[R.M. Schultz]That Axis History Forum Guy Again...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Probably thinking that it's completely ok to kill gays but knows we know it is completely not ok. Hence his attempt at making a double standard.

In short, he has not only no excuse, but LESS than no excuse.

I expected no less. As soon as he said "My two best friends are gay," I knew that what you say is exactly Schultz's position. It's a classic sign of a closet homophobe.

Now you know why I've been flaming him, trying to goad him into charging.

I expected no less. As soon as he said "My two best friends are gay," I knew that what you say is exactly Schultz's position. It's a classic sign of a closet homophobe.

It's the same kind of pathetic shield that anti-Semites use when they profess that "some of my best friends are Jewish!", before launching into their tirade.

Or when some KKK or NAAWP (David DuKKKe's little band of miscreants) say how they have black, "Mexican" (blanket term for any Latino or Amerindian), or Asian friends...

[Big Orange]

Now you know why I've been flaming him, trying to goad him into charging.

But R.M. Schultz is already charging (and is getting mowed down).

I expected no less. As soon as he said "My two best friends are gay," I knew that what you say is exactly Schultz's position. It's a classic sign of a closet homophobe.

It's the same kind of pathetic shield that anti-Semites use when they profess that "some of my best friends are Jewish!", before launching into their tirade.

Or when some KKK or NAAWP (David DuKKKe's little band of miscreants) say how they have black, "Mexican" (blanket term for any Latino or Amerindian), or Asian friends...

It's a well worn cliché' when bigots claim that they have friends belonging to the group that they dislike, hate or shun. But of course you do get bigots who have friends that come from the group that they despise; it's one of the more negative traits of humanity with bigots liking individiuals, despite said individuals coming from groups that said bigots collectively hate and want to punish or harm.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Now you know why I've been flaming him, trying to goad him into charging.

But R.M. Schultz is already charging (and is getting mowed down).

I'm trying to get him to lose his cool and just snap, essentially.

It's a well worn cliché when bigots claim that they have friends belonging to the group that they dislike, hate or shun. But of course you do get bigots who have friends that come from the group that they despise; it's one of the more negative traits of humanity with bigots liking individuals, despite said individuals' coming from groups that said bigots collectively hate and want to punish or harm.

Stupid, isn't it?

[Big Orange]

Now you know why I've been flaming him, trying to goad him into charging.

But R.M. Schultz is already charging (and is getting mowed down).

I'm trying to get him to lose his cool and just snap, essentially.

Well R.M. Schultz is like a brick wall that tries to flood you with tons of false data or pompous assumptions if you threaten him with sound facts and evidence. And although I've said this before, he had the fucking nerve to compare homosexuals with fucking paedophiles, kleptomaniacs and alcoholics (you've probably seen that comment when I posted a link to one of his idiotic posts over at Axis History Forum). I think he already snapped when he discovered this thread when he was surfing the web for his name (ha!) and he's probably a drooling wreak sitting in the corner around about now.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

But R.M. Schultz is already charging (and is getting mowed down).

I'm trying to get him to lose his cool and just snap, essentially.

Well R.M. Schultz is like a brick wall that tries to flood you with tons of false data or pompous assumptions if you threaten him with sound facts and evidence. And although I've said this before, he had the fucking nerve to compare homosexuals with fucking paedophiles, kleptomaniacs and alcoholics (you've probably seen that comment when I posted a link to one of his idiotic posts over at Axis History Forum). I think he already snapped when he discovered this thread when he was surfing the web for his name (ha!) and he's probably a drooling wreak sitting in the corner around about now.

Ah, good point. Any more goading would just be knifetwisting. Still, it's fun to do.

[The Spartan]

Since I'm a silly, forgetful, little bastard, I forgot about the twin studies regarding homosexuality ....

Are these studies of twins raised separately? If not, then both the genetic material AND the environment are identical, and so we're back to the nature/nurture debate.

Are you even reading? Or trying?

Pfft. You're no fun anymore.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Since I'm a silly, forgetful, little bastard, I forgot about the twin studies regarding homosexuality ....

Are these studies of twins raised separately? If not, then both the genetic material AND the environment are identical, and so we're back to the nature/nurture debate.

Are you even reading? Or trying?

Pfft. You're no fun anymore.

No he isn't. This thread is almost more about us deconstructing his personality based on his posts; the points he makes are so laughably weak it's no contest.


P.S. Schultz, I seriously, honestly hope you think I'm an absolute dick. I hope you consider or actually do try to send me a death threat or something, because you know what? By your resorting to violence of physical, verbal, or textual (yes, even graphical!) kind, I WILL HAVE WON[/i]. I will have raised your blood pressure just that bit more. I will have made you think rotten things. I will have denied you the service of your own fucking brain to better yourself with.

Think about it. I await the receipt of your brick with your scrawled note tied around it into my window, so that I may display it with great pomp and circumstance as a trophy of my small triumph over stupidity.

[Surlethe]

Back then, they tried to distinguish between acceptable anti-semitism (the desire to eradicate the Jewish religion) with unacceptable anti-semitism (the desire to eradicate the Jewish race).

