By the way, the mobilization of industry through the use of concentration camps was intelligent. Sick, disgusting, never should have happened intelligence Intelligence nonetheless.
We aren't talking about intelligence, we are talking about admiration. So you admire the death camps. And you think they were intelligent. I'm sorry but I'm not going there with you.
It would be wrong if a Democrat is condemned in the same manner. Gosh, why must you be such a moronic toad? All my statements APPLY TO EVERYONE! BOTH PARTIES! INDEPENDANTS! THIRD PARTIES!
I am not the hypocrite around here. Those that would condemn democrats' statements and defend similar ones spoken by Arnold are the idiots whose heads you should be attempting to metaphorically rip off. STOP LUMPING ME IN WITH THOSE PEOPLE GOD DAMMIT!
My problem lies solely with the people that call someone a nazi and say that someone should never be elected because that someone admires a specific trait of a nasty horrible person.
And who, exactly, has said that? W. I. Ndmill & S. T. Rawman? I've heard plenty of people say it was stupid for Arnie to say such a thing, which of course it was, but I've heard no one say he is therefore a Nazi or he should therefore never be elected. But you keep fighting the good fight, it's easier to win when you have no opponents.
No. I admire the intelligence behind them. I don't admire them. I condemn them.
They were. They were also sick, depraved, disgusting, and never should have existed. That doesn't mean that it wasn't an intelligent design.
I guess I'm unable to recognize how industrializing death is at all intelligent. In fact, it seems like the most ignorant use of technology humanly possible. Isn't this the greatest lesson learned from the two world wars?
And the system was not admirable in any way? In what way is it possibly intelligent. Even in pure mechanical terms our process of checking out books here at my work is much more advanced. What's intelligent about reaching an end purely through the suffering of others? How hard is it to do what they did when your primary tool is fear? There is nothing advanced about that. People have done that forever. The only difference was guns, ovens and trains. I see nothing intelligent at all. In fact, I see incredible ignorance given free reign.
Actually, my understanding is that the only contributions to science the death camps ever had was in the area of medicine from the experiments.
But really, one of my two points can be seen if you imagine a democrat saying he 'admired the intelligence of Hitler for being able to make and run the death camps.'
There would be no reason to bring that up. It was your silly stupid irrelevant example that prompted me to respond and I only did so because it was intellectual masturbation. I'm so sick of your strawmen and I really shouldn't give them legitimacy by responding to them. Oh well, it was too tempting and too fun. Maybe I'll learn someday.
There would be no reason to bring that up. It was your silly stupid irrelevant example that prompted me to respond and I only did so because it was intellectual masturbation. I'm so sick of your strawmen and I really shouldn't give them legitimacy by responding to them. Oh well, it was too tempting and too fun. Maybe I'll learn someday.
Keep ignoring it, kid. That way you don't actually have to think about. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself, especially not right after you expended so much energy attacking me.
You are comparing admiring oratory skills to the creativity of putting a body in a barrel of acid. This is what we call a straw man...a bad, stupid, idiotic one at that.
You are so fvcking intellectually dishonest.
I know and then to top it off he wonders why I don't want to go type another 10 pages of arguments so he can dismiss them with rolling eyes, claims of lying, etc.
Nick
P.S. My thread doesn't miss me giant. I got my point across just fine. I'm not going to argue for 10 pages about questioning the source, does wanting fewer abortion = prolife and all the other dishonest nonsense you bring up.
I guess I'm unable to recognize how industrializing death is at all intelligent. In fact, it seems like the most ignorant use of technology humanly possible. Isn't this the greatest lesson learned from the two world wars?
And the system was not admirable in any way? In what way is it possibly intelligent. Even in pure mechanical terms our process of checking out books here at my work is much more advanced. What's intelligent about reaching an end purely through the suffering of others? How hard is it to do what they did when your primary tool is fear? There is nothing advanced about that. People have done that forever. The only difference was guns, ovens and trains. I see nothing intelligent at all. In fact, I see incredible ignorance given free reign.
Actually, my understanding is that the only contributions to science the death camps ever had was in the area of medicine from the experiments.
But really, one of my two points can be seen if you imagine a democrat saying he 'admired the intelligence of Hitler for being able to make and run the death camps.'
No Democrats would admire how Hitler turned poverty and race/class warfare into a destructive war machine.
