Defending the Truth

intangible child · 04-20-2006, 11:51 PM

Is it any coincidence that when today's right-wing intellectuals created a lists of "harmful" books, they choose the same books burned by the Nazis prior to World War II? Kevan Quinn doesn't think so.

Who's on the hit list? Karl Marx, Darwin, Ralph Nader, Rachel Carson, and many other noted thinkers, environmentalists and educators. As Kevan points out, a party in power always fears an educated citizen.
http://www.libertynewstv.com/

Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Look who's behind this.
http://www.regnery.com/

---------------------------
Six years Later: The lunatic fringe are still crying about "Clinton's BJ”

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy“---James Madison 4th U.S. president (1809 -1817), and one of the founding fathers of this country. (1751- 1836)
Reply With Quote

Dylan · 04-21-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intangible child

Is it any coincidence that when today's right-wing intellectuals created a lists of "harmful" books, they choose the same books burned by the Nazis prior to World War II? Kevan Quinn doesn't think so.

Who's on the hit list? Karl Marx, Darwin, Ralph Nader, Rachel Carson, and many other noted thinkers, environmentalists and educators. As Kevan points out, a party in power always fears an educated citizen.
http://www.libertynewstv.com/

Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Look who's behind this.
http://www.regnery.com/

---------------------------
Six years Later: The lunatic fringe are still crying about "Clinton's BJ”

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy“---James Madison 4th U.S. president (1809 -1817), and one of the founding fathers of this country. (1751- 1836)
Reply With Quote

Wow... Ralph Nader was around during World War II? I know he looks downright cadaverous most of the time, but I didn't think he was that old.

Sarcasm aside, number two on the list is Mein Kampf, this blowing away your entire argument.

intangible child · 04-21-2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

Wow... Ralph Nader was around during World War II? I know he looks downright cadaverous most of the time, but I didn't think he was that old.

Sarcasm aside, number two on the list is Mein Kampf, this blowing away your entire argument.

I have read it and you should too and you'll see why they want it banned!
I'll just tell you, it's because it gives away too many Hitler/Bush strategies!

-------------------
How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.---Adolf Hitler

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.---Adolf Hitler

Dylan · 04-21-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intangible child

I have read it and you should too and you'll see why they want it banned!
I'll just tell you, it's because it gives away too many Hitler/Bush strategies!

-------------------
How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.---Adolf Hitler

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.---Adolf Hitler

...

BUSH IS NOT HITLER. I AM NOT A FAN OF BUSH, BUT BUSH IS NO MORE HITLER THAN HILLARY CLINTON IS VLADIMIR LENIN. SURE, BUSH AND HITLER WERE BOTH CONSERVATIVES, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF DEGREES. WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS? I SUPPOSE YOU COULD TRY TO PROVE YOUR POINT WITH ASSININE, OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES YOU PULLED OFF OF QUOTEGARDEN OR SOMETHING, BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY READ ANY HITLER SPEECHES, OR ACTUALLY READ MEIN KAMPF, AND THEN READ ANYTHING BUSH HAS EVER SAID, YOU WOULDN'T NOTICE THE PROFOUND DIFFERENCE: NAMELY THAT ACCORDING TO BUSH, COMMUNISTS, JEWS, AND MASONS DON'T RUN THE WORLD IN AN EVIL CABAL.

hevusa · 04-21-2006, 10:04 PM

He is like Hitler in a fascist way.

Katczinsky · 04-21-2006, 11:17 PM

Dylan I'm growing tired of your intolerance to historical comparison. You keep assuming as if people are calling Bush exactly like Hitler, that's very simplistic and ignorant really. Its as if whenever someone says the word Hitler no matter what the context, it strikes a nerve in your brain and you go off on these naive tangents raging on at people for attempting to actually look at history.

Perhaps if you wouldn't have such biases and preconcieved notions in your mind when ever you hear his name, perhaps you could actually look at the facts scrupulously. Its just the simple fact that some of the tactics used by the Bush administration for the submission of the American people and the subsequent seizing of their rights reflects some of the same tactics used by Hitler. No one's saying Bush is executing millions of Jews. No one is saying Bush invaded Poland. No one is saying Bush has the same ideology. What we are saying is that the political tactics reflect one another in many regards.

intangible child · 04-21-2006, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

...

