1 2
#1064500
GodotIsWaiting4U
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
#1064501
No One
WAAAAAAH! EVERYTIME I EDIT AN ARTICLE IT GETS REVERTED! WAAAAAH!
fixed.
11/30/2009 9:20:44 AM
#1064502
aaa
[Citation needed]
11/30/2009 9:20:53 AM
#1064503
Mihangel apYrs
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
#1064506
Almafeta
Wikipedia: None of us is as wrong as all of us.
11/30/2009 9:44:03 AM
#1064508
breakerslion
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
#1064511
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.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/annotated.pink.swastika
11/30/2009 9:54:16 AM
#1064513
Mister Spak
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
#1064517
shykid
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
#1064518
MK
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
#1064521
COCKRIPPER
COCK A RING A DING DING!
TEH COCK AN EVIL THING!
RIP IT OFF RIP IT OFF!
11/30/2009 10:03:25 AM
#1064531
Papabear
Your quotation marks acknowledge the kind of academic assessment I believe you have in mind.
11/30/2009 10:29:39 AM
#1064534
Doubting Thomas
AntiChristian bigotry = "They won't say gays are bad, evil, and sinful like we do."
11/30/2009 10:46:24 AM
#1064542
Rayne
Run-on sentence is...well, it runs on, doesn't it?
11/30/2009 10:57:09 AM
#1064548
John
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
#1064557
There's always Conservapedia for you guys.
11/30/2009 11:23:53 AM
#1064568
bbq burrito
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
#1064585
Saint Saturn
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
#1064602
WMDKitty
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
#1064615
Clown
Wikipedia doesn't work that way!
11/30/2009 12:52:39 PM
#1064622
shykid
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
#1064634
the old firm
Then by all means, keep laughing. We also laugh about you. Everybody wins.
11/30/2009 1:12:22 PM
#1064641
Educated Stupid
11/30/2009 1:26:38 PM
#1064651
Doctor Whom
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
#1064675
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
1 2