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

[K. A. Pital]

Why do people even bother with him? He's gone totally incoherent, did not adress arguments, neither conceded... and finally revealed himself as an arrogant and ignorant asshole. This "former sci-fi fan" has so little worth I'm amazed this has went on for 9 pages, and he managed to adress nothing, resorting to anecdotal bullshit at best. Pains me to see it.

[Big Orange]

Ok for the last time, before somebody pulls the plug on this thread and R.M. Schultz is shown the door, I'm going to ask a few questions here that R.M. Schultz has not answered adequately yet:

1: HOW IS "GENOCIDE" WORSE THAN "DEMOCIDE"?

2: WHY ARE HOMOSEXUALS SEEN AS LESS INNOCENT THAN JEWS DURING THE HOLOCAUST?

3: HOW WAS THE LEGAL PROSECUTION OF ALAN TURING FOR BEING A HOMOSEXUAL SUPPOSEDLY ETHICLE?

4: HOW IS HOMOSEXUALITY SUPPOSEDLY A CHOICE IN MOST CASES?

5: HOW ARE JEWS OBVIOUSLY DISTINCT FROM THE GENTILE POPULATION IN TERMS OF RACE?

Answer those questions please.

And why the fuck do you keep on hammering about Edith Stein, Mr. Schultz? So they killed her because of her Jewish parentage despite being a practising Catholic - you know that course of action could also apply to homosexuals who would still be killed, even after they had suppressed their homosexuality and started a family. And killing left handed people, even after they have trained to use their right hand.

And you keep making pitiful excuses for homosexual persecution, when you said they could avoid persecution by stop being gay - the same obnoxious excuse could also apply to the persecution of Jews, when in Europe some Jews had forged ID or had their children adopted by gentile famillies.

But of course these words will be falling on typically deaf years and you will rage on with your ridiculous views until somebody bans you.

[Wyrm]

You look like this?

<snip picture of hottie with OKD>

Dude — I win.

P.S. How much did you pay the babe to pose with you?

Weak! Weak, weak, weak! I had a feeling you would snipe at Oni Koneko Damien, and once again ignore the points we have been raising all along.

However, you have now graduated to including people who have never done you any harm in your maelstrom of hate. You have a real issue here, laying the blame of these kinds problems at the wrong feet, in this case yours — instead, if any choice on the part of the victims was involved at all, you insist on laying some of the blame on the victims of hate. Dumbass.

And you still have some points to answer. I won't repeat them here; Big Orange has summarized them nicely above.

[Darth Wong]

He's just ashamed that he's turned on by those pics.

He's just ashamed that he's turned on by the guys in those pics.

[Darth Wong]

RM Schultz, it has been very amusing to watch you reveal your horrible sexual dysfunctions, excessive waist size, intellectual poser status, and lack of scientific education for us all (particularly since you invariably did so inadvertently, while attempting to belittle others), but now it's time for you to put up or shut up. Start answering some of those points you've been conspicuously ignoring (ie- all of them in the couple of exchanges). I am saying this now as the administrator of this forum, not just as a debater.

[consequences]

• Start dating women that are attractive instead of just available.

Hang on, did he just instruct me to start cheating on my wife, with multiple partners no less? No wonder I can't stand mundanes if that's the expected behavior required to fit in.

Having done everything else on his list at least once, I'll issue one instruction of my own, anecdotally guaranteed to result in less crying pathetically into your pillow alone at night:

Do what you like, as long as it doesn't hurt others without sufficient reason.

[Big Orange]

RM Schultz, it has been very amusing to watch you reveal your horrible sexual dysfunctions,

He is sexually dysfunctional in that he is a self-loathing bisexual that projects his grave misconceptions of sex and sexual orientation onto the general population. Worse still, due to his religious indoctrination in his adult years, he preaches subtle hatred against homosexuality by claiming that individual homosexuals choose to be gay, thus suggesting that it's their fault for being gay and thus deserve punishment for their supposed sexual "crimes". And R.M. Schultz peddles this potentially very dangerous nonsense, even though he's essentially bisexual himself and has homosexuals as close friends.

[Wanderer]

Here’s the hard part: social adjustment.
• Start dating women that are attractive instead of just available. [How to tell? Does she dress like you — then she’s a looser!]