BUSH IS NOT HITLER. I AM NOT A FAN OF BUSH, BUT BUSH IS NO MORE HITLER THAN HILLARY CLINTON IS VLADIMIR LENIN. SURE, BUSH AND HITLER WERE BOTH CONSERVATIVES, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF DEGREES. WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS? I SUPPOSE YOU COULD TRY TO PROVE YOUR POINT WITH ASSININE, OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES YOU PULLED OFF OF QUOTEGARDEN OR SOMETHING, BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY READ ANY HITLER SPEECHES, OR ACTUALLY READ MEIN KAMPF, AND THEN READ ANYTHING BUSH HAS EVER SAID, YOU WOULDN'T NOTICE THE PROFOUND DIFFERENCE: NAMELY THAT ACCORDING TO BUSH, COMMUNISTS, JEWS, AND MASONS DON'T RUN THE WORLD IN AN EVIL CABAL.

Please quit trying to physiologically romance me.

Offer passive resistance-wherever you may be, forestall the spread of this administration before it’s too late, before they start attacking other countries under false pretences, before the world is reduced to rubble, and Our Nation’s last young women and men have given their blood on some foreign battle field for the hubris sub-human regime that has taken over the U.S. And we must never let anyone take our government over again! Bush and Cheney on 911 interviewed behind closed doors, refused to take an oath, refused to allow tape recordings and ensured no transcript be kept but they tell us (citizens) they can spy on who ever they choose. Tell Congress to do their job as they pledged to the American people and God to do! Impeach and Indict this administration for TREASON! Remember any PEOPLE are responsible for the regime they are willing to put up with!

sgtdmski · 04-22-2006, 09:43 AM

Yes let us take a look at the list of names on the books that these conservative intellectuals choose as harmful.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Hitler,and Mao have been responsible for the killing of how many tens of millions of people based upon their philosphies. I really doubt that the Nazis actually burned the book of Hitler.

No one seems to want to mention the fact that Rachel Carson is responsible today for some 9.5 million deaths, soon she will be joining the crowd above. Her psuedo-science to say DDT was dangerous is a joke. She uses an experiment by Dewitt to show that DDT thinned bird's egg's, however, she totally ignored Dewitt's own conclusions, the simple fact that birds that had been exposed to DDT actually had a 50% increase in the number of hatched eggs than those that were not. DDT is not carcinogenic and this has been proven by the National Cancer Institute. Thanks to Rachel Carson, many third world peoples today now die of a disease that at one time they had the ability to eliminate.

And do we really need to get into a discussion about Kinsey. Thanks to Kinsey we have come to accept ideas regarding sex that were based upon the actions of sexual predators. Many of whom he collected stories and data from, including the having of sex with children, which he attempted to show was normal, yes Kinsey, the founding member of NAMBLA.

I could go through and make a disparaging point regarding each author and/or book, but what would be the point. Most of the theories and philosophies that these book profess go against what we as conservatives beleive, so is it any surprise that we would be opposed to them?

Furthermore the notion that the books listed by conservatives is similiar to those burned by the Nazis is another lie. And yes it is a lie, an untruth especially when you consider of the 25 books listed, only 11 were in print at the time of the Nazis. That means the majority of the books on the list were not even around at the time of the Nazis. Furthermore, two of the books on the list were actually loved by the Nazis, Hitler's and Nietzsche's.

No intellectual interviewed ever talked of banning the books. They were asked which books they thought were harmful. I am sure that if you asked the same question of liveral intellectuals the list would include such classics as the Wealth of Nations, the Road to Serfdom, and many other books that promote individuality over that of class warfare. Tomato or Tomatoe.

Quit trying to time and again say conservatives are Nazis. Battle our beliefs and ideas with fact and theories that oppose them, or don't. Name calling is easy, I can do it all day long with you. I could complain how you liberals are nothing more than a bunch of radical socialist that want everyone to be exactly like you. Or how you won't be happy until we all are the same, but to what point would that work. I have the ability to argue your ideas and show how out of touch they still remain today.

dmk

Dylan · 04-22-2006, 11:37 AM

I'm very, very interested in history. Excuse me if I get a bit techy about stupid, reactionary comparisons.
I can't believe I'm a moderate on the internet... That being said, you've made a few gaping errors, Sarge. I appreciate that you are reasonable enough to see that comparing Bush to Hitler is rediculous.

