So Liberals...

[Alaska Darin]

Looks like we have ourselves a Monkeyface wannabe.  Just what these boards needed.   

747372[/snapback]

Sorry, I don't need Tom to help me distinguish steaming piles. As far as what the board needs, less of you is probably on the horizon. Again.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Sorry, I don't need Tom to help me distinguish steaming piles.  As far as what the board needs, less of you is probably on the horizon.  Again.

747402[/snapback]

 

No, please, don't ban the Nazi. He's funny.

[erynthered]

I CANT BELIEVE I READ THIS SHIIT, !@#$............

 

 

 

 

[Chilly]

I CANT BELIEVE I READ THIS SHIIT, !@#$............

747582[/snapback]

 

www.thendontclick.com

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Glad to know you approve of extermination bombings.  That fits nicely with your earlier comment about how thousands of years of human history have shown genocide works.

 

I've read about why the bombing was supposedly justified, and you know what?  I'm not buying what you're selling.  You don't create a firestorm in the middle of a city and explain later how it was a legitimate military operation, or that you wanted a few rail lines destroyed, or that there were a few factories shut down a few weeks early.

 

Answer a very simple question, then: what was the aim point for the bombers? Really, that should solve it: just tell me what the bombers were aiming at. Of course, you don't know...because you've never actually bothered to investigate anything about the bombing.

 

  There were ways to achieve the legitimate military objective of shutting down those rail lines--

 

Now you're an expert on military science as well? It's funny how you continually lecture me on things that I actually am an expert in. Downright hilarious.

 

At least you're developing a dim awareness that I didn't use the word speciation.  That's a start.  It's true I used the terms "race" and "subspecies" interchangeably.  If you look up the word subspecies, you'll see the following:

n : (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species [syn: race]

Hey, Princeton thinks "subspecies" and "race" are synonyms. But don't let that stop you from calling me a Nazi for embracing that same definition.

 

This situation is a good example of why you have so little credibility in my eyes. I use the word "subspecies" as a synonym for race--just like Princeton. I went on to say that I wanted the world's races to continue to exist. You responded by accusing me of producing "nonsense about racial purity based on blacks being a separate and distinct species." Maybe it's too much to expect you to understand the difference between the words "species" and "subspecies." Hey, kingdom, family, order, class, genus, species, subspecies--they all mean the same thing, right?

747119[/snapback]

 

Unfortunately, you're wrong again. You're confusing the biological definition of "race" with the sociological definition. The specific biological definition of "subspecies" is not "race" - in fact, the authoritative body that dictates such (the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) specifically states that "infrasubspecific entities" (i.e. human races) cannot be taxonomized zoologically, as they are not distinct enough - i.e., there's no process of speciation going on. However, to refer to different human races (a sociological distinction) as "subspecies" (a biological distinction) is a direct statement that you believe there is speciation going on - as I said earlier, you defined it (you actually defined it quite well...even though it was completely accidental).

 

And I know you're going to come back with something to the effect of how DARE I disagree with Princeton. I don't disagree with Princeton. They're right. Within the appropriate context (i.e. biology). You're just - once again - far too stupid to understand them.

 

But, I must say, you've finally confused me. I may actually have to admit the possibility that you may not be a Nazi: although the inability to distinguish sociology from biology is a true hallmark of Nazi racial philosophy, I have to admit in your case it may not be an intentional confusion, but stem solely from your almost total ignorance of...well, everything, really.

[KurtGodel77]

Sorry, I don't need Tom to help me distinguish steaming piles.  As far as what the board needs, less of you is probably on the horizon.  Again.

747402[/snapback]

Dude, chill out. I didn't want to bring up the whole "subspecies" thing at all, but Monkeyface kept jumping down my throat about it. If you honestly think I deserve to be banned for arguing about whether race means the same thing as subspecies, you really need to loosen up. Much like Monkeyface.

[Alaska Darin]

Dude, chill out.  I didn't want to bring up the whole "subspecies" thing at all, but Monkeyface kept jumping down my throat about it.  If you honestly think I deserve to be banned for arguing about whether race means the same thing as subspecies, you really need to loosen up.  Much like Monkeyface. 

747638[/snapback]

Thanks for the advice. I just don't get enough Nazi's telling me to loosen up.

 

Banner day.