So you for example would be unable to appreciate the intelligence that allowed us to understand nuclear fission and even use it for power plants but not feel the same about those who would use it for bombs.
It must be sad being as intellectually limited as you demonstrate.
OK. So you support politicians that admire hitler. Whatever you want.
Did anyone even click on SJ's link to the article in question? Is it said anywhere in there that Schwarzeneggar indeed "admires Hitler"? Is there more context to it than what is contained in those 2 words which somebody quoted, but seemingly never appears as a direct quote from the man himself? ...or is this notion now being perpetuated by others as a result of the way SJ decided to word her post? True irony, indeed, since she continues to claim no "expressed beliefs" on the topic nor was she asserting a particular judgement in her post. Even when pressed to elaborate on what she really meant, she has failed to give a specific answer. I am at an utter loss as to how somebody could have read the article and still come up with the statement quoted above. That's just my 2 cts. It shouldn't be taken as an attack. I'm just trying to understand what is going on here with people's thinking process.
Anyways, this particular issue needn't be discussed here, because it is OT. I simply brought it up as a recent example of an "SJ post", and call to acknowledgement the merit of taking similar precaution (or just ignoring outright- it's your choice, AFAIC ) with what she has posted here wrt the actual topic at hand. I guess what that really implies is an invitation to pull apart that post if you wish (if it is even worthwhile to spend the time), rather than rehash what she meant with her post from another topic. Carry on... [throws ball back into the field]
P.S. My thread doesn't miss me giant. I got my point across just fine. I'm not going to argue for 10 pages about questioning the source, does wanting fewer abortion = prolife and all the other dishonest nonsense you bring up.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that the head of the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law says your position is a fantasy that ignores why reporting was started and how it causes more harm for the child. Nothing at all.
So you for example would be unable to appreciate the intelligence that allowed us to understand nuclear fission and even use it for power plants but not feel the same about those who would use it for bombs.
It must be sad being as intellectually limited as you demonstrate.
Hmmmm. Apparently you missed my two points. Maybe you should go back and figure out what they are.
The nuclear fission example was exquisite. As such, it leaves quite the quandry for certain people here. Do you care to answer if you "admire fission" or at least some component of it?
Did anyone even click on SJ's link to the article in question?
Somehow I didn't realize that was the only source of info on this.
Quote:
Is it said anywhere in there that Schwarzeneggar indeed "admires Hitler"?
He was asked about a childhood hero and says hitler. He did use the word 'admire.' His father was also a member of the nazi party, so this is not unexpected.
Quote:
Is there more context to it than what is contained in those 2 words which somebody quoted, but seemingly never appears as a direct quote from the man himself?
Yes.
Quote:
...or is this notion now being perpetuated by others as a result of the way SJ decided to word her post?
Some of us come here to post, not to gather information.
Quote:
True irony...
The true irony is that you haven't realized this is not about SJO's post, it is about 1) the fact that if any democrat made a similar statement they would have so much shit thrown at them they would drown in it and 2) it's not much further than Schwarzenegger admiring the 'intelligence' (as BR says) of the death camps, 'even though they were used for evil.' Instead, there are a bunch of apologists.
Some of you numbskulls are arguing that "Oh, giant isn't 'intellectually capable of holding two seemingly contradictory statements in my mind at the same time.'" Nice way of not addressing any of the points I've actually made.
The nuclear fission example was exquisite. As such, it leaves quite the quandry for certain people here. Do you care to answer if you "admire fission" or at least some component of it?
Hitler had nothing to do with the discovery of fission. So, no. It is far from exquisite.
Hmmmm. Apparently you missed my two points. Maybe you should go back and figure out what they are.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Hitler had nothing to do with the discovery of fission. So, no. It is far from exquisite.
Keep ignoring it, kid. That way you don't actually have to think about. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself, especially not right after you expended so much energy attacking me.
We aren't talking about intelligence, we are talking about admiration. So you admire the death camps. And you think they were intelligent. I'm sorry but I'm not going there with you.
Apparently you need it posted again:
Good job at ignoring your theory being discredited.
That's right. Attack and retreat. Maybe you just shouldn't have started at all.
This quote from about a total of 7 posts summarizes quite nicely why I don't care to take 10 more pages watching you belittle others while repeating yourself.
