Nazis and Homosexuality

[Abhorsen]

You either do not use your brain,or you are troll.
But in case ,that you simly do not undarstandt written text,i educate you once more:

Following religion is always moral for people who belive in their religion.For Aztec people who would not tortured and killed children for Tlaloc would be immoral
For leftist in our times people who do not let kill children/abortion/,eldery/euthanasia/ are immoral,too.
And yes,marxism is religion,and people who belive in it should advocate genocide,they are no true marxist if they do not do that.

And since we do not knew for sure which morality is real till we meet God,all we could do here is demand logic from peple - if you belive in religion X,you must follow religion X or change it.
Thus protestants and jews must advocate death penalty for homosexuals,becouse that is what Jahwe did in Sodom.If they do no like that,they should change religion.
Just like leftist must demand killing children and eldery people.

If you still think that i advocate death penalty for anybody there,then you fall in logic on elementar school level.

I belive in morality from my religion - but i do not other to do the same.You should do the same.You are free to follow your leftist religion,but protestants and jews have the same rights.

So you are a cultural relativist, who can't call any moral system immoral. By your logic, Nazi's are moral if they kill Jews and immoral if they don't. So you don't even think that the Holocaust was immoral, or even ISIS apparently.

Also, I love how the cultural relativist is the one calling me a leftist. I lol'ed when I read this. If leftism means believing in the holocaust, then yeah, I guess that makes me a leftist, but I know a whole lotta rightwingers that would disagree with you.

And then, you didn't even address the fact that your precious book somehow has more logical holes than the communist manifesto.

 

[ATP]

So you are a cultural relativist, who can't call any moral system immoral. By your logic, Nazi's are moral if they kill Jews and immoral if they don't. So you don't even think that the Holocaust was immoral, or even ISIS apparently.

Also, I love how the cultural relativist is the one calling me a leftist. I lol'ed when I read this. If leftism means believing in the holocaust, then yeah, I guess that makes me a leftist, but I know a whole lotta rightwingers that would disagree with you.

And then, you didn't even address the fact that your precious book somehow has more logical holes than the communist manifesto.

???????
dude,are you OK?

Stating fact that there is no one human morality is not dennying Truth.
There is God,and there is Truth - but people do not akcnowldge that.And those who follow their false religions,like leftist should do it if they want remain logical.
We should expect it too.If we think that leftist would not genocide we are stupid,not Truth belivers.

And what "my book" ? i do not wrote any .Pink Swastica stated fact that homosexuals could made career in germany and remain homosexual - which mean that those who was killed was killed for being wrong kind of homosexual,not homosexual as a whole.
There were no good kind of jews,gypsies,or slavic people - germans sometimes declared that some of them are pure germans.
but there was good kind of german-aryan homosexuals.just like was good german astrology.

now,see differrence ?

 

[Abhorsen]

???????
dude,are you OK?

Stating fact that there is no one human morality is not dennying Truth.
There is God,and there is Truth - but people do not akcnowldge that.And those who follow their false religions,like leftist should do it if they want remain logical.

You aren't making any sense, which is typical for you, but I'll try to parse it out anyway and respond.

Believing that X is moral does not make X moral. It doesn't matter what your religion is, your beliefs, or whatever. Now, there are a range of reasonable disagreements over what is and isn't moral, then there is things that are clearly immoral, like murder and rape. Scott Lively tries to murder people, so he is clearly immoral.

But then, it doesn't even matter if he is immoral, what matters is if he shows clear bias. Just like one wouldn't trust a Red Sox fan to write an unbiased history of the New York Yankees, we can't trust a man who tries to murder gays when asked if Nazis murdered gays. He's obviously going to hide any comparison between the two.

And what "my book" ? i do not wrote any .

"Your precious little book" is a sarcastic way of referring to the Pink Swastika. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but one can't expect much intellect out of a holocaust denier.

