were morally equivalent. :-(
I had to point out that that logic only held good if you took the view that the Nazis' and the Allies' reasons for waging war were morally equivalent.
Seriously, what the fùck is wrong with people these days?
were morally equivalent. :-(
I had to point out that that logic only held good if you took the view that the Nazis' and the Allies' reasons for waging war were morally equivalent.
Seriously, what the fùck is wrong with people these days?
There have always been idiots, the internet just gives you a chance to encounter them more often.
The problem is, the loonies get heard and their view gradually becomes mainstream. I mean, whilst we've always had nutters, we used to take it as read that a person with a ***** is a man, whatever he calls himself. Now the opinions of the mental cases are so widespread that a man calling himself Mildred is treated as a woman, and suggesting otherwise can be construed as a criminal offence.
Dear Lord, please snd a flood to wash away the filth with which we have covered your creation, amen.
Pretty much on par with holocaust.
I don't think they do, I can't think of something as obviously wrong as the Nazi/Allies equivalence view that has become mainstream. Can you?
As for the gender fluidity thing, I can't get excited about something that (as far as I can see) isn't really hurting anybody.
Well, it's still socially unacceptable to wave a swastika around, but a hammer and sickle is apparently perfectly fine.
It's not that gender fluidity hurts anyone (except, of course, when people are persecuted for wrongthink) - it's that we are being bullied into accepting and repeating a lie.
A man in a dress is not a woman. I could be interviewed and possibly cautioned by the police for saying that. Don't you find that disturbing?
Wasn't the hammer and sickle more popular 30 years ago than it is now? I think we are more aware of the atrocities committed by Stalin (and co) now, than we were in the 80s.
If someone was cautioned for saying a man in a dress isn't a woman (and no more) that would be disturbing. I agree. If it happened regularly, then we'd have a real problem.
Are you not confusing two issues here? THe reasons for fighting a war and the manner in which you fight it.
For example, woulda mass genocide committed by the Allies have been morally acceptable on the grounds that Hitler was worse? I doubt it.
THe morality of bombing urban areas is not a new argument and has nothing to do with men wearing dresses. It was long debated at the time and retains some of the original concerns. I think bomber command is fairly open about the fact that one of the big reasons for switching from military targets to cities was that they weren't actually capable of hitting the military targets- youcant miss a city.
Thin end of the wedge though, ain't it. Surely it's only a short step between that, and arguing that if that's the only way we can fight and win, it probably wasn't, and indeed, isn't, worth fighting in the first place and anyone who says different is basically a war criminal?
Maybe the notion of moral equivalence isnt terribly appropriate to war. It seems that once you have decided to fight a war it isnt going to help much if you sit around criticising the opposition's tactics.
We all have a go at the Germans (and rightly so) but as I understand it you were far better off being captured by them than the Japanese. Or even the Russians.
I had a go at the Germans this morning actually. After about seven decades of marriage, this particular one is still claiming that eggs and bacon and baked beans on toast and a few beers is not a healthy breakfast.
One is sometimes forced to wonder if the Allies hearts were really in it :-\
I'm not sure they've anything to be smug about, to be honest. It's all about breeding, ain't it. And they don't.
No, fighting wars is the easy bit; returning home and living in peace is the tricky part. Which is how the Golden Generation ended up raising their own subsequent generations of homos, harridans and and hippies and things have only continued to get steadily worse ever since.
Not at all. In fact, it's the other way about; civilians need to be kept well out of it.
As you put it, moral equivalence isn't terribly appropriate to war. Professional fighters know and accept this fact. And also its consequences. Forcing lots of civvies to accept it too, as they return to their families, their factories and their offices, poisons society for generations to come, as we see.
Nowadays, we know better. And we will recover, of course, but it was a lesson learned the hard way.