[KurtGodel77]

Answer a very simple question, then: what was the aim point for the bombers?  Really, that should solve it: just tell me what the bombers were aiming at. 

A fair question. Of the 28,410 houses in Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed by the bombing raids. The houses burned down because Allied bombers dropped 165 tons of incendiary bombs on the city; thereby creating a firestorm. It's the use of this type of bomb, and the resulting destruction of homes and lives, that deeply disturbed many reasonable people.

 

If you care to look up The Charter for the Nuremberg Trials, you'll find that article 6.B. lists as an example of a war crime, "wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." Please explain to me the military necessity of destroying Dresden less than four months before the war ended. Explain why it was necessary to burn the city down with incendiary bombs just to shut down rail traffic for a few days. I'm listening.

Now you're an expert on military science as well?  It's funny how you continually lecture me on things that I actually am an expert in.

With all due respect, the field you're most expert at is making professional basketball players look humble.

Unfortunately, you're wrong again.    You're confusing the biological definition of "race" with the sociological definition.  The specific biological definition of "subspecies" is not "race" - in fact, the authoritative body that dictates such (the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) specifically states that "infrasubspecific entities" (i.e. human races) cannot be taxonomized zoologically, as they are not distinct enough - i.e., there's no process of speciation going on.

The topic of race is poorly understood. Princeton and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have perhaps arrived at differing definitions of race, and you know what? That's fine. Unlike you, I'm tolerant of different points of view. As long as someone acts in an appropriate way, I'll never call that person "Monkeyface."

 

Your talk about the biological versus the sociological definition of race merely confuses the issue. The word I looked up the definition for was subspecies--a word that has meaning in biology, but not in sociology. The word "race" can also have a biological definition, which is why Princeton listed it as a synonym for subspecies. According to The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, race is

  1.  A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

  2. A population of organisms differing from others of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits; a subspecies.

  3. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

Even you have to admit races as we traditionally describe them meet the requirements for definition 1. If races weren't more or less distinct groups, we wouldn't have affirmative action. If you couldn't tell them apart by genetically transmitted physical traits, there wouldn't be movies about people making themselves up to look like members of a different race.

 

And you know something? I like those differences. I'm happy about the fact the people of Japan look different from the people of Ireland or of Madagascar. If you didn't have something awful jammed up your rear end, you'd realize these differences are good, that they make the world richer and more diverse.

[GG]

And you know something?  I like those differences.  I'm happy about the fact the people of Japan look different from the people of Ireland or of Madagascar.  If you didn't have something awful jammed up your rear end, you'd realize these differences are good, that they make the world richer and more diverse.

747674[/snapback]

 

And, to bring it back a full circle (for those dosing off) this is why we need legislation to make sure that Irish & Madagascarese (ians?) never marry and procreate.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

A fair question.  Of the 28,410 houses in Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed by the bombing raids.  The houses burned down because Allied bombers dropped 165 tons of incendiary bombs on the city; thereby creating a firestorm.  It's the use of this type of bomb, and the resulting destruction of homes and lives, that deeply disturbed many reasonable people. 

 

Those numbers aren't even remotely accurate. Not even close. Nor is your interpretation of the reaction of "many reasonable people" to the use of incendiaries. Once again, all you're proving nothing more than you're completely ignorant about it.

 

And you didn't answer my question. What was the aim point? Not "What was destroyed" (which you don't even know, anyway), but "What was aimed at?" Of course, you couldn't answer that, because you're a blockhead.

 

The topic of race is poorly understood.

747674[/snapback]

 

Only by you. The way you use "race", it's synonymous with speciation. The way the rest of the non-Nazi world uses it, it's not. According to the authoritative body in charge of determining such things.

 

So you disagree with the entire zoological community...and I'm the one who's arrogant. Go figure.

[KurtGodel77]

Those numbers aren't even remotely accurate.  Not even close.  Nor is your interpretation of the reaction of "many reasonable people" to the use of incendiaries.  Once again, all you're proving nothing more than you're completely ignorant about it.

 

And you didn't answer my question.  What was the aim point?  Not "What was destroyed" (which you don't even know, anyway), but "What was aimed at?"  Of course, you couldn't answer that, because you're a blockhead.