DDT is harmful to the environment, Sarge. In most third world countries, it is still legal, since it is the cheapest, most feasable way to fight malaria. However, there is no reason for it to be legal in America or the developed world, where malaria has basically become an unknown.

DDT is particularly harmful to predatory birds and aqatic life, and did almost drive the bald eagles to extinction (their population surged about a decade after the stuff was banned, actually leading to overpopulation). It's also fat soluble, and stays in the human body for between 15-20 years. It gets passed on and concentrated as it's consumed by something higher up on the food chain.

This comes from The Lancet.

Quote:

Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings and was banned mainly for ecological reasons, subsequent research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria. ... DDT might be useful in controlling malaria, but the evidence of its adverse effects on human health needs appropriate research on whether it achieves a favourable balance of risk versus benefit.
Future perspectives
Although acute toxic effects are scarce, toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation. The research focus on human reproduction and development seems to be appropriate. DDT could be an effective public-health intervention that is cheap, longlasting, and effective. However, various toxic-effects that would be difficult to detect without specific study might exist and could result in substantial morbidity or mortality. Responsible use of DDT should include research programmes that would detect the most plausible forms of toxic effects as well as the documentation of benefits attributable specifically to DDT. Although this viewpoint amounts to a platitude if applied to malaria research in Africa, the research question here could be sufficiently focused and compelling, so that governments and funding agencies recognise the need to include research on all infant mortality when DDT is to be used.

This comes from wikipedia.

Quote:

In people, DDT use is generally safe; large populations have been exposed to the compound for 60 years with little acute toxicity apart from a few reports of poisoning. Doses as high as 285 mg/kg taken accidentally did not cause death, but such large doses did lead to prompt vomiting. One dose of 10 mg/kg can result in illness in some people. Subclinical and subtle functional changes have not been meticulously sought until the past few decades.
Occupational exposure to DDT was associated with reduced verbal attention, visuomotor speed, sequencing, and with increased neuropsychological and psychiatric symptoms in a dose-response pattern (ie, per year of DDT application) in retired workers aged 55–70 years in Costa Rica. Although DDT or DDE concentrations were not determined in this study, they probably were very high.
Although extensively studied, there is no convincing evidence that DDT or its metabolite DDE increase human cancer risk. Mainly on the basis of animal data, DDT is classified as a possible carcinogen (class 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and as a reasonably anticipated human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program.
Breast cancer has been examined most closely for an association with p,p'-DDE. In a study in 1993, 37 breast cancer patients had higher serum DDE concentrations (11·8 μg/L) than controls (7·7 μg/L), and results from several subsequent studies supported such an association. However, large epidemiological studies and subsequent pooled and meta-analyses failed to confirm the association.
With detailed work history of chemical manufacturing workers to estimate DDT exposure, a nested case-control study reported occupational DDT exposure associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk. A weak association of self-reported DDT use with pancreatic cancer was reported in another case-control study. A report indicated a higher standardised mortality ratio for pancreatic cancer in outdoor workers with a history of DDT exposure of less than 3 years, but the standardised mortality ratio of DDT workers with exposure of 3 years or more was not significantly raised

I read Silent Spring a few years ago. I found it to be tedious and repetative, but important nonetheless.

DDT is classified as a strongly possible carcinogen by the EPA. Some studies have observed high occurences of panceatic and liver cancer, as well as glandular abnormalities. However, no acute toxic effects have been found.

Another problem with DDT is that many mosquitos are now resistant, which is the main reason malaria hasn't been completely wiped out.

Have you actually read either of the Kinsey reports, Sarge? Aside from potentially questionable statistical information, I'd hardly say he was advocating sexually predatory behavior, or pedophilia. I think his biggest message was that homosexuality is quite normal. I suppose that you, as a conservative, wouldn't be particularly fond of that, but I happen to think that such a frank discussion was revolutionary and important. Also, he revealed the fact that masturbation doesn't cause hairy palms and the like, and that many women masturbate, which I also consider an important public announcement. Prior to this, women who masturbated were genitally mutilated, or worse, because it was thought that they were diseased. Kinsey was certainly not a founding member of NAMBLA, although he did act questionably with his data on the sexuality of children. He did not collect the data himself, but took data from one man who was most definitely a sexual predator (Statistically questionable indeed). He probably should have turned the bastard in, but I hardly think a single action like this outweighs all of the good that his studies produced for the feminist and the gay rights movements... Which as a conservative, you are probably opposed to, but I most certainly am not.