Dude, you seriously need to get a life. You have no ideal how a real relationship works. My wife is badly disfigured on her left cheek from her abusive father, yet I still love her and would never dream of cheating on her.

Next, concede your points and repent of your idiocy. Its rather easy and can be done with a single post.

[Davis 51]

He's just ashamed that he's turned on by those pics.

He's just ashamed that he's turned on by the guys in those pics.

I stand corrected.

RM:
You're stereotyping of sci-fi fans is pretty pathetic, given that I have broken about every single one of them. Wong is indeed right. Watching you has been amusing. From what I've seen, and from the excellent job my fellow sd.netizens have done with completely destroying your posts, chances are you will continue to fail to comply with the boards rules, and will be banned. I'm tempted to say there's a chance you'll redeem yourself by either actually backing up your post with hard, factual, and scientific evidence, or concieding. But who am I kidding. You'll probably fail to do that, and be lost to Parting Shots, just like every other troll, spammer, and idiot that comes here.

But what do I know. You could theoretically start complying with the board rules and concied/provide evidence. Doubtful, thought.

[Big Orange]

Anything else to say R.M. Schultz? Or have you ran away?

[R.M. Schultz]

Ok for the last time, before somebody pulls the plug on this thread and R.M. Schultz is shown the door, I'm going to ask a few questions here that R.M. Schultz has not answered adequately yet:

1: HOW IS "GENOCIDE" WORSE THAN "DEMOCIDE"?

It’s really very simple: because a potential victim can change their group but cannot change their race/ethnicity.

Both are bad, and very nearly equally so, but just the same we can say that régimes that indulge in genocide are innately worse than repressive régimes that practice democide. This moral distinction came into play when the Western Democracies chose to ally themselves with a democidal régime (the Soviet Union) against the genocidal Nazis.

2: WHY ARE HOMOSEXUALS SEEN AS LESS INNOCENT THAN JEWS DURING THE HOLOCAUST?
…And why the fuck do you keep on hammering about Edith Stein, Mr. Schultz? So they killed her because of her Jewish parentage despite being a practising Catholic - you know that course of action could also apply to homosexuals who would still be killed, even after they had suppressed their homosexuality and started a family. And killing left handed people, even after they have trained to use their right hand.

I keep returning to that example because it illustrates my point exactly.

Homosexuals were only arrested if they actually engaged in some kind of homoerotic behavior, and even then (with the exception of disgraced SS troopers) they were frequently given a chance to “prove themselves” and be paroled. Similarly, very few married men with children were ever picked-up even when there was significant evidence against them. Persecution of lesbians was even rarer. There is, for instance, no documented case of a mother with children being picked up even when they were living openly in a lesbian relationship! Once arrested, they were usually sent to labor camps, not death-camps, as there existed the possibility of “reform.”

Compare this if you will to the way Jews and Gypsies were ruthlessly hunted down and often killed en masse immediately upon arrest. No one could “change” their Jewisness and the Nazi hatred of the Jews often extended to the murder of their pets!

If you cannot recognize this difference, I can only put it down to special pleading.

Ok for the last time, before somebody pulls the plug on this thread and R.M. Schultz is shown the door, I'm going to ask a few questions here that R.M. Schultz has not answered adequately yet:

… And you keep making pitiful excuses for homosexual persecution, when you said they could avoid persecution by stop being gay - the same obnoxious excuse could also apply to the persecution of Jews, when in Europe some Jews had forged ID or had their children adopted by gentile famillies.

In the one case (homosexuals), by changing their behavior they can exempt themselves from persecution, whereas in the other, by subterfuge Jews could simply attempt to escape (a course of action equally available to other groups) which does nothing to change their legal position.

3: HOW WAS THE LEGAL PROSECUTION OF ALAN TURING FOR BEING A HOMOSEXUAL SUPPOSEDLY ETHICLE?

I will make a case for his arrest and persecution to be “ethicle” (I assume that is British spelling?) but I wish it to be clearly understood that I do not think that it was either wise or moral!

Alan Turing was arrested under a law that was democratically enacted (in a country where he was an enfranchised citizen), he was tried by a jury of his peers and, with good evidence of his having actually broken the statute, convicted and sentenced. What can be the problem with this?

• It was a bad law? Sure, but governments routinely enact bad laws and, unless these laws are a clear and present danger to the public safety, in a free country we are obliged as good citizens to obey them. Thousands of Americans were convicted in the 1920’s under barbaric “Prohibition” laws and, however bad or foolish these laws were, they were still the law and these people were fairly convicted.

• Homosexuality is a right. Turing was convicted for a specific behavior and, almost by definition, it is the job of government to regulate behavior. Turing was not convicted for being an homosexual, but for the specific action of sodomy.

• Turing was “born that way” and “had no choice.” Even if Turing were “born that way” he had many choices that could have avoided his conviction and punishment. The most obvious is that he could have remained celibate and not actual have committed a crime. The second is that he could have entered a long-term relationship with someone who could be trusted to keep his secret (as did many fairly open homosexuals of that period) instead of picking up young street toughs, most of whom were only having sex with him for money. After being robbed by one of these toughs, he simply could have accepted it as the price for liking “rough trade,” and marked his loss down to experience, instead of going to the police with the matter (with the almost sure knowledge that the tough would spill the beans about the nature of his relationship). Once on trial, he could have actually made a defense and denied the nature of the relationship which, given his high reputation, would almost surely have carried the day. Finally, he could have asked the court for clemency in the light of his very significant contributions to his countries defense, instead of defying them with stiff-necked pride. If Ernst Röhm were able to avoid prosecution under the Weimar Republic’s much more draconian anti-homosexual Paragraph 175, then surely a clever guy like Turing could have avoided persecution in liberal England.

4: HOW IS HOMOSEXUALITY SUPPOSEDLY A CHOICE IN MOST CASES? [/size]

It isn’t, but only because in most cases people cannot change anything fundamental about themselves. My whole thesis is that only those with dominant personality types can really make any substantive decisions about their lives and that it is this, and not an inborn tendency to homoeroticism, that prevents homosexuals from changing.

Let me take a moment for an excursus on the word “Thesis.”

thesis noun
1 a (1) : the unstressed part of a poetic foot especially in accentual verse (2) : the longer part of a poetic foot especially in quantitative verse b : the accented part of a musical measure : DOWNBEAT -- compare ARSIS
2 a : a position or proposition that a person (as a candidate for scholastic honors) advances and offers to maintain by argument b : a proposition to be proved or one advanced without proof : HYPOTHESIS
3 : the first and least adequate stage of dialectic -- compare SYNTHESIS
4 : a dissertation embodying results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view; especially : one written by a candidate for an academic degree [/size]

I mean it in the second definition, hypothesis, not in the final definition of an academic dissertation.

5: HOW ARE JEWS OBVIOUSLY DISTINCT FROM THE GENTILE POPULATION IN TERMS OF RACE?

Don’t ask me, go ask a Nazi. I’m not the one who’s a racist, I’m not the one who favors genocide, I couldn’t care less what race the Jews are. My point about them was that the Nazis thought of the Jews as a distinct race and killed them for it, hence, genocide.

And hey, look what just got posted on PostSecret?



Just goes to show you that it can be done!

[Darth Wong]

Both are bad, and very nearly equally so, but just the same we can say that régimes that indulge in genocide are innately worse than repressive régimes that practice democide. This moral distinction came into play when the Western Democracies chose to ally themselves with a democidal régime (the Soviet Union) against the genocidal Nazis.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Allied choice to ally themselves with Stalin constitutes some sort of evidence of superior morality?

Your argument about killing homosexuals vs killing Jews only holds water insofar as the mechanism of "reform" allows a reduction in the number of pointless killings. The morality of the killings that did take place, however, is identical. This is the point that people are trying to get through to you. By the same argument, one could argue that it is less immoral simply because there are fewer homosexuals than Jews, but the numbers game does not represent a real distinction in terms of the morality of the act itself.

In the one case (homosexuals), by changing their behavior they can exempt themselves from persecution, whereas in the other, by subterfuge Jews could simply attempt to escape (a course of action equally available to other groups) which does nothing to change their legal position.

And yet, you are about to argue ...

Even if Turing were “born that way” he had many choices that could have avoided his conviction and punishment. The most obvious is that he could have remained celibate and not actual have committed a crime. The second is that he could have entered a long-term relationship with someone who could be trusted to keep his secret ...

Guess you're having trouble keeping your story straight, huh? If the possibility of subterfuge is not a moral defense, then why are you using it that way in the case of Turing?