This quote from about a total of 7 posts summarizes quite nicely why I don't care to take 10 more pages watching you belittle others while repeating yourself.
The post where you falsely attribute the discovery of fission to Hitler summarizes quite nicely how you rarely post anything factually correct.
Of course, we know how much of an angel you are, trumptman.
The post where you falsely attribute the discovery of fission to Hitler summarizes quite nicely how you rarely post anything factually correct.
Of course, we know how much of an angel you are, trumptman.
I didn't get that at all from what he posted. Perhaps you have your wires crossed (immeasurably humorous how you took it, though)? The fission example was presented entirely independent to any Hitler context. If you want to make an analogy between these 2 ideas, then "fission" is "Hitler". Do you "admire fission" or not? ...or if you prefer something more parallel, do you admire the creator of fission?
In other notes, is Scharwzeneggar still a child? So why the great reliance on who was his hero as a child? We believe a lot of zany things as children that hopefully are revised accordingly as we get older. I wrongly harrassed a retarded man as a child (in conjunction with peer pressure). Do you think I have a deep-seated hatred for retarded people now? Also, my father came from China, so does that suggest I may be a Communist sympathiser?
The bottomline remains that the article that SJ chose to bolster her comment simply did not have the material she alluded to by the comment. In fact, it was quite a stretch to go from what was directly quoted by Schwarzeneggar in the article to what SJ put in her comment- "admires Hitler". Perhaps, there are other articles around with more damnable quotations. Suffice to say, she should have chose one of them then.
The post where you falsely attribute the discovery of fission to Hitler summarizes quite nicely how you rarely post anything factually correct.
Of course, we know how much of an angel you are, trumptman.
I see you've been sniffing paint cleaner again. Don't worry Rush will go easy on you when you two share a room. :P
Quote:
So you for example would be unable to appreciate the intelligence that allowed us to understand nuclear fission and even use it for power plants but not feel the same about those who would use it for bombs.
I would guess that the "us" in there relates to mankind.
I'm sure with your lack of desire to argue on facts it would be a 40 page discussion as to who was responsible for what information that led to the full understanding of fission, and then on to the bomb, energy generation etc.
50 pages if you include the one liners, restatements, and implicit comments about no one comprehending what you said though.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
By the way, the mobilization of industry through the use of concentration camps was intelligent. Sick, disgusting, never should have happened intelligence Intelligence nonetheless.
We aren't talking about intelligence, we are talking about admiration. So you admire the death camps. And you think they were intelligent. I'm sorry but I'm not going there with you.
I am not the hypocrite around here. Those that would condemn democrats' statements and defend similar ones spoken by Arnold are the idiots whose heads you should be attempting to metaphorically rip off. STOP LUMPING ME IN WITH THOSE PEOPLE GOD DAMMIT!
Originally posted by giant
We aren't talking about intelligence, we are talking about admiration.
I admire the intelligence.
So you admire the death camps.
No. I admire the intelligence behind them. I don't admire them. I condemn them.
And you think they were intelligent.
They were. They were also sick, depraved, disgusting, and never should have existed. That doesn't mean that it wasn't an intelligent design.
I'm sorry but I'm not going there with you.
Of course not. You can't handle two seemingly contradictory statements.
Originally posted by BR
My problem lies solely with the people that call someone a nazi and say that someone should never be elected because that someone admires a specific trait of a nasty horrible person.
And who, exactly, has said that? W. I. Ndmill & S. T. Rawman? I've heard plenty of people say it was stupid for Arnie to say such a thing, which of course it was, but I've heard no one say he is therefore a Nazi or he should therefore never be elected. But you keep fighting the good fight, it's easier to win when you have no opponents.
Originally posted by BR
I admire the intelligence.
No. I admire the intelligence behind them. I don't admire them. I condemn them.
They were. They were also sick, depraved, disgusting, and never should have existed. That doesn't mean that it wasn't an intelligent design.
I guess I'm unable to recognize how industrializing death is at all intelligent. In fact, it seems like the most ignorant use of technology humanly possible. Isn't this the greatest lesson learned from the two world wars?
And the system was not admirable in any way? In what way is it possibly intelligent. Even in pure mechanical terms our process of checking out books here at my work is much more advanced. What's intelligent about reaching an end purely through the suffering of others? How hard is it to do what they did when your primary tool is fear? There is nothing advanced about that. People have done that forever. The only difference was guns, ovens and trains. I see nothing intelligent at all. In fact, I see incredible ignorance given free reign.
