FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The problem of Democracy (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: The problem of Democracy
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
no like i agree completely. i just never considered that a thing before haha
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um...did you agree w me? Or boots...confused
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
(Rakeesh)
Ok. Ron, just about every damn thing you have to say about Obama is bigoted, superstitious tripe that makes him look better just by the virtue of your being the one to criticize him. One would be perfectly justified, by the large and repetitive sampling of statements by you, in concluding that you are a superstitious bigot. However, I won't say that, and instead just repeat that nearly everything you say on the subject is superstitious bigotry.

What a difference it makes. The world in general and the forum in particular is made just a little bit better by this tissue-thin prevarication that fools no one but sustains a lovely little fiction. That fiction being that something worth preserving is maintained by enforcing a rule 'don't call anyone a bigot', while also doing nothing (and indeed by the ToS nothing can be done) not only about someone who repeatedly makes racist and homophobic and transphobic statements (but should not be said to be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic, heavens no), but who also routinely refuses to respond to direct challenges to his positions not only on rhetorical grounds but on questions of the merest fact. And who then insults those who do.

So if it makes no difference in the end in your view...and the effort of switching "he is a bigot" vs "his views/actions are bigoted" is negligible...

And ignoring the TOS is disrespectfull to BB.

And the kinder way is (arguably) more effective...

Why not?

Either I'm not the only stubborn one here or there is specifically a reason why you need to call Ron (and Card) bigots.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think it is that Stone Wolf is pretending/mistakenly convinced that he is the grownup here and trying to be the civility police. This despite the cavernous gaps in his own understanding. Some people find that irritating. He is forumsplaining? and that makes people want to smack him.

Thanks, kmboots. It helps, it really does, but I guess don't get *why* he's doing that. Is this one of those situations (and I've been there, believe me) where you've kind of talked yourself into a corner, and it looks like the only option is to keep running with it?

I'm not trying to come off as dickish. I do get why -- in the abstract -- one person might want to argue against name-calling in the general sense, especially in a community forum, and also why someone else might want to advocate for being clear on calling out behavior that is toxic to marginalized groups, even in a forum with (at least historically) a pretty tight community. Like, I can see where you might start there, for both perspectives.

I just don't get why the most action this forum has seen in a coon's age is wayyyyyy down the rabbit hole from those starting points. But I really do think I'm just stretched thin lately, and I'm certainly not adding to this discussion, so . . . [Dont Know]

PS: I'm also totally ready to get called out myself on that latter bit. I feel like an elderly person wandering through a deserted junior high auditorium without my glasses, trying to make sense of the graffiti. [Wink]

PPS: What in tarnation does "rekt" mean? Lemonade? Is that some scatological reference? You young'uns and your dickbutts. Dagnabbit.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stone_Wolf,

Actually, neither of us are arguing that the switch from patronizing niceness to mean accuracy makes no difference at all, so I don't understand what you're getting at.

My point was not 'there is no difference' but rather sometimes, any difference that does exist is so tissue thin as to make no difference at all. 'You are a bigot' versus 'everything you have to say about this subject you care deeply about is superstitious bigotry', which if I followed your 'civilized' method of treating Ron as though he were broken or delusional (or deaf, apparently) is what I would do.

It's palpable prevarication. Sometimes you *should* judge a human being, and it's OK. For example, on an extreme end of things I can look at the (not so) hypothetical homophobic murderer-excuse me, unique human being who behaved in a homophobic murderous way-and potentially understand a lot about him. He may have been raised all his life to despise homosexuals, may have come from a home with a history of serious domestic violence. With deadly, hate-filled results years later. Now at the same time as I am aware that had I been raised that way, I might have been no different I am also capable of recognizing that I am better than that tragically low bar of humanity set by the unique human who behaved with murderous homophobia. I am also entirely capable of recognizing that he is still a human being whose humanity should still be recognized.

Now, as for 'why do you 'need' to talk this way', don't play that game with me, Stone_Wolf. Why do you 'need' to correct others on how they're using the same mindset as a lynchmob when they call a bigot a bigot?

Finally, BlackBlade is entirely capable of speaking for himself. I do wish you would leave off speaking on behalf of others. You're pretty bad at it. You can see an example of it recently in this thread.

Oh, and also don't think I don't notice how you are *still* simply saying 'the kinder way is arguably more effective'. Given that that is exactly what we're talking about, no, no it's not! You can't use the end idea you're trying to persuade someone to believe as a cause to believe it!

"Hmm, I'm not convinced that idea x is correct. Here's why..."

"Well, given that idea x is arguably more effective, why not just do that?"

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Were that my sole argument maybe.

Anyway...tragically...this awesome discussion that I am enjoying SO much (this is not sarcasm, it is God's honest truth) must wait a bit.

I have family duties to attend to and my sheer desire to participate in this thread is causing me problems.

I shall return with all haste! Any and all comments I will try and fully address.

P.S. Claudia...the echange between Parkour and myself was his attempt to show me the negative results of (his understanding of) My views. He seems to feel I am calling for how he treated me the same as my views on how I feel we should treat Ron.

My responses were an attempt to mirror the patronization, but channeled thru a positive filter...and to hi jack his game to show he us JUST AS stubborn as I, just puts WAY LESS effort into it.

Hope this helps [Smile]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Parkour was actually just trolling you and proving that you are very much invested in always having the last word. Also, the extremes that you'll go to to avoid admitting that you've got your own foot planted squarely in your mouth.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your first assertion is likely the popular take away...which doesn't sway my thoughts...even tho that is likely also how Parkour would describe it.

