LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI still contest that a good old crusty bloomer if best for breding someone.Originally Posted by Saracen
I still contest that a good old crusty bloomer if best for breding someone.
I'm a terrorist in Saudi Arabia. Not allowed there.
All atheists are terrorists according to them.
They may have gotten the brunt of it, but I feel it's really unfair that the whole thing gets claimed by and/or attributed to just one third of the total.
Then again, WW2 was fought and won by just the Americans alone... if only other nations had been able to do more than sit helplessly waiting for the US to arrive, it might have been over by Christmas!
And we're back to my point about giving attention-seekers a voice!
Not really. Society in general still agrees on what is and is not good manners, I'd say. We're just more lax about it on the internet, due to the anonymity afforded us... except me, perhaps. I'm afraid I really am like this in real life!
I'm a big fan of minced oaths, personally. A touch of creativity or the like, even if it's an implied curse as used in various sci-fi programmes like BSG or Firefly.Again, what is considered to be a swear word is subjective - but I have a low bar!
As above, I'd say society in general knows and decides where the line is... using pretty much the same approach as you do.
If it's writ in some sacred text, it's religious. If not, it's cultural.
Now, the cultural aspect may have developed from the religion, but it can still be separate. A lot of British culture is like that. But unless you can point to where it says so in your book, it's not part of the religion.
"Book. Show me. No? Not religious, then. Sorry".
I would swap the word 'supplant' with 'contradict', before I agreed wholeheartedly with that assertion.
Basically the whole 'When In Rome' thing applies, no matter what culture you go to. Rome was pretty accepting of other cultures in general, but still certain things had to be done the Roman way and if you didn't like it the Road to Damascus was out the South East gate, citizen....!
During the whole middle ages/medieval period, the UK was extremely accepting of all kinds, so long as they adopted the fundamentals of our own culture. Allah forbids alcohol? Fine, more for me. Doesn't conflict.... But the instant you jump the queue, swords will be drawn!! I don't care if you are a prince in your country, you're not there now... Back of the line, mate.
Unfair?
Unfair.
Unfair?
You think it's
Unfair
that the jews supposedly 'claim' the holocaust
Unfair.
Unfair?
I'm gonna guess at one third attribution for ignorance and the rest of the total is something else, I'll let others be the judge of that.
Struggling to remain civil itt, doubt I can do so after that provocation, so I'm signing off this thread on hexus. You got rid of the jew, well done.
I think the point was that it wasn't 'just' Jews that were part of the holocaust, many other cultures were affected by the pogroms - Romanies, and slavic nationals were also affected, either in death camps or as slave labour. Slave labour was used to build the underground hospital on the only part of British Territory to be occupied by the Nazis in WW2 - The Channel Islands.
The unfairness is that their sacrifice isn't acknowledged as well as that of the Jews.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Where did you get the 1/3rd figure from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ho...and_death_toll shows it to be around 50%
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
It would appear that I was in error and that the holocaust memorials in Jerusalem and other places acknowledge the sacrifice of the many Gentile victims of the holocaust.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Well, I sure hope you understand how overly simplistic that is.
Suppose I showed you the ancient writings. Would you understand them?
Oh, by the way, they'll not only be in Arabic, or Aramaic, etc, but an Arabic, Aramaic, etc, that's 800 years, 1200 years, 2000 years old.
Ever tried reading even English from the middle ages? Shakespeare can be a bit flowery, but try reading Chaucer in the original. Not some modern interpretation that O-level (or whatever they call it this week) but the original. It's like a foreign language.
In fact, you don't even need to go that far. Read James Joyce, say, Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. That's in modern English, but unless you understand the cultural references of early 20th century Catholic Ireland, the religious imagery and metaphor, you can read it but you won't understand what the author was saying. Not fully,
Or Dickens. Without enough history, you may get the story but the cultural critique will be missed.
So, back to "show me a book." The problem is, first, you need a translator because it's not only in a foreign language, but very possibly an archaic one. Then you need a historical context.
What happens when two translators disagree? And they regularly do. Or when different people, "experts" in their field, disagree about what a word or phrase in an ancient lsnguage meant, in it's context at the time, as opposed to what the words say.
For example, .... "Thou shalt not kill". Pretty clear, yes?