Only by you.  The way you use "race", it's synonymous with speciation.  The way the rest of the non-Nazi world uses it, it's not.  According to the authoritative body in charge of determining such things. 

 

So you disagree with the entire zoological community...and I'm the one who's arrogant.  Go figure. 

748072[/snapback]

For the connoisseur of error, your post offers a rich, delectable menu of items on which to feast. You've done an excellent job at keeping out filler (that is, factually correct material), upon which I congratulate you.

 

As an appetizer, you offer the connoisseur of error your interpretation of Dresden. The discriminating connoisseur notices your Dresden errors contain a number of ingredients. The main ingredient is that you ignore the basic fact the bombing raid did far more damage to Germany's people than to her war effort. But that error's flavor alone is rather dull, so you spice it up by throwing in some unjustified personal attacks. To complete the dish, you imply reasonable people weren't bothered by the fact a city was deliberately burned to the ground with incendiary bombs in the middle of winter. You showed your true culinary skill by adding that last ingredient with a light touch.

 

For the evening's main course, you served up the error of confusing your own personal views with those of the world's entire zoological community. You gained a little respect from those who appreciate error through the boldness of your dish. While many people confuse their own opinions with fact, few do so as convincingly and as dogmatically as you. Preparing such a dish required skill and hard work. The first step involved your statement that "the authoritative body that dictates such (the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) specifically states that 'infrasubspecific entities' (i.e. human races) cannot be taxonomized zoologically, as they are not distinct enough." For the connoisseur of error, that statement had a surprisingly good aftertaste. It takes a while to realize that you, and not the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, are the one saying that "human races" and "infrasubspecific species" mean the same thing. The second ingredient in your dish is your misinterpretation of the Princeton definition of subspecies. Throw in the fact that you ignored the The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary definition of race I provided, and the dish is almost finished. But no Monkeyface dish of error would be complete without personal attacks, so you called me a Nazi to give the entrée its finishing touch.

 

For dessert, you implied you're not particularly arrogant. I don't want to criticize your skills as a chef of error, but this particular dish was a little too sweet and rich. That is, there was a little too much error, the error itself was too strong, and there was too little filler. My other criticism of your feast of error is that the after-dinner mint (a grammatical error involving incorrect placement of quotation marks) was served midway through the meal. But overall, I give you high marks for creating a post which any connoisseur of error would deeply appreciate.

[Chilly]

For the connoisseur of error, your post offers a rich, delectable menu of items on which to feast.  You've done an excellent job at keeping out filler (that is, factually correct material), upon which I congratulate you.

 

As an appetizer, you offer the connoisseur of error your interpretation of Dresden.  The discriminating connoisseur notices your Dresden errors contain a number of ingredients.  The main ingredient is that you ignore the basic fact the bombing raid did far more damage to Germany's people than to her war effort.  But that error's flavor alone is rather dull, so you spice it up by throwing in some unjustified personal attacks.  To complete the dish, you imply reasonable people weren't bothered by the fact a city was deliberately burned to the ground with incendiary bombs in the middle of winter.  You showed your true culinary skill by adding that last ingredient with a light touch. 

 

For the evening's main course, you served up the error of confusing your own personal views with those of the world's entire zoological community.  You gained a little respect from those who appreciate error through the boldness of your dish.  While many people confuse their own opinions with fact, few do so as convincingly and as dogmatically as you.  Preparing such a dish required skill and hard work.  The first step involved your statement that "the authoritative body that dictates such (the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) specifically states that 'infrasubspecific entities' (i.e. human races) cannot be taxonomized zoologically, as they are not distinct enough."  For the connoisseur of error, that statement had a surprisingly good aftertaste.  It takes a while to realize that you, and not the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, are the one saying that "human races" and "infrasubspecific species" mean the same thing.  The second ingredient in your dish is your misinterpretation of the Princeton definition of subspecies.  Throw in the fact that you ignored the The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary definition of race I provided, and the dish is almost finished.  But no Monkeyface dish of error would be complete without personal attacks, so you called me a Nazi to give the entrée its finishing touch.

 

For dessert, you implied you're not particularly arrogant.  I don't want to criticize your skills as a chef of error, but this particular dish was a little too sweet and rich.  That is, there was a little too much error, the error itself was too strong, and there was too little filler.  My other criticism of your feast of error is that the after-dinner mint (a grammatical error involving incorrect placement of quotation marks) was served midway through the meal.  But overall, I give you high marks for creating a post which any connoisseur of error would deeply appreciate.

