Vain person asks about higher education valuability.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Sergio Morozov, Nov 25, 2011.

Remove all ads!
  1. Hugh Manetee

    Hugh Manetee Established Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one knows what the ayrans looked like they are believed to be a prehistoric people who lived in India and possibly Iran.
     
  2. GuardianAngel82

    GuardianAngel82 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    5
    Actually, they are probably from the same place as the rest of the Indo-Europeans and probably looked like Greeks or Iranians (Iran and Aryan are from the same word). The people there now are descended from the original IE's.

    The reason "Aryan" denotes blonde haired, blue-eyed is because Nazis were ignorant as well as crazy.

    This doesn't mean, however, that if Aryan's had moved into Northern Europe a couple of thousand years ago, that they wouldn't look like "Aryans", too.
     
  3. Hugh Manetee

    Hugh Manetee Established Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep there is nothing like combining supreme power with supreme ignorance.
     
  4. Rocktoy

    Rocktoy Established Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, brother. Exactly my point, but so much more understandable.

    Again. Correct. The axis between “good” and “evil” is a matter of perspective. And as the English say (?) “The road to Hell is pawed with good intentions”. Which means, as I understand it, that both the suicide bomber and the US marine shooting/bombing at some random bazaar may think that their cause is noble and that cause justifies their means. In the end they will be shaking hands in the very same circle of Hell.

    My prime sources for my master’s thesis are the last dying speeches of the executed prisoners in London during the years 1600 – 1800 AD. These texts are modern English? The spelling differs significantly during the centuries like: murther and murder. But they are still quite easy to read. Just like the difference between Icelandic “dottir“, and English “daughter”. The structure and syntax are the same. I am not native English speaker, my mother tongue is not even indo-European. I speak fluent (do I?) English, moderate Swedish, rudimentary Spanish, German and Latin. To me Anglo-Saxon is hard to read, but it is still just an ancient derivative of the old Germanic tongue, following the still present logic and syntax. I find it quite amusing that modern English speakers find that “unintelligible”, but then again my point of view is of one utterly outside.

    hymiö

    “towhead” ? Huh, never heard that one before, care to explain, no can find from dictionary? The “knob” is probably just some anomaly caused by some random genetic mutation; at least I can see no evolutionary adaptation behind it. Unlike the blue/light sensitive eyes adapted to the illuminative conditions of the north, or the fair skin that is adapted to maximize vitamin D synthesis in light deprived regions. Nevertheless the “knob” is a present and definitive genetic trait.

    All indo-European (Caucasian) babies are born with blue eyes to conceal the true identity of the father. With toddlers the paternally definitive feature would be facial bone structure; newly borns tend to resemble their father, to avoid partial abandon (same reason with the eye color). The hair color is less definitive, the darker colors tend to fade and the lighter ones tend to darken due the effect of sunlight. I was born with blue eyes and platinum white hair, now I have to be satisfied with golden hair. My elder brother has reddish brown hair and green eyes (like my father’s mother) and my younger brother has chestnut hair and chocolate eyes (like my mother’s mother). Our mother is a classic blond (with the mental traits) and our father has brown eyes and black hair. Still, I and my brothers share the same facial bone structure as our father (and paternity has been confirmed by blood tests, since we all have been hospitalized in the past). Genetic traits leaping over generations, nevertheless, the one thing we all share in common is the “knob”. Ever so interesting…

    How I see it is: if one is willing to pass judgment over past ill acts of others one should be sure one’s own past is ill free, or one is a hypocrite. How Christian of me, but I do not know it is said English… (“Pass no judgment… ?”)




    I have no idea what “US Census” is, but I have no reason to dispute its numbers. That only confirms what I suspected before. Then again, as an anthropologist (minor subject maybe, still worth for bachelors degree) I just concentrate in these cultural phenomenon’s and their parallel applications. There should be 5% of any given population (according to English Wikipedia up to 10% and according to Finnish Wikipedia 20%, so I will settled with number I learnt in my alma mater) lefthanders, but can you recall their number in presented media? For example Game of the Thrones has a large number of characters presented in every episode, but only one that is clearly left-handed (Arya Starkk), but I cannot be sure wheter that is because the character is left-handed or because the actress is lefthanded (she does grab the wooden practice sword tossed by the dancing master with her right hand). Anyways, my point being: where can we Europeans flee from our governments who have centuries history of oppression and censorship, if the land of the free have already succumbed to governmental issued censorship (political correctness)? The very cornerstone of democracy is unhindered freedom of speech and expression.



