Setanta wrote:Too old, that's hilarious . . . once at a party, some of us were spraying a harmless pink die in our hair, and a little girl asked her mother if she would do that. Her mother replied: "I'm too old for that." It always cracked me up . . .
For however "easy" you may think me to be, and in despite of my age, you still either have not read the thread, or failed to absorb that the specific points the teacher was attempting to make, and to which her students first objected, are not sustainable points. The medical community of the world has rejected the claim that any useful "research" was done in the death camps. If you wish to claim that is closed-minded, you're certainly entitled. And others are thereby entitled to characterize your stubborn argument-for-argument's-sake as contrarian.
You can have lots of fun, though--the crypto-nazis and the openly avowed white supremecists will welcome you with open arms.
Do you even click on the link I posted? World? Nope. Should you need more links ask and it shall be done.
OK, i found your link, and are you trying to suggest that the documents posted there, which are reports of Nazi doctors to Himmler constitute evidence of the value of the experiments? I would reply that you either haven't the wit to see that those reports are posted there as evidence that a holocaust did occur, and not any proof of the medical value of the experiments. Or, alternatively, you don't mind that the evidence you use comes from the reports of Nazi doctors sucking up to Himmler, and justifying their actions to him in the Nazi context, because you came here armed with a belief that these are examples of why there was good in the Nazi regime. Your ability to judge historical evidence is, on the basis of that site, demonstrably poor--which is probably why you describe the overwhelming majority contention of contemporary medical researchers to be no more than opinion, no more valid than the opinion of those uniformed in such matters. In fact, in such a complex world as we inhabit, expert opinion is crucial to consensus decisions--and i'll take that any time to a warped attempt to use evidence of the holocaust to support a claim that the medical experiments were valuable. It appears that you really cannot see that these "doctors" were writing reports to a minister in a corrupt regime, and were not about to report that their efforts had yielded no useful results. The point of the criticism of medical researchers is that what was learned can be learned, and in many of the cases listed on the site you link, had already been learned, without resorting to the torture of a helpless, captive population.
But you enjoy your new Neo-Nazi friends, you should have no trouble meeting lots of them.
Setanta wrote:But you enjoy your new Neo-Nazi friends, you should have no trouble meeting lots of them.
Unfortunately, this seems to be true.
What is really disgusting, Walter, is that he uses a Jewish-Israeli site to attempt to "prove" his case. I wonder if they know the documents they link are being used for such a scurrilous purpose?
Setanta wrote:What is really disgusting, Walter, is that he uses a Jewish-Israeli site to attempt to "prove" his case. I wonder if they know the documents they link are being used for such a scurrilous purpose?
Well, the normal use would be just to prove the opposite stated here - as you did.
But, since we know that Nazis aren't normal ...
I am so glad you asked. I would gladly share with you more things that Nazis invented to help medical advancment. You betcha.
Pro-life or pro-Nazi
Nazis Invinted SWAT
Nazis - The health pioneers?
Experiments
Proof of Experiments use today
Oh and on your little tirade about me not reading what you wrote--it is sad. well I did post in here early on and no one replied to what I wrote so now you know how it feels.
The first link is a statement from authority from the Daily Illini, a student newspaper of the University of Illinois. This is neither to disparage the newspaper or the author. It is to point out that the "authority" for your statement is an unfounded authority. The otherwise unsubstantiated statement of a university student in a student newspaper does not constitute evidence. It also ignores the point of whether or not such a development were possible, or were not paralelled by other research without resort to the abuse of death camp inmates. The posted article also fails to explain why such a development in chemistry would languish for more than forty years before reappearing.
Your second link is to an opinion piece by a self-avowed conservative commentator. This is once again an appeal to authority on the part of the author without further substantiation. The concept of a special weapons and tactics team is sufficiently vague to have been applicable to a host such military innovations, such as the use of the term commando by the British, first derived from the small "rapid-reaction" forces used by the Boers in their war with the British in South Africa. There is nowhere in that article any substantation of a claim by a partisan commentator (the direction of whose partisanship is irrelevant) that either a SWAT team is a good thing, or that the Nazi's are entitled to be credited with the invention thereof. The concept of both "rapid-reaction" forces and special weapons units can be found throughout military history for centuries. Note that this has nothing to do with what were alleged to have been "medical experiments" in the death camps.