Remember, love the sinner, outlaw the sin. Since homosexuality is clearly a sin, you ought to be able to have friends who are homosexual, and still damn them and outlaw them for having the inclination to be homosexual.

[R.M. Schultz]

Plus he thinks that the Nazis killing non-Jews was supposedly not as evil as killing Jews, when murder is murder, torture is torture - the regime was still killing homosexuals, the disabled and Jehovah’s Witnesses for pathetic ideological reasons, even though those groups committed different "crimes" to that of the Jewish people. Why the supposed distinction between the different evil acts?

I’m sure from your comfortable position you can afford not to make these moral distinctions, but I’m also certain if you actually talked to a Kulak who escaped persecution by going to the city, or an homosexual who was paroled from a KZ, or a communist who was able to jump ship in 1933, they would agree with me completely. Perhaps if you talked to a few Holocaust survivors they would explain to you that their position was infinitely worse than that of self-selected “enemies of the German Reich” because there was no chance of conversion, renunciation, or escape.

You will forgive me for holding that racism is perhaps the most heinous motive for murder, but I have an interest in the matter. You see, my wife is not white, my children are not wholly white, and I hear the crass things that are often said to them, I hear people complain that “they” are the problem, and I know just how far we are form having a truly color-blind society.

You can be an homosexual in private, you can be a communist in your heart, you can worship God any way you wish away from prying eyes — but you can’t change your race or even hide it.

Maybe he's trying to justify the mass murder of the 'self-selected' groups. If so, he if slime of the lowest order and deserves a brick to the face.

So — if I were to say that armed robbery were worse than theft, would I be trying to justify theft? Grow up! Be man enough to attack me, not some straw man that you pin my name to!

I was referring to the 1/5 + 1/5 + 2/5 = 4/5. I figure the folks already involved can rip his text to shreds without my assistance. :)

Sorry about the mistake. I caught it when I was reading the post over but, unlike some other forums, posts on this form apparently cannot be edited. I trust that my statement that men “manage to sort themselves out into the same groups" should have indicated that I meant the same 1/5 + 3/5 + 1/5 proportions that I listed for women. I’m sorry for the consternation that this typing error has caused.

Why are you equating 'gay because of nurture' with 'less of an atrocity to torture and mass-murder all gay people'?

The simple fact is that, whether or not an inclination towards homosexuality is innate, homosexual behavior is volitional while racial existence is not.

Patronizing and politeness will get you nowhere. Answering our points with proper scientific evidence INSTEAD OF ANECDOTES (I'll repeat so you'll get it through your thick skull and preconceived notions) INSTEAD OF ANECDOTES YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!, as well as conceding if you are found wrong in logical debate, may just allow you to dig yourself out of this hole you are in.

But sexuality is a mater of the heart and, as such, will remain forever opaque to a science of weights and measures. Asking for scientific evidence about sexuality is about on par with asking for a Euclidian proof that the Venus de Milo is beautiful, or asking for a statistical analysis that shows that Shakespeare is a better poet than Edgar A. Guest.

Quite simply, anecdotal evidence is about the best you are going to get. Statistical evidence on sexuality is usually misleading. For example, take the following “statistical proof” that I have often seen mentioned:

Since only two percent of adult males are homosexual, and since forty percent of child molesters are homosexual, we can conclude that homosexuals are twenty times as likely to molest our children …

Spengler says that the quantity is the way to analyze dead forms, but that organic forms must be understood by analogy and this is the method I have endeavored to take. It is also Spengler who points up that an hypothesis promises, not truthfulness, but usefulness. I have offered my theory as a rule-of-thumb, as a way to better understand the human dynamics all about us. The way to judge this is several fold:

• Does it explain more than competing theories? I would say that mine does. Whereas a supposition that sexual orientation is fixed and innate cannot explain the great numbers of people who do change, a dominance theory explains both why some people can change, others cannot, and why sexual orientation itself would appear to be innate to those who themselves cannot change.

• Does it correspond to our own experiences?

• Does it have predictive value?

Of course — these last two can only be confirmed by anecdote and you’ve made it clear that you want no more of that, so I’ll just let them stand on their own.

Everyone has an agenda about sex and that is going to keep them from telling a researcher the whole truth.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

If any proposition were self-evident, one would think it was that one, but I shall endeavor to provide a proof.

Major Premise: People’s propensity to bias (both conscious and unconscious) is proportional to their personal involvement in an issue.
Minor Premise: Nothing is more personal than sexuality.
Conclusion: Sexuality is the most bias prone area of human life.

Don't play his game. He's trying to poke holes in the credibility of the evidence for more established theories without providing so much as a shred of evidence for his own interpretation or his many factual claims that rest on nothing more than his own personal authority. Until he provides such evidence, his attacks on the credibility of superior theories are meaningless. Even if those theories are not as reliable as we'd like them to be, they're still far more reliable than his.

True — my claims are not evidentiary, they rest upon logic ands experience. Perhaps that means that instead of crying for “evidence” (most of which is inherently flawed) I would better be attacked logically, or by offering contradicting evidence.