Except that some experts insist that the correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder".
That's all about ONE WORD, in the enture Bible. Under one definition, killing even in self-defence is unacceprable, yet under the other, not only is that fine and dandy, but so is the death penalty.
If one Immam says the burka is required, and another says rubbish, it's cultural, are YOU qualified to decide who's right, when they show you the book? I sure am not.
I place no value in a distinction between culture and religion. Religion is a part of culture, and both should be taken on their merits.
I have worked in the Middle East, where I consider the culture to be as abhorrent as religion, but my work was humanitarian in nature.. Similarly I've worked on Indian Reservations, another area that some people have some strange attachment to a negative religion/culture. Not all culture has value, or deserves respect, and while it may be dangerous to do so, sometimes it is necessary to actively work against it.
Yes, unfair that everyone (who isn't a denier) will tell you the Holocaust was about exterminating six million Jews, but far fewer will remember that it was also about killing twelve million people from other groups deemed 'undesirable'.
Indeed, mainly by society/culture, rather than any official memorials, though. It's fine to have such things on plaques somewhere, but this really should be common knowledge. Even in school, despite two years of O-Level history entirely dedicated to WW2, we were only ever taught about the Jewish element.
This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims
Assuming maximum numbers for everything, that has the Jewish component at 32.57%, so around 1/3rd.
Of course.
The principle holds, though.
I can still convert to Islam and get a copy of the Qur'an in English, though.
It's not for any of us to decide - That's for those within the religion to debate and come to a consensus. If the religion as a whole then decides burkhas are required and provide scriptural proof, then fine.
But similarly, there are plenty of things Christianity insists on, that isn't in the Bible but has been adopted as part of general church doctrine or just general practice... and that's where it blends (bleeds?) into culture.
Religion can be, but it's not entirely defined by it and we still maintain separation between church and state, for basically the same reasons.
Most definitely.
In the case of entering a nation with a different culture, your own ought to take at least a back seat, though. In the case of the UK, covering one's face in public is culturally considered highly suspect. Same for how displaying lots of tattoos in Japan is/used to be.
I agree with you .... BUT .... I asked earlier, who decides? Who decides which culture is abhorrent?
I loathe much of the cultural stsndards of the Middle East .... but I wasn't born there. So, inevitably, I'm judging their culture using my ingrained standards, prejudices and cultural background. And we are all (IMHO) at least partially the product of our anthropological past. I gained a lot of what serms "righr" by soaking it up, sponge-like, from parents, society, school, etc.
However hard I try, I can't entirely separate myself from it, i large part because I can't identify all of it.
So sure, to me, many aspects of middle-eastern culture are abhorrent. Some aren't, like typical arabic welcomes and generosity to guests, but the way Saudi Arabia treats women is.
But what gives me the right to judge? I was raised under different standards, but the same is true the other way round. And if I presume some kind of cultural or religious superiority, wrll, that way comes witch-burning, the Crusades and the Spanish inquisition. Let's educate the barbatians .... at sword point. We tried that approach, and we've still not been foryiven for it hundreds of years later.
So sure, while I dislike much of that culture, it's theirs, be it religioys or cultural, wherever the dividing line is, and I have no right to judge. Instead, I either respect it when I go there, in everything but thought, or I don't go there. I choose the latter.
When I DO start calling it out, of course, is when people try to bring it here and embed it here, as SOME do. Many immigrants, of course, come precisely because they dislike that culture as much as we do. Some don't.
The problem there (and this is a massive understatement!) is that religions as a whole aren't good at reaching a consensus on pretty much anything, with or without a common text. That's why there are hundreds of sects of Christianity, Islam, Judaism et Al. They can and do take one sentence from a holy book and find umpteen different ways of interpreting it, wars have started over it.
Thousands of years of evidence all suggests your proposal is not realistic.
Saracen (15-08-2018)
Which is fine and dandy, up until another culture comes in to your country - That's the point where the hosting country does get to say, "Sorry mate, you can't come in wivout a tie".
Your forum, your rules - So too your country, your rules.
Yup, and people have been hanged, jailed, or generally given a hard time for behaving contrarily in other countries... and in many cases quite rightly. I'm rather ashamed that our government, through whatever force and coersion, managed to save the lives of what have often just been stupid tourists and people taking a chance on getting away with what they knew is a lethally serious crime anyway.
