| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What Kind Of People Are Teaching Our Children | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 31 2005, 11:11 PM (2,988 Views) | |
| cmoehle | Feb 6 2005, 05:00 PM Post #31 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
His explanation fits the whole of his earlier writing. If you want to quote out of context and base your judgment on your own associations, feel free. Would you also remove his right to speak freely? That is what all the vitriol is about. While I do not agree with his opinion, I would not deny his right to voice it. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cruiser | Feb 6 2005, 05:41 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Member
|
Even though I am an a American, who served my country, I feel that what he has postulated lets me reflect about where we are going and what we have done in the past. He gives us a lot of food for thought and if you cannot digest it, to bad! |
|
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction. Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) | |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Feb 6 2005, 09:40 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Member
|
Where did I say that he had no right to say what he said? I just answered your question..."Help us out, where exactly is he "comparing victims of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack to Nazis"? He called them little Eichmanns, Eichmann was a Nazi. Not too hard to figure out now is it. "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." That is not quoted out of context. Those are his words and not my interpretation. If you don't like it, too bad. Neither do I. You seem to accept his belated back-pedaling explanation that was used to try to cover his ass rather than his original words. Why? |
|
Jim Pennsylvania in the Summer Florida in the Winter | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 6 2005, 10:53 PM Post #34 |
|
Member
|
While this American hater has the right to say whatever he wants to say, should he be allowed to teach those things to our children? He is a professor at the University of Colorado and is invited to speak at other institutions because of his position at the UofC. That gives him a pulpit to present his views to all that will listen. Suffice it to say that just because he is a professor and he is teaching young immature minds they will believe what he says. If he wants to stand on a street corner and say whatever he wants then I would defend that right. In fact I have done it already. What I object to is him saying those things to our children who have to be there to listen to him or get bad grades. Because he is an authority figure they tend to believe him. I question whether he should be allowed to say such things in the setting he has. Now at least, since his views have been made public by his own writings, he will have to suffer the consequences of what he says and teaches. That is only fair. People judge you by what you say. Should he be forgiven just because he is an educator? I think not. The really bad thing about this situation is that people defend him, no matter what he has said. They try to excuse it but people just don't buy it. |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 7 2005, 05:22 AM Post #35 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
He didn't backpedal, Jim. His later explanation sticks t his earlier point. It is your interpretation. Eichmann as explained was not a convicted Nazi and the comparison was not with the victims of 9/11. Note, he was not calling anyone anything, he was making an analogy, not with a Nazi criminal but a technocrat for that empire. But, you see, you'd have to actually read all of the piece to get that, not quote out of context: By removing it from the context of the entire piece he wrote, you have changed its meaning to suit your purpose--that, btw, is what quoting out of context is all about, linked for your convenience. Are you backpeddling, Jim? If you aren't questioning his right to make that analogy, then why do you find it necessary to accuse him of saying something he didn't, calling 9/11 victims Nazis, and support your accusation with a common logical fallacy? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 7 2005, 05:33 AM Post #36 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Cal, where do you see him saying he hates America? Where do you see him calling 9/11 victims Nazis? And, more importantly, where do you see it said that is what he teaches in the classroom? And who do you consider children? The same men and women eligible to fight our wars? The really bad thing is the McCarthyesque witchhunt behind the misinterpretations and misrepresentations of what he says from people who apparently don't want others to think critically. You want him banned from teaching because he expresses what he believes yet in other threads you whine about Christian clubs not being able to express their beliefs and exclude gays. Be careful what you wish for. When the banning of freedom on our campuses begins with hate it will include that as well. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 7 2005, 04:10 PM Post #37 |
|
Member
|
How can you possibly call this a witch hunt? Must you continue to defend this NUT? You can't pass it off by saying he explained what he meant in a later statement. The fact is He said those things and meant every word of it. You would have to be ignorant to not notice what he said in his statement or else thought it not important enough to read. Don't say he didn't call those in the twin towers "little Eichmanns" because he has been quoted here several times saying exactly that. He says our bombings of Iraq were a Class 1 crime "against humanity." He also says we have killed 500,000 children. What planet has this nut been on? He says we have killed 100,000 civilians on the "highway of death." Tens of thousands of innocent civilians in bombing Baghdad. A few hundred thousand elsewhere. This guy is simply off his rocker. He makes up those figures and we all know it. We were very careful to pin point the strikes to minimize any civilian loss and it worked very well. He doesn't even know know many people live in Iraq. He says 18 million and their population is 25 million even after Hussein killed 10,000,000 in the 35 years he has been in power. He doesn't mention any of that of course. He says we have performed genocide for many years against the Iraqi people and they finally responded on 9/11. C'mon. Years of genocide??? He also stated they "did not license themselves to target innocent civilians." Who does he think occupied the twin towers? He calls our combat teams "evil." "Mass murderers of Iraqi children." He says "unquestionably America has 'earned it.'" He says the Iraqis need to kill 7.5 million more Americans to just break even. He further states "the dosage of medicine administered (to Americans) was entirely insufficient to accomplish its purpose." Chris you are way way off base here defending this guy. This is not a case of free speech. This is a severe "hate America" speech and it would be strange that you would not know that. How can you even ask "where in his essay did he say he hates America?" Don't defend this guy. He isn't worth spitting on. Your credibility is certainly hurting with your defensive posture here. All true Americans should hate this guy. |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 7 2005, 04:20 PM Post #38 |
|
Member
|