Let me take a moment for an excursus on the word “Thesis.”

thesis noun
1 a (1) : the unstressed part of a poetic foot especially in accentual verse (2) : the longer part of a poetic foot especially in quantitative verse b : the accented part of a musical measure : DOWNBEAT -- compare ARSIS
2 a : a position or proposition that a person (as a candidate for scholastic honors) advances and offers to maintain by argument b : a proposition to be proved or one advanced without proof : HYPOTHESIS
3 : the first and least adequate stage of dialectic -- compare SYNTHESIS
4 : a dissertation embodying results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view; especially : one written by a candidate for an academic degree [/size]

I mean it in the second definition, hypothesis, not in the final definition of an academic dissertation.

No you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't keep stating it as if it were substantive. If you only meant it in the sense of "airy-fairy theory with no supporting evidence whatsoever", you wouldn't express it as statements of fact, which is what you've been doing. Once more, either concede that you have no evidence or provide the fucking evidence.

And hey, look what just got posted on PostSecret?

We're all quite aware that you suppress your homosexuality. No need to repeatedly remind us. We already figured that out when you posted your incredibly laughable claims about what goes through the minds of heterosexual men when they have sex with women.

[Surlethe]

It’s really very simple: because a potential victim can change their group but cannot change their race/ethnicity.

Again, by your logic, a rapist who rapes a woman who walks through a slum is less morally culpable than a rapist who rapes a woman walking through a quiet suburban neighborhood.

[K. A. Pital]

My point about them was that the Nazis thought of the Jews as a distinct race and killed them for it, hence, genocide.

And how exactly it is different for thinking of homosexuals as a target for murder? Why is it any different? Targeting a Jew has a much a "rational" base as targeting a homosexual - both are irrational acts.

Both are bad, and very nearly equally so, but just the same we can say that régimes that indulge in genocide are innately worse than repressive régimes that practice democide. This moral distinction came into play when the Western Democracies chose to ally themselves with a democidal régime (the Soviet Union) against the genocidal Nazis.

(1) the alliance with the USSR was done by countries already in a state of war with the Hitlerite Germany - it was more of an alliance by the state of War - those who were in state of war with the Nazis allied with each other, so I wonder where you find any evidence for any moral base of this alliance, save the base of being attacked by, um, a Nazi Germany.
(3) at the time of war, the Allies had virtually _nil_ real knowledge of the extent of anyone's atrocities. The full extent of German atrocities was only known when the Allies stormed the KZs and German ministries, aquiring the documentation, the full extent of Soviet atrocities was only known 55 years later when the archives were declassified.
(4) the USSR's democide was on a few orders less than the Nazi democide & genocide, but as I said already, at the time of the War nothing was known about either Nazi genocide or the democide in the USSR.
(5) hence, there's no reason to conclude that Allied decisions had anything to do with the democide/genocide distinction, and even moreso in the light of the probative separate peace talks that the Allied intelligenct sought to conduct with the remainder of the Nazi generalitee. This distinction played little role if any.

Alan Turing was arrested under a law that was democratically enacted (in a country where he was an enfranchised citizen)

"Democratically enacted laws"? That's fucking lame. Democracies routinely enacted repressive laws against homosexuals, especially in the beginning of XX century. The first state to recognise homoerotic rights and abolish their persecution was the USSR, if that tells you anything (incidentally, also the first state which routinely re-criminalized homoeroticism). The value of laws lie not in their "democratical enactment", but rather, in their sensibility. Antihomosexual laws are pure bullshit and cannot be defended under any system of ethics, which is what BO and other were telling you. You didn't listen. Fine.

Thousands of Americans were convicted in the 1920’s under barbaric “Prohibition” laws and, however bad or foolish these laws were, they were still the law and these people were fairly convicted.

Ooookay... Fairly convicted on unfair, repressive laws? That was enough stinking legalist bull to conclude with certainity:

[Simplicius]

It’s really very simple: because a potential victim can change their group but cannot change their race/ethnicity.

You say this, having completely ignored my utter destruction of this argument two pages ago. Go back and read it, you worthless shit.

Both are bad, and very nearly equally so, but just the same we can say that régimes that indulge in genocide are innately worse than repressive régimes that practice democide. This moral distinction came into play when the Western Democracies chose to ally themselves with a democidal régime (the Soviet Union) against the genocidal Nazis.