As to your second assertion, I'm not suprised to hear it...I kno you are...shall we say...not my biggest fan, but honestly that's not me. I have been wrong about some pretty fundimental stuff & while I never went down w/o a fight (stubborn & talkitive & myopic at times I admit) down I went.

I admit when I'm wrong. And change.

Ask around.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can someone knowingly be trolled? I out played his game and my counter troll worked to defuse his original troll.

Trust me...there is hit dice & thac0 calculations...my troll math is pretty good.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
-Isaac Asimov

I just want to participate in this high quality thread.

[Party] [Party] [Party]

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps adding more fuel to the fire:

If we vote for Trump, we can only hope he will actually stand by and implement the sensible conservative principles he espouses on his website. Because these are not the things Trump has always stood for. We know for certain what mischief Hillary Clinton would do in all these areas. Not to mention Comrade Bernie Sanders--who might be the Democrat nominee if Hillary is formally charged with any of the numerous felonies she has been guilty of for decades. And if the Democratic Party decides to nominate some other candidate at the last minute--that would probably leave the party in shambles. And make them the laughing stock of the nation. Maybe it would lead Obama to declare martial law, and suspend the presidential election. I wouldn't put it past him. This may even be what he has been planning all along. You may be inclined to laugh at this now. But wait and see.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stop trying to make this about you again, Ron.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, another prediction of martial law. I eagerly await your 'well that didn't happen' admission when it fails to happen. I'll hold my breath and stuff.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Can someone knowingly be trolled? I out played his game and my counter troll worked to defuse his original troll.

Trust me...there is hit dice & thac0 calculations...my troll math is pretty good.

Do you just not understand people when they're describing that you looked like an idiot when you were doing that? Because you looked like an idiot. I am half inclined to defend you sometimes, so it was painful to watch.

You thinking you came out on top of the whole scenario would make it worse, because it would underscore some personal delusion.

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Things have more than one meaning Sam. For the realies.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I edited posts I couldn't let stay around. Nobody ever takes me up on self-editing, sadly. I too find Ron's statemen's often deplorable but Pres. Obama isn't a member of this community.
Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The liberals Ron believes and routinely says despise America and want its downfall, well, some of them are members of the community. Coulda sworn, anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay...so David Duke...the gold standard of bigotry it appears. This guy is a shining example of someone who embodies the spirt animal of dickishness (right?)

So let's say for the sake of discussion that Dave (he goes by Dave now, we are pretending) has had a rough decade. Nearly everyone hates his guts except for zee master race who can be tough friends to have...

Dave suffers, and thru his suffering gains wisdom & refutes his ways...he makes it his life's work to bring enlightenment thru service & dedication to high ideals.

A decade or so later...people still hold up ol' Duke as the measuring stick of bigotry...

Without research, can anyone tell me what DD has been up to lately?

Identifying David Duke as a bigot locks him down...this is the only thing in your life we care about...bigot.

Identifying David Duke's bigoted actions allows that he -may- have moved on.

People are not simply. We are complicated & controdictory. We are more than one thing.

Judge actions, not people.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actions cannot be taken without people, so that's a silly standard to have.

And ok, I guess this wasn't obvious or you're ignoring the obvious intent to make a rhetorical point: if David Duke has changed such that he is a profoundly different person than the bigot he used to be, I will gladly no longer refer to him as a freaking bigot! Now be honest: is that *actually* surprising to you, Stone_Wolf? Did you *really* think, "When these people label someone a bigot that means forever full stop period?"

If you did think that, which seems unlikely but is still possible, I submit that you understand people and the way they speak much less than you seem to think you do. If as seems much more likely that isn't a surprise to you-that, if David Duke changes in a fundamental way, don't call him a bigot-well it sort of serves to highlight how strange your standards are here.

Also for about the sixth time now: am I ennobled if I call Rosa Parks a hero? Should I not label her a civil rights heroine? That is after all judging the person and not the action.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My point is YOU DON'T KNO.

DD is likely an unchanged man...but you don't kno...and are still claiming "he IS a bigot."

It's my point...you put him in a box a decade ago and never bothered checking before making a claim that may very be untrue to your knowledge!

Yet ANOTHER reason to switch from judging people to their actions...accuracy.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hero worship can and is at times a problem...but no, I imagine the same principle I'm expousing shouldn't need to be applied to positive judgments.

So...don't negativly judge people...Judge their actions.

Sorry about my first reaction...I'm seconds from sleep and was needlessly harsh.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Judge people by their actions...you know what? When people ACT by espousing views that you would normally only hear out of a bigot (is that tightrope fine enough for ya, BB? *eyeroll*) I'm going to go ahead and label and judge that for what it is.

Question for Ron Lambert, since he is happily still involved in this discussion. If the election unfolds, Obama leaves office, and the new president starts their term, without the National Sunday Act being signed, will the country then be safe until we oh so unwisely consider a black person for the office again?

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Things have more than one meaning Sam. For the realies.

You either understand you looked like an idiot, or you don't understand that. I guess it's "dont," but stop trying to sell us on the idea that you just cunningly "played parks' game" or wore him out and are so clever.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Question for Ron Lambert, since he is happily still involved in this discussion. If the election unfolds, Obama leaves office, and the new president starts their term, without the National Sunday Act being signed, will the country then be safe until we oh so unwisely consider a black person for the office again?
It depends if whoever replaces him also hates America.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Parkour was actually just trolling you and proving that you are very much invested in always having the last word.