Or you could just uphold the long established Stardestroyer Forum history of mindless name-calling …

I've found that people who spend far too much time on long winded responses for what should be a simple answer are bullshitting, regardless if they sound like they may be credible. Especially when they refuse to cite anything but personal experience.

There is, of course, no chance that they are just trying to be thoughtful and careful in their responses? Would I have more credibility if I confined my responses to smart remarks, sarcasm, ranting, or (that tried and true Stardestroyer tradition) name-calling?

One method I used many years ago against a Trekkie who called himself "Gothmog" was to simply quote each paragraph and then translate it into plain English, by removing all of the superfluous rhetorical antics. It's funny how some arguments virtually destroy themselves if you merely translate them into plain English.

I would be flattered if you considered my prose worthy of your translation expertise. By all means go ahead and redact my argument!

What gets me about R.M. Schultz (apart from his reams upon reams of BS) is his unforgivable hypocrisy …

Hypocrisy?

hypocrisy noun When someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time.

If you have any proof that I am something less than earnest in my beliefs, or that I have contradicted myself, please bring it to the fore. Unless you can do that, you are simply resorting to —GASP— more name-calling!

… Worse still he thinks the Nazis were giving homosexuals an easier time by "re-educating" them into hetrosexuals and although the Nazis were killing Jews with no mercy or exception with no chance of "re-education", in earlier times anti-Semites were "re-educating" Jews into Christians (should they be excused as well?).

This brings to mind a wonderful example!

The Spanish Inquisition was less evil than the Nazi régime precisely because they were religious bigots and not racists! Under the Inquisition one actually could change one’s faith and avoid further persecution, whereas under the Nazi régime even a professed Catholic nun, Edith Stein, was dragged from the convent to the death camp because of her race.

Yes — I would take life in mediaeval Spain over life in the Third Reich any day!

During WW2 the Catholic Church was offering to smuggle Jews out of Germany on the condition that they converted. I guess they weren't worth saving if they didn't convert. Just like homosexuals.

I would be very interested to see documentation of this charge. (Really.)

I expected no less. As soon as he said "My two best friends are gay," I knew that what you say is exactly Schultz's position. It's a classic sign of a closet homophobe.

Okay, here it is at last — R.M. Schultz is an homophobe.

Is that falsifiable? For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made. What kind of logical counter-example could I give to dis-prove such an accusation?

If such a statement is not falsifiable, then it is just one more example (of which there are so many on this forum) of name-calling.

Remember, love the sinner, outlaw the sin. Since homosexuality is clearly a sin, you ought to be able to have friends who are homosexual, and still damn them and outlaw them for having the inclination to be homosexual.

How about just wanting better for them? My best friend is gay and, more than anything else, it just saddens me that he never got married and had kids, because he would have been a great dad and he’s really missing out on the best things life has to offer. Similarly my closest friend at work is gay and has been in a relationship for longer than I have been married. When his partner got cancer two years ago he stuck it out with him, nursed him back to health, an was in every way devoted. What a shame that this kind of devotion was wasted on an infertile relationship incapable of producing children. It simply saddens me to see such worthwhile people falling so short of their obvious potential.

It is just wrong to think that I would ever want anything bad to happen to these men (whom I love), or that I would want to see them damned or outlawed. I am a sinner too, yet they find it in their hearts to love me, how can I repay them with less?

[Stark]

<snip> But sexuality is a mater of the heart and, as such, will remain forever opaque to a science of weights and measures. Asking for scientific evidence about sexuality is about on par with asking for a Euclidian proof that the Venus de Milo is beautiful, or asking for a statistical analysis that shows that Shakespeare is a better poet than Edgar A. Guest. <snip>

It can't be evaluated objectively... but you're certain you know how it works? Certain... from ANECDOTES? Pffffft.

[R.M. Schultz]

It can't be evaluated objectively... but you're certain you know how it works? Certain... from ANECDOTES? Pffffft. :roll:

Not certain at all, willing to enter into a dialog about it. My thesis offers only usefulness, nothing more. Offer up your own thesis, let’s bat that about for a while.

[Raesene]

How about just wanting better for them? My best friend is gay and, more than anything else, it just saddens me that he never got married and had kids, because he would have been a great dad and he’s really missing out on the best things life has to offer. Similarly my closest friend at work is gay and has been in a relationship for longer than I have been married. When his partner got cancer two years ago he stuck it out with him, nursed him back to health, an was in every way devoted. What a shame that this kind of devotion was wasted on an infertile relationship incapable of producing children. It simply saddens me to see such worthwhile people falling so short of their obvious potential.

phrasing it "wasting devotion on an infertile relationship": should a heterosexual partnership also split up just because one member is incapable of producing childen ?
wouldn't it be better to permit adoption by gays to give them the chance to raise childen ? unfortunately adoption of childen by gays is not allowed, because 'a family must consist of a man and a woman'

a good relationship is always based on two people, so a heterosexual relationship of both might not have been so devoted.

[Stark]

Not certain at all, willing to enter into a dialog about it. My thesis offers only usefulness, nothing more. Offer up your own thesis, let’s bat that about for a while.