Pink Swastica stated fact that homosexuals could made career in germany and remain homosexual - which mean that those who was killed was killed for being wrong kind of homosexual,not homosexual as a whole.
There were no good kind of jews,gypsies,or slavic people - germans sometimes declared that some of them are pure germans.
but there was good kind of german-aryan homosexuals.just like was good german astrology.

now,see differrence ?

Okay, but there's another book called The Annotated Pink Swastika that thoroughly disproves nearly everything the Pink Swastika claims. So no, there wasn't a difference, the Nazis would lock up or kill any Gays they could find, with a few, isolated exceptions. But these few, isolated exceptions also applied to the Polish and the Jews (a half Jew in the SS was convicted of war crimes against Jews, for example).

 

[ATP]

You aren't making any sense, which is typical for you, but I'll try to parse it out anyway and respond.

Believing that X is moral does not make X moral. It doesn't matter what your religion is, your beliefs, or whatever. Now, there are a range of reasonable disagreements over what is and isn't moral, then there is things that are clearly immoral, like murder and rape. Scott Lively tries to murder people, so he is clearly immoral.

But then, it doesn't even matter if he is immoral, what matters is if he shows clear bias. Just like one wouldn't trust a Red Sox fan to write an unbiased history of the New York Yankees, we can't trust a man who tries to murder gays when asked if Nazis murdered gays. He's obviously going to hide any comparison between the two.


"Your precious little book" is a sarcastic way of referring to the Pink Swastika. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but one can't expect much intellect out of a holocaust denier.


Okay, but there's another book called The Annotated Pink Swastika that thoroughly disproves nearly everything the Pink Swastika claims. So no, there wasn't a difference, the Nazis would lock up or kill any Gays they could find, with a few, isolated exceptions. But these few, isolated exceptions also applied to the Polish and the Jews (a half Jew in the SS was convicted of war crimes against Jews, for example).

I thought that you are troll - but you are only typical leftist from SB.Only difference is that they could banned me from that site./And they did it - good for them/

Your only arguments are,that:
1.Author of Pink swastika was protestant/jew who followed Jahwe approach to homosexuals,so we could not citate him.
Why homosexuals was named as sodomites till 21th century? becouse Jahwe burned then in Sodom.
Well,then all books written by followers of any religion could not be citated.
And leftist would be first,becouse they advocate genocide of unborn children.

2.You said He lied.Well,german homosexuals who did their duty to NSDAP and produced baby as future cannonfodder could remain homosexuals.
Jews and slavic people who was akcnowledged as germans could do not that.They could not remain jews/slavic people in their private lives.
Which means,that german prosecuted only part of homosexuals.Those spartan-like could privately remain themselves.

3.There are thing there are clearly immoral. really? for whom? Aztec considered people who do not killed children as immolar.
Leftist now are doing the same.For them,if you do not kill unborn baby,you are immoral.
People from India consider caste system as very moral,immoral are people who try fight it.

You abadonned God,but try to keep His universal morality.This is foolish.Universal morality need One God,that is why Christian,jews and muslims could belive in it.
For others - those who cling to universal morality are christian who abadonned God,but still want keep at least part of His morale.Completly illogical - if there is no God,then everybody is god.And if everybody is god,that everybody could dictate what is moral.

 

[Abhorsen]

I thought that you are troll - but you are only typical leftist from SB.Only difference is that they could banned me from that site./And they did it - good for them/

Again, not a leftist. Any evidence for that?

1.Author of Pink swastika was protestant/jew who followed Jahwe approach to homosexuals,so we could not citate him.
Why homosexuals was named as sodomites till 21th century? becouse Jahwe burned then in Sodom.

No, he is biased because he's an attempted mass murderer. I don't care what his religion is. I don't trust attempted mass murderers.

2.You said He lied.Well,german homosexuals who did their duty to NSDAP and produced baby as future cannonfodder could remain homosexuals.

So first, you didn't even refute that Scott Lively lied, or even say he didn't. You just argued something completely different. This is a fallacy called the non sequitur.