Your third link writes of German scientists, and makes no reference to experiments carried out in the death camp--that link also is no substantiation of medical benefits resulting from the death camp tortures. It mentions: "The Nazis were promoting healthy nutrition: whole-grain bread (baker shops were forced to produce it by law), fruits, vegetables, and less meat. Soy beans became politically correct and earned the nickname "Nazi beans." They established the mineral water market in Europe." This is a series of specious statements. An American physician, Dr. Graham, promoted the healthy benefits of whole grains at the turn of the 19th to the 20th centuries, long before the Nazis, which is why whole wheat crackers in the United States are commonly known as Graham crackers. Both C.W. Post and Dr. Kellogg in the same time period (when health foods were a hugely popular fad in the United States) promoted diets of grains, fruit and vegetables and less meats. Anyone with an agricultural background knows that soy beans are inedible for humans without a great deal of processing, and all of the processes now in use were developed long before the Nazis came to power. As for that claptrap about the use of mineral water, "source water," or "spring water" was popular in England for centuries, as elsewhere on the continent--so much so, that when Charles I decided to tax bottled water in England in the early 1600's, the protest song Jack and Jill was written. That entire entry is another appeal to authority, otherwise without substantiation.
Your fourth link simply recounts in gruesome detail the nature of experiments which were carried out, and nothing on the link page for a moment supports the contention that there were any benefit derived from the "experiments."
Your fifth posted link is to an article on law and ethics by a legal expert, and not a medical expert. Nowhere does the article establish that the results of the experiments conducted on the death camp inmates produced usable medical procedures or therapies--even if such a claim were made, it is an appeal to authority on the part of someone who is an authority on law and not medical research.
One might well object that what i have offered in rebuttal is appeal to authority, but the burden of proof is not on me--you have claimed that it can be demonstrated that there was medical benefit derived the death camp experiments, but what you have linked offers no proof. Your reference to a set of specious contentions about the Nazis inventing SWAT teams is a complete non sequitur, as it has no relation to medical research. One is also lead to wonder, if the Nazis truly had invented the SWAT team, why they had such a nightmare fighting a handful of starving, poorly armed men and boys in the Warsaw ghetto. You have failed miserably to prove anything here, but i have cleared up one thing to my satisfaction: you don't need to be introduced to the Neo-Nazis, you've already met them, and may well be one of them. I cannot of course know that for a fact, but it no longer matters to me. I already know that your argumentative style is contrarian by nature. I don't know you personally, and am not really interested. But what i know of what you write at this site, and how you write, and the "chip-on-your-shoulder" style you employ, combined with what is now your obvious belief in the value of the Nazi experiments convinces me that there is no point in discussing such things with you, because your mind is made up, and every bit as closed as you are willing to contend mine to be. Having posted that pathetic t-shirt ad from "T-shirts from Hell" and having made so feeble an attempt to post such nonsense as proof, you demonstrate to me a sufficient lack of critical skills, and a sufficient desire to believe horrible lies, that it would be pointless to try to convince you otherwise.
You may well be a decent person, worth knowing in real life. You may well grow up sufficiently to see what is wrong with your point of view as you have expressed it here. It matters little to me, however, as i am unlikely to know you in real life, and unlikely to be around when you finally do grow up. For your own sake, i hope the maturation process includes learning how to judge source materials in a usefully critical manner.
Thanks for that response, Set.
I never could have responded in such a nice way.
You are telling me that it isn't worth disscusing with me because my mind is set? What about yours? You seem set yourself. Or will you deny that you are? Because if you are not set in your ways--neither am I, point being I don't beleive you if you say you are not.
So the question is are you set in your ways about this topic?
I don't give up. And even though you chose not to see the possability that there was--which I don't see how their can't be one exprement that they did that didn't help out--I shall be back with sites that will prove you wrong.
And as for your "nice words" all I have to say is you can kick and kick a puppy and when it grows up you try to be nice and pet it it will bite your hand off. In other words your words mean nothing--I care not what you think of me. This isn't a post about me this about the teacher and weather or not she was right in what she did.
BlueMonkey wrote:You are telling me that it isn't worth disscusing with me because my mind is set? What about yours? You seem set yourself. Or will you deny that you are?
Speaking as someone who has disagreed with Setanta in this thread, I did notice a great willingness on his part to take other people's views seriously, and to consult other people's sources. On both accounts, this is more than I can say of you at this point. But like Setanta, I'm confident you'll eventually catch up to it.
Thomas wrote:BlueMonkey wrote:You are telling me that it isn't worth disscusing with me because my mind is set? What about yours? You seem set yourself. Or will you deny that you are?
Speaking as someone who has disagreed with Setanta in this thread, I did notice a great willingness on his part to take other people's views seriously, and to consult other people's sources. On both accounts, this is more than I can say of you at this point. But like Setanta, I'm confident you'll eventually catch up to it.