Your thesis, based on... what? You've rejected methodology and datasources already: aside from anecdotes, what have you got? It blows my mind you'll describe your ideas as a 'thesis' when it's based on your personal experience. Let's try my thesis: your ideas are baseless. You say you're 'not certain at all', but you'll IGNORE scientific studies because you don't think they apply... based on your limited experience! Oh well, you're going to get banned soon anyway.

Further, I quoted you, I didn't agree with you. In this thread alone you've ignored evidence that suggests sexuality is, in fact, NOT beyond objective measurement - red herrings from literature notwithstanding.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Maybe he's trying to justify the mass murder of the 'self-selected' groups. If so, he if slime of the lowest order and deserves a brick to the face.

So — if I were to say that armed robbery were worse than theft, would I be trying to justify theft? Grow up! Be man enough to attack me, not some straw man that you pin my name to!

You are strawmanning, fuckhole. You dare to compare sexuality, a process known to be at least in part biological, to crime, which is purely behavioral and usually influenced by circumstance? You suck at the internets, tampon.

Why are you equating 'gay because of nurture' with 'less of an atrocity to torture and mass-murder all gay people'?

The simple fact is that, whether or not an inclination towards homosexuality is innate, homosexual behavior is volitional while racial existence is not.

More 'love the sinner, hate the sin, ergo it's ok to kill the sinner and salt the corpse so we're sure his soul will go to Hell' shit.

Patronizing and politeness will get you nowhere. Answering our points with proper scientific evidence INSTEAD OF ANECDOTES (I'll repeat so you'll get it through your thick skull and preconceived notions) INSTEAD OF ANECDOTES YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!, as well as conceding if you are found wrong in logical debate, may just allow you to dig yourself out of this hole you are in.

But sexuality is a mater of the heart and, as such, will remain forever opaque to a science of weights and measures. Asking for scientific evidence about sexuality is about on par with asking for a Euclidian proof that the Venus de Milo is beautiful, or asking for a statistical analysis that shows that Shakespeare is a better poet than Edgar A. Guest.

Heart? I thought it was a matter of the brain, specifically, at least in part, to workings in the hypothalamus.

Quite simply, anecdotal evidence is about the best you are going to get.

Concession Accepted, Sheepfelcher.

Don't play his game. He's trying to poke holes in the credibility of the evidence for more established theories without providing so much as a shred of evidence for his own interpretation or his many factual claims that rest on nothing more than his own personal authority. Until he provides such evidence, his attacks on the credibility of superior theories are meaningless. Even if those theories are not as reliable as we'd like them to be, they're still far more reliable than his.

True — my claims are not evidentiary, they rest upon logic ands experience. Perhaps that means that instead of crying for “evidence” (most of which is inherently flawed) I would better be attacked logically, or by offering contradicting evidence.

Umm, hey asshole, try explaining why you feel the evidence is flawed. Your reasoning rests upon assumptions, stawman fallacies, begging the question, black-white fallacies, and other pure bullshit; not logic of any species known here. The recorded and scientifically documented 'experience' of a thousand people participating in a study on human sexuality overrules any personal experience you may bring to the table.

Or you could just uphold the long established Stardestroyer Forum history of mindless name-calling …

Careful, cuntface. Watch your words lest they be counted as libel.

There is, of course, no chance that they are just trying to be thoughtful and careful in their responses? Would I have more credibility if I confined my responses to smart remarks, sarcasm, ranting, or (that tried and true Stardestroyer tradition) name-calling?

/me taps R. M. Fuckhole again with the Libel Stick.

One method I used many years ago against a Trekkie who called himself "Gothmog" was to simply quote each paragraph and then translate it into plain English, by removing all of the superfluous rhetorical antics. It's funny how some arguments virtually destroy themselves if you merely translate them into plain English.

I would be flattered if you considered my prose worthy of your translation expertise. By all means go ahead and redact my argument!

Your argument is made weaker by the simple fact translation is necessary, dickface.

What gets me about R.M. Schultz (apart from his reams upon reams of BS) is his unforgivable hypocrisy …

Hypocrisy?

hypocrisy noun When someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time.

If you have any proof that I am something less than earnest in my beliefs, or that I have contradicted myself, please bring it to the fore. Unless you can do that, you are simply resorting to —GASP— more name-calling!

You are perpetrating hypocrisy by naming yourself as bisexual yet trying to defend the total eradication by Hitler of anyone with homosexual tendencies.

… Worse still he thinks the Nazis were giving homosexuals an easier time by "re-educating" them into hetrosexuals and although the Nazis were killing Jews with no mercy or exception with no chance of "re-education", in earlier times anti-Semites were "re-educating" Jews into Christians (should they be excused as well?).

This brings to mind a wonderful example!

The Spanish Inquisition was less evil than the Nazi régime precisely because they were religious bigots and not racists! Under the Inquisition one actually could change one’s faith and avoid further persecution, whereas under the Nazi régime even a professed Catholic nun, Edith Stein, was dragged from the convent to the death camp because of her race.

Yes — I would take life in mediaeval Spain over life in the Third Reich any day!