Second, even your non sequitur is wrong. Other than a few exceptions, if the Nazis thought you were gay, you were prosecuted. There were married gays with kids in the concentration camps for example. But you could use kids as a claim that since you had kids, you weren't gay.

3.There are thing there are clearly immoral. really? for whom? Aztec considered people who do not killed children as immolar.
Leftist now are doing the same.For them,if you do not kill unborn baby,you are immoral.
People from India consider caste system as very moral,immoral are people who try fight it.

You abadonned God,but try to keep His universal morality.This is foolish.Universal morality need One God,that is why Christian,jews and muslims could belive in it.
For others - those who cling to universal morality are christian who abadonned God,but still want keep at least part of His morale.Completly illogical - if there is no God,then everybody is god.And if everybody is god,that everybody could dictate what is moral.

I don't need a god to determine that murder is wrong. The fact that you apparently do makes me happy you found religion. Meanwhile, that's not how morality even works. By judging people by their standards you become a moral relativist.

Your only arguments are,that:

This is also not true at all. I've cited multiple sources, pointed out that the Germans did murder gays, and arrested about 50-100k gays. I've pointed out that Gustaf Grundgens being gay and safe wasn't unique to gays, as there were a few jews this worked for as well, etc. I've got a whole lot of arguments here.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I think it's crystal clear at this point that ATP has no interest in either coherent English grammar or good faith argument, given that he continually ignores evidence presented and grossly mischaracterizes all arguments made against his beliefs. Then again, ATP is the one who brought up this entire topic in the other thread, then cried that it was "off topic" to argue against his points!

To restate: no, the argument against The Pink Swastika is not "A Christian wrote it, therefore we dismiss it out of hand". The argument is that The Pink Swastika presents insufficient evidence for the sweeping conclusions it comes to, that it completely ignores rather than appropriately engaging the extensive evidence going counter to its conclusion; that moreover most of the "evidence" it presents has been firmly and specifically refuted by actual historians, and that the portions which are not specifically refuted are dishonestly exaggerated. Moreover, none of the authors of the work are bona fide historians or have any significant background in history, and the primary author is an American fundamentalist who is so rabidly extreme that he is outright and explicitly pro-genocide.

A fact which ATP cannot refute, and has been trying to dishonestly obfuscate with his entire extra-incoherent tangent about moral relativity.

 

[Deleted member]

ATP is Polish, and I expect you to give some allowance to our international posters for differences in grammar and spelling while understanding that these do not reflect any negative points. I doubt you could match his English grammar in Polish, to be blunt.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

ATP is Polish, and I expect you to give some allowance to our international posters for differences in grammar and spelling while understanding that these do not reflect any negative points. I doubt you could match his English grammar in Polish, to be blunt.

I have also responded to the substance of his arguments, at considerable length, and so has every other poster responding to him. "Some allowance" is reasonable, but it does not extend to blatantly arguing in bad faith, ignoring evidence and points raised by other posters, misrepresenting other posters, etc etc.

 

[Abhorsen]

explicitly pro-genocide

I'm not sure if targeting gays to be murdered en masse by the state. counts as genocide, as it's not due to their genes, race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity. I mean, it's equally bad, but I just don't know the word for it. That's why I just call Scott Lively an attempted mass murderer.

To restate: no, the argument against The Pink Swastika is not "A Christian wrote it, therefore we dismiss it out of hand".

One of my points is that "An attempted mass murderer wrote it, therefore we dismiss it out of hand". It's just that, according to @ATP, to be a good Jew or Protestant, one must attempt (or at least support) mass murder of gays, otherwise one isn't a good Jew/Protestant. Hence this then becomes what he's talking about. I've had to wade out deep into the stupid to figure the 'logic' out.

I have also responded to the substance of his arguments, at considerable length, and so has every other poster responding to him. "Some allowance" is reasonable, but it does not extend to blatantly arguing in bad faith, ignoring evidence and points raised by other posters, misrepresenting other posters, etc etc.