Thanks for bringing up that point about the times the books were published, and Nietzche. I actually just started reading Nietzche for one of my classes recently, and he was a protofascist.

The Road to Serfdom promoted individuality? Er... No... It promoted class conciousness in the worst way. Also, The Wealth of Nations was a fundamentally liberal text, in the old sense of the word. Without it, there would have never been nothing for socialism to rebel against. It's one of those "you need light to realize that darkness exists" sorts of things.

Anyway... I agree with Sarge on the last point. Comparing Bush to Hitler is just downright ignorant. It shows that you have little conception of history, and it seems like mudslinging. I wish I could find that Daily Show clip where Jon Stewart talks about how stupid it is to compare people to Hitler.

intangible child · 04-22-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

I'm very, very interested in history. Excuse me if I get a bit techy about stupid, reactionary comparisons.
I can't believe I'm a moderate on the internet... That being said, you've made a few gaping errors, Sarge. I appreciate that you are reasonable enough to see that comparing Bush to Hitler is rediculous.

DDT is harmful to the environment, Sarge. In most third world countries, it is still legal, since it is the cheapest, most feasable way to fight malaria. However, there is no reason for it to be legal in America or the developed world, where malaria has basically become an unknown.

DDT is particularly harmful to predatory birds and aqatic life, and did almost drive the bald eagles to extinction (their population surged about a decade after the stuff was banned, actually leading to overpopulation). It's also fat soluble, and stays in the human body for between 15-20 years. It gets passed on and concentrated as it's consumed by something higher up on the food chain.

This comes from The Lancet.

This comes from wikipedia.

I read Silent Spring a few years ago. I found it to be tedious and repetative, but important nonetheless.

DDT is classified as a strongly possible carcinogen by the EPA. Some studies have observed high occurences of panceatic and liver cancer, as well as glandular abnormalities. However, no acute toxic effects have been found.

Another problem with DDT is that many mosquitos are now resistant, which is the main reason malaria hasn't been completely wiped out.

Have you actually read either of the Kinsey reports, Sarge? Aside from potentially questionable statistical information, I'd hardly say he was advocating sexually predatory behavior, or pedophilia. I think his biggest message was that homosexuality is quite normal. I suppose that you, as a conservative, wouldn't be particularly fond of that, but I happen to think that such a frank discussion was revolutionary and important. Also, he revealed the fact that masturbation doesn't cause hairy palms and the like, and that many women masturbate, which I also consider an important public announcement. Prior to this, women who masturbated were genitally mutilated, or worse, because it was thought that they were diseased. Kinsey was certainly not a founding member of NAMBLA, although he did act questionably with his data on the sexuality of children. He did not collect the data himself, but took data from one man who was most definitely a sexual predator (Statistically questionable indeed). He probably should have turned the bastard in, but I hardly think a single action like this outweighs all of the good that his studies produced for the feminist and the gay rights movements... Which as a conservative, you are probably opposed to, but I most certainly am not.

Thanks for bringing up that point about the times the books were published, and Nietzche. I actually just started reading Nietzche for one of my classes recently, and he was a protofascist.

The Road to Serfdom promoted individuality? Er... No... It promoted class conciousness in the worst way. Also, The Wealth of Nations was a fundamentally liberal text, in the old sense of the word. Without it, there would have never been nothing for socialism to rebel against. It's one of those "you need light to realize that darkness exists" sorts of things.

Anyway... I agree with Sarge on the last point. Comparing Bush to Hitler is just downright ignorant. It shows that you have little conception of history, and it seems like mudslinging. I wish I could find that Daily Show clip where Jon Stewart talks about how stupid it is to compare people to Hitler.

I will make no more Hitler, Bush comparisons. Sorry!

Reasoning Why!
1.Hitler was a decorated war veteran
2. When Hitler ran for Chanellor, he actually got more votes than the other guy.
3.Hitler never went AWOL

Sorry I ever made the comparison!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode