Posted on 02/16/2004 7:22:27 AM PST by rface
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:38 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
MEL GIBSON'S soon-to-be-released film "The Passion of the Christ" -- hailed by some as a powerful account of the last hours of Jesus' life, decried by others as an inflammatory screed with anti-Semitic overtones -- has become a lightning rod in the culture wars. The film's conservative defenders have charged that the criticism is driven by liberal fears of religion's growing influence on society. The critics charge that conservatives are using the issue to whip up a hysteria about alleged persecution of religion. Recently, the debate shifted to another inflammatory issue: Holocaust denial and comparisons between the Holocaust and other atrocities.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
and he was right.
They fought for Nazi Germany and died.
The German people of that generation bear the responsibility for the rise and reign of Adolph Hitler.
There were righteous Germans who resisted the evil. We don't know every story. There were victims of every nation.
Jews are often educated and keenly aware of who was killed in the Holocaust because they study it in school.
Those who deny the Holocaust usually do so because of an envy and hatred for Jews.
They want to forget what happened,
that two thirds of European Jewry were exterminated in a calculated and
deliberate genocide with too few people raising a fist to stop it.
The exact number of people killed by the Nazi regime is still subject to further research.
Recently declassified British and Soviet documents have indicated
the total may be somewhat higher than previously believed [1].
However, the following estimates are considered to be highly reliable. 5.6 – 6.1 million Jews 3.0 – 3.5 million Polish Jews 2.5 – 3.5 million non-Jewish Poles 3.5 – 6 million other Slavic civilians 2.5 – 4 million Soviet POWs 1 – 1.5 million political dissidents 200 000 – 800 000 Roma & Sinti 200 000 – 300 000 handicapped 10 000 – 25 000 homosexuals 2 000 Jehovah's Witnesses
I re-read her article and can truthfully say that this column is on the intellectual par for what I would expect of a 6th-grader. I know nothing about her character, her beliefs, or her politics and didn't comment on those things.Cathy Young may be right on some issues but, in this particular column, she started out with a premise and manipulated facts and logic to support that premise. Others have pointed out the details so I'm not going to recite them here.
When who gets what? Or did you intend that post to someone else, since it seems a non sequitur to the post of mine to which you were responding?
Thank you.
I do not owe this woman an apology.
Not even for incorrectly accusing her of being "the lib press", and presuming that she is afraid of Christianity for some reason? Don't those strike you as serious allegations, especially when made falsely? If not I've got some stones I don't need, you're welcome to have them.
In addition, I would kindly ask you not tell me how to think or post.
...you say, as you tell *me* how to post... Let me get this straight -- folks should be free to smear a writer, without someone being "rude" enough to in turn raise questions about what *they* write? There's a word to describe this sort of mindset.
And where do you imagine I "told you how to think" -- other than warning people of the perils of jumping to conclusions?
Hyperbole does not help your case.
If you truly believe that, then you have a very poor grasp of 6th-graders and their work. If you don't believe that...
New bulletin: 6th-graders don't make points like, "Gulag revisionism is not stigmatized the way Holocaust revisionism is", for example. Run that one past a 6th-grader and you'll get a hearty, "huh??"
Also, if this article were truly on the level of a "6th-grader", more people would have been able to follow it without getting confused as to what the author actually said and did not say. On the contrary, it appears to be over some heads.
No, more along the line of 6th-grade discourse would be someone who failed to address the actual points made in the article, and instead resorted to calling childish names, saying puerile things like "who is this twit?", and churlish but empty insults like "Her column looks like it was written by a sixth-grader."
Oh wait, that was you, wasn't it? I'm not sure if you have any room to be critiquing the level of anyone else's writing.
I know nothing about her character, her beliefs, or her politics and didn't comment on those things.
So calling her a "twit" and insulting her intelligence was just a cogent rebuttal to her thesis, eh? I'm sorry, *who* is writing like a 6th grader again?