![]() Adolf Eichmann, Germany 1940 Not a Nazi---Hmnnn! Maybe a little history lesson is in order. SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962) was head of the Department for Jewish Affairs in the Gestapo from 1941 to 1945 and was chief of operations in the deportation of three million Jews to extermination camps. He joined the Austrian Nazi party in 1932 and later became a member of the SS. In 1934 he served as an SS corporal in the Dachau concentration camp. That same year he joined the SD and attracted the attention of Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. By 1935 Eichmann was already working in the Jewish section, where he was investigating possible "solutions to the Jewish question." He was even sent to Palestine to discuss the viability of large scale immigration to the Middle East with Arab leaders. British authorities, however, forced him to leave. With the takeover of Austria in March 1938, Eichmann was sent to Vienna to promote Jewish emigration. He set up the Zentralstelle fuer juedische Auswanderung [Center for Jewish Emigration], which was so successful that similar offices were soon established in Prague and Berlin. In 1939 Eichmann returned to Berlin, where he assumed the directorship of Section IV B4, Jewish affairs and evacuation, in the Reich Security Main Office. It was Eichmann who organized the Wannsee Conference of January 1942, which focused on issues related to the "final solution of the Jewish question." From this point Eichmann assumed the leading role in the deportation of European Jews to the death camps, as well as in the plunder of their property. At the end of the war, Eichmann was arrested and confined to an American internment camp, but he was able to escape unrecognized. He fled to Argentina and lived under the assumed name of Ricardo Klement for ten years until Israeli Mossad agents abducted him in 1960 to stand trial in Jerusalem. The controversial and highly publicized trial lasted from April 2 to August 14, 1961. Eichmann was sentenced to death and executed in Ramleh Prison on May 31, 1962. |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 7 2005, 04:27 PM Post #39 |
|
Member
|
Try reading it this time and show us how it is taken out of context: "As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 7 2005, 05:16 PM Post #40 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Cal, I just love it when you twist and distort what I say to suit your purpose. I find it quite amusing. For example, I say convicted Nazi and point out the analogy concerned technocratic support for that empire. What do you do, you twist that into me saying he was not a Nazi and give me an arrogantly stated history lesson. Yet for all you say about Eichmann he was never convicted of any crime. My my. Another example is you saying "You can't pass it off by saying he explained what he meant in a later statement. " Where do you come up with that nonsense? What I said was his later statement fits his initial statement. Neither of which fit the misrepresentation you are arguing. Most of all I just love your baiting tactic here. Consider. You start a topic on a forum. Doing so implies opening a topic for free discussion. Discussion that should look critically at what was said by him and critically at what is said by his detractors. And examine their motives and agendas. All that should be freely discussed. But you are not. Look at what you do. When someone takes your bait, you poison the well of free discussion by implying anyone who would defend his right to say what he says is out of line and lacking in credibility. Thing is, Cal, this tactic of yours is very transparent and shows your agenda: To stifle free speech. For shame, Cal. That stance is truly unAmerican. If you want to continue this discussion freely, it is for you to show that your interpretation of his analogy with the little Eichmanns can be stretched without breaking to all you hope might be implied if he had said Nazis. To do so you would need to draw from only his essay and subsequent explanation--you cannot embellish it with your interpretation. Good luck. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 7 2005, 06:57 PM Post #41 |
|
Member
|
Chris Maybe you should read your posts again. Sorry but you were the one who said Eichmann was not a Nazi. You were the one who said he was not talking about the victims of 9/11. You are the one who said he “explained” later what he really meant. You are the one who said he was never convicted of a crime when in fact he was convicted and executed for his crimes. You are the one who says there is no evidence he hates America. I believe those on this forum can read the post themselves and see exactly what has been said and what has been proven. I suspect most of them have actually read what the guy said and knows how much he hates America. I just can’t see why you would still defend him. |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 7 2005, 07:09 PM Post #42 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Cal, the dostortions just continue don't they. Cal "Sorry but you were the one who said Eichmann was not a Nazi. You were the one who said he was not talking about the victims of 9/11. You are the one who said he was never convicted of a crime when in fact he was convicted and executed for his crimes. You are the one who said he “explained” later what he really meant." I said "Eichmann as explained was not a convicted Nazi and the comparison was not with the victims of 9/11. Note, he was not calling anyone anything, he was making an analogy, not with a Nazi criminal but a technocrat for that empire....His explanation fits the whole of his earlier writing. If you want to quote out of context and base your judgment on your own associations, feel free." Why do you continue to distort what I said instead of addressing what I actually did say? And I'm still waiting for you to stretch his analogy to the breaking point. Or would you rather stiffle free speech? On edit, I will note one further distortion on your part, your insistance I am defending him. I have consistently said I disagree with the prof. I defend free speech against those who would take it away from those they disagree with, and use any means at ther disposal, as shown here. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| sylley2000 | Feb 7 2005, 07:19 PM Post #43 |
![]()
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
|
Cal, Could you do me one little favour? Please go back in this thread and put in where Chris said Eichman was not a Nazi? If you can do that, I'll eat my hat! Never mind, I can see where you got it...you took it out of context. Sylvia |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Feb 8 2005, 09:14 AM Post #44 |
![]()
Member
|
|
|
Jim Pennsylvania in the Summer Florida in the Winter | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Feb 8 2005, 09:43 AM Post #45 |
|
Member
|
This guy is a tenured professor who makes an incorrect analogy between accountants, programmers, and marketing people in the financial industry and Adolf Eichman, who was Hitler's managers of the "Jewish problem". He wants you to think these kinds of people, of which I am one, are on the same moral level of Eichman though who's actions resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews. I take great exception to this analogy for personal reasons, because I have worked in the WTC in the past. It could have been me killed in the those towers on 911, but fortunately I was several miles away working on 46th and 6th ave in the diamond district. I am being nice and fair when I say the guys a moron, too stupid to make a proper analogy. Personally I would like to beat the crap out of him, for the insult to me and people that I work with, but that would be wrong. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |











8:22 AM Jul 11