Yeah, they totally allied with the Soviets because they were less morally culpable, and not at all because the Nazis were the ones invading everybody. For a poster on an Axis history forum, you don't pay much attention to history, do you?

I will make a case for his arrest and persecution to be “ethicle” (I assume that is British spelling?) but I wish it to be clearly understood that I do not think that it was either wise or moral!

You claim that his arrest was okay and not okay in the same breath. You are an idiot.

Alan Turing was arrested under a law that was democratically enacted (in a country where he was an enfranchised citizen), he was tried by a jury of his peers and, with good evidence of his having actually broken the statute, convicted and sentenced. What can be the problem with this?

• It was a bad law? Sure, but governments routinely enact bad laws and, unless these laws are a clear and present danger to the public safety, in a free country we are obliged as good citizens to obey them. Thousands of Americans were convicted in the 1920’s under barbaric “Prohibition” laws and, however bad or foolish these laws were, they were still the law and these people were fairly convicted.

You continue to rely on this crutch of legalism which has been repeatedly knocked out from under you. If a law is passed, even with due process in a free and democrtic society, and that law is unethical - and I assume your "Sure..." above denotes your acceptance of this fact - then any conviction sustained under that law is unethical.

• Homosexuality is a right. Turing was convicted for a specific behavior and, almost by definition, it is the job of government to regulate behavior. Turing was not convicted for being an homosexual, but for the specific action of sodomy.

1. I would like you to find a shred of legitimate evidence that homosexuality is a right and not a characteristic.

2. I am left-handed. Behaviorally, I write with my left hand. Are schools allowed to use corporal punishment to force me to learn to write with my right hand, as they have done to previous generations of left-handers? Or is it retarded and unethical to attempt to modify harmless, innate behavior?

• Turing was “born that way” and “had no choice.” Even if Turing were “born that way” he had many choices that could have avoided his conviction and punishment. The most obvious is that he could have remained celibate and not actual have committed a crime. The second is that he could have entered a long-term relationship with someone who could be trusted to keep his secret (as did many fairly open homosexuals of that period) instead of picking up young street toughs, most of whom were only having sex with him for money. After being robbed by one of these toughs, he simply could have accepted it as the price for liking “rough trade,” and marked his loss down to experience, instead of going to the police with the matter (with the almost sure knowledge that the tough would spill the beans about the nature of his relationship). Once on trial, he could have actually made a defense and denied the nature of the relationship which, given his high reputation, would almost surely have carried the day. Finally, he could have asked the court for clemency in the light of his very significant contributions to his countries defense, instead of defying them with stiff-necked pride. If Ernst Röhm were able to avoid prosecution under the Weimar Republic’s much more draconian anti-homosexual Paragraph 175, then surely a clever guy like Turing could have avoided persecution in liberal England.

You are avoiding the issue at hand, namely that it is unethical and impermissible to persecute anyone regardless of their ability to dodge it.

This is, of course, par for the course for you, coward and fool that you are.

[Wyrm]

It’s really very simple: because a potential victim can change their group but cannot change their race/ethnicity.

You know, you wave this claim around like it's a magic wand that downgrades some of the atrocity that the Nazis perpetrated. The thing is that you never successfully linked leaving people with outs from persecution with mitigation of the atrocity.

Remember, you're under a Mike Wong Brand® ULTIMATUM! to produce or conceed. You may start doing either at anytime (prior to your banning), bitch.

I keep returning to that [Edith Stein] example because it illustrates my point exactly.

Homosexuals were only arrested if they actually engaged in some kind of homoerotic behavior, and even then (with the exception of disgraced SS troopers) they were frequently given a chance to “prove themselves” and be paroled. Similarly, very few married men with children were ever picked-up even when there was significant evidence against them. Persecution of lesbians was even rarer. There is, for instance, no documented case of a mother with children being picked up even when they were living openly in a lesbian relationship! Once arrested, they were usually sent to labor camps, not death-camps, as there existed the possibility of “reform.”

Okay, let's suppose I put a gun to your head and say that I will kill you unless you blow me. If you then refuse to blow me, and then I blow your head off, by your logic I have committed murder with the mitigating circumstance that I offered to let you go if you had performed my chosen sexual favor. Do you think this is right, that I be charged with a lesser form of murder? Yes or no.

