[atlaw]

"It's an exhortation to be silent and go along with the program regardless how morally reprehensible it might be. On that I find very close parallels to the 'Good Germans' who went along with the program, regardless of how morally reprehensible it was. The fact that we are talking about starving a disabled person to death - a prime feature of the German euthanasia policies - makes it more than appropriate."

So you didn't read the thread.

"[W]e are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly."

Personally, I find rationale discourse to be more informative than slogan-shouting. Perhaps you find the latter more informative, but I really can't imagine what information you are deriving.

[thoughtomator]

Oh, I did read the thread, and it is a string of euphemisms for the censorship of opinions that one side doesn't like. The parallels to the Nazi T-4 euthanasia program are right on target, but rather than confront the horror of what is happening here, the demand is that they not be discussed at all.

So is it also uncivilized to compare the Liberals' proposals to those of the USSR, and point to the horrors that are the inevitable result of those policies?