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Your first assertion is likely the popular take away...which doesn't sway my thoughts...even tho that is likely also how Parkour would describe it.

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Things have more than one meaning Sam. For the realies.

You either understand you looked like an idiot, or you don't understand that. I guess it's "dont," but stop trying to sell us on the idea that you just cunningly "played parks' game" or wore him out and are so clever.
*I don't think you are* listening Sam.

[ May 29, 2016, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Samp:
Do you just not understand people when they're describing that you looked like an idiot when you were doing that? Because you looked like an idiot. I am half inclined to defend you sometimes, so it was painful to watch.

You thinking you came out on top of the whole scenario would make it worse, because it would underscore some personal delusion.

So...let me make sure I'm clear on your view...

My thoughts on what went down between Parkour & me, aren't your thoughts...and even though I addressed that my view was likely not the popular one...if I don't believe as you believe I'm delusional?

I had to look it up to make sure...but damn...it fits my understanding of your views...

quote:
big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.


Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stone_Wolf, I ****ing *know* you know there is more to that word than that. C'mon, man, Jesus.

quote:
Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Please don't ask that you be given the benefit of the doubt to not have known that 'bigot' is not a word that just means 'intolerant of ideas', not in most definitions and certainly not how it's being used here. Or are we going to pivot now to the old chestnut about 'well you're just intolerant of intolerant people!'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
My point is YOU DON'T KNO.

DD is likely an unchanged man...but you don't kno...and are still claiming "he IS a bigot."

It's my point...you put him in a box a decade ago and never bothered checking before making a claim that may very be untrue to your knowledge!

Yet ANOTHER reason to switch from judging people to their actions...accuracy.

It's getting harder and harder to give you the benefit of the doubt here about not simply being full of shit, Stone_Wolf. Tell me, did you *really think* that when I referenced David Duke I would also think, "Ok, David Duke was once certainly a major bigot. But even if years later he profoundly changes his politics about race, or if it is exposed that he is fundamentally damaged in some way beyond his control, well, once a bigot always a bigot, forever?"

I have a very, very hard time crediting that you sincerely thought I would think that, Stone_Wolf. Suffice it to say that if David Duke has changed and is no longer a bigot, I will-drumroll, please-no longer call him a bigot.

quote:

Hero worship can and is at times a problem...but no, I imagine the same principle I'm expousing shouldn't need to be applied to positive judgments.

So...don't negativly judge people...Judge their actions

Ok, so we've finally admitted a qualifier into your absolute system of rules on how people should be discussed: don't judge people, judge actions. Unless they're good actions, in which case it's acceptable to judge them except in extreme edge cases.

Seems like a strange inconsistency to me. But moving on, alright, let's say I have two people, Ron Lambert and Lawrence Russel Brewer.* If I label Ron a bigot, and Brewer a bigot, am I equally diminished by doing so?

In other words, it's bad to call Ron a bigot because it's intrinsically bad according to you. Is it just as bad to call Brewer a bigot? The same? Better?

*It's very important to me to be clear here: I'm not equating these two men. One was a violent murderer, and to my knowledge as unpleasant as Ron's politics are he's never advocated even a hint of violence. For all that I dislike his politics, I can't say I have reason to think that in his life Ron isn't civilized.

It's just that he's being discussed right now, and I found an absolute extreme edge case example to fit in with your remarks about it being 'the same mindset' to lynch someone as to call them a bigot.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The liberals Ron believes and routinely says despise America and want its downfall, well, some of them are members of the community. Coulda sworn, anyway.

Is liberalism or conservatism a protected class according to the TOS? Has Ron called anybody specifically evil or some other pejorative? If he has, point it out and I'll deal with it. Lisa doesn't post hear anymore for that reason, and I really liked Lisa.
Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It's getting harder and harder to give you the benefit of the doubt here about not simply being full of shit, Stone_Wolf.

That's because his position is full of it and falls apart on really simple review. His position also puts a greater burden on people who are the victim of bigotry to make sure they stay "well behaved" when bigoted people talk, and further bigotry. Stone_wolf's position is a position for cowards who value the potentially hurt feelings of bigots higher than the right of everyone to challenge bigotry as strongly as they wish.

I spit on it.

quote:
Is liberalism or conservatism a protected class according to the TOS? Has Ron called anybody specifically evil or some other pejorative? If he has, point it out and I'll deal with it. Lisa doesn't post hear anymore for that reason, and I really liked Lisa.
Ron has called people evil very directly before. Lisa doesn't post here because YOU forced her to stop posting, because she finally spewed enough racist bigoted garbage that it wasn't even something this forum could ignore anymore.

The point of what was said was to point out that Ron makes attacks on active forum members too. He's not attacking groups who just don't exist here.

Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh...Did (do) you kno if Mr. Duke is still espousing a bigoted philosophy?

I never said that if he had changed, you would continue to call him a bigot. That's rather silly.

As to samp...I didn't call him a bigot.

I said my understanding of his VIEW on a single topic qualified as a bigoted view.

You guys really seem to be missing my points.*

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Risuena
Member
Member # 2924

 - posted      Profile for Risuena   Email Risuena         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's still a bigot.

With your whole, judge the actions, not the person paradigm, what do you do with a murderer? Or a rapist? Or a pedophile?

Because I've known murderers and rapists and pedophiles. And, honestly? They generally seemed to be nice, normal people. Except, they were also murderers or rapists or pedophiles.

