if anything the situation is the opposite of what you describe in my experience. Again, you're speaking from empty assertions of epistemic superiority - this won't impress anyone.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to defend claims that you and some others simply imagine I've made.

It's preposterous what you and some others project onto and into me and and what you expect of me.


I am a "Nazi supporter" or "holocaust denier" as much as Noam Chomsky, Viktor Frankl or Steven Spielberg are "Nazi supporters" or "holocaust deniers" - namely, not at all. Although there are people who have accused them of such.

That's that, and the rest in in your head.
 
GeoffP said:
Ah. So the war, and its accompanying Holocaust, was anxiety? Self-defense mechanisms? From what, exactly? A good latka? The lessons to which I refer are not excused by anxiety. But what is it you wish to say here? Be forthright.
Click to expand...

Read again what I said.
 
Gustav said:
nothing has been taken out of context
you refer to the burka as a cloth bag
that description is extremely offensive and derogatory towards those clothe themselves in that attire
Click to expand...

We're not talking about offending people. My calling all religion "ignorant" aught to offend just about anybody who believes in a god, but I don't see you here trying to get me banned for that. No, you very clearly are attempting to equate my "cloth bag" comment to the slurs that you mentioned earlier, and as I have explained, it is not that, nor was disparaging anyone wearing the burka my intent. As I've said before, I am against the burka precisely because it is a tool used against the very people who wear it.

sorry fella
flippancy is not a good descriptor of your insensitivity and prejudice
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was. I said the term I chose to use was flippant. My insensitivity toward people who oppress other human beings goes far beyond flippancy, as does my prejudice against people who treat women as second-class citizens.

Am I to understand that you think the burka is just another garment? That there's nothing morally wrong with it?

what's next? tents, shrink wrap and body bags?
Click to expand...

Would those be more offensive to you than "cloth bag?"

that is some serious pathology on display. stop the hate
Click to expand...

So you have no response, then?
 
to what? you weaseling around with off-topic bait?

/snicker

question: do you think turbans are really made out of towels?
 
Because, however human they might be, they were still guilty of crimes against humanity, in addition to sheer evil. All humans are human, Wynn. It's not as though Nazis are human and the rest of us are not. As such, it's irrelevant. It's like trying to describe different subspecies of polar bears by alluding to their whiteness: they're all white, and so it's hardly a point of differentiation. Thanks.
 
GeoffP said:
Because, however human they might be, they were still guilty of crimes against humanity, in addition to sheer evil. All humans are human, Wynn. It's not as though Nazis are human and the rest of us are not. As such, it's irrelevant. It's like trying to describe different subspecies of polar bears by alluding to their whiteness: they're all white, and so it's hardly a point of differentiation. Thanks.
Click to expand...
With that attitude, then, there's hardly much point in exploring to the fullest areas in psychology, sociology, philosophy, political science, anthropology, etc, if we must first whitewash human nature from our darkest profiles.
 
Science without ethics breeds monstrosity. The nazis followed evolutionary thought and tried to improve upon it. We know they were off, now, but are you saying they should have been allowed to further it all in the name of science without "whitewashing human nature"?
 
[…] but are you saying they should have been allowed to further it all in the name of science without "whitewashing human nature"?
Click to expand...
No. How in the world did you reach that conclusion?

I said, you can't exclude the worst of human nature as a facet of human nature if you genuinely aim to understand human nature. Indeed, we're not perfect—and we never will be.
 
Ripley said:
With that attitude, then, there's hardly much point in exploring to the fullest areas in psychology, sociology, philosophy, political science, anthropology, etc, if we must first whitewash human nature from our darkest profiles.
Click to expand...

You have fundamentally misinterpreted what I wrote. How in the world did you reach the conclusion that we should abandon all the fuzzy sciences? Acknowledging or studying humanity's darker impulses is one thing. Excusing them is another.

Ham nailed that one to the wall: no one is excluding their humanity. We are pointing out that it is not acceptable.
 
Of course it's not acceptable. And so much more is still currently not acceptable.

It's sad to know that we have such capacities. And I'm sure the animal kingdom instinctively know the same.
 
OK, great. So the thrust is academic. I appreciate it's probably rooted in biology. That doesn't make it morally acceptable.
 
Nobody argued that it was acceptable or that the Nazis be excused for what they did.

It's strange that some argue that seeing the Nazis as humans means to excuse what they did.
 
wynn said:
Nobody argued that it was acceptable or that the Nazis be excused for what they did.

It's strange that some argue that seeing the Nazis as humans means to excuse what they did.
Click to expand...

Then correct them. Explain what point you were trying to make when you brought up the Nazi's humanity. What exactly were you trying to say?
 
GeoffP said:
OK, great. So the thrust is academic. I appreciate it's probably rooted in biology.
Click to expand...

"Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds.

"Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The stress, sterility and boredom causes some animals to develop neurotic behaviors such as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth and even pulling out their own hair and biting their own skin. They shake and cower in fear whenever someone walks past their cages and their blood pressure spikes drastically. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness and terror, almost all of them will be killed.

"More than 100 million animals every year suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food and cosmetic tests, biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments. [...] To test cosmetics, household cleaners, and other consumer products, hundreds of thousands of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year by cruel corporations. Mice and rats are forced to inhale toxic fumes, dogs are force-fed pesticides, and rabbits have corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their skin and eyes."

Peta.org​

That doesn't make it morally acceptable.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Yet man continues to wag his moral-superiority complex like a dick out of hell.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top