Actually, my understanding is that the only contributions to science the death camps ever had was in the area of medicine from the experiments.
But really, one of my two points can be seen if you imagine a democrat saying he 'admired the intelligence of Hitler for being able to make and run the death camps.'
Originally posted by BRussell
And who, exactly, has said that? W. I. Ndmill & S. T. Rawman?
Funny. There are people here on these very boards who called him a Nazi. Enough of this stupid bickering. It is getting us nowhere.
Originally posted by BR
There would be no reason to bring that up. It was your silly stupid irrelevant example that prompted me to respond and I only did so because it was intellectual masturbation. I'm so sick of your strawmen and I really shouldn't give them legitimacy by responding to them. Oh well, it was too tempting and too fun. Maybe I'll learn someday.
Keep ignoring it, kid. That way you don't actually have to think about. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself, especially not right after you expended so much energy attacking me.
Originally posted by BR
You are comparing admiring oratory skills to the creativity of putting a body in a barrel of acid. This is what we call a straw man...a bad, stupid, idiotic one at that.
You are so fvcking intellectually dishonest.
I know and then to top it off he wonders why I don't want to go type another 10 pages of arguments so he can dismiss them with rolling eyes, claims of lying, etc.
Nick
P.S. My thread doesn't miss me giant. I got my point across just fine. I'm not going to argue for 10 pages about questioning the source, does wanting fewer abortion = prolife and all the other dishonest nonsense you bring up.
Originally posted by giant
I guess I'm unable to recognize how industrializing death is at all intelligent. In fact, it seems like the most ignorant use of technology humanly possible. Isn't this the greatest lesson learned from the two world wars?
And the system was not admirable in any way? In what way is it possibly intelligent. Even in pure mechanical terms our process of checking out books here at my work is much more advanced. What's intelligent about reaching an end purely through the suffering of others? How hard is it to do what they did when your primary tool is fear? There is nothing advanced about that. People have done that forever. The only difference was guns, ovens and trains. I see nothing intelligent at all. In fact, I see incredible ignorance given free reign.
Actually, my understanding is that the only contributions to science the death camps ever had was in the area of medicine from the experiments.
But really, one of my two points can be seen if you imagine a democrat saying he 'admired the intelligence of Hitler for being able to make and run the death camps.'
No Democrats would admire how Hitler turned poverty and race/class warfare into a destructive war machine.
So you for example would be unable to appreciate the intelligence that allowed us to understand nuclear fission and even use it for power plants but not feel the same about those who would use it for bombs.
It must be sad being as intellectually limited as you demonstrate.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
OK. So you support politicians that admire hitler. Whatever you want.
Did anyone even click on SJ's link to the article in question? Is it said anywhere in there that Schwarzeneggar indeed "admires Hitler"? Is there more context to it than what is contained in those 2 words which somebody quoted, but seemingly never appears as a direct quote from the man himself? ...or is this notion now being perpetuated by others as a result of the way SJ decided to word her post? True irony, indeed, since she continues to claim no "expressed beliefs" on the topic nor was she asserting a particular judgement in her post. Even when pressed to elaborate on what she really meant, she has failed to give a specific answer. I am at an utter loss as to how somebody could have read the article and still come up with the statement quoted above.
Anyways, this particular issue needn't be discussed here, because it is OT. I simply brought it up as a recent example of an "SJ post", and call to acknowledgement the merit of taking similar precaution (or just ignoring outright- it's your choice, AFAIC
Originally posted by trumptman
P.S. My thread doesn't miss me giant. I got my point across just fine. I'm not going to argue for 10 pages about questioning the source, does wanting fewer abortion = prolife and all the other dishonest nonsense you bring up.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that the head of the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law says your position is a fantasy that ignores why reporting was started and how it causes more harm for the child. Nothing at all.
Originally posted by trumptman
So you for example would be unable to appreciate the intelligence that allowed us to understand nuclear fission and even use it for power plants but not feel the same about those who would use it for bombs.
It must be sad being as intellectually limited as you demonstrate.
Hmmmm. Apparently you missed my two points. Maybe you should go back and figure out what they are.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Did anyone even click on SJ's link to the article in question?