And honestly, I have absolutely no problem judging their characters based on those acts. Maybe, maybe, maybe they can redeem themselves. Or prove themselves worthy of a second chance, but the onus is on them to prove that.

Edited because prove and proof are not the same.

[ May 30, 2016, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Risuena ]

Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Rakeesh...Did (do) you kno if Mr. Duke is still espousing a bigoted philosophy?

I never said that if he had changed, you would continue to call him a bigot. That's rather silly.

As to samp...I didn't call him a bigot.

I said my understanding of his VIEW on a single topic qualified as a bigoted view.

You guys really seem to be missing my points.*

The qualifier 'of course if this person has radically altered their fundamental worldview in a variety of ways, my opinion of them will be proportionally different' is kind of a given, Stone_Wolf. I didn't realize it needed to be spelled out. I am skeptical that you actually *did* need it spelled out.

As for calling Samprimary a bigot, I didn't say you called him a bigot. I called you on using a very technical and for common use incomplete definition, when I am certain you know that isn't how it's being used in this discussion. I then linked to Merriam-Webster to illustrate.

If I am intolerant of, say, someone who burns a cross on a black family's lawn I am not typically referred to as a bigot. Which I would be if we followed that definition you included to the letter. I know you know that, Stone_Wolf. Don't ask me to believe you didn't know that.

But hey, let's go with this latest gambit and apply it to actual situations and see how valid it is. I am openly intolerant of, say, people who ideologically support ISIS. I've never encountered any myself, but I am confident in saying that I would be intolerant of them if I did. By the definition you were using, I would be bigoted in my opinions about people who ideologically support ISIS.

Think about that for a minute, Stone_Wolf. Really get lather up in the absurdity of labeling someone opposed to ISIS a bigot, or 'holding a bigoted view'.

Now to get back to a previous question, have I diminished myself equally if I labeled Ron a bigot as I would if I labeled Brewer a bigot? If not, why not?

ETA: Risuena, I think you're at risk of invoking just how serious Stone_Wolf can be he'll kill 'em you don't even know you've never seen anyone as Batman as this if he has to deal with them.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Risuena
Member
Member # 2924

 - posted      Profile for Risuena   Email Risuena         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
ETA: Risuena, I think you're at risk of invoking just how serious Stone_Wolf can be he'll kill 'em you don't even know you've never seen anyone as Batman as this if he has to deal with them. [/QB]

Entirely possible. Luckily, I'm pretty good at drive-by posting, making points that I think are relevant, and not needing to have the last word.

In other words, I'll probably wash my hands of this discussion and go back to my other regularly scheduled forums. Or more likely, I'll pop more popcorn and go back to reading in silence.

Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It's getting harder and harder to give you the benefit of the doubt here about not simply being full of shit, Stone_Wolf.

That's because his position is full of it and falls apart on really simple review. His position also puts a greater burden on people who are the victim of bigotry to make sure they stay "well behaved" when bigoted people talk, and further bigotry. Stone_wolf's position is a position for cowards who value the potentially hurt feelings of bigots higher than the right of everyone to challenge bigotry as strongly as they wish.

I spit on it.

quote:
Is liberalism or conservatism a protected class according to the TOS? Has Ron called anybody specifically evil or some other pejorative? If he has, point it out and I'll deal with it. Lisa doesn't post hear anymore for that reason, and I really liked Lisa.
Ron has called people evil very directly before. Lisa doesn't post here because YOU forced her to stop posting, because she finally spewed enough racist bigoted garbage that it wasn't even something this forum could ignore anymore.

The point of what was said was to point out that Ron makes attacks on active forum members too. He's not attacking groups who just don't exist here.

Where are his posts that break the TOS?
Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Risuena:
He's still a bigot.

With your whole, judge the actions, not the person paradigm, what do you do with a murderer? Or a rapist? Or a pedophile?

Because I've known murderers and rapists and pedophiles. And, honestly? They generally seemed to be nice, normal people. Except, they were also murderers or rapists or pedophiles.

And honestly, I have absolutely no problem judging their characters based on those acts. Maybe, maybe, maybe they can redeem themselves. Or prove themselves worthy of a second chance, but the onus is on them to prove that.

Edited because prove and proof are not the same.

I hadn't looked to see David Duke's current status...I was hoping Rakeesh would...just out of curiosity. But I don't think he gets that point.

What about those who hurt others? Good question.

So far we have pretty much been discussing how to treat seemingly unreasonable people in a disscussion forum...

My views on what to do if someone attempts to harm you; if at all possible, regard for their life, however, do whatever it takes to preserve your own well being, including deadly force.

My views on what society should do if someone is found guilty of hurting others; our government is doing right by limiting offender's liberty to prevent convicted persons to harm others. Since wrongful convictions happen...it is better to lock someone away than risk kill an innocent person. Sam & Rakeesh taught me that.

I used to be more of "kill them all & let Buddha sort it out" kinda guy.

The only absolute I have managed to grasp is change.

Not sure why Rakeesh is trying to make it into some kind of unified theory of life that must be absolute & applied to situations that are seemingly off topic.

[Dont Know]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stone_Wolf,

quote:
was hoping Rakeesh would...just out of curiosity. But I don't think he gets that point.
Your point was irrelevant. If David Duke has radically changed his politics, I won't call him a bigot. If he has and my information is out of date and I labeled him that way, I'll cheerful eat crow and apologize to the guy. And of course you knew that, so for the love of God stop it with this 'he just doesn't get it' bullshit.

quote:

Not sure why Rakeesh is trying to make it into some kind of unified theory of life that must be absolute & applied to situations that are seemingly off topic

Dude. You are the one who is expressing your ideas on this topic in absolute terms! Which is why if you'll remember how could you forget we've been talking about it for like two pages now Jesus I've been asking questions about how far this policy of yours actually extends.