More cultural 'right of way', really... mainly by virture of being the culture that everyone in the country follows.
The rest of what you describe above only happens if you take your culture overseas, though, which is not what I thought we're discussing?
And yet the Roman efforts have been generally celebrated, it seems. I think we missed a trick by not doing it in sandals...
Agreed - However, because we're such a bunch of tolerant bleeding heart pushovers, we do like to beat ourselves up for even thinking about calling such things out... To that end I'd draw an additional line, behind our own selves, past which we ought not to back away. I assert that the separation between (generally) agreed and substantiated official religious tenets, from far more fluid cultural norms of potentially incompatible nature, would be a reasonable rough starting point.
As a very extreme example, there have been several cultures where it's perfectly acceptable to lop the head off a socially inferior person for offending you... but that's not really compatible here.
Not my problem and outside the scope of concern at our end, really. But we can't have people just making up whatever bits of their religion suits them and then demanding we respect that - The myriad different forms to fill out for compiling an acceptance policy document would be immense!
British laws have been enshrined with far less substantiation, I'm sure....
On the first bit .... erm, that's what I said.
On the second .... a technical distinction. Not my forum. I'm here as long, and only as long, as the forum owner wants me here.
My rules? Closer, but no. The rules generally have evolved, and I've certainly had my say,over the years, but the rules are a team effort, and even then, the final say-so is the owners. It's a akin to Napolean and amgeneral staff -:we're here to make decisions the owner would if he made them himself, and as long as we more or less do that, he doesn't step in. But he could, any time he wanted.
That said, presuming by "your rules" you jesnt the team and owner, then yes.
There is a difference between a privare but publucly accessible forum, and a country. We aren't subject to democratic oversight by members. Nor, for that matter, are we required to explain decisions though we nornally do, where we can.
As for discussing culture v religion, in this country, my central point was that I, personally, am not qualified to judge where Islamic religious requirements stop and cultural traditions start. As I understand it, the burka is cultural but there are Islamic scholars that disagree.
I doubt most members here are any more qualified, though Muslim ones may be.
For me, it doesn't really matter if it's religious or not. I'm not exactly libertarian in many ways, but I am libertarian enough that anybody ought to be able to express their religious or cultural traditions and beliefs however they wish UNTIL it has an adverse impact on others, like in a security situation.
Short of that, it doesn't impact me if a Jew wears a yarmulke, a Sikh wears a turban, a Krishna wears those robes, ludicrous cultist wears a sharp suit, a bishop wears a mitre, a priest a dog-collar or, yes, a muslim woman wears a burka. If I happen to think some look more ridiculous than others, then I'm entitled to have that opinion, and express it. And so is BoJo.
If some people don't like that we're free to express opinions they don't like, or that offend them or their religion, well, though poop. That freedom that says I can say an outfit looks daft is the same freedom that says they can wear it. I don't have to like hiw they express their religion, and they aren't required to like how I express my opinion of it.
That's freedom of expression, and it cuts both ways.
Actually what is less well known is the "methods" used during the Holocast,were first implemented as part of the Aktion T4 programme:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
Nearly 300000 people were murdered and 200000 of those were in Germany and Austria including many children. Just like the Spanish civil war was a test for German weaponary and tactics,Aktion T4 was a test for the Nazis to mechanise mass murder including the first gassings. Before the programme 100s of 1000s of people were sterilised.