748109[/snapback]

 

Since we are serving things up...

 

Here is your meal for the evening.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

As an appetizer, you offer the connoisseur of error your interpretation of Dresden.  The discriminating connoisseur notices your Dresden errors contain a number of ingredients.  The main ingredient is that you ignore the basic fact the bombing raid did far more damage to Germany's people than to her war effort.  But that error's flavor alone is rather dull, so you spice it up by throwing in some unjustified personal attacks.  To complete the dish, you imply reasonable people weren't bothered by the fact a city was deliberately burned to the ground with incendiary bombs in the middle of winter.  You showed your true culinary skill by adding that last ingredient with a light touch. 

 

And you still haven't answered my question: what was the aim point for the raids? That speaks directly to the "deliberation" you keep harping on...and yet, you can't answer the question. Probably because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

You also don't understand the root of the "moral outrage" the raid caused...you blame it on "165 tons of incendiary bombs" which is twice wrong: 165 tons weren't used, and people weren't outraged by them. To explain it would take too long; books have been written on the subject. Lots of good ones. None of which you've read, obviously. I'm not going to rewrite one on a message board just for your convenience.

 

For the evening's main course, you served up the error of confusing your own personal views with those of the world's entire zoological community...[blah blah blah...verbal diarhhea omitted...blah blah blah...]

 

You didn't comprehend a word I said, did you? The international commission responsible for determining such things says that human races are not subspecies. Period. That's not my opinion, that's hard fact. It just happens to contradict your opinion, based entirely on your inability to read and understand a medical dictionary.

[KurtGodel77]

And you still haven't answered my question: what was the aim point for the raids?  That speaks directly to the "deliberation" you keep harping on...and yet, you can't answer the question.  Probably because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

You also don't understand the root of the "moral outrage" the raid caused...you blame it on "165 tons of incendiary bombs" which is twice wrong: 165 tons weren't used, and people weren't outraged by them.  To explain it would take too long; books have been written on the subject.  Lots of good ones.  None of which you've read, obviously.  I'm not going to rewrite one on a message board just for your convenience.

You didn't comprehend a word I said, did you?  The international commission responsible for determining such things says that human races are not subspecies.  Period.  That's not my opinion, that's hard fact.  It just happens to contradict your opinion, based entirely on your inability to read and understand a medical dictionary.

748329[/snapback]

I see you're using essentially the same ingredients as last time. The dish itself, however, is new.

 

I'll admit some of those ingredients have a very subtle flavor that I didn't quite catch the first time. For instance, you accuse me of not addressing the point of the raids; when in fact the number of houses destroyed does address the real purpose of the Dresden raids. Confusing the stated purpose of the raids with their real purpose is a delicate touch, and a sign that you've truly mastered the art of error.

 

But you're not always subtle. Twice now you've point blank denied factually accurate statements about Dresden: one about the number of tons of incendiary bombs dropped; the other about the number of houses destroyed. Bold statements like these mark you as a courageous chef of error.

 

But no chef of error's training is truly complete until he or she embraces Lenin's maxim to always accuse your enemy of that which you yourself are guilty. This is perhaps the highest form of the art of error, and one which you have a true gift for. That you would accuse me of failing to understand the Stedman's dictionary entry was a culinary masterpiece.

 

But you reached your apex of your skill as a chef of error by accusing me of failing to understand the roots of the moral outrage over Dresden. Lacking any moral sense yourself, you naturally cannot comprehend why others might be outraged by the wanton and deliberate destruction of so many innocent human lives. You yourself experience outrage only when someone disagrees with your ideology, or offends your ego by questioning your authority. For instance, you feel someone who earned a PhD in physics from MIT has no right to question your own interpretation of the Big Bang; and you're offended that someone like me sees the question of authority differently.

 

For most people, outrage isn't nearly as ego-driven as it is for you. If an average person hears about a city such as Dresden being needlessly destroyed, they'll feel sad or angry. Your dual concern for ideology and your ego blinds you to the human element of the Dresden Holocaust, and to the fact the tragedy was clearly and wholly avoidable. You may have actually started believing your own propaganda, and this hasn't hurt your ability to please connoisseurs of error.

