Auschwitz: a myth?

[freako104]

Freako is right - censorship happens on both sides, although I disagree about the "censoring religion" point - its more of an objectivity and tolerant perspective that liberals have that acknowledges the fact that christianity and Judaism is not the only religions and also the fact that many don't have a religion - therefore a secular perspective is the one which encompasses a respect for every voice rather than fosters respect for one dominant one.

While I am more for the tolerance and acceptance of other religions, my meaning was that many liberals are trying to in fact get rid of all the church. I dont thnk there should be a dominant religion. I dont think religion really belongs anywhere but Church/synagouge/Mosque/coven or whatever you want and home. It shouldnt be in public as much anywhere. If we have no religion in public I see less problems

 

[Gonz]

By the way, Gonz - thinking ahead I forsee that talking to you about the censorship and bias that goes on in the U.S conservative media would be as good as banging my head on a brick wall - I already know that you are dead-set on your own convictions as much as you are at poking and jeering at "liberals"...

In fact, I believe that it isn't even right to answer those requests simply because you will inevitably find something to make a mockery of rather than contemplate my point of view.

The only way is to counter your attacks rather than offer you more fuel to harrass me with, Gonz - in order to serve your own desire to prove anyone with a lesser constrained point of view as deranged, wrong, false, lying, hypocritical etc in order to attempt to put yourself back securely on your own moral-highground...

Frankly it would be a waste of effort to try and provide you with anything.

So, once again, you bring forth a charge & have neither the facts nor the backbone to back up what you say. Typical.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Heres a quotation for you to think about, Luis.



By the way, Gonz - thinking ahead I forsee that talking to you about the censorship and bias that goes on in the U.S conservative media would be as good as banging my head on a brick wall - I already know that you are dead-set on your own convictions as much as you are at poking and jeering at "liberals"...

In fact, I believe that it isn't even right to answer those requests simply because you will inevitably find something to make a mockery of rather than contemplate my point of view.

The only way is to counter your attacks rather than offer you more fuel to harrass me with, Gonz - in order to serve your own desire to prove anyone with a lesser constrained point of view as deranged, wrong, false, lying, hypocritical etc in order to attempt to put yourself back securely on your own moral-highground...

Frankly it would be a waste of effort to try and provide you with anything.

Freako is right - censorship happens on both sides, although I disagree about the "censoring religion" point - its more of an objectivity and tolerant perspective that liberals have that acknowledges the fact that christianity and Judaism is not the only religions and also the fact that many don't have a religion - therefore a secular perspective is the one which encompasses a respect for every voice rather than fosters respect for one dominant one.

From what I have observed, Conservatives tend to slam down anything that conflicts with their perspective by appealing to all the derogatory and unsavoury connotations they can think of that sit on the other side of the divide of everything they believe in and then compartmentalising them with the people that hold these points of view.

That includes everything from politics to family to sex to shopping habits to education: all spheres governed by and underlying hold on religiously grounded but often self-serving "morals" and strict measures of what is "right" and "wrong" and thereby controlling and regulating things from that perspective irregardless of the fact it is only a very narrow one with little tolerance or capacity for freedom and diversity.

blather, dit, rah.

 

[PostCode]

From what I have observed, Conservatives tend to slam down anything that conflicts with their perspective by appealing to all the derogatory and unsavoury connotations they can think of that sit on the other side of the divide of everything they believe in and then compartmentalising them with the people that hold these points of view.

From what I've observed, you try to ridicule anyone who has an opinion different from you. Rather hypocritical I do believe.

 

[chcr]

From what I've observed, you try to ridicule anyone who has an opinion different from you. Rather hypocritical I do believe.

You know, I find most people who decide to be "liberal" or "conservative" out of hand tend to all have this same failing to a lesser or greater degree.

 

[freako104]

Chic are you ever wrong?