I think that's more on this comment:

ATP has no interest in either coherent English grammar

If you left this off (and to be fair, I had a jab about this earlier back), I think it would be fine.

 

[ATP]

I think it's crystal clear at this point that ATP has no interest in either coherent English grammar or good faith argument, given that he continually ignores evidence presented and grossly mischaracterizes all arguments made against his beliefs. Then again, ATP is the one who brought up this entire topic in the other thread, then cried that it was "off topic" to argue against his points!

To restate: no, the argument against The Pink Swastika is not "A Christian wrote it, therefore we dismiss it out of hand". The argument is that The Pink Swastika presents insufficient evidence for the sweeping conclusions it comes to, that it completely ignores rather than appropriately engaging the extensive evidence going counter to its conclusion; that moreover most of the "evidence" it presents has been firmly and specifically refuted by actual historians, and that the portions which are not specifically refuted are dishonestly exaggerated. Moreover, none of the authors of the work are bona fide historians or have any significant background in history, and the primary author is an American fundamentalist who is so rabidly extreme that he is outright and explicitly pro-genocide.

A fact which ATP cannot refute, and has been trying to dishonestly obfuscate with his entire extra-incoherent tangent about moral relativity.

If that made you happy,then belive in my bad faith.

Now,back to topic:

1.Facts are facts,no matter who wrote about them.Many historian wrote about how great Stalin,Mao and other genociders were - and so what? Marxist historians now replaced workers with womans and minorites,so they would not wrote bad about homosexual minority.
2.SA was purged and SS prosecuted homosexuals - but not all.
Those,who followed Karl Hildebrandt /he belived that germans should become spartan-like homosexuals/ have no problems as long as they were discreet and produced children.
3.There is no fundamentalist,only Protestants.You are either protestant,and then you must follow Jahwe literally,which means prosecuting homosexuals,or you are not protestant at all.
Unless you belive that Sweden is protestant country - where 16% of them belive in God,40% in UFO, but almost all oficially are protestants.
4.For idiots : i do not say that killing homosexuals is good or bad,but only that all protestants which treat their faith seriously
must advocate prosecuting and even killing them.
5.For idiots : I do not advocate moral relativity - there is one God and one morality.
But every faith had its own morality,and as long as people follow Faith X they must kill those who Faith X order to kill.
If they do not like that,they should change their faith.

 

[Abhorsen]

1.Facts are facts,no matter who wrote about them.Many historian wrote about how great Stalin,Mao and other genociders were - and so what? Marxist historians now replaced workers with womans and minorites,so they would not wrote bad about homosexual minority.

So those historians who wrote praises about marxism were writing facts then? Because facts are facts, no matter who writes it? Obviously not, they are liars. Why did they lie? Because they are biased and wanted they lies to be presented as true. Similarly, Scott Lively, who wants to murder gays and doesn't want to be thought evil for this, tried to frame gays as responsible for the holocaust, and so he lied about the holocaust.

2.SA was purged and SS prosecuted homosexuals - but not all.
Those,who followed Karl Hildebrandt /he belived that germans should become spartan-like homosexuals/ have no problems as long as they were discreet and produced children.

So first, Kurt (not Karl) Hildebrandt wasn't in the SS, or even associated with it. He was in the SHR (The Society for Human Rights, a gay rights organization).

3.There is no fundamentalist,only Protestants.You are either protestant,and then you must follow Jahwe literally,which means prosecuting homosexuals,or you are not protestant at all.
Unless you belive that Sweden is protestant country - where 16% of them belive in God,40% in UFO, but almost all oficially are protestants.

4.For idiots : i do not say that killing homosexuals is good or bad,but only that all protestants which treat their faith seriously
must advocate prosecuting and even killing them.

And here, you show how little you understand about religion.

5.For idiots : I do not advocate moral relativity - there is one God and one morality.
But every faith had its own morality,and as long as people follow Faith X they must kill those who Faith X order to kill.
If they do not like that,they should change their faith.