See the funny thing is he doesn't like me for whatever reason it is. I think it is funny to not like someone so much. But for what it's worth I like him just fine. But of course he'll say he doesn't hate me just becauase I've pointed it out. So let him. He is too judgmental. First he imposes this invisible rule of me having to read all of what he wrote when he didn't even read what I wrote. Oh well it isn't my fault he is the way he is. Though he is entertaining and will be prove wrong.
BlueMonkey wrote:Thomas wrote:BlueMonkey wrote:You are telling me that it isn't worth disscusing with me because my mind is set? What about yours? You seem set yourself. Or will you deny that you are?
Speaking as someone who has disagreed with Setanta in this thread, I did notice a great willingness on his part to take other people's views seriously, and to consult other people's sources. On both accounts, this is more than I can say of you at this point. But like Setanta, I'm confident you'll eventually catch up to it.
See the funny thing is he doesn't like me for whatever reason it is. I think it is funny to not like someone so much. But for what it's worth I like him just fine. But of course he'll say he doesn't hate me just becauase I've pointed it out. So let him. He is too judgmental. First he imposes this invisible rule of me having to read all of what he wrote when he didn't even read what I wrote. Oh well it isn't my fault he is the way he is. Though he is entertaining and will be prove wrong.
And here I've been trying so hard to follow Thomas and Setanta's example when dealing with people (they are very polite people). I'll get back to that in just a minute :wink: .
If Setanta doesn't like you; it is probably because
you don't behave in a likeable fashion
. He responded to your sources in detail, so you come back with more nonsense. Your first new source talks about non-victim related research on carcinogenics. Your second is a link to a book I doubt you've read, that further gives no indication of delivering what you promise. And the third is a story written to dispute a claim that the Nazis didn't experiment on animals
. None offer a single benefit that is a result of the disgusting experiments. I'm left wondering if
you even read the sources
you provided.
I have enough respect for Set's knowledge of history that I was willing to take his word for it. Your arguments have only strenthened his. I'll likely not waste much more of my time reading your posts in the future either.
It's not worth your time, O'Bill. BM's mind is closed. It is preferable for him to think that i do not like him than to face the prospect that it is his crackpot thesis which i am attacking, and his juvenile, pouting method of delivering the message. The message contains nothing new, and as you have pointed out, contains little to support his thesis. What "support" there is in what he links consists of anonymous appeals to an unestablished authority.
But if he makes this out to be a vendetta by me against him, then it diverts the question from no evidence provided by him, to an irrational hatred by me. Easier for him to believe that than to consider how wrong he is, and change his point of view.
In teaching our kids we have a terrible responsibility at all levels.From k-12 through grad school we must develop their abilities to accomplish abstract thought and critical thinking, all the while loading their heads with the basic knowledge that enables them to go to the next steps in their education or career.
the subject teacher is guilty of "not thinking this one through to completion' by being intellectually 'lazy' She established some ground rules in the assignment that were not , apparently, based upon a carefully crafted introduction into the Third Reich, and flirted with the dangerous teaching tool of comparative "weigh ins'
To most of these kids, wWII represents nothing but TV facts and entertaining stories. most of the stories interpreted as movie subjects and tales from their grandfathers . To most kids not inclined to understanding the web of history, WWII and nAzi atrocities are as meaningful as the facts regarding wyatt EArp. Nazi atrocities and war crimes in the name of "medical research' is an abstraction that is difficult to grasp. With all the Nazi revisionist material available on the web parading as truth, a teachers responsibility, if she wants to be so bold as to expect a reasonable outcome from this proposed exercise, is to make sure the kids can handle the very subject with some intelligence.
allowing the kids to just wander around the web and pick up 'dot com facts" will not do anything of value in the education of our kids. Itll do nothing except confuse them , or, worse, turn them into fawning , hero-worshipping little versions of the very evil people shes having her students research.
I believe thhat this thread is a perfect example of the how. the fine points of intellectual disagreement between 2 or more scholars were totally missed by the student(In our case,an apparent high school student). Accessibility to raw data, fed with a guiding hand is the only way that teachers can help students in their first steps .
i am not , out of hand, against this teachers proposed exercise. I believe it could have been a valuable lesson, if there was prior guidance and included other exercises, such as, the concept of evil in history, so that the kids dont come out of such a debate where they celebrate and revere the pure evil that Hitlers regime represented and how good peoplewere convinced to do bad things in the presence of his monstrous charisma.
I would have posed a series of leading moral discussions and value loaded questions concerning this topic. they would have been posed to ellicit a moral response and not one of pure information "gathering'.