    Firstly the UN may not be a court, but it is still the only international forum most of the world nations rely on. The occupation of Iraq was not technically against UN laws, as Iraq was not a member of the UN atm. But get down from your high horse and admit the facts: there were two international courts in Hague: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_Rwanda). Both with limited space and time of jurisdiction. THE only permanent and sovereign international court (also found in Hague) is International Criminal Court /http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC), in which the US is not a member (due the aforementioned reasons), so do not refer to international laws as long as you government ingoners them. Unless ofcourse your sole purpose is to rise my bloodpresure.



    Well, they kinda started the whole holocaust thing during the “reqonqista”, but then again who could blame them?

    And which world court you are referring to? I am not aware of any such international body that the US is defacto (that means legally AND morally) bound by the letter of such agreement. Feel free to educate me. “I feel so” or “I think so” just does not suffice, until such evidence SHUT UP.

    PERKELE!!! Argh. What can I say? This requires every bit of my self restrain to even answer. The communist side and their progeny (the red) in Finland still see the Marshals as the great butcher, since he led the white army and the 27th Jäger Battalion in our civil war to victory. Even if the Reds disliked and feared the white General, they still followed him to the Winter War. To us the Marshal is a godlike figure. Never invoke his name in vain, unless you are looking for lifelong enemies.



    Austrians are of the same heritage and cultural sphere as the Germans, but for those who are aware of the European history the distinction is self evident. Still you fell in the trap: facial bone structure is inherited but bone density and height are matters of nutrition (among matter of heritage). Are you a jewfish imposer?
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  5. Gaear

    Gaear Bastard Maestro Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    11,002
    Likes Received:
    24
    @Rocktoy, starting now you will begin receiving infractions for any forum rule violations you commit. I'd suggest you review the forum rules listed in the Announcements, and also keep in mind the more specific warnings you've received here. There will be no further leeway given.
     
  6. Cujo

    Cujo Mad Hatter Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,634
    Likes Received:
    1
    English spoken since the 17th century is very modern English, to hear someone speak from that time wouldn't sound strange to modern speakers' ears (The Great Vowel Shift was a major change in the pronunciation of the English language that took place in England between 1350 and 1500). I guess if you're fluent in german you could understand some of Old English as basicly it was middle german, although I don't know how much german has changed in the last 1000 years, but the differences between Old English and what we use today are so many that its pretty much as different as modern English is with modern Russian - they both share some common words, but the grammar and most of the vocabulary and alphabet are different ...

     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  7. Scryler

    Scryler Night's Wordsmith

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    4
    Nearly colorless blond hair, common for blondes during early childhood. Sounds like you were a 'towhead.'

    Also common at birth, I was born with luxurious black hair and eyelashes that, according to my mother, were so long they laid on my cheekbones. Hair and eyelashes fell out shortly after birth and I was essentially bald for a year. Alas for the eyelashes, they grew in short.

    The majority of my family genetics is Swedish & English. Nearly pure Swedish I guess, but the English side wandered all over, so Welsh, Scottish and Irish ancestors on that side of the family.
     
  8. erkper

    erkper Bugbear Monk Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    6
    Wait, I am a hypocrite now? I am not the President of the United States, I am not a policymaker or employee of the US government, and I do not speak for the United States of America. I am simply an individual who sees an act of barbarity and, using my own judgement and morals, speak out against it. I have already, multiple times even, acknowledged my home country has committed acts which I also consider morally indefensible, so how am I a hypocrite in this situation?

    The concept of "political correctness" is not originated by the US government, but mainly by those known in the US as the liberals (as opposed to the conservatives.) In the US two-party system, liberals are mostly associated with the Democratic party (who nominated and elected President Obama) and conservatives with the Republicans (who nominated the Bushes.) There are exceptions, the US Representative to Congress from my district is widely known as a fairly liberal Republican. The PC concept is widely supported by the major media moguls of Hollywood, leading to some pretty off-base presentation of American realities and ideals in movies these days. I detest political correctness.