3: HOW WAS THE LEGAL PROSECUTION OF ALAN TURING FOR BEING A HOMOSEXUAL SUPPOSEDLY ETHICLE?

I will make a case for his arrest and persecution to be “ethicle” (I assume that is British spelling?) but I wish it to be clearly understood that I do not think that it was either wise or moral!

Alan Turing was arrested under a law that was democratically enacted (in a country where he was an enfranchised citizen), he was tried by a jury of his peers and, with good evidence of his having actually broken the statute, convicted and sentenced. What can be the problem with this?

You know, fuckstick, you have a real problem equating "ethical" with "legal". The arguments you present to counteract Big Orange's claim are only legalistic justifications for following the law, not ethical ones. "Ethics" are about whether actions are right and wrong, which is independent of their legality. An ethical action can be illegal, and a legal action can be unethical.

You realize that your arguments would've caused you to side with the racial bigots oppositing the Civil Rights movement, because the Jim Crowe laws were laws on the books in southern states, and there was no clear and present danger to public safety if the blacks simply took it up the ass. Therefore, by your argument, black people should've stayed under their yolks.

After being robbed by one of these toughs, he simply could have accepted it as the price for liking “rough trade,” and marked his loss down to experience, instead of going to the police with the matter (with the almost sure knowledge that the tough would spill the beans about the nature of his relationship). Once on trial, he could have actually made a defense and denied the nature of the relationship which, given his high reputation, would almost surely have carried the day. Finally, he could have asked the court for clemency in the light of his very significant contributions to his countries defense, instead of defying them with stiff-necked pride. If Ernst Röhm were able to avoid prosecution under the Weimar Republic’s much more draconian anti-homosexual Paragraph 175, then surely a clever guy like Turing could have avoided persecution in liberal England.

Actually, Schultz, it's probably being robbed by this tough that Turing decided that this was no way for a man to live, and decided to take a stand for what he believed was right, come hell or high water. Turing decided it was unethical to follow this law, and it was unethical for this thug to excape punishment to save himself from prosecution, and it was unethical to deny that the fact of his behavior in court, thereby tacitly acknowledging that the behavior was wrong.

Ernst Röhm couldn't make that choice, and I don't fault him for that. But I respect Alan Turing for the courage to no longer live in hiding. None of this dismisses the legalistic wall of ignorance you have erected.

4: HOW IS HOMOSEXUALITY SUPPOSEDLY A CHOICE IN MOST CASES?

It isn’t, but only because in most cases people cannot change anything fundamental about themselves. My whole thesis is that only those with dominant personality types can really make any substantive decisions about their lives and that it is this, and not an inborn tendency to homoeroticism, that prevents homosexuals from changing.

Translation: Only people with strong minds are able to resist their animalistic urges. Well, duh! But this is only a choice in whether they engage in homosexual relations, not a choice in what kind of people they are attracted to... which is how I define "homosexual."

Imagine the rest of your life having sex (or trying to have sex) with a person who you aren't attracted to, sexually. It can be done, but it's a rotten way to live. I certainly don't have the fortitude to engage in sex with people who do not sexually excite me, and I bet most gays don't have the fortitude to do so either. Only the rare gay who has the bloody-minded willpower to have sexual relations with women come hell or high water will be able to do so, but they will be miserable as their creature comforts are never satisfied.

5: HOW ARE JEWS OBVIOUSLY DISTINCT FROM THE GENTILE POPULATION IN TERMS OF RACE?

Don’t ask me, go ask a Nazi. I’m not the one who’s a racist, I’m not the one who favors genocide, I couldn’t care less what race the Jews are. My point about them was that the Nazis thought of the Jews as a distinct race and killed them for it, hence, genocide.

Ah, but if "being a homosexual" is defined by some hypothetical dictatorship as "a man who reacts to olfactory stimulation of man-sweat by having a certain ancient structure in the hypothalimus light up on a PET scanner, or a woman who doesn't have this reaction to man-sweat," suddenly, homosexuality is no longer severable; your brain either reacts in this way, or it doesn't, and it would take inhuman amount of training to shut this circuit up (or train it to light up in lesbians), if it's possible at all.