Cathy Young may be right on some issues but, in this particular column, she started out with a premise
What might that be?
and manipulated facts and logic to support that premise.
You have yet to make an actual case for that position, unless you think calling her a 6th-grade "twit" counts in your book.
Others have pointed out the details so I'm not going to recite them here.
Feel free to mention a post number, at least, if that isn't too much effort. I can't recall any that I thought made a convincing argument for your position, but perhaps you can point me to one I overlooked.
Who is this woman you speak of?
I am sure you will also be getting a reply with your post in italics and condescending remarks too.
Heaven forbid anyone should make condescending remarks. You know, like presuming someone is a Clinton apologist, a leftist, "smoking crack", using sarcasm like "oh wise FReeper", etc. Know anyone who writes condescending stuff like that?
Me thinks someone doth protest too much!
You might want to look up the context of that Shakespeare quote before you use it again, since it actually applies to someone in your position and not mine.
LOL!!
Yes, your posts attempting to "defend" your false accusations by making more false accusations and being derisive are so very amusing.
This was in response to a number of things. My post was excerpted, to wit:
She says "yes, but..." to the condemnation of human suffering if the government responsible for such massive crimes just happens to be run by communist socialists rather than national socialists.
I should point out that my comments referred only this article, since I do not have the time to research and read what else a given writer might have put to paper in the last decade. In this article, Young inferred that Gibson had discounted the severity of the offense of Nazi Germany by daring to refer to the horrors of communist Russia in the same breath. My point was that she projected her own sentiments upon Gibson's, and in so doing invalidated her assertion. She implicitly discounts the severity of the offenses of communists, who inflicted far more evil upon the world and its citizens, than did Hitler, in order to paint Gibson with foul innuendo that cannot be sustained with fact.
I did not insult her: I asserted that, based upon the point of view of her article, one intimating much proving little, she must have an agenda to advance that she cannot sustain with facts. I concluded that she wished to suppress viewing of the movie. My pivotal conclusion, one derived from the apparent intellectual dishonesty displayed in crafting the article, was that she fears piety and Christian religious sentiment, or believe them to be impossible or dishonest. She implicitly doubts Gibson's piety by implying him to be insincere (the "yes, but" accusation). In that, I may have erred. On the other hand, Young may have erred in authoring an article charged with innuendo and potentially, with intellectual dishonesty. I suggest that she might be more careful in her condemnations, if she wishes to avoid criticism, in the future. I do not owe her an apology. That my comments were taken out of context - and called simple-minded as a result of that - might suggest that I am owed one.
By the by, I am still proud to be a Freeper, more than ever. Regards.
Thank you for this most recent post. It's the sort of post I wish there had been more of on this thread, which is why I was so disappointed with the volume of namecalling.
Unfortunately I need to run out and pick up dinner right now, but I'll respond when I get back. I just wanted to compliment you on raising the level of discussion before I step out.
Did I say that it was written on the level that a 6th-grader would understand? No, I didn't. Her article appears as if it were written by a 6th-grader. I'm afraid that you're guilty of what you're accusing us of -- not reading or understanding what is written.If, as you say, so many people had problems following the article, perhaps it was because she did such a bad job of writing.
Another good post, thanks. I'm running out the door right now (see my previous post) but I'll respond to your post when I return, it deserves thoughtful consideration.
I would have understood it when I was a 6th-grader. I would have also seen the fallacy of her arguments.You have yet to make an actual case for that position, unless you think calling her a 6th-grade "twit" counts in your book.
Everyone but you seems to agree that it was a badly-written column. I could go through her argument and point out her problems with logic but others have already done a suitable job of that. I don't care to repeat what has already been written because I'm doing taxes tonight.
Thank you.
Regards.
You were right! See 166.
So what? So the sins of the father are visited on the son? I don't recall people calling John F. Kennedy a Nazi-lover just because his father Joe kissed Hitler's ass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.