If you don't believe in relative morality, then someone following a different morality doesn't excuse their acts at all. But given that you keep using it as an excuse for their actions, you fail at this. You must do one or the other: either admit that, as an attempted mass murderer, Scott Lively is evil, or that you are using relative morality, or as a third option, claim that your morality says that attempted mass murder of gays for being gay is not evil. Choose one.

 

[ATP]

So those historians who wrote praises about marxism were writing facts then? Because facts are facts, no matter who writes it? Obviously not, they are liars. Why did they lie? Because they are biased and wanted they lies to be presented as true. Similarly, Scott Lively, who wants to murder gays and doesn't want to be thought evil for this, tried to frame gays as responsible for the holocaust, and so he lied about the holocaust.


So first, Kurt (not Karl) Hildebrandt wasn't in the SS, or even associated with it. He was in the SHR (The Society for Human Rights, a gay rights organization).


And here, you show how little you understand about religion.



If you don't believe in relative morality, then someone following a different morality doesn't excuse their acts at all. But given that you keep using it as an excuse for their actions, you fail at this. You must do one or the other: either admit that, as an attempted mass murderer, Scott Lively is evil, or that you are using relative morality, or as a third option, claim that your morality says that attempted mass murder of gays for being gay is not evil. Choose one.

I love leftist and their logic.
1.Nope - you do not undarstandt writen text.Facts are facts,which means that it is irrelevant if author is historian,or not.
And marxist historian always lied,both old Stalin version and new Soros version.
And Scott do not want murder homosexuals - Jahwe want it,so Scott is following his God will.
And becouse Jahwe want people tell truth,Scott as protestant would not lie for the same reason why he advocated killing homosexuals - becouse both is Jawhe will.
For idiots - i do not say,that it is good or bad,but that protestants must follow it.

2.Did i say that he was in SS? no,i said that homosexuals who followed him were no prosecuted as long as produced children and was discreet.

3.What i do not undarstandt? that people who belive in religion X must follow religion X? becouse that is what i wrote.
Or,maybe for you following religion means that people should do not follow it?

4.Do you really do not now how to read ?I do not excuse anybody,only stating that Scotty must follow his religion or change it.
And according to my religion killing homosexuals is bad - but people who do not belive in God,like you,must admitt that all kind of cultures are right and people there have right to their own morality,and anybody who deny that is fascist and nazis.

 

[Abhorsen]

I love leftist and their logic.

Again, not a leftist. Please cite evidence of me being a leftist.

1.Nope - you do not undarstandt writen text.Facts are facts,which means that it is irrelevant if author is historian,or not.
And marxist historian always lied,both old Stalin version and new Soros version.
And Scott do not want murder homosexuals - Jahwe want it,so Scott is following his God will.
And becouse Jahwe want people tell truth,Scott as protestant would not lie for the same reason why he advocated killing homosexuals - becouse both is Jawhe will.
For idiots - i do not say,that it is good or bad,but that protestants must follow it.

... But Scott Lively repeatedly lied. Like all throughout the books there are lies and lies and lies. Omissions, careful cuts, etc.

Second, claiming that Scott Lively is a good Christian, and thus never lies, is stupidly naive. We haven't even established if he is a good christian.

Third, you again seem to miss the analogy. The writer of any and every document has a bias that must be factored into account. Sometimes that bias is so severe that the document is worthless. This happens all the time with Marxists, yes. But it also happens with those that want X to be true. They sometimes alter the data to show X is true. Worse, sometimes they will lie, make up citations, purposely misquote people, and reference fake work they know to be fake, to end up with a fake book. That's what Scott Lively did.

2.Did i say that he was in SS? no,i said that homosexuals who followed him were no prosecuted as long as produced children and was discreet.

Here, you claim some sort of association or that at least some of the SS followed what Kurt Hildebrandt said (hence me saying he wasn't associated with the SS):

2.SA was purged and SS prosecuted homosexuals - but not all.
Those,who followed Karl Hildebrandt /he belived that germans should become spartan-like homosexuals/ have no problems as long as they were discreet and produced children.