Wrong. The Inquisition will still kill you, just merely a garotte instead of the customary burning at the stake for unrepentants. I do believe you are now fucking insane.

I expected no less. As soon as he said "My two best friends are gay," I knew that what you say is exactly Schultz's position. It's a classic sign of a closet homophobe.

Okay, here it is at last — R.M. Schultz is an homophobe.

Is that falsifiable? For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made. What kind of logical counter-example could I give to dis-prove such an accusation?

Your advocacy that killing gays was less onerous than killing Jews is all the evidence needed to prove the assertion, felchmonkey.

If such a statement is not falsifiable, then it is just one more example (of which there are so many on this forum) of name-calling.

It is falsifiable, it just merely happens to be true by our observation ('our' includes the board database itself as well) of your words.

Remember, love the sinner, outlaw the sin. Since homosexuality is clearly a sin, you ought to be able to have friends who are homosexual, and still damn them and outlaw them for having the inclination to be homosexual.

How about just wanting better for them? My best friend is gay and, more than anything else, it just saddens me that he never got married and had kids, because he would have been a great dad and he’s really missing out on the best things life has to offer. Similarly my closest friend at work is gay and has been in a relationship for longer than I have been married. When his partner got cancer two years ago he stuck it out with him, nursed him back to health, an was in every way devoted. What a shame that this kind of devotion was wasted on an infertile relationship incapable of producing children. It simply saddens me to see such worthwhile people falling so short of their obvious potential.

LOL Anecdote. Wrong Answer. And no, having children is not the end-all be-all of life. It is quite possible in this day and age to be successful and leave an indelible legacy without passing on your geneseed.

It is just wrong to think that I would ever want anything bad to happen to these men (whom I love), or that I would want to see them damned or outlawed. I am a sinner too, yet they find it in their hearts to love me, how can I repay them with less?

We do not sin when we have sex. We do not sin because we have homosexual sex. Your religious guidance was fraught with lies designed specifically to make you feel guilty about NATURAL IMPULSES.



Sorry, couldn't resist...

[The Yosemite Bear]

oy fucking vey....


remind me, why am I so glad that I am damaged.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

But sexuality is a mater of the heart and, as such, will remain forever opaque to a science of weights and measures. Asking for scientific evidence about sexuality is about on par with asking for a Euclidian proof that the Venus de Milo is beautiful, or asking for a statistical analysis that shows that Shakespeare is a better poet than Edgar A. Guest.

What a load of lies. Sexuality has been observed, studied and measured in multiple ways. Anyone with a basic understanding of biology can see a clear distinction between studying neurological connections with sexuality and gauging art.

Quite simply, anecdotal evidence is about the best you are going to get.

Well, I've heard enough. This is all I need to know that you're nothing but a dishonest, self-centered homophobe. In fact, you've gone even so far as to quote opinionated letters to the Chicago Reader as "statistical evidence", which is totally laughable. It's a shame that you think homosexual men miss out of things such as family, fatherhood and children. Well, as a young gay man, I look forward to sharing parenthood with a same-sex partner one day. Well, I don't want to waste anymore bandwidth so I'll see you in Parting Shots real soon!

PS. Ein, please be conservative with the pics. I don't want to feel like I'm browsing an AMP thread.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

PS. Ein, please be conservative with the pics. I don't want to feel like I'm browsing an AMP thread.

Sorry about that, sweety. I was thinking this troll could use more heavy gunfire than most. Speaking of AMP threads, See the Akula!

[Big Orange]

Plus he thinks that the Nazis killing non-Jews was supposedly not as evil as killing Jews, when murder is murder, torture is torture - the regime was still killing homosexuals, the disabled and Jehovah’s Witnesses for pathetic ideological reasons, even though those groups committed different "crimes" to that of the Jewish people. Why the supposed distinction between the different evil acts?

I’m sure from your comfortable position you can afford not to make these moral distinctions, but I’m also certain if you actually talked to a Kulak who escaped persecution by going to the city, or an homosexual who was paroled from a KZ, or a communist who was able to jump ship in 1933, they would agree with me completely. Perhaps if you talked to a few Holocaust survivors they would explain to you that their position was infinitely worse than that of self-selected “enemies of the German Reich” because there was no chance of conversion, renunciation, or escape.

You will forgive me for holding that racism is perhaps the most heinous motive for murder, but I have an interest in the matter. You see, my wife is not white, my children are not wholly white, and I hear the crass things that are often said to them, I hear people complain that “they” are the problem, and I know just how far we are form having a truly color-blind society.

You can be an homosexual in private, you can be a communist in your heart, you can worship God any way you wish away from prying eyes — but you can’t change your race or even hide it.

Feeble, feeble, feeble - Kulaks still starved in their millions during the Urkranian Famine and they're were forced to live in dangerous conditions in the growing industrial towns, Communists were still murdered despite given the chance to "convert" to National Socialism, most homosexuals did not choose to be homosexuals anyway and dislabled people obviously had no choice in the matter.

And why do you keep insisting on a Jewish "race" when the majority of Jews in Europe looked virtually indistinguishable from non-Jewish Europeans? They were given yellow star badges for a reason. And Jewish persecution in Europe is intrinsically linked with Christianity’s institutional anti-Semitism, only the Nazis merely took it one or two steps further.