And the questions are not at all off topic. You expressed an opinion 'judge actions not people' and so I asked 'what about good actions and good people?' How is that off topic for pity's sake?

An even more topical question since it concerns only negative actions-since we've pared down the 'judge actions, not people' guideline to 'judge bad actions, not bad people; judge good actions and good people'-is the one I've asked already about people who express a bigoted idea and people who are violently bigoted. Person a is ideologically bigoted, expressed by speech; person by is ideologically bigoted and bigoted in his actions, for example violence. You said earlier that someone is diminished by calling a person a bigot, so I'm asking: is a person equally diminished by calling person A a bigot as they are by calling person B a bigot?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Risuena:
He's still a bigot.

With your whole, judge the actions, not the person paradigm, what do you do with a murderer? Or a rapist? Or a pedophile?

Because I've known murderers and rapists and pedophiles. And, honestly? They generally seemed to be nice, normal people. Except, they were also murderers or rapists or pedophiles.

And honestly, I have absolutely no problem judging their characters based on those acts. Maybe, maybe, maybe they can redeem themselves. Or prove themselves worthy of a second chance, but the onus is on them to prove that.

Edited because prove and proof are not the same.

I want to thank you for participating in this disscussion. And double thank you for the respect in your words.

I'm starting to think "judging" maybe the wrong word.

Rakeesh pointed out that positive judgements are outside the concept.

And you point out that judging someone "dangerous" bc...well...they proved themselves capable of violent behavior is appropriate behavior.

Condemnation vs judgment -is- my meaning.

Condemn people's choices not the person themselves.

I would also say that in using deadly force in self defense is not necessarily condemnation. Merely nessecity.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your point was irrelevant.
All my points are irrelevant...as judged by you.

Maybe you should sit this one out.

I'm sure DB or Orinoco or samp or Tom or boots or...I feel I'm missing someone...will pick up the torch.

While I appreciate your input you seem pissed off all the time dude...and always with the describing me as "whining" or "lazy" and all these sarcastic asides about how I have a hidden agenda...

You don't like me...it's okay. I accept.

Or at least could you cut down on the melodrama?

I mean if not, no big...I'll just stop responding...but I'd prefer not.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're already not responding. This is at least the fourth time I've asked you about whether or not it's the same degree of diminishment when judging the person a vs the person b. I didn't start out with asides about your motives, either. And your point was irrelevant not simply because it was you-I explained why it was irrelevant. At least twice now. You've also sidestepped challenges to your use of the word bigotry and when it applies.

And hey, it's not you I don't like. It's your lazy approach to thinking and your sense of entitlement to having your opinions respected just because they're your opinions. It's almost like you're judging me and not my actions and words. Why, someone might be frustrated into remarking that you've been lecturing people about doing *exactly that* for some time now.

Just please, for the love of God, "Person a is ideologically bigoted, expressed by speech; person by is ideologically bigoted and bigoted in his actions, for example violence. You said earlier that someone is diminished by calling a person a bigot, so I'm asking: is a person equally diminished by calling person A a bigot as they are by calling person B a bigot."

I've asked that question at least four times in at least two different ways. If you don't want to answer the question, fine. But you won't be able to just ignore it and still act as though you're legitimately discussing ideas.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I too find Ron's statemen's often deplorable but Pres. Obama isn't a member of this community.

Why does this matter? How do we know he isn't? If we knew for sure that there weren't any black people as active members of these forums, then would it be okay to refer to black people the way Ron does to Liberals?

quote:

Perhaps adding more fuel to the fire:

If we vote for Trump, we can only hope he will actually stand by and implement the sensible conservative principles he espouses on his website.

Like deporting Hispanics ad Muslims?

quote:

Because these are not the things Trump has always stood for. We know for certain what mischief Hillary Clinton would do in all these areas.

No we don't.

quote:

Not to mention Comrade Bernie Sanders--who might be the Democrat nominee if Hillary is formally charged with any of the numerous felonies she has been guilty of for decades.

Hillary has not been found guilty of any crime; nor has she been indited for any crime. Why do you hate the most basic American value of "innocent until proven guilty"? You are 100% an example of someone who "Loves America but hates Americans".

quote:

And if the Democratic Party decides to nominate some other candidate at the last minute--that would probably leave the party in shambles. And make them the laughing stock of the nation.

Just like the GOP is right now for nominating Trump?

quote:

Maybe it would lead Obama to declare martial law, and suspend the presidential election.

Why is this even remotely possible? Do you know how much respect and love Obama must have for America to do his job for eight years? Have you seen the hours he works every day?

quote:

I wouldn't put it past him. This may even be what he has been planning all along. You may be inclined to laugh at this now. But wait and see.

Why? There's zero evidence to support this.

Also when are you going to respond to my post correcting your erroneous understanding of history?

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:

[QUOTE]
And if the Democratic Party decides to nominate some other candidate at the last minute--that would probably leave the party in shambles. And make them the laughing stock of the nation.

Just like the GOP is right now for nominating Trump?

Also when are you going to respond to my post correcting your erroneous understanding of history?

Answer to your first question cited here: Yes.

Answer to the second question: I already did, by correcting your "corrections" in great detail. See my post posted May 26, 2016 01:39 AM.