    Actually as UN resolutions created the two tribunals you mentioned, I stand corrected somewhat in my statement on the UN. It is in itself not a court, but it can and does have authority to create tribunals to prosecute crimes against humanity... which it has never done regarding the US treatment of Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Gitmo detainees. Thank you for pointing that out.

    Oh, and the Spanish case you talked about? From what I have read, no formal charges have ever been brought against the Bush 6 (which did not include President Bush, btw) and the Spanish prosecutor in question has dragged his "investigation" out for three years now, receiving heavy pressure from his own government to drop the proceedings entirely.

    [edit]- Interestingly, the International Court of Justice (the World Court) ruled in 2002 that State officials such as the Bush Six have immunity from prosecution under the Spanish concept of universal jurisdiction. ICJ did allow that an international criminal court such as the war crimes tribunals above or the ICC would have jurisdiction to prosecute State officials in such circumstances. Still waiting for it to happen, though...

    Well, as an individual who detests the ill-treatment of innocents due to bigotry and religious differences, I would blame them.

    I refer to THE World Court, the International Court of Justice, of which all 193 UN members are parties. The US chose in 1986 not to accept the World Court ruling that it's support of insurgents in Nicaragua was in violation of international law, and the US lost much international presitge and respect because of that decision. As an individual living in the US (and not a spokesman for the United States government) I would quickly state that I wish the US had not withdrawn from compulsory jurisdiction, but I do not have the power to make it so, nor did I have the power as a then-teenager to stop it.

    Frankly, the concept of a lifelong enemy does not really phase me. Instead, I'd rather you actually answer my question. You stated Oscar Schlindler went down in history as a "good" man and Amon Goeth as "bad" because Amon supported the Nazi "Final Solution" agenda and Oscar worked against it, then the Nazis lost. You further stated "right" and "wrong" were dictated by the victors of conflict, not by any true morality. If that is so, why is Marshal Mannerheim not considered a "bad" man? He allied your country with the losing side of the war, did he not? Using your rules, shouldn't history judge him exactly the same as it does Amon Goeth? Or is there perhaps something else going on? Hmm...

    I could care less about any "trap." I based my statement on the Nazi definition of "Arayan" - as you seemed to: tall, blonde, blue eyed. Anything else is semantics. Hitler (short, dark haired, and brown eyed) would have been an outcast in his own perfect society. That is historical irony if ever it existed.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2012
  9. Rocktoy

    Rocktoy Established Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    At the time of John the king was only the primus inter pares with the noble houses, but unlike other European kings, he failed to keep the lords at bay. So he had to sign the letter to confirm the rights of the nobility at present and for all times to come. I.E. the letter was only a confirmation of the (previously informal) rights of the nobility. It took centuries before the aforementioned principle of habeas corpus was introduced to influence the life of the commoners.


    I would see those documents to be more like legal/legislative in nature since they still have such paramount effect in the everyday lives of the citizens in US and the continuity they represent. In comparison our constitution was (yet again) rewritten by the parliament just few months ago. (This time they added the clausal that: “we are a member of EU”, thus barring any future government to oppose the irresistible progress of evolving the EU to “EC” [European confederation]). My point being, here it is only a mundane thing to rewrite constitution, but I have never heard that the US constitutional texts to be re-edited? If only things would be the same here… Your rights are everlasting; ours depend on the mercy of our current parliament. Yes, envy again in my voice.

    On the other hand I was waiting for a refer to the Scotsman Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. This of course, only reveals the inherit Eurocentrism of my education. I am ashamed to admit that I have never heard of any other publication apart from the constitution etc. by those persons you mentioned. Shall the great maker grant me the time and wisdom, I shall learn their tale.






    Perhaps, because I do not communicate here with my mother tongue; my interpretation of your posts was that the westerners did all the work, and the easterners benefitted from the spoils of the war. Language barrier may be an easy answer, but my experience in this forum tells me that misunderstanding is almost inevitable.

    Firstly, I would appreciate if you wouldn’t call Hitler “Idiot”, few with that kind of mental handicap have ever managed to affect the lives of countless millions. But say what you will, I am freeborn, I leave the bitching and moaning to the jews, niggers and other lesser (definition of a lesser: those who rather cry out injustice/racism/prejudice/etc. to gain some benefits rather that actually work to gain the same).