And you keep making the lame dog excuse that the Nazis' persecution of other innocents was not as bad since they were given a slim chance of escape and the Jews weren't - what about the Jews who escape Europe during the 1930s to North America or nascent Israel? What about the half or quater Jews that were occasionally left alone? Or the Jewish children secretly adopted by gentile families for protection?

… Worse still he thinks the Nazis were giving homosexuals an easier time by "re-educating" them into hetrosexuals and although the Nazis were killing Jews with no mercy or exception with no chance of "re-education", in earlier times anti-Semites were "re-educating" Jews into Christians (should they be excused as well?).

This brings to mind a wonderful example!

The Spanish Inquisition was less evil than the Nazi régime precisely because they were religious bigots and not racists! Under the Inquisition one actually could change one’s faith and avoid further persecution, whereas under the Nazi régime even a professed Catholic nun, Edith Stein, was dragged from the convent to the death camp because of her race.

Yes — I would take life in mediaeval Spain over life in the Third Reich any day!

Ahh, but Spain under the Spanish Inquisition was still a gross humanitarian disaster (plus religious bigotry is often linked with racism you useless hack!) with thousands of people tortured to death just because they worshipped in the wrong building; descrimination like that is just as crass at descriminating against people because of their skin colour or cultural heritage. And what about the Jews or Muslims who refused to be converted to Christianity? Their fate was sealed as surely as any inmate in Auschwitz, even though the Spanish Inquisition had slightly different reasons and methods.

[Simplicius]

I’m sure from your comfortable position you can afford not to make these moral distinctions, but I’m also certain if you actually talked to a Kulak who escaped persecution by going to the city, or an homosexual who was paroled from a KZ, or a communist who was able to jump ship in 1933, they would agree with me completely. Perhaps if you talked to a few Holocaust survivors they would explain to you that their position was infinitely worse than that of self-selected “enemies of the German Reich” because there was no chance of conversion, renunciation, or escape.

You will forgive me for holding that racism is perhaps the most heinous motive for murder, but I have an interest in the matter. You see, my wife is not white, my children are not wholly white, and I hear the crass things that are often said to them, I hear people complain that “they” are the problem, and I know just how far we are form having a truly color-blind society.

You can be an homosexual in private, you can be a communist in your heart, you can worship God any way you wish away from prying eyes — but you can’t change your race or even hide it.

Unfortunately, you remain incorrect. The existence of the slimmest capacity for escape does not increase the morality of a murder. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that your charicterization of the Jews' plight versus that of cripples, gays, and other people killed by the Nazis is an accurate one, the Nazis' hands are as stained by every death of the latter as they are by the former - because in both cases, the Nazis are murdering people. The end, no qualification required.

This is a point you seem unwilling to consider - that the fact of the humanity of every Nazi victim makes the execution of each an equally heinous act. It doesn't matter whether one subset of victims can more easily hide, or convert, or escape, because those who don't are just as dead as those who never had the chance to begin with.

If I shoot down a cripple in cold blood, is that worse than doing the same to a perfectly healthy individual? Your argument says yes, because he can't run away. But what kind of twisted standard makes a healthy man's life worth less than that of a cripple, that it is more wrong to kill the latter than the former?

I have three questions for you, R.M. Schultz. Is murder intrinsically immoral? Are homosexuals people? And if you say yes, then why are they not entitled to the same standard of moral treatment that you are willing to accord anyone else?

[Big Orange]

The simple fact is that, whether or not an inclination towards homosexuality is innate, homosexual behavior is volitional while racial existence is not.

So you are suggesting that homosexuals were punished because of their behavior, even though there is strong scientific suggestion that their behavior is linked to their innate sexual orientation? A homosexual is something that he/she is, not just something he/she does.

Also Jews are not purely defined by "racial" existence when their many centuries of religious and cultural practices are behavioural and not genetic (ie memetic). The only thing genetic about it that Jewish families pass on their religious and cultural ideas from one generation to the next, but of course Jewish people do not choose to be born to Jewish parent(s) so it is wrong to discriminate against them just because of their cultural background.

But it hard for you to comprehend this, R.M. Schultz, since bigots often hate other cultural and social groups for what they have perceived to have done wrong (ie Hitler thought Jews were a active threat and he deluded himself into thinking that he was killing them for their supposed evil actions).

[General Zod]

True — my claims are not evidentiary, they rest upon logic ands experience. Perhaps that means that instead of crying for “evidence” (most of which is inherently flawed) I would better be attacked logically, or by offering contradicting evidence.

Logic relies on evidence to be proven true, dimwit. It can't be used to prove something in and of itself. Or how about actually showing why we should accept your claims as more reliable than the actual studies that you're so casually dismissing. Preferably without being long-winded.

I've found that people who spend far too much time on long winded responses for what should be a simple answer are bullshitting, regardless if they sound like they may be credible. Especially when they refuse to cite anything but personal experience.

There is, of course, no chance that they are just trying to be thoughtful and careful in their responses?