Somehow I didn't realize that was the only source of info on this.
Is it said anywhere in there that Schwarzeneggar indeed "admires Hitler"?
He was asked about a childhood hero and says hitler. He did use the word 'admire.' His father was also a member of the nazi party, so this is not unexpected.
Is there more context to it than what is contained in those 2 words which somebody quoted, but seemingly never appears as a direct quote from the man himself?
Yes.
...or is this notion now being perpetuated by others as a result of the way SJ decided to word her post?
Some of us come here to post, not to gather information.
True irony...
The true irony is that you haven't realized this is not about SJO's post, it is about 1) the fact that if any democrat made a similar statement they would have so much shit thrown at them they would drown in it and 2) it's not much further than Schwarzenegger admiring the 'intelligence' (as BR says) of the death camps, 'even though they were used for evil.' Instead, there are a bunch of apologists.
Some of you numbskulls are arguing that "Oh, giant isn't 'intellectually capable of holding two seemingly contradictory statements in my mind at the same time.'" Nice way of not addressing any of the points I've actually made.
Originally posted by Randycat99
The nuclear fission example was exquisite. As such, it leaves quite the quandry for certain people here. Do you care to answer if you "admire fission" or at least some component of it?
Hitler had nothing to do with the discovery of fission. So, no. It is far from exquisite.
Originally posted by giant
Hmmmm. Apparently you missed my two points. Maybe you should go back and figure out what they are.
Originally posted by giant
Hitler had nothing to do with the discovery of fission. So, no. It is far from exquisite.
Keep ignoring it, kid. That way you don't actually have to think about. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself, especially not right after you expended so much energy attacking me.
We aren't talking about intelligence, we are talking about admiration. So you admire the death camps. And you think they were intelligent. I'm sorry but I'm not going there with you.
Apparently you need it posted again:
Good job at ignoring your theory being discredited.
That's right. Attack and retreat. Maybe you just shouldn't have started at all.
This quote from about a total of 7 posts summarizes quite nicely why I don't care to take 10 more pages watching you belittle others while repeating yourself.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
This quote from about a total of 7 posts summarizes quite nicely why I don't care to take 10 more pages watching you belittle others while repeating yourself.
The post where you falsely attribute the discovery of fission to Hitler summarizes quite nicely how you rarely post anything factually correct.
Of course, we know how much of an angel you are, trumptman.
Originally posted by giant
The post where you falsely attribute the discovery of fission to Hitler summarizes quite nicely how you rarely post anything factually correct.
Of course, we know how much of an angel you are, trumptman.
I didn't get that at all from what he posted. Perhaps you have your wires crossed (immeasurably humorous how you took it, though)? The fission example was presented entirely independent to any Hitler context. If you want to make an analogy between these 2 ideas, then "fission" is "Hitler". Do you "admire fission" or not? ...or if you prefer something more parallel, do you admire the creator of fission?
In other notes, is Scharwzeneggar still a child? So why the great reliance on who was his hero as a child? We believe a lot of zany things as children that hopefully are revised accordingly as we get older. I wrongly harrassed a retarded man as a child (in conjunction with peer pressure). Do you think I have a deep-seated hatred for retarded people now? Also, my father came from China, so does that suggest I may be a Communist sympathiser?
The bottomline remains that the article that SJ chose to bolster her comment simply did not have the material she alluded to by the comment. In fact, it was quite a stretch to go from what was directly quoted by Schwarzeneggar in the article to what SJ put in her comment- "admires Hitler". Perhaps, there are other articles around with more damnable quotations. Suffice to say, she should have chose one of them then.
Originally posted by giant
The post where you falsely attribute the discovery of fission to Hitler summarizes quite nicely how you rarely post anything factually correct.
Of course, we know how much of an angel you are, trumptman.
I see you've been sniffing paint cleaner again. Don't worry Rush will go easy on you when you two share a room. :P
So you for example would be unable to appreciate the intelligence that allowed us to understand nuclear fission and even use it for power plants but not feel the same about those who would use it for bombs.
I would guess that the "us" in there relates to mankind.
I'm sure with your lack of desire to argue on facts it would be a 40 page discussion as to who was responsible for what information that led to the full understanding of fission, and then on to the bomb, energy generation etc.
50 pages if you include the one liners, restatements, and implicit comments about no one comprehending what you said though.
Nick