The term "Aktion T4" came into use after the war; before that German terminology included Euthanasie (euthanasia) and Gnadentod (merciful death).[26] The T4 programme stemmed from the Nazi Party policy of "racial hygiene", a belief that the German people needed to be cleansed of racial enemies, which included people with disabilities as well as anyone who was confined to a mental health facility.[27] The euthanasia programme was part of the evolution of the policy of administrative killings that culminated in the extermination of Jews of Europe during the Nazi genocides. In his book Mein Kampf (1924), Hitler wrote that one day racial hygiene, "will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era".[28][citation needed][29]
The idea of sterilising those carrying hereditary defects or exhibiting what was thought to be hereditary "antisocial" behaviour was widely accepted. Canada, Denmark, Switzerland and the US had passed laws for the coerced sterilisation of people before Germany. Studies conducted in the 1920s ranked Germany as a country that was unusually reluctant to introduce sterilisation legislation.[30]
The policy and research agenda of racial hygiene and eugenics were promoted by Emil Kraepelin.[31] The eugenic sterilization of persons diagnosed with (and viewed as predisposed to) schizophrenia was advocated by Eugen Bleuler, who presumed racial deterioration because of “mental and physical cripples” in his Textbook of Psychiatry:
The more severely burdened should not propagate themselves… If we do nothing but make mental and physical cripples capable of propagating themselves, and the healthy stocks have to limit the number of their children because so much has to be done for the maintenance of others, if natural selection is generally suppressed, then unless we will get new measures our race must rapidly deteriorate.[32][33][34]
In July 1933 "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" prescribed compulsory sterilisation for people with conditions thought to be hereditary, such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea and "imbecility". Sterilisation was also legalised for chronic alcoholism and other forms of social deviance. The law was administered by the Interior Ministry under Wilhelm Frick through special Hereditary Health Courts (Erbgesundheitsgerichte), which examined the inmates of nursing homes, asylums, prisons, aged-care homes and special schools, to select those to be sterilised.[35]
It is estimated that 360,000 people were sterilised under this law between 1933 and 1939.[36] Within the Nazi administration, some suggested that the programme should be extended to people with physical disabilities but such ideas had to be expressed carefully, given that one of the most powerful figures of the regime, Joseph Goebbels, had a deformed right leg.[g] After 1937 the acute shortage of labour in Germany, arising from rearmament, meant that anyone capable of work was deemed to be "useful" and thus exempted from the law and the rate of sterilisation declined.[37]So that meant even "ethnic Germans" who were not deemed "racially pure" were killed too.After the official end of the euthanasia programme in 1941, most of the personnel and high-ranking officials, as well as gassing technology and the techniques used to deceive victims, were transferred under the jurisdiction of the national medical division of the Reich Interior Ministry. Further gassing experiments with the use of mobile gas chambers (Einsatzwagen) were conducted at Soldau concentration camp by Herbert Lange following Operation Barbarossa. Lange was appointed commander of the Chełmno extermination camp in December 1941. He was given three gas vans by the RSHA, converted by the Gaubschat GmbH in Berlin[96] and before February 1942, killed 3,830 Polish Jews and around 4,000 Romani, under the guise of "resettlement".[97] After the Wannsee conference, implementation of gassing technology was accelerated by Heydrich. Beginning in the spring of 1942, three killing factories were built secretly in east-central Poland. The SS officers responsible for the earlier Aktion T4, including Wirth, Stangl and Irmfried Eberl, had important roles in the implementation of the "Final Solution" for the next two years.[23][o] The first killing centre equipped with stationary gas chambers modelled on technology developed under Aktion T4 was established at Bełżec in the General Government territory of occupied Poland; the decision preceded the Wannsee Conference of January 1942 by three months.[98]
Its probably from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims
On the page you linked to,the list does not have Soviet citizens listed,so that is probably where the discrepancy is from.Jews 5–6 million [1]
Soviet citizens 4.5 million [2]
Soviet POWs 2.8–3.3 million [3]
Poles 1.8–3 million [4][5][6]
Serbs 300,000–600,000 [7][8]
Disabled 270,000 [9]
Romani 130,000–500,000 [10][11]
Freemasons 80,000–200,000 [12][13]
Slovenes 20,000–25,000 [14]
Spanish Republicans 7,000 [15]
Homosexuals 5,000–15,000 [16]
Jehovah's
Witnesses 1,250–5,000 [17]
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 16-08-2018 at 01:54 AM.
Freedom of Speech is tough to quantify, because some things are just lies and therefore need BS calling on them, and the perma-question is - should the liar be allowed to say those things, if he/she believes in it?
Example - "I just ran over a cat, and it deserved it."
2 minutes later, the passenger in the same car says "no you didn 't you idiot, it's still alive and just scared"
there's no law to stop the first sentence, but as it's gonna cause loads of people to be arguing about cats "deserving it", as an Admin, I'd close the thread because it's unbalanced.. even though it also turns out to be wrong!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