But you still haven't shown any evidence of association between the two, just arbitrarily claimed a link between one person who allegedly believed in Germans becoming Spartan-like gays and the SS.

You have shown no link between these two statements, nor provided evidence for it.

3.What i do not undarstandt? that people who belive in religion X must follow religion X? becouse that is what i wrote.
Or,maybe for you following religion means that people should do not follow it?

No, it's that first, characterizing protestants as Biblical literalists is just wrong, as they aren't unified. Some Protestants are (and Scott Lively is), but many aren't. Second, even for those that do believe in this, few to none believe in the death penalty or for that matter most of the laws in the Torah, as there was a new Covenant from Jesus. So unless Scott Lively actually obeys every law in the Torah, the murder of gays is a bad interpretation of religion on top of his other idiocy.

Third, you show a lack of knowledge for Jewish law and what it demands, as for the past 2000 years, even Orthodox Rabbis have held that the Torah's entire system of capital punishment is not able to be done, as there is no Temple.

4.Do you really do not now how to read ?I do not excuse anybody,only stating that Scotty must follow his religion or change it.
And according to my religion killing homosexuals is bad - but people who do not belive in God,like you,must admitt that all kind of cultures are right and people there have right to their own morality,and anybody who deny that is fascist and nazis.

You excluded one of the possibilities, that you believe in killing gays. So you are now left with two possibilities: Either Scott Lively is an evil sonuvabitch for trying to murder gays, or morality is relative and there is nothing evil about Nazis murdering people because they were following their culture. Which one do you pick? Either Scott is evil, as religion is no excuse to people who don't believe in moral relativity, or you believe in moral relativity. Pick one.

The excuse that Scott Lively's religion demands that one does action Y is only an excuse to moral relativists. Otherwise, all that matters is action Y moral according to the observer's morality (in this case, the observer is you), not Scott Lively's morality. Unless you are a moral relativist, Scott Lively's religion doesn't matter unless it is your religion.

 

[ATP]

Again, not a leftist. Please cite evidence of me being a leftist.

... But Scott Lively repeatedly lied. Like all throughout the books there are lies and lies and lies. Omissions, careful cuts, etc.

Second, claiming that Scott Lively is a good Christian, and thus never lies, is stupidly naive. We haven't even established if he is a good christian.

Third, you again seem to miss the analogy. The writer of any and every document has a bias that must be factored into account. Sometimes that bias is so severe that the document is worthless. This happens all the time with Marxists, yes. But it also happens with those that want X to be true. They sometimes alter the data to show X is true. Worse, sometimes they will lie, make up citations, purposely misquote people, and reference fake work they know to be fake, to end up with a fake book. That's what Scott Lively did.


Here, you claim some sort of association or that at least some of the SS followed what Kurt Hildebrandt said (hence me saying he wasn't associated with the SS):


But you still haven't shown any evidence of association between the two, just arbitrarily claimed a link between one person who allegedly believed in Germans becoming Spartan-like gays and the SS.

You have shown no link between these two statements, nor provided evidence for it.




No, it's that first, characterizing protestants as Biblical literalists is just wrong, as they aren't unified. Some Protestants are (and Scott Lively is), but many aren't. Second, even for those that do believe in this, few to none believe in the death penalty or for that matter most of the laws in the Torah, as there was a new Covenant from Jesus. So unless Scott Lively actually obeys every law in the Torah, the murder of gays is a bad interpretation of religion on top of his other idiocy.

Third, you show a lack of knowledge for Jewish law and what it demands, as for the past 2000 years, even Orthodox Rabbis have held that the Torah's entire system of capital punishment is not able to be done, as there is no Temple.


You excluded one of the possibilities, that you believe in killing gays. So you are now left with two possibilities: Either Scott Lively is an evil sonuvabitch for trying to murder gays, or morality is relative and there is nothing evil about Nazis murdering people because they were following their culture. Which one do you pick? Either Scott is evil, as religion is no excuse to people who don't believe in moral relativity, or you believe in moral relativity. Pick one.

The excuse that Scott Lively's religion demands that one does action Y is only an excuse to moral relativists. Otherwise, all that matters is action Y moral according to the observer's morality (in this case, the observer is you), not Scott Lively's morality. Unless you are a moral relativist, Scott Lively's religion doesn't matter unless it is your religion.

1.If you belive that we must reject book written by protestant becouse he is protestant,that you are leftist.

2.Not christian - protestant.That is difference.Protestant are more jews then christian in their attitude - but they are big on Truth.Thus why Scott could as protestant wont homosexual dead - but also as protestants never lie about them.
And bias is something normal - but people like protestant would write that somebody should die,but not lie about him - becouse they belive in Truth.
Marxist belive that Truth not exist and only important thing is REVOLUTION - that is why their works are worthless.They wrote what in their opinion would help revolution in their times,facts are irrelevant.

3.You should learn to read.I said,that SS ignored those homosexuals who were Spartan-like and produced children,not that they were associated with homosexuals.

4.Protestants could not be united - but their entire reason for existence is Bible.And when Jesus said nothing about homosexuals,his Father,Jahwe,show what he think about them in Sodom.That is enough for average protestant who still belive in God.

5.dude,who teached you logic?
For Scott killing homosexuals is mandatory as long as he is Protestant.And he do not want kill homosexuals,God want it.Becouse all good protestants follow God will,not their own.

And on what authority you are condemn them? Absolute morality is possible only if we have One God.You abadonned Him,so you could not condemn other people,becouse in your world everybody could decide what is good.

Which mean,that i and other who belive in God could condemn Scott,but you not.
Tell me - if God do not exist,then why killing anybody,homosexual or not,is evil ?

 

[ShieldWife]

What is the point of this discussion exactly? Usually when people discuss Nazis these days, it’s because they want to link something that they don’t like to the Nazis. Is the idea here that homosexuality is bad because there were some gay Nazis?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

What is the point of this discussion exactly? Usually when people discuss Nazis these days, it’s because they want to link something that they don’t like to the Nazis. Is the idea here that homosexuality is bad because there were some gay Nazis?

That was exactly what ATP claimed; he then cried that it was "off topic" for others to respond to his own arguments, so the thread got split away from its original context.

The book ATP continues citing and defending goes quite a bit further than that, claiming that *most* of the Nazis were gay and denying that LGBT people were Holocaust victims. As has been pointed out by multiple posters, this is not supported by the actual evidence and has been methodically refuted by scholars, but ATP has aggressively ignored every argument except for the bias of the author, and continues to act as if that was the *only* argument people have made, while at the same time strawmanning that argument in order to claim that everyone arguing against the book is being knee-jerk anti-Christian.

 

[ShieldWife]

That is a very strange argument then. In fact, even if the Nazis were completely tolerant of homosexuality (which wasn’t the case) it would still be ridiculous to suggest that gays should be guilty by association.

 

[Big Steve]

That is a very strange argument then. In fact, even if the Nazis were completely tolerant of homosexuality (which wasn’t the case) it would still be ridiculous to suggest that gays should be guilty by association.

People get fixations, unfortunately, and it appears ATP has one on defending this particular book.

 

[ATP]

What is the point of this discussion exactly? Usually when people discuss Nazis these days, it’s because they want to link something that they don’t like to the Nazis. Is the idea here that homosexuality is bad because there were some gay Nazis?

Nope.Some of my oponents are unable to read my posts,but all i try to say is that germans genocided one kind of homosexuals,and tolerated other.
Nothing more,nothing less.


I simply correct fake news that all homosexuals were prosecuted just as jews,gypsies and slavic people - becouse spartan-style manly homosexuals could live and made career in Germany,when jews/slavic who did so must stop being jews/slavic people.
That is all.