    And I do agree (as Anthony Beevor states) that the downfall of the Reich begun when Hitler assumed the rank of the high commander. Adolf was a war hero honored with the coveted Iron Cross, nevertheless he never rose beyond the rank of sergeant (? unsure for the translation of the rank) and giving the ultimate power to a petty officer (?) is always foolish. But I can clearly see that you have not read your Mein Kamph; Hitler never sook for war of two fronts. Führer never anticipated (after the appeasement policy) that the old empires would be willing to wage war over something as pathetic as Poland. His war was a crusade against the Bolsheviks and the Zionists not against the westerners. Why did Hitler not try to invade the Islands? According to Mein Kamph, Hitler wanted to form an alliance with the neutral colonies (the very incarnation of the supremacy of the Aryan race), but to invade their slave master would have caused them to join the war, but for the wrong side. It was the short-sightedness of the Samurai that finally set the cards.

     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2012
  10. Rocktoy

    Rocktoy Established Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read and weep:
     

    Attached Files:

  11. erkper

    erkper Bugbear Monk Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    6
    I suspect a ban hammer cometh.

    I believe you misinterpret "idiot" to be synonymous with "retarded" or "mentally handicapped." I would never use a person's unfortunate, undeserved birth defect as an insult. "Idiot" just means a person is stupid, and does stupid things.

    Hitler was not an idiot because he didn't believe England and France would declare war when he invaded Poland, Hitler was an idiot because (against the advice of his generals) he ordered Operation Barbarossa to commence before he had neutralized England. Thus he actively created a two front war to fight. It was stupid, and the Reich fell because of his stupidity. It was only one of many stupid decisions Hitler made in the war, but it was the grandest of them all and that bit of idiocy more than anything else cost him the war.

    Hitler fully planned to invade England, he had Operation SeaLion drawn up and ready to go pending the Luftwaffe's destruction of the RAF. Unfortunately for the Nazis, Hitler chose this situation to once again meddle in things he did not understand. With the RAF on the verge of collapse, he ordered Goering to stop bombing airbases and radar installations and to begin terror bombing of British cities. He hoped to break the Brits' morale, but effectively gave the RAF both more resolve, and the relief they needed to replenish their forces. It didn't take long for the rejuvinated RAF to knock the
    Luftwaffe out of British airspace for good. Yet another of Adolph's stupid decisions that cost dearly.

    As I have pointed out, the US was already getting more and more involved in the war even before the Japanese "woke the sleeping tiger" as Admiral Yamamoto put it, and American entry into the war was probably an eventuality regardless. Pearl Harbor sped up the process, and certainly galvanized the US population's sentiment against the Axis powers. That Hitler believed the US would ever ally with him is yet more proof of his insanity and lack of intelligence.
     
  12. GuardianAngel82

    GuardianAngel82 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    5
    The Germans were no more ignorant than anyone else at the time. They knew full well who the Aryans were. It was Nazi ideology that was at fault. Blonde hair haired, blue-eyed is only a "race" in some sort of poetic sense. As you know, they were "caucasians" who had immigrated into Northern Europe, having originated in several different language groups. Looking alike doesn't make you alike.

    The Aryan people are still around, though by now they have adapted to their local enviroments in places like Iran and Northern India. Buddha was probably Aryan, but not the Vikings.

    Adolph Hitler was brilliant, but under-educated and emotionally disfunctional, hence ignorant and crazy. I claim his regime was "evil" because it was so self-destructive and murderous. The Italians were Fascists for a longer period, yet somehow managed not to systematically execute millions of people.

    Finnish political stances during the middle of the 20th century were probably guided more by pragmatic considerations than by "honor" or ideology.

    As for your continuous use of innaccurate, insulting epitaths to refer to large groups of people, you should keep in mind that your indifference to the feelings engendered by these expressions tends to make all of us look like we are so indifferent. So the forum leaders are obligated to control it.
     
  13. Rocktoy

    Rocktoy Established Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed, you are not responsible for the past or present US policies. Most likely I judged you as a hypocrite not because what you have said and done, nore what your government has said and done, but most likely because you disagreed with me. And for that I apology.