Just an observation you won't like, but you need to face up to: Time again, many people in this community demonstrate that "liberals" are the most prejudiced and intolerant people in America. We also have seen this recently in the news, where it is always liberals who stage near riots and try to shut down conservatives from speaking. You don't see conservatives behaving that way. As for the supposed superior wisdom of people in this community, what you really can't stand, what makes you so furious, is that I, as a conservative, can and do stand up to you, and can and do answer every one of your arguments, even though you forget and pretend I didn't, and ascribe to me positions I do not hold, just so you can have something to refute easily.

I can be persuaded by rational thinking that is fair and honest and considers all the relevant facts. You have given me very little to respect here. Take it to heart, or reject it and continue your childish arguing. You are the ones who will have to live with being so seriously misguided.

[ May 30, 2016, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*laugh* At least you are always, perpetually, consistently wrong about everything.
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As far as responding to arguments--I am still waiting for any kind of intelligent, serious response to my conclusive argument I offered over a year ago, that disproves evolution and proves creation by an Intelligent Designer. Here is the argument again. It is fairly simple.

Variations in species, like all the various breeds of dogs, are not the result of evolution, they are the result of alternate characteristics already existing in the genome of the original progenitor of the species, and only become expressed when those portions of the genome are "turned on" in response to environmental conditions, or sometimes just chance flipping of the genetic "on-off" switches. This is subject to empirical proof. In fact, this is what selective breeders have always demonstrated. Why this destroys evolution, is that all evolutionists claim that the natural mechanism that drives evolution is "Natural Selection." But careful thought will lead to the inescapable conclusion that Natural Selection cannot operate to produce the complex coding of alternate characteristics, when they are NOT EXPRESSED!

Someone might suggest that the alternate characteristics were at first expressed, then somehow combined into the original progenitor genome. But it has been observed that when alternate characteristics are expressed, some of the original coding for the original characteristics are deleted. Thus while you may be able to breed down from a wolf and get a poodle, you cannot breed up from a poodle to get a wolf. So you cannot combine alternate characteristics into the original progenitor genome.

Someone might try to appeal to the mysterious sounding phenomenon of ionizing nuclear radiation causing mutation. But a chance bombardment by neutrons is not capable of producing complex coding consisting of millions of molecules that all have to be perfectly organized in order to work at all. If you bombard wolves with radiation for a billion years, all you are going to get is dead wolves.

Thus there is no way that Natural Selection can explain variation within species. This conclusively disproves evolution, and conclusively proves that creation by an Intelligent Designer is the only scientific explanation for how speciation works.

I challenge anyone on earth to refute this.

[ May 30, 2016, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*laugh* At least you are always, perpetually, consistently wrong about everything.

Again, just another unsupported assertion, and false and deliberately insulting characterization. This is arguing as a child having a temper tantrum. Do you really expect that I should respect such statements?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, the real question of WW2 is how did the Germans do so well. Read the wikipedia article on the fall of France for a good overview of how precarious the German victory was. Several times, any sub-optimal (from the German POV) result would have bogged them down but everything came up aces. Yet for all the fragility of their success, they had it almost all their own way until '42. Compare to the Japanese, who got one sucker punch then spent the next three years being driven back.

No respectable historian believes the Germans could beat the Soviets by purely military means. Even if Germany had managed to capture the three cities that marked the greatest extent of their invasion, it would not have had a material effect on the Soviet's ability to wage war.

Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Answer to the second question: I already did, by correcting your "corrections" in great detail. See my post posted May 26, 2016 01:39 AM.

And I responded to your post in great detail further down, I shall in fact, re-respond:

quote:

First of all, I did say Germany was more powerful than any one other nation. Your statement that England and France combined had "more resources, population, GDP, and industrial capacity" only agreed with my statement.

No. Here is your original claim:

quote:

Germany remained the largest European nation outside of Russia, with the most natural resources, and a still large population of people with military experience, even after the war. Why do you think Germany was able to rebuild its military and economic might so quickly, so that it very nearly won WWII?

The context makes your new claim a case of shifting the goalposts. It actually contradicts your overall narrative about how powerful Germany is; since you are trying to claim because they were so powerful they were able to rebuild their military.

Which I also disputed, I pointed out that the German rearmament program under Hitler was on a crash course to disaster; it was fundamentally unsustainable.

quote:

Yes, Germany annexed Austria and some other territories, but that is not the only reason they quickly built themselves up into a military power great enough to challenge the other nations of Europe.

It is pretty much the main and principle reason; German military procurement was a mess; the scale of the German rearmament program under Hitler would have crashed completely on its face if not for the gold reserves in Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Yes Germany was a regional great power with a great deal of advantages; but a large portion of the popular conception of Germany military capability is myth making to justify the avoided defeats that Allies got handed to them early war.

"First amongst equals" status I can grant sure, but it isn't as impressive as you are making it out to be.

quote:

You are quite mistaken in your denial that the Germans could have won WWII. Some military historians who knew what they were talking about have said that the British air force was "on the ropes," and have estimated that if the Luftwaffe had continued their bombardment of British air power only a few more DAYS, Britain would have been unable to oppose a German invasion.

I responded to this before but now I'll go into greater details; the idea that the RAF was on the ropes and would've been defeated if it weren't for the London blitz is absolutely a myth. The rate of attrition considerably favoured the British. The Germans lacked the range to stay dueling the British pilots for long enough and the RAF pilots frequently held the air after every engagement.

If the RAF really was losing they would have pulled their airbases further north; but the fact is the Germans were losing the Battle of Britain; the British had larger aircraft production capacity and the Germans could not have continued the effort indefinitely.