 

[Gonz]

You know, I find most people who decide to be "liberal" or "conservative" out of hand tend to all have this same failing to a lesser or greater degree.

A conservative wishes to correct those they don't agree with while a liberal wishes to quiet those they disagree with.

 

[freako104]

thats debateable. Some liberals will some wont. Some conservatives will some wont.

 

[Winky]

Chic are you ever wrong?

Not that he's ever known...

 

[IDLEchild]

You know, I find most people who decide to be "liberal" or "conservative" out of hand tend to all have this same failing to a lesser or greater degree.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Uh-huh.

EDIT: Oops. I didn't mean to post in this thread much less on this website. Oh well, maybe it'll fit into the conversation somehow.

 

[AlladinSane]

A conservative wishes to correct those they don't agree with while a liberal wishes to quiet those they disagree with.

 

[Leslie]

Uh-huh.


EDIT: Oops. I didn't mean to post in this thread much less on this website. Oh well, maybe it'll fit into the conversation somehow.

forget the coffee?

 

[chcr]

Chic are you ever wrong?

Once in 1974 I thought I was wrong, but i was mistaken.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

If historians begin to rewrite the facts of history then maybe i'll consider spending the time to study this all again.

Don't think it doesn't happen...

 

[MrBishop]

History - a he said/she said argument. There will always be a discrepency between what's written in a history book and what actually happened. The main reason IMHO is that you rarely get both sides of any event AND most events have so many different timelines and so many different perspectives that it is impossible to get what "Really" happened.

In the meanwhile... the victor of any clash writes his/her perspective of what really happened.

Imagine what the history books would've looked like if the Nazis had won their part of the war and got to finish their 'job'.

Imagine what would've happened if the Russian army hadn't stumbled upon Auchwitz (They weren't looking for death camps, nor even knew of their existance).

Before this accidental discovery...politicians knew or guessed at what was happening to the Jews in Germany. If the Nazi regime had finished with their slaughter, destroyed the camps and evidence... we might not be having this discussion.

 

[Gonz]

There will always be a discrepency between what's written in a history book and what actually happened.

No sir, that is incorrect. Facts written in history books are never incorrect. Opinions, editorials, added to those facts is what makes politics fun.

example: There is no question that in 1776 a group of men presented to the English a demand of seperation & sovereignty. Why, can be facts (as pointed out in the Declaration of Independence) or editorial, or a combinbation of both. However, the facts never change.

 

[freako104]

History - a he said/she said argument. There will always be a discrepency between what's written in a history book and what actually happened. The main reason IMHO is that you rarely get both sides of any event AND most events have so many different timelines and so many different perspectives that it is impossible to get what "Really" happened.

In the meanwhile... the victor of any clash writes his/her perspective of what really happened.

Imagine what the history books would've looked like if the Nazis had won their part of the war and got to finish their 'job'.

Imagine what would've happened if the Russian army hadn't stumbled upon Auchwitz (They weren't looking for death camps, nor even knew of their existance).

Before this accidental discovery...politicians knew or guessed at what was happening to the Jews in Germany. If the Nazi regime had finished with their slaughter, destroyed the camps and evidence... we might not be having this discussion.

History is written by the winners. Hence the fact you dont always get both sides arguments. Only the one.



Chic:

 

[chcr]

Facts written in history books are never incorrect

That must be why it never gets changed.

 

[PostCode]

Yes, facts, that is, the truth, are what are supposed to writen in history books. This, however, is not the truth. As Gonz states, history is wirtten by humans, from many a countries, with various views. As a matter of fact, nearly all my own material about the Third Reich is written by Germans (suprised?). The historical references we have today, for the most part, are based on a person, that is, the writers, view of events of a particular event or series of events. If you take any historical textbook of Western Civilization, nearly half with exclude the presence of Christ in them. The other half will include Him in a passing reference, yet, our very calander is based on this event. Ironic aye?


Rather liberal if I do say...or is that rather tg?