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

[Noble Ire]

Whatever some of you may think, I didn't show up here looking to pick a fight.

I doubt that you did; you have demonstrated that you are simply unaccustomed to the rules here. Few will hold that against you, but it is expected, if you wish to keep posting here, that you adapt to them. R.M. Schultz has shown himself to be both a bigot and a petulant, obstinant debater; horsemanization is a perfectly acceptable punishment for the morally repungnant and pig-headed timber of his posts, as are the insults being laid against him. He has brought this upon himself, and there is no need for you defend him simply because some of us are being vulgar.

[Morilore]

That was childish. What are you, ten?

Because as we all know, maturity is all about never having fun when the opportunity presents itself, and has nothing to do with honesty, responsibility, or intelligence.

Look, it isn't dishonesty. The Horsemen clearly denote their "improvements" as such. Lighten up.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Notice he removes the colorcoding as well. VERY dishonest.

Oh please. That's the way it came out when I quoted it in my post. But I'm sure you know that perfectly well.

Screenshots please? I've never known the Horsemen to abuse their power by making their additions not blatantly obvious.

Are we going to have any further debate or are you going to gang up on me now?

Asking a question like that is asking to get ganged up on and curbstomped.

Whatever some of you may think, I didn't show up here looking to pick a fight.

Do the wrong thing and the fight picks you. Kinda like in Soviet Russia, eh?

[Big Orange]

Notice he removes the colorcoding as well. VERY dishonest.

Oh please. That's the way it came out when I quoted it in my post. But I'm sure you know that perfectly well.

Are we going to have any further debate or are you going to gang up on me now?

We won't gang up on you, if you don't launch into a silly and baseless tirade like the ill fated R.M. Schultz has done. You haven't really caused any trouble so relax.

[mr friendly guy]

Actually Beppo Schmidt can post controversial opinions (I take it thats what Big Orange means by "wrong" opinions) all he likes with the exception if it breaks certain laws, namely race hate laws of Canada, paedophillia or threatening someone harm.

Failure to back up his controversial opinions is another matter. Just as R.M. Schultz was allowed to post his gay hypothesis, but failure to back it up despite numerous demands has led to him being horsemanized.

[The Spartan]

Wow... I'm stunned. Really. He hates himself so much that even after being shown evidence that points to the genetic component he can't admit that it's true and clings to his sexual dominance bullshit.

I think it's clear why. He "has" to force himself not to be gay, to dominate himself as it were. Thus sexuality is merely a matter of willpower and a strong enough willpower will change your sexuality.

But then, of course, reality kicks in and we all stand amazed that shit can be stacked so high.

I'd be sad if I weren't laughing so hard....

[Wyrm]

Notice he removes the colorcoding as well. VERY dishonest.

Oh please. That's the way it came out when I quoted it in my post. But I'm sure you know that perfectly well.

Are we going to have any further debate or are you going to gang up on me now?

If your "quotation" is cut-and-paste, then yes, the color is not preserved. Pushing the little "quote" button on the top right of the post preserves the colorization. Own up, you cut-and-paste quoted, didn't you?

[Beppo Schmidt]

yes, I cut and paste quoted, that was what I meant when I said I quoted it in my post.

[Dalton]

Lay off. Please. Are you that thirsty for blood that you're willing to bitch out the dude for doing a cut and paste? What, is it illegal now?

EDIT: This was directed at others, not you, Beppo.

[The Yosemite Bear]

sorry when I see too people with such simular styles I tend emply oakham's razor or are we going to argue that brother oakham deserved exile for arguing with currupt witchfinders?

[Darth Wong]

OK R.M. Shultz, since you have been totally evasive about the subject upon which you were challenged earlier, I have three questions:

1) Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your bizarre claims about the way sexuality works? If not, then will you concede that your claims are unsubstantiated? And do not say "personal experience".

Look, I have offered an hypothesis to explain human sexual behavior and I have offered to defend it against any reasoned argument. The only response I have gotten (aside from infantile name-calling) has been a chorus insisting that “homosexuality is biologically determined.” This answer does not explain how significant numbers of people routinely change their orientation, whereas my theory does. Will someone please offer a theory that is comprehensive enough to include the idea that sexual orientation is fixed while simultaneously accounting for how in many cases it is not?

This is exactly what I'm talking about, you evasive little asshole. You state as a fact that large numbers of people have actually changed their sexual orientation. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM, jackass? We all know about the religious "conversion" programs, but we also know that they have an abysmal long-term success rate.

2) Do you have any response to the argument that the only way to escape these programs was to deceive the authorities about your true nature, either for Jews or homosexuals?

Supposing you were born Jewish — how could someone tell? Well, there would be your birth certificate which, until fairly recently, listed the parents religious affiliation. There would also be records of temple membership and a corresponding lack of baptismal records. If that didn’t do it, the Nazis were quite willing to go back to the eighteenth century with records or one’s forbearers. Ultimately, you were simply trapped.

But if you were gay, all you had to do was keep your pants up and for all legal purposes cease to be gay!

In other words, the concept of fake documentation magically renders the Jewish Holocaust morally equivalent to the homosexual purges. Congratulations for missing the point yet again, moron.

I guess the issue here ultimately comes down to respect for the rule of law.

Legalism is NOT a moral code, fool.

At the heart of this is the fact that people were executed as punishment for "crimes" which in fact hurt no one. Whether that "crime" is to be born of the wrong race or to be of the wrong sexual orientation is a meaningless distinction. The difficulty of concealing one's "guilt" is also a meaningless distinction. In the end, the ethics of this are simple: people were executed for "crimes" that hurt no one. Your endless attempts to make one seem worse than the other are no more valid than your endless attempts to ignore my demand for evidence.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

yes, I cut and paste quoted, that was what I meant when I said I quoted it in my post.