Even if they did defeat the RAF; and this is the part you are woefully ignorant of, the consensus of Operation Sealowe is that it was a clusterdangle, an absolute haberdashery of a military operation doomed to failure. You can find ridiculous amounts of detail online, but basically:

1. The Germans could maybe at most cover between 20% to 40% of the supplies needed for the invasion force.

2. The Germans could not reach the RN detachments in Scapa Flow, and thus the Royal Navy would be free to intercept the supplies coming across.

3. German High Command was an Organizational Dingleberry of epic proportions, to the point that the Luftwaffe and Heer actively obstructed the Navy's efforts at preparing for the invasion.

4. Even if the RAF was forced north; they would still be able to cause havok on the Germans attempting to land.

There are numerous history experts and phd's online who can all attest that the Germans had zero chance at succeeding; and short of Churchill dying in a car crash (cough) the British were never going to accept a compromise peace with Germany.

quote:

Many military experts have also observed that the Allies were on the verge of defeat, and would have been (after all France had fallen, Poland and the Balkans had fallen, Scandinavia had fallen, all that was left was Britain)

Military experts at the time? Or contemporary analysts today? We have more than enough of the historical and military records to conclude that the result was never in doubt despite the shock of the Battle of France.

Sure, it's possible that Britain could have fell based on the above logic; but it is not even remotely as likely as you make it out to be.

quote:

if Hitler had not decided to attack Russia instead of finishing the job in the west.

Here is the crux of your problem; you are arguing a number of "What if" counter factuals that while mostly implausible and the majority of them are easily disproven and discredited by the facts and the historical record; the simple fact is that most of that doesn't matter; there are a large number of scenarios we can imagine with Germany doing better than they did; but that would presuppose that they weren't Nazi's.

Hitler was inevitably going to invade Russia, there is no way that doesn't happen.

quote:

The misguided "Operation Barbarossa" almost succeeded in defeating Russia--at the peak, German tanks were in sight of the Kremlin in the first Autumn after the invasion of Russia.

I specifically in my initial response to your post pointed out that the Germans coming within 14 miles of Moscow was the 'high water mark'; why does this fact make you think that the Germans were at all close to succeeding? The sheer amount of willful disregard of the logistics the invasion of the Soviet Union; of the struggle the Germans were facing just to manage basic everyday operations and the stiffening Soviet resistance to the invasion?

As one person put it the Germans successes were basically a series of critical successes of where they kept rolling perfect 20's over and over and kept needing to roll perfectly or else they would fail.

What good does it do if they defeat the RAF or take Moscow? Do you have any idea or understanding of what that would mean for the war or their war effort? What happens next? It just means that the war's inevitable result is just pushed back another six months until the next time they need to roll a crit or fail.

So they reach Moscow, then what? They get Stalingrad six months early! Fantastic! This is *already* when the Germans are completely exhausted and are at the end of their logistical tether at the onset of winter, and you expect things to somehow improve at this point?

quote:

Germany squandered at least three opportunities to win the war outright. This gave time for America to enter the war and build up troop strength in Britain capable of launching a counter-offensive, that finally turned the tide.

And so the above here is completely wrong; there was never that moment, it never existed, it is completely a myth.

quote:

the US armored forces led by Patton took on Rommel in northern Africa, bailing out the British mechanized units that had been on the defensive, then moved on to attack Italy.

Somehow I missed this; this is completely wrong. Do you even know when the Battle of El-Almein happened? It decisively defeated Rommel before Operation Torch could have had any major effect on the German's planning.

quote:

All military analysts of comparative tanks in WWII regard the German Panzers as being the best tanks, at least in the early part of the war. The Sherman tanks were a later addition, that were only a factor after the USA entered the war. The advanced Russian models were not introduced until late in the Russian campaign. At the start of WWII, Germany had the best tanks. Period. That is one reason why their "Blitzkrieg" tactic was so effective, and blew right through the French lines (surrounding the Maginot line), went all the way to Paris, and later almost made it to the Kremlin. (By the way, I used to play a game by Milton Bradley called "The Russian Campaign," and competed with players all across the country by mail. I was even nationally ranked for a while among the top 50.)

Again this is all wrong.

1. Early war the majority of the German Panzer Korps was older models such as the Panzer II and Panzer I; the Panzer III & Panzer IV together only made up for 10% of the total tank fleet in the invasion of Poland; and the majority was still mainly light tanks during the Invasion of France.

The gun on the Panzer III and Panzer IV actually had huge difficulties with the British Matilda II, the Char B1, and the Somua S35.

The advantage of the Panzer III chassis was that it was upgradeable, something that only began to matter during the North African campaign and the Russian campaign; things like the commander's cupola and the wide spread usage of tactical radio's were crucial; the key point is that it is doctrine; the combined usage of proper tank tactics and organization of tanks into independent arms that allowed them to outmaneuver French and British forces.

quote:

Actually it was a very effective tactical element, where paratroops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut supply lines and catch enemy forces in a pincers. On the battlefield, the Flieger Corp added a considerable force multiplier effect.

I asked about this of some friends who are knowledgeable and again this isn't the case. Sure they could have been used in Varsity style operations, landed immediately behind the front and allow the Germans to more quickly capture ground; but the Soviet's had a lot of local AA and rarely did the Germans have the air superiority where such operations could've mattered.

quote:

It is really hard to understand how the Germans could have lost the war--they had so many advantages, so many clear opportunities to have won the war. Many blame misjudgements by Hitler.

I've already included a bunch of links about how not only was German production horrifically inefficient, but how the war production of the Allies was just so much larger that again, the end was not at all in doubt.

The Germans were always doomed to lose a war of attrition and their economy was based around inevitably entering a war of attrition.

quote:

Germany did have a project to develop an atomic bomb. They might actually have built an atomic bomb before anyone else, if it were not for the Allied bombing of the German heavy water processing plant, and related research facilities. Germany had scientists capable of building the bomb. Here is what Wickipedia says about the Nazi effort to develop nuclear weapons:

I disputed this already; it is absolutely a myth that the Germans could have gotten the bomb before the Allies. They lacked the resources to pour into the project and were no where near close to matching the progress of the allies; nor could they have because as you say, the Allies were quick to disrupt those efforts whenever they could; and had it been necessary, they would have assassinated key German scientists.

There is no "might" here.

At the end of the day, your argument presupposes the Germans manage to keep on rolling straight 20's while the Allies keep rolling 1's; when in reality the Allies made a large number of mistakes; if the Germans get a magic Wehraboo scenario where they make less mistakes, why don't the Allies also get a scenario where they don't make mistakes? You do not address this.

The fact is, Germany lost and lost badly.

All of this to construct an elaborate narrative about how the US could very well elect Trump because ~the superior culture of Germany and its sugui economic might~ also elected Hitler.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh...you have a really REALLY annoying habit of pushing & pushing (about something already answered) & not listening to the answer & then acting snottY & then thinking you've won.

It's not unlike playing chess w a chicken...

No matter the effort, care, time or method I use to try and make a point (almost any point ever)...

The chicken just kicks I over the peices, shits all over the board and then struts around like it won.

This question that you point out I need answered (and heavily imply bc I'm dishonest (or lazy!) was answered pages and pages ago, not once or twice...but consistently.

It does not matter.

If someone kills folk in the name of bigotry wouldn't a better tittle be murderer?

Please keep this in perspective here. We are talking about how to treat people here;...where there are no murderers.

Notice how when Claudia said DD was still a racist...I didn't say anything.

Why?

Mr. Duke doesn't post here. His real life feels are not in jeopardy.

I on the other hand do. And so does Ron.

You can (and consistently do) paint me as the problem while dismissing my arguments.

But you aren't Jean Valjean & I'm not Javert.

Third warning buddy...please talk about the ideas and not the poster (me) or I'll ignore you.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Initially you said namecalling is always out, forever. After many, many questions this was 'clarified' to 'judge actions, not people'. So then I asked about good actions, and you admitted an exception to the rule. I'm trying to clarify if there are further exceptions to this rule of yours. So far, you have not answered my question. You haven't. If you have, point to where and I will cheerfully admit you were right and I was wrong, and apologize for it.

And man, it is a flat-out lie to say that I have not addressed your arguments.

quote:
Ok, I don't have time to get to the rest of this now, but let me just highlights three things. One, your opinions haven't just been dismissed, specific objections have been raised against them. To claim that others are simply shrugging them aside as you did is misleading at best. Two, I put forward that it is not actually polite nor more embracing of anyone's humanity to treat them more nicely because they are 'blind, deaf, or mentally disabled'. (Goodness, the things to be said about this part alone, but time is short.) Third, no one has suggested responding to anything Ron has said with anything other than words, so your remarks about 'better off dead' and 'maybe we should help that happen' are, at best, completely misleading as well.

And since he's not, your asserting some sort of community responsibility to protect him from...what, himself?...under the guise of 'civility' is off-base. It isn't civilized to treat someone as less than a functioning adult human being, especially just because their politics are silly! It is, in fact, hugely condescending and fundamentally dishonest to the person you're nominally doing this 'for'.

Let me put it even more simply: the people on your list, and especially the blind and the deaf, are empowered by your method of 'helping' them. Furthermore, your lumping in of the deaf and the blind and the mentally handicapped with people so mentally ill they are homeless and potentially dangerous to themselves and others is lazy and offensive. It's not 'frank talk', Stone_Wolf. It's just another example of your not really having thought about an issue before, shooting from the hip, and then believing that your own good intentions mean you can't be wrong.

Don't tell me I haven't responded to your claims, Stone_Wolf. And you'll also note we were having a polite conversation about the history channel until you decided to unveil this incoherent, ambiguous, shifting policy about judging people.

Anyway, now your stance is to reject the question altogether in spite of your claim to have already answered it. And it is relevant. I'm asking about your philosophy on name-calling and judging actions versus judging people. So it is relevant to ask if one is equally wrong to call verbal bigot a bigot as calling verbal and physical bigot a bigot. Please answer the question, or show me where you have done so already.

Or ignore me as you 'threaten'. Even if I felt that was a legitimate threat-you've shown before it's not-threats generally speaking are supposed to be something that poses harm or unpleasantness to the other party. If you're not going to answer relevant, direct questions and are then going to lie about your own arguments not being addressed, please ignore me.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I answered (again again again) in my post above.

You can't seem to hear me man.

[Dont Know]

Here is my latest answer to your unanswerable question.

quote:
It does not matter.

If someone kills folk in the name of bigotry wouldn't a better tittle be murderer?

Please keep this in perspective here. We are talking about how to treat people here;...where there are no murderers.

Notice how when Claudia said DD was still a racist...I didn't say anything.

Why?

Mr. Duke doesn't post here. His real life feels are not in jeopardy.

I on the other hand do. And so does Ron.


Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2