[KRC]

For instance, you accuse me of not addressing the point of the raids; when in fact the number of houses destroyed does address the real purpose of the Dresden raids. 

 

Actually, no it doesn't. I have to side with the monkey on this one. You are trying to use the result to determine the intent. Look up historical revisionism (or negationism). Things does not work that way. They never have and never will.

 

 

 

Confusing the stated purpose of the raids with their real purpose is a delicate touch, and a sign that you've truly mastered the art of error.

748387[/snapback]

 

What makes you qualified to determine discrepancies between stated purpose and intended purpose? Your opinion of what you want the purpose to be in this situation?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But you're not always subtle.  Twice now you've point blank denied factually accurate statements about Dresden: one about the number of tons of incendiary bombs dropped; the other about the number of houses destroyed.  Bold statements like these mark you as a courageous chef of error.

 

Except they're not factually accurate, they're verifiably wrong. I know for a fact, without even resorting to references, that 165 tons of incendaries were NOT dropped on Dresden.

 

That you would accuse me of failing to understand the Stedman's dictionary entry was a culinary masterpiece. 

 

And yet...you did. I explained it quite clearly: you're confusing the biological and sociological definitions of "race". Maybe I used too many big words, so let's try this: "Race" can mean more than one thing. It depends on the context. You don't even know what context you're using it in.

 

But you reached your apex of your skill as a chef of error by accusing me of failing to understand the roots of the moral outrage over Dresden.  Lacking any moral sense yourself, you naturally cannot comprehend why others might be outraged by the wanton and deliberate destruction of so many innocent human lives.

 

No, I quite understand it. Better than you, considering I actually know something about it.

 

You yourself experience outrage only when someone disagrees with your ideology, or offends your ego by questioning your authority.  For instance, you feel someone who earned a PhD in physics from MIT has no right to question your own interpretation of the Big Bang; and you're offended that someone like me sees the question of authority differently. 

 

Unreal. I am a published physicist. I already described how Schroeder - who is a theologian who has published nothing in physics in his entire career - was factually incorrect. It's not an opinion. It's scientific fact.

 

 

Your dual concern for ideology and your ego blinds you to the human element of the Dresden Holocaust, and to the fact the tragedy was clearly and wholly avoidable.  You may have actually started believing your own propaganda, and this hasn't hurt your ability to please connoisseurs of error.

748387[/snapback]

 

Ah, irony. Your ideology blinds you to facts. You wouldn't even know one if it bit you in the ass.

[X. Benedict]

Secondly, there's the question of whether the Polish government inflicted atrocities upon ethnic Germans for the purpose of provoking an attack.  In a book praised by The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, John Toland mentioned that a report of one atrocity in particular deeply influenced Hitler's decision to go to war.  However, Toland mentioned the numbers in the report had been exaggerated by a subordinate.  But was the original estimate, with the smaller numbers, correct?  Toland provides no guidance about that question. 

 

746717[/snapback]

 

I think you would be hard pressed to find many actual historians that think Toland is a reliable source for anything.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I think you would be hard pressed to find many actual historians that think Toland is a reliable source for anything.

748442[/snapback]

 

He'd be hard pressed to find many actual physicists who'd find Schroeder a relaible source, too. Doesn't stop him.

[Cheeseburger in Paradise]

He'd be hard pressed to find many actual physicists who'd find Schroeder a relaible source, too.  Doesn't stop him.

748468[/snapback]

I am not even gpoing to try to retend to be an expert regarding this whole sordid topic. It seems to me, if I recall a miltary history calss in my distant past, that far greater than 165 tons of incendiery bombs were used by the allied bomber fleets. he number of 165 tons I believecpomes from he bombing missions in March folliwng those of the 13th through 15th of February. If my recollection is correct, than Kurt Gpedl is wrong, kind of. It would appear he is understating the use of bombs on Deresden during that (in retrospect) ill advised raid.

 

Flame away, again, I am not presenting myself as any kind of expert, just someone who hopes something like this episode never has to be repeated in my lifetime.

[X. Benedict]

 

Flame away, again, I am not presenting myself as any kind of expert, just someone who hopes something like this episode never has to be repeated in my lifetime.

748496[/snapback]

 

The bombing or this thread?