You are forgiven. Please use the 'quote' button in the future. Thanks.

[Wyrm]

yes, I cut and paste quoted, that was what I meant when I said I quoted it in my post.

In your stay on SDNet, you will find that the "quote" button is really, really nifty. It not only preserves the formatting, avoiding embarassing episodes like this one, but also helpfully wraps the text in quote tags, with the peson's handle in the name field. In this post, for instance, all I had to do was click the quote button, move my insersion point, and I was ready to go.

Enjoy your stay.

[Darth Wong]

You have to love this "it is more ethical if it is easier to escape" logic. By this logic, an obese homicidal maniac with a knife is more moral than a fit homicidal maniac with a knife, because it's easier to run away from him.

[Surlethe]

But if you were gay, all you had to do was keep your pants up and for all legal purposes cease to be gay!

For all legal purposes cease to be gay. Such an insidious little word, isn't it? Its inclusion essentially permits you to redefine the argument from whether or not it's moral to outlaw homosexuality to whether or not it's legal to be gay in a nation where homosexuality is illegal.

You dishonest little shit.

I guess the issue here ultimately comes down to respect for the rule of law. In a totalitarian state one really does not owe the government any loyalty and is not bound, morally at least, to follow the laws. But in a free society, such as the one Alan Turing lived in, social order is not maintained by force but rather by the good behavior of the citizens and respect for the rule of law becomes a moral obligation. There are going to be bad laws in any system, but in a democratic system our duty is not to pick-and-choose which laws we will follow, but to endeavor to change those laws we disagree with at the ballot box.

The existence of laws which are immoral is not relevant to the morality of those laws. Did that get through your little, pinheaded skull? Perhaps I should repeat it once or twice.
The existence of laws which are immoral is not relevant to the morality of those laws.
The existence of laws which are immoral is not relevant to the morality of those laws.
The existence of laws which are immoral is not relevant to the morality of those laws.
The existence of laws which are immoral is not relevant to the morality of those laws.
NOT. FUCKING. RELEVANT.

Has the concept begun to sink in yet?

Thus I would maintain that the Nazi persecution of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies was of an order of magnitude worse than the persecution of Homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Communists, while the persecution of Allan Turing was (however foolish and misguided) accomplished within the rule of laws that he was obliged to obey.

Oh, there's a total order on the set of all immoral behavior now? Do elaborate.

Sure what happened to Alan Turing was tragic, but he could have acted differently and avoided it.

So you'd agree, then, that a rapist who is rapes a woman while she's walking through a slum is more moral than one who rapes a woman while she's walking through peaceful suburbs?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Sorry, but when I see two people with such similar styles, I tend to employ Occam's Razor. Or are we going to argue that Brother Occam deserved exile for arguing with corrupt witch hunters?

Nah, I say go for it. I was suspecting as well until Keev told me they're different.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Ay, Wong and Surlethe; y'all both have several iterations of practically the exact same posts throughout the thread. His Wall of Ignorance is thickening!

[The Yosemite Bear]

mind you as a fan of Machevelli, I believe in a clear seperation between legality and morality. After all a state must employ methods that are morally reprehensible in order to maintain the standards of living for the citizens it is obligated too. Such as Wars, or subsidizing the native industries against the foreign ones, in order to keep the nation's coffers full, or Tarriffs.

[Wyrm]

I love Schultz's dancing around the issue of homosexual innateness coupled with justification that persecuted subgroups should change or else, personally. The whole 'thesis' is a prelude to shipping homosexual "conversion"; you can change, he argues, so you'd better change or you'll get persecuted!

BOOOGAH!!!

[Big Orange]

Well R.M. Schultz has been surprisingly fun, despite the obvious nuttiness and he was great for a laugh (to laugh at not with, mind you). And yes, Wym, as soon as the dipstick said that homosexuals supposedly had "a choice" and "no excuse" when facing persecution, then I realised what sort of brainless lunacy I was dealing with and Schultz's lunacy has been fully proven here.

[Big Orange]

Ay, Wong and Surlethe; y'all both have several iterations of practically the exact same posts throughout the thread. His Wall of Ignorance is thickening!

Honestly, arguing with R.M. Schultz fucking feels like launching multiple nuclear strikes on a totally indestructable mountain range...

[Wanderer]

Ay, Wong and Surlethe; y'all both have several iterations of practically the exact same posts throughout the thread. His Wall of Ignorance is thickening!

Honestly, arguing with R.M. Schultz fucking feels like launching multiple nuclear strikes on a totally indestructable mountain range...

Thats why we drill into the mountain and detonate the nuke inside

Of course for that we need an expert in nuclear detonations, "notices Shep walking down the street licking an ice cream cone," and I know exactly who we need.

R.M. Schultz concede defeat or you'll end up another notch in Mike's parting shots.

[Big Orange]

What really creeps me out about R.M. Schultz's is that he pathetically argues that homosexuals were preyed upon for their actions, when he fails to recognise that most anti-Semtic propaganda often demonises Jews for their supposed evil actions. To put it bluntly Jews and homosexuals are essentially hated for what they are, but their tormentors claim that they are persecuting them for what they did (at least that is the impression I got from Neo-Nazi talk forums).

[Darth Wong]

Of all the stupid things Schultz said, "horizontal recruiting" had to be the most ridiculous. It's reminds me of those dumbshit guys who think they can make a lesbian girl turn straight with their sexual prowess.

[R.M. Schultz]

NOTICE: Several of my posts above have been altered and no longer represent my views.