Suddenly, you can't stop being homosexual if you wanted to. Just the same way Nazis defined Jewishness as having any ancestory from a traditionally Jewish bloodline, instead of the sensible definition of Jewishness as a follower of the Jewish faith. They couldn't stop being Jewish by simply renouncing the Jewish faith.

And hey, look what just got posted on PostSecret?

<snip>

Just goes to show you that it can be done!

O RLY?! Still anecdotal evidence. Now, what have we told you about anecdotal evidence? What was it? C'mon, surely you remember!

[Big Orange]

It’s really very simple: because a potential victim can change their group but cannot change their race/ethnicity.

But it's been proved that homosexauls could not change their sexual orientation so easily (unlike bisexuals like yourself).

Both are bad, and very nearly equally so, but just the same we can say that régimes that indulge in genocide are innately worse than repressive régimes that practice democide. This moral distinction came into play when the Western Democracies chose to ally themselves with a democidal régime (the Soviet Union) against the genocidal Nazis.

You think the Americans and British allying themselves withe Soviets was motivated by moral principles?! Genuine morality has never been associated with warfare and realpolitik, Mr. Schultz.

In the one case (homosexuals), by changing their behavior they can exempt themselves from persecution, whereas in the other, by subterfuge Jews could simply attempt to escape (a course of action equally available to other groups) which does nothing to change their legal position.

But some people born into such a oppressive society would still be caught out eventually as a homosexual and what then? OK so it must be their fault for being born a homosexual in a rabidly anti-homosexual society?

I guess the Nazis would still be preying on homosexuals and the disabled who were born into their "Aryan" society, long after they had won the war and sent the last Jew to the gas chamber.

Alan Turing was arrested under a law that was democratically enacted (in a country where he was an enfranchised citizen), he was tried by a jury of his peers and, with good evidence of his having actually broken the statute, convicted and sentenced. What can be the problem with this?

Democratically enacted or not, the British anti-sodomy laws were still essentially unethical and have long since been *ABOLISHED* you little toerag. Laws that prevented women from voting were "democratically enacted" , but are now widely seen as immoral and have been abolished for nearly a century.

• It was a bad law? Sure, but governments routinely enact bad laws and, unless these laws are a clear and present danger to the public safety, in a free country we are obliged as good citizens to obey them. Thousands of Americans were convicted in the 1920’s under barbaric “Prohibition” laws and, however bad or foolish these laws were, they were still the law and these people were fairly convicted.

The Nuremberg Laws were legitimately enacted in 1930s Germany and Austria was well within the boundries of the law (but that did not stop it from being totally reprehensible in a ethical sense). And did the mostly democratic Austria have anti-Semitic laws enacted as well, long before Herr Hitler absorbed it?

It isn’t, but only because in most cases people cannot change anything fundamental about themselves. My whole thesis is that only those with dominant personality types can really make any substantive decisions about their lives and that it is this, and not an inborn tendency to homoeroticism, that prevents homosexuals from changing.

Your little "thesis" has been exposed as the pseudo-intellectual clap trap that it is. And individual choice or innateness when comes to a private sex life is no grounds for brutal reprisals from the state (except for paedophilia).

Don’t ask me, go ask a Nazi. I’m not the one who’s a racist, I’m not the one who favors genocide, I couldn’t care less what race the Jews are. My point about them was that the Nazis thought of the Jews as a distinct race and killed them for it, hence, genocide.

European Jews for the most part looked outwardly European; they could hide their ancestry through forged ID or other similar tricks. And what about the quater or half Jews who were spared for the duration of the Holocaust? And the Nazis' understanding of race and ethnicity was a fundamentally flawed as your understanding of homsexuality and hetrosexuality, R.M. Schultz.

And so what the European Jews had Semitic roots, despite their "white" looks? It is said the Welsh originally came from North Africa. Do you look North African, R.M. Schultz?

[K. A. Pital]

The Nuremberg Laws were legitimately enacted in 1930s Germany and Austria was well within the boundries of the law (but that did not stop it from being totally reprehensible in a ethical sense). And did the mostly democratic Austria have anti-Semitic laws enacted as well, long before Herr Hitler absorbed it

Indeed. But in Shultz' legalist vision of history, if a law is democratically enacted, it has some sort of moral bearing. Even if it's a repressive and injust law.

[Big Orange]

The Nuremberg Laws were legitimately enacted in 1930s Germany and Austria was well within the boundries of the law (but that did not stop it from being totally reprehensible in a ethical sense). And did the mostly democratic Austria have anti-Semitic laws enacted as well, long before Herr Hitler absorbed it

Indeed. But in Shultz' legalist vision of history, if a law is democratically enacted, it has some sort of moral bearing. Even if it's a repressive and injust law.

Well R.M. Schultz's typically lame excuse was that the Nazi state completely overturned legality completely, when in fact the Nazis wrapped their persecution in "legitimate" legal procedures all the way to the death camps; and he also ranted at me for making excuses for the Nazis, when I said to him that they were voted into power. And was Apartheid enacted under nominally democratic means in South Africa ?

[Raesene]

[...] And did the mostly democratic Austria have anti-Semitic laws enacted as well, long before Herr Hitler absorbed it

only a nitpick: Austria wasn't democratic from 1933/34-1938, its 'Ständestaat' was also a dictatorship, but more like fascist Italy.

[Big Orange]

[...] And did the mostly democratic Austria have anti-Semitic laws enacted as well, long before Herr Hitler absorbed it

only a nitpick: Austria wasn't democratic from 1933/34-1938, its 'Ständestaat' was also a dictatorship, but more like fascist Italy.

But did Austria have anti-Semitic laws standing, long before it was "reunited" with Germany?

[Raesene]

[...] And did the mostly democratic Austria have anti-Semitic laws enacted as well, long before Herr Hitler absorbed it

only a nitpick: Austria wasn't democratic from 1933/34-1938, its 'Ständestaat' was also a dictatorship, but more like fascist Italy.

But did Austria have anti-Semitic laws standing, long before it was "reunited" with Germany?

Not to my knowledge (I should have answered this before) - some prosecuted germans even escaped to austria, iirc.

(I do not deny austrian antisemitism at this time, but it wasn't organized and officially sanctioned)

[Big Orange]

I thought Austria had anti-Semitic decrees since Jews were prevented from returning to certain Austrian towns as relatively late as the late 19th century, plus Hungary had institutional anti-Semitism in their universities for most of the first half of the 20th century (the "numerus clausus").

[Raesene]

I thought Austria had anti-Semitic decrees since Jews were prevented from returning to certain Austrian towns as relatively late as the late 19th century, plus Hungary had institutional anti-Semitism in their universities for most of the first half of the 20th century (the "numerus clausus").

I don't know when exactly, but official tolerance emerged in the late 19h century (1870s/80s ?). In society itself there was still antisemitism.
Have to admit that I did not study this topic in detail, so any information concerning this topic is welcome.

Hungary can be different due to the separate governing of Austria and Hungary (only foreign and military affairs were common, everything else could be handled independently). And of couse, after 1918 both became separate states.

During the 1930s many professors at austrian universities were jews, (don't have nombers though) which caused an enormous brain drain due to the emigration. if you look at a list of nobel prize winners of the 1960 to 2000, lots of them are austrian-born and were forced to emigrate as childen.

Always funny when our national TV then celebrates them as 'Altösterreicher' (the reverse of austroamericans) so that we can share their glory.

[Big Orange]

Hungary can be different due to the separate governing of Austria and Hungary (only foreign and military affairs were common, everything else could be handled independently). And of couse, after 1918 both became separate states.

Well Hungary did have a "mild" form of institutional anti-Semitism in the 1920s, while anti-Semitism was merely a well accepted public opinion in Austria.

During the 1930s many professors at austrian universities were jews, (don't have nombers though) which caused an enormous brain drain due to the emigration. if you look at a list of nobel prize winners of the 1960 to 2000, lots of them are austrian-born and were forced to emigrate as childen.

Always funny when our national TV then celebrates them as 'Altösterreicher' (the reverse of austroamericans) so that we can share their glory.

Well the institutional segregation laws enacted by the Nazis badly alienated Jews or Jewish sypathisers in Austria and Germany. The Nazis lost helpful scientific talented through their bigoted laws and it was not unlike the grief that Alan Turing had to go through in democratic (but homophobic) Britain.

However R.M. Schultz is far too stupid to draw comparisons between the two seperate acts of injustice both defined by arrogant prejudice.