Academic assessment consists of examining claims based on their evidence. Claims without evidence can and frequently should be dismissed without evidence.
Essentially, you fail, suck it up pussy.
11/30/2009 9:18:24 AM
WAAAAAAH! EVERYTIME I EDIT AN ARTICLE IT GETS REVERTED! WAAAAAH!
11/30/2009 9:20:44 AM
11/30/2009 9:20:53 AM
what a pernicious little toad.
What is it with these people and homosexuality?
I think about it when I face behaviour and practices; these people think about it when they breathe!
11/30/2009 9:32:46 AM
Wikipedia: None of us is as wrong as all of us.
11/30/2009 9:44:03 AM
A: "I think the attempts by the rabid element of the right wing to disassociate fascism from the far right by labeling historic fascist figures "gay" or "atheist" is a huge delusional stretch."
B: "Why do you hate god?"
11/30/2009 9:50:10 AM
Evil Left-Wing Feminist
Maybe it's just because I have a bad cold and can't think straight but I had to read this several times to even gain a basic understanding. Oh, and the Pink Swastika is a repulsive book. I read an online version where all the claims were destroyed by a commentator.
11/30/2009 9:54:16 AM
On the other hand, the retards at conservapedia produce a continuous stream of submissions to FSTDT. That conservative bible project was a good laugh, and they're not done yet.
11/30/2009 9:58:08 AM
A positive "academic assessment" of said work is not just improbable but impossible. It is little more a than vile, hateful Godwin that attempts to associate homosexuality with Nazis.
11/30/2009 10:02:11 AM
Reality has a well-known liberal, anti-Christian bias. Wikipedia is merely a solid example of this principle.
So eat it, Russie.
11/30/2009 10:02:27 AM
COCK A RING A DING DING!
TEH COCK AN EVIL THING!
RIP IT OFF RIP IT OFF!
11/30/2009 10:03:25 AM
Your quotation marks acknowledge the kind of academic assessment I believe you have in mind.
11/30/2009 10:29:39 AM
AntiChristian bigotry = "They won't say gays are bad, evil, and sinful like we do."
11/30/2009 10:46:24 AM
Run-on sentence is...well, it runs on, doesn't it?
11/30/2009 10:57:09 AM
The OP reflects a common misconception that infects the media and has spilled over into the general public's attitude: the idea that two sides must be presented equally for everything. Laura Lebo, one of the reporters at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial complained about this in her book, "The Devil in Dover". At one point, her editor asked if she could include something positive about the pro-intelligent design side to be "fair and balanced". She said there wasn't anything fair and balanced about what was happening in court. The ID side was getting eviscerated.
Sometimes there just is no valid "other side".
11/30/2009 11:16:59 AM
There's always Conservapedia for you guys.
11/30/2009 11:23:53 AM
Good to see old Scott Lively alive and well and peddling his hate. To think that those degenerates almost passed their hate bill makes me ashamed to be an Oregonian.
11/30/2009 11:32:15 AM
I tend to get wires crossed when I'm sick, so sorry if I'm totally wrong here, but this guy's defending a book that tried to say that homosexuals are responsible for the Holocaust by way of blasting people who refute it for Anti-Christian hate-speech and bigotry?
Overwhelming irony, much?
11/30/2009 11:56:50 AM
I haven't seen any... oh, you mean when they fact-check and verify information, that's "bias".
11/30/2009 12:24:14 PM
Wikipedia doesn't work that way!
11/30/2009 12:52:39 PM
Also, let's for a moment assume that the premise of The Pink Swastika is indeed true and grounded in reality. Why do you suppose that those Nazi homosexuals became such militant, deranged psychopaths?
I'd posit it would be because of the society that ostracized, persecuted, and oppressed them. And I'm not just saying that because I hate homophobes and disagree with what you're saying, either. There's actually plenty of evidence that shows receiving that kind of treatment causes the victims to perpetuate it themselves. After all, that's exactly how the cycle of domestic violence and abuse works. Of course, that doesn't by any means excuse their actions or make them completely innocent, but it does place a portion of the guilt on the homophobic society that more or less made them snap, so if you wanna argue against LGBT rights, this ain't exactly a can of worms you wanna open.
In conclusion, like I stated in my earlier comment, The Pink Swastika offers no convincing evidence to support the claim that there was a disproportionately large amount of homosexuals or homosexual behavior in the Nazi Party. Even if it did, that would mean homophobes were most likely partially to blame for the Nazi's atrocities, so either way...
11/30/2009 12:58:48 PM
the old firm
Then by all means, keep laughing. We also laugh about you. Everybody wins.
11/30/2009 1:12:22 PM
11/30/2009 1:26:38 PM
You fail history forever. You fail critical thought forever. As a bonus, you even fail quotation marks forever.
11/30/2009 1:44:11 PM
Nyssa of Aachen
Re: John's post
Said concept is called "Absolute Impartiality", as opposed to other forms of impartiality such as Objective or Subjective, depending on the context in question...
Proponents of this concept generally tend to be people, that use the concept of Absolute Impartiality, as a way of promoting their point of view, in order to counter (from their POV) the flood of left wing/liberal/Pro-homosexual (delete as applicable) propaganda that they believe exists in a biased media...
11/30/2009 2:42:36 PM