    The domestic political system of the US is utterly alien to me; I am more used to multi-party system. Would it be correct to say that the democrats lay on the political center to the political left, and the republicans inhabit the center to the right? That, of course, is only a crude generalization, since for example the very definition of extreme left or right are questionable (i.e. some parties here may have associations with both extremes, like the Christian democrats who are in the extreme left in questions of the social politics, center with the economics and far right with the immigrant issue). I guess I again agree with you; political correctness/sensitivity is the first step to inhibit open discussion on any matter?



    Actually as UN resolutions created the two tribunals you mentioned, I stand corrected somewhat in my statement on the UN. It is in itself not a court, but it can and does have authority to create tribunals to prosecute crimes against humanity... which it has never done regarding the US treatment of Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Gitmo detainees. Thank you for pointing that out. [/QUOTE]

    And which it will never do hence, Iraq is not an UN member and thus not under its jurisdiction. What comes to the Gitmo or Afghans, neither can hope any sympathy from the UN, since the US is a permanent member of the Security Council of UN, which has the right to approve or disapprove a founding of any such court, the US can always use their veto. ICC is not an organization founded under a mandate of the UN but it is a separate organization based on a bundle of international contracts. The very reason why it was founded this way was that no-one in the Security Council would have accepted it.

    What is “Bush 6”? Never heard of that expression. Well it is no secret that the Spaniards are in the verge of bankrupt like all the other Catholic Euro countries (do I smell my third infractions here?) and as close allies of the US it serves their agenda to sweep the whole mess under the rug and receive all those dollars the US are willing to lend them. Political corruption, always a pleasant sight.

    Can you give me a reference to that, never heard of it? In theory ICJ should have no authority over ICC since ICJ is and UN organ and ICC is not. But since the member states of ICC are all also members of the ICJ I can see such clausal possible. Corruption to the grandest it is, as I have said before: justice is ONLY dependable on the sword of the strongest. How it saddens me.



    You did not live under the Moorish Spain, you did not live during the reconquista. Are you even aware (stupid question, mayhaps, but here in Europe US education system is considered less than good. No offence, my knowledge of US history is as vague as it gets) what preceded that? You do not share the historical nor the cultural sphere of those who lived in Spain half a millennia ago, if you choose to judge their actions by your morals (which would have been utterly alien to them), I say hypocrite.



    Thank you for the clarification. As asked before a reference would be nice, I gather it is the ICJ you are talking about? A court under the jurisdiction of the UN Security Council (and primarily funded by the US, hardly an independent tribunal, unlike the modern ICC). Also 1986 was during the cold war while loss of “prestige” meant nothing, the blocks were there and no-one could stand in the middle. US lost “prestige” but no-one was tried for war crimes, because the Soviets would have not allowed it. Should the US be tried (fairly) malefactors form the USSR would face the same court, and in bipolar world that would never happen.



    I do not know what “phase” means? I said that the goodness and evilness of Amon and Oscar are matters of perspective. I do not recall referring to any “true morality”. I quickly read my posts and could not find reference to any such term. Please, clarify.

    What comes to the Marshal, (Hail, Hail, Hail!) he is beyond any and all criticism, he and he alone is responsible for the very survival of my people. Those who underrate his legacy should suffocate in their own blood.

    What comes to Him allying with the losing side, that does not make him as an equal with Amon. The latter died hanged by the victors, the former expired in some comfy Swiss Krankenhaus. Amon never abolished his Nazi convictions; the Marhsall had no Nazi conviction to startup with. But I admit, my stance towards the Marshall is as its best ambivalent, as its worst paradoxical. Whenever I visit my grandfather (veteran of the winter war, age 90) he still recites past commandments of the Marshall (Alzheimer have taken the rest). I gave my oath to the very same flag that the Marshall flailed against the Red rebels in 1918, not a copy, not a re-print, but to the very same fabric, as a Jäger. I may never accept his backstabbing policy, nor his choice of allegiance, but nevertheless his is my Marshall. The one whose legacy and nation I have swearn to protect till the day I die. I guess, I still left you question unanswered, I am sorry, this is the best I can do. Even us northmen, are sometimes blinded by emotion. (Btw, if you have seen the TV series Firefly… the losing side may not have been the wrong side…)



    And I based my “requirements(?)” in the contemporary anthropology, the irony of that…

    Kinda weird, I was anticipating the very same. Gaear has given me two warnings so far, and I have no idea how many warnings I can collect before my ass is history. But I guess I will find that out quite too soon. The reason for my first “infraction” is somewhat vague to me, but the second came as ordered… and so will all the rest, I guess.


