History of the Holocaust

Discussion in 'History' started by S.A.M., Sep 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,898
    Your point?

    The man was a raving, lunatic, superstitious mystic. He was more inclined to bring back the pantheon of Roman gods, or have people worshipping Woden, than establish an atheistic ideology of governance.
    And despite his criticism of the church of his surroundings, and his mystical visions of destiny, he is usually labeled a theist.
    Bullshit.
    "They" were mostly theists, doing that stuff. And even so not much of that was Hitler style "eugenics", even the silliest of it.
    ? So what was your point?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Only after they were occupied in the 1948 war, before that they were part and parcel of the Palestinian Mandate, not Egypt, or even Jordan which didn't even exist at that time, and that Mandate was from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire which controlled those territories.

    No the Real Palestinians are in Jordan, as that was Palestinian Mandate.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Notice how all the enemies of the west are always raving lunatics? You'd think the only sane people live in the west.

    Meanwhile do look up the history of eugenics and genetic testing in the 30's. It was the freethinkers that supported eugenics, not the Christians

    http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html

    Textbooks said things like this:

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    And according to You, the only sane people are Muslims, the Chosen of Allah, and the scourge of the unbelievers.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,898
    Hitler was the West, SAM. He was no enemy of the West - he was a home grown raving lunatic. That was kind of a big deal, about him. That's famous.
    Your claim was that "all the freethinkers" supported Hitler style eugenics, and it is garbage; and your implication that Christians were not major supporters of eugenics of all kinds, Hitler goofiness as well as racist promotion of birth control and all the rest, is ill informed.

    Even in that link there, with its flashing red letters and unwarranted extrapolations of "science" to political evil, there is no compilation of "freethinkers" as Hitler style eugenicists. The people mentioned were not the major freethinkers of their time (the Puritan raised Davenport, first and most prominent, not a freethinker at all), and few of the major freethinkers of the time in that and related fields - Bertrand Russell on the atheist side, Theodore Dobzhansky on the theist, etc - were Hitlerian eugenicists.
    So?
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Bertrand Russel thought eugenics was one of the usual government enforced leftist ideas.

     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,898
    Try to make a definite statement: are you claiming that Bertrand Russell was a Hitler-style eugenicist, or approved of government-enforced eugenics programs of any kind?

    Do you think the quote there* is written in approval of government enforced eugenics programs?

    Here is another version:
    He's British, SAM. He's mocking the idea, slamming it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2009
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    He followed the same kind of thinking that pervaded society at the time but opposed government control.

    I'm not sure what you think he was saying different.

    Ah like Mark Twain. I think it more likely that he had shifting stances on the issue. IIRC, he did advocate for the sterilisation of the mentally retarded.

    And is this also a mockery?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...resnum=8&ved=0CCEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2009
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,898
    So he opposed eugenics, opposed Hitler style eugenics, opposed eugenics programs, was not a eugenicist.

    And neither were a large number of the freethinkers of the time.

    Find another stance, then. So far, it's just the one - sarcastic dismissal.

    Dunno. But it's obviously not eugenics.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    What is eugenics, then according to you?

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

    How would you classify this?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,898
    At a minimum, a genetics program - something related to reproduction, breeding.

    Racial bigotry and sexism.

    If you recall, we were talking about the Holocaust. If you put all the blacks and women in death camps, your eugenics program is going to run into trouble.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    So you don't see his views as promoting eugenics. I guess we disagree.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,898
    I think his view of eugenics - even the relatively benign British proposals, let alone Hitler's delusions - was pretty clearly stated, by him, and quoted by you. It is not a promotion, or even an approval. He obviously despises the idea.

    What is your problem? Are you actually, as you appear to be, lumping sexists and bigots in with the Auschwitz engineers? Are you then equating the people who call Jews "apes and pigs", or think women ought not to be allowed to drive cars, with the people who built Treblinka?
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    I think encouraging breeding of the intellectuals by giving scholarships to their children, based on the parents merits is definitely eugenics.

    All such people need is the power to exercise their views. As Russel himself put it, democracy gets in the way. Meanwhile anyone who thinks women and negroes are stupid doesn't differ very much from those who think Jews and gypsies are inferior.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,898
    Professionals, not intellectuals. And reducing the burden of educational expenses on clerics and other religious men and the like (the professionals in British society who are most likely to find educational expenses a burden) strikes you as similar to Hitler's eugenics program in what way?

    That was humor, SAM. Irony. You can't read Russell that carelessly - he was not writing carelessly.
    But the subject was Hitler's eugenics and the Holocaust. What are you trying to say? That the Muslims who think women are stupider than men, Jews are inferior, and so forth, are not different from Hitler's SS?
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Increasing the family size of those with a greater intellectual "average" while considering women and negroes stupid?

    No he wasn't. He adhered very closely to what he wrote in Politics of a Biologist.

    Sure if that is what they think. Is it?
     
  20. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,941
    No those are Jordanians. The real palestinians are from palestine not Jordan Why do you keep insisting on saying that when its already been shown to be historically bullshit? Why does 2 years the same and 25 years of being part of a larger area refered as palestine by outsiders trump some 3000 years of etymology?

    still the same I see. Ignore history because you dislike it.
     
  21. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    pj, your historical knowledge leaves much to be desired to say the least, and you selection bias on information that only agrees with your parochial view is willful ignorance.
     
  22. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,941
    Well I could see how from your point of view it leaves much to be desired because I do not adhear to your twisted version. But historical knowledge is quite good.
    Once again in your attempt to insult me you show your ignorance. Your using the term selction bias all wrong. But that's not surprising given your complete ignorance of formal logic and hatred for statistics.
    I read things that disagree with me I just don't use them in argument. But than again you have wanted people to attempt to their own arguments because you can't.
    big words for such a small man. and its laughable that you would call me parochial doublely so in pertaining to this topic.
    still projecting your faults on to me.



    If I am wrong prove it. Though you won't you'll just insult me like you always do.




















    a side question if you really are a 60+ year old vet why do you tend toward using language habits of a 14 year old girl?
     
  23. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Yes, to disagree with pj is to insult Him.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page