With that case , Id pose a question--do the commission of atrocities justify medical advances/ EVER?- then we could delve into equally questionable medical and "eugenic"practices that were documented about the Japanese, the Russians, The English and , yes even the Americans. I would not let the data rest on the table so that the kids would be allowed to come up with a cocnclusion that such practices are justified because of some later contributions to the world of medicine or science. i would make damned sure that answers that recognize a sense of justice would be the only answers that would get 'full credit" with no equivocation.
We forget what it was like being 14 years old. What we say as teachers has a huuge impact on kids. Sometimes I run into past students and they still quote back some mnemonic devices Ive told them for remembering geologic and chemical minutae. Most of them are , just , dirty. Im always amazed at how everyone picks up on these tidbits and commit them to the 'meat-puter'. So, while Im supportive of a teacher taking bold creative steps in the search for learning, Im reluctant to support (without having the "lesson plan" vetted ) an approach that uses "lets weigh in the good points and bad points of...' as its main tool when used to train a group of historically naive people, like 14 year olds.
OCCOM BILL wrote: Your second is a link to a book I doubt you've read, that further gives no indication of delivering what you promise.
You did not read it all--should have done so you would have found exactly why I posted it--I am left to believe you didn't read. And you're right I have yet to read the book--neither have you. I am going to read it. But it proves my point.
As for the not liking part I have come to the conclusion that I care not for anyone on this site. Since I came here the was nothing but stuck upness all around. So hate me like me I don't care. It is amazing how much different older people are from younger. I would expect some differences but from being judgmental from the get go you old folkes take the cake.
www.studentcenter.org has a debate forum that is full of intellectual conversations that is stunning students want to talk about. They know their stuff and that age is from 13 to 25. Will all the oldness lurking around here it loses all kinds of creativity and then people form little clicks and team up on those that don't conform. Disagree all you want with my observation but you are not me so you don't see it the same. Nor will anything you have to say change my mind because I'm not liked so why should you care what I have to say. And they people on the student center are reasonable and less abrasive when someone has a different opinion and they don't type as if they are smarter.
Setanta wrote:It's not worth your time, O'Bill. BM's mind is closed. It is preferable for him to think that i do not like him than to face the prospect that it is his crackpot thesis which i am attacking, and his juvenile, pouting method of delivering the message. The message contains nothing new, and as you have pointed out, contains little to support his thesis. What "support" there is in what he links consists of anonymous appeals to an unestablished authority.
But if he makes this out to be a vendetta by me against him, then it diverts the question from no evidence provided by him, to an irrational hatred by me. Easier for him to believe that than to consider how wrong he is, and change his point of view.
You apparently cannot read--I stated that I don't hate you. I find you entertaining. Oh I'm repeating myself wouldn't have to if you could read.
The book proves my point. But you didn't read. It is okay. I know I'm right. You're afraid I am. Which is okay to. Because why have all this wealth of information--no matter how it was attained-- and not use it?
A person you love very much is going to die and the only way to save them (already made this point before but you would only know that if you read) was with information the Nazis had, you are saying you would allow your loved one to die because there is nothing in their research? Which I suspect you to say yes. You're loss. I wouldn't care. It is information. So what? America did their own experiments, like the Nazis, on people who were in prison. They would get injected with disease they had no idea how to cure but thought they did and people use that information today. Oh but that doesn't matter because they aren't jews from the Holocaust they are evil murders.
Walter Hinteler wrote:BlueMonkey wrote:www.studentcenter.org has a debate forum that is full of intellectual conversations that is stunning students want to talk about. They know their stuff and that age is from 13 to 25.
Like:
Quote:Are you a dirty pen¡s sucker?
But I see:
Quote: Reasons to post a Q & A question
Reason #4 : April is a good month for asking questions.
Yeah good job in going to the right place---yeah none of that is in the debate board. But nice to know you have an imagination.
This site is noteworthy for being free of cliques. Because people here won't accept your ill-founded contentions, and attack specious premises which apparently constitute your personal sacred cows does not mean you are hated. No one here knows you in real life, so it is absurd to contend that you are hated. The claims you make without reliable support, and your resentful style elicit comments that you have chosen to interpreted as expressing hatred. And finally, teaching history is about the best available information, and a statement such as: "Disagree all you want with my observation but you are not me so you don't see it the same."--demonstrates that you just don't get it. What happened in Europe between 1933 and 1945 is not an abstract principal which we debate from differing points of view; it was a sustained horror on a scale hitherto unknown, but about which enormous amounts of reliable documentary evidence has been compiled. We are not disagreeing with you because we're old (in your eyes), or because you are young, or because you are hated, or as a simple matter of differing opinion. That you are young and resentful informs a rhetorical style which is abrasive and tends to lead others to discount what you write simply because of the tone. But this discussion, on the specific topic of any value attaching to the medical torture of death camp inmates, is one in which you