No. When I'm being careful with my responses, I typically try and avoid long winded bullshit and cutting straight to the point in a concise fashion as possible without skipping over too many details.

Would I have more credibility if I confined my responses to smart remarks, sarcasm, ranting, or (that tried and true Stardestroyer tradition) name-calling?

I'd suggest you look up something called a style vs substance fallacy. You seem to be fond of using them. Oh, and take a few critical thinking courses. Then come back in a few years.

How about just wanting better for them? My best friend is gay and, more than anything else, it just saddens me that he never got married and had kids, because he would have been a great dad and he’s really missing out on the best things life has to offer. Similarly my closest friend at work is gay and has been in a relationship for longer than I have been married. When his partner got cancer two years ago he stuck it out with him, nursed him back to health, an was in every way devoted. What a shame that this kind of devotion was wasted on an infertile relationship incapable of producing children. It simply saddens me to see such worthwhile people falling so short of their obvious potential.

You seem to be working awfully hard to prove that you're not a self-hating homophobe by continuing to explain how many of your friends are gay. As far as the marriage thing, who cares? Not everyone is interested in raising a family. Personally the only way I want kids is covered with hollandaise sauce and set to 400 degrees at six hours. But that's just me.

[Wyrm]

I expected no less. As soon as he said "My two best friends are gay," I knew that what you say is exactly Schultz's position. It's a classic sign of a closet homophobe.

Okay, here it is at last — R.M. Schultz is an homophobe.

That's right, bitch. You're a homophobe. I'm sorry it hurts. Do you want me to rub some aloe vera on your boo-boo?

Is that falsifiable?

Sure! You can speak about gays as if they are human beings deserving of equal protection from shit such as torture and especially arbitrary killing. You can speak about gays as if they are a wide and diverse group of individuals, as quirky as the rest of humanity, and the gay guy living next door is a regular Joe. But you haven't. You've displayed nothing but contempt for them. You say that, because it's a choice to be gay (or to practice homosexual behavior), that it isn't fair that we slap Nazis with a genocide charge for their murder, instead slapping them with a weaker charge, democide.

First Degree Atrocity: Volitional slaughter of wholly innocent groups. This would include:
— Genocide, the killing of a group by race (e.g. the Final Solution, the Armenian genocide)
— Slaughter for Profit, the kill of masses of people for economic benefit (e.g. the Belgian exploitation of the Congo, the Spanish occupation of Santo Domingo).

Second Degree Atrocity: Volitional slaughter of self-selected groups. This would include:
— Democide, the killing of religious, political, or social groups.

Victims of Nazi Democide were targeted because of their actions (e.g. Homosexuals were arrested for soliciting, Communists for having joined the KPD, Jehovah’s Witnesses for refusing to take an oath of allegiance) and, at some point, they had been free to take different actions. Whereas victims of Genocide were condemned simply for being Jewish, or Romany, or Slavic and at no time could any of these persons have done anything differently to avoid persecution. Anyone with a basic sense of fairness ought to be able to see the difference.

Note the language, "wholey innocent groups" vs. "self-selected groups". That's implying that the second group is NOT "wholey innocent", that they, in a way, deserve their treatment. "Anyone with a basic sense of fairness ought to be able to see the difference." You speak about 'democide' as if it's less serious than full blown genocide, when they are both about killing off an arbitrary group of people with no prior justification. You make this distinction on the basis of "fairness," that it's not fair that we charge the Nazis with full geneocide of gays when they only deserve 'democide'. We call that being an apologist.

You speak about solicitation for homosexual sex as if it were proof they were doing something wrong. Why is it wrong, bitch?! Why does solicitation for gay sex deserve to be punished at all?

Finally, you treat homosexuals as if their an alien culture. You think that leather bars actually typifies homosexual behavior with no proof whatsoever. No, your anecdotes are not proof! You treat homosexuals as if they come from an alien culture from another planet instead of as the men and women they are.

Your declaration to have two gays as your best friends are worthless. You know two gays personally, and yet you still ship this shit? You worthless turd. Let me put it in large letters so your forty-five year old eyes with an eighty year old Nazi worldview can read it:

You are a homophobe!

You're the worst kind of homophobe, because you know gay people and use them as justifications of your poisonous ideas.

For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made.

I know what falsifiable means, shithat. You had your chance to 'prove' you weren't a homophobe. You blew it. Plain and simple.

If such a statement is not falsifiable, then it is just one more example (of which there are so many on this forum) of name-calling.

Fuck you, shitstick. You have displayed none of the character of a whorthwhile human being. I'm giving you the treatment you deserve.

And, you know, I had a whole post just a few pages back. You gonna answer my points, bitch?

[R.M. Schultz]

Maybe he's trying to justify the mass murder of the 'self-selected' groups. If so, he if slime of the lowest order and deserves a brick to the face.

So — if I were to say that armed robbery were worse than theft, would I be trying to justify theft? Grow up! Be man enough to attack me, not some straw man that you pin my name to!

You are strawmanning, fuckhole. You dare to compare sexuality, a process known to be at least in part biological, to crime, which is purely behavioral and usually influenced by circumstance? You suck at the internets, tampon.