    To my knowledge “idiot” refers to a person who is handicapped in birth and has less than a 70
    IQ, but I can be mistaken.


    Ah. come on. Everyone was ignorant at that time. Their entire notion of the “Aryan” race was I figment of the Ultima Thule, at the time. They had no notion of DNA or proof of heritage, only wild guesses. How they saw the “Aryan” race was just as what they wanted to see it. What contemporary science has to offer, is entirely different question.

    Depends on how you determine “Aryan”. Though, I am more interested in why to determine.

    Italians were fascists, and surprisingly gave the name to the fascist ideologies (named after the revival ancient Roman tradition to bear the death masks of departed family members in funerals). Fascism is distinctly different policy than the “Nazional Socialism”, a hybrid of Marxist socialism and Bismarckian nationalism. What comes to the accomplish of the “latins”, their glory days ended during the fifth century (fourth

    Finnish political stances during the middle of the 20th century were probably guided more by pragmatic considerations than by "honor" or ideology.

    As for your continuous use of innaccurate, insulting epitaths to refer to large groups of people, you should keep in mind that your indifference to the feelings engendered by these expressions tends to make all of us look like we are so indifferent. So the forum leaders are obligated to control it.[/QUOTE]
     
  14. erkper

    erkper Bugbear Monk Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    6
    Your understanding of the US political system is as accurate as any, mine included. As is your view of the PC movement.

    And yet the ICJ took the 1986 case involving the United States and Nicaragua, and ruled against the pursemaster. Funny how that happened... And since when has the UN ever limited itself to actions involving member nations?

    Seriously? By what name do you know the Spanish case? And just for the record, the Spanish investigation does not include Bush Jr or Blair, but is focused on six former US Goverment officials: Alberto Gonzalez, John Yoo, Douglas Feith, William Haynes II, Jay Bybee, and David Addington. Also, there are no indictments, just a stalled investigation. (The prosectutor has ignored the wishes of the Spanish Attorney General to drop the investigation, but has not brought forth enough evidence to file any idictments, either.)

    All this info from Cujo's link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Six


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction#Immunity_for_state_officials



    Neither of us lived in the US in the 18th or 19th century, either - yet you have brought that into the conversation. Are your morals less hypocritical than mine?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

    In truth, the case did proceed in the middle of the cold war, and the US was found guilty of multiple counts and ordered to pay reparations to Nicaragua. The case was withdrawn by Nicaragua in 1992 after the Nicuraguan Sandinista goverment was voted out and the new goverment sought a more friendly relationship (and associated foreign aid) from the US.

    Wow, speculative history based on a fictional TV series. Very... umm... innovative. I never had the opportunity to watch Firefly, but I have seen or read similar concepts before. I do not remember the author or name of the series, but there was an interesting set of books which was based on the premise that the Confederates had won the US Civil War. Like I said, it can be interesting... but so heavily influenced by the author's preconceptions as to be indistinguishable from any other form of fantasy.

    Oh, and in this context, "phase" was synonymous with "bother." The "true morality" was my own usage, not yours. I simply meant that humanity does indeed encompass some sense of right and wrong that supercede all else, including culture, philosophy, religion, or as you put it, "perspective." 6 million murders is wrong, is evil, in any time, in any circumstance. Period.

    As I said, you mis-interpret "idiot" to mean the same as "retarded" or "mentally handicapped." They do not mean the same thing.
     
  15. GuardianAngel82

    GuardianAngel82 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    5
    The concept of an "Indo-European" language group dates from the 16th century. A fairly defined structure for the language group was in place by the end of the 19th century. The fact that Schicklegruber even knew the word was because most liberal arts eduacations included the the concepts in their curriculum. The Aryan invasion has been a well-known part of Indian history for centuries before any concept of an Indo-European language group existed.

    None of this was based on on genetic research. That is going to show that people who are blonde haired, blue eyed aren't necessarily related to each other.

    MY definition of Aryan is irrelevant. The name has belonged for millenia to a group of peoples who still live in Persia (since the Mittanni) and northern India. It is not a matter of Nazi opinion.
     
Our Host!