No, I was comparing murder to theft. Both are crimes, n'est-ce pas?

[quote="Einhander Sn0m4n

Or you could just uphold the long established Stardestroyer Forum history of mindless name-calling …

Careful, cuntface. Watch your words lest they be counted as libel. [/quote]

Let me get this straight — I point up that this forum is full of mindless name-calling and you respond with a nasty insult, and then accuse me of libel?

Do you even know what the word means?

You are perpetrating hypocrisy by naming yourself as bisexual yet trying to defend the total eradication by Hitler of anyone with homosexual tendencies.

I have never, in any way, defended the policies of Hitler. I have said that all of his policies are bad, just that some were worse than others. To twist this into saying that I have in any way justified any of those policies is simply dishonest.

If such a statement is not falsifiable, then it is just one more example (of which there are so many on this forum) of name-calling.

It is falsifiable, it just merely happens to be true by our observation ('our' includes the board database itself as well) of your words.

Okay, excellent, now we are getting somewhere! Just tell me what sort of “evidence” you will need to prove that I am not homophobic and then we can set about putting matters straight.

Why don’t you begin my defining homophobia?

Well, I've heard enough. This is all I need to know that you're nothing but a dishonest, self-centered homophobe. In fact, you've gone even so far as to quote opinionated letters to the Chicago Reader as "statistical evidence", which is totally laughable ...

Read it again. I posted that letter as an example of a bad use of statistics. Still, if you want statistics, why don’t you answer that one?

And why do you keep insisting on a Jewish "race" when the majority of Jews in Europe looked virtually indistinguishable from non-Jewish Europeans?

Uhm — the point is not whether Jews constituted a race, or whether race is important, but rather that the Nazis defined Jewisness as a race. (If you don’t believe me, then go re-read Mein Kampf.) The Nazi intention in killing Jews was Genocide, not Democide.

Ahh, but Spain under the Spanish Inquisition was still a gross humanitarian disaster (plus religious bigotry is often linked with racism you useless hack!) with thousands of people tortured to death just because they worshipped in the wrong building; discrimination like that is just as crass at discriminating against people because of their skin color or cultural heritage.

Though not as bad as Elizabethan England, where more Protestants were killed per annum than all heretics put together in Spain. Religious intolerance has been the normal condition of society until very recently, but one of the few good things we can say about the great world religions is that they preach the brotherhood of all mankind and thus tend to ameliorate racism.

And what about the Jews or Muslims who refused to be converted to Christianity? Their fate was sealed as surely as any inmate in Auschwitz, even though the Spanish Inquisition had slightly different reasons and methods.

We must remember that Spain had been engaged in a 500-year struggle to expel the Moslem invaders and that it was a reasonable supposition to believe that those Moslems still within Spain were potential traitors. Again, it is disingenuous to apply modern notions of religious toleration to pre-industrial societies.

I have three questions for you, R.M. Schultz. Is murder intrinsically immoral? quote]

Yes, but are there not degrees of guilt? Saying that “killing is killing” makes manslaughter just as bad as murder for hire, and I think anyone would concede the difference.

Are homosexuals people?

Homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a quality of being. One does not lose or retain ones humanity by actions, humanity is an ontological fact.

And if you say yes, then why are they not entitled to the same standard of moral treatment that you are willing to accord anyone else?

It has never been my assertion that homosexuals deserved persecution of any kind. Anti-sodomy laws are bad laws, but they are laws and they can be obeyed by anyone. This puts persecution of homosexuals on a different moral order than the persecution of Jews or cripples, neither of whom even have the chance of obeying the laws against them.

[K. A. Pital]

Homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a quality of being.

You're hilarious indeed. Homosexuality is a biology-linked type of sexual orientation of mammals, just like heterosexuality.

This puts persecution of homosexuals on a different moral order than the persecution of Jews or cripples, neither of whom even have the chance of obeying the laws against them.

Really? So Jews can't essentially fake their "Jewishness"... because of what? Because of a history of Jewish ancestry. And even with that, it's possible to forge it, severe ties with Jews, change your personality and go into hiding. So exactly with homosexuals - they cannot "fake" heterosexuality because they have a history of homosexual relationships - which is what they most likely are indicted on.

[Surlethe]

If any proposition were self-evident, one would think it was that one, but I shall endeavor to provide a proof.

Major Premise: People’s propensity to bias (both conscious and unconscious) is proportional to their personal involvement in an issue.

Evidence? I'd think that reporting honestly about sexuality is just as likely as the biases you cited.

Moreover, you fail to acknowledge that there can exist ways of measuring sexual attraction which do not rely on personal report.

How about just wanting better for them?

And you think you can judge what is better for them?

What a shame that this kind of devotion was wasted on an infertile relationship incapable of producing children. It simply saddens me to see such worthwhile people falling so short of their obvious potential.

Why was that devotion wasted?

It is just wrong to think that I would ever want anything bad to happen to these men (whom I love), or that I would want to see them damned or outlawed. I am a sinner too, yet they find it in their hearts to love me, how can I repay them with less?

And yet, you can damn their actions and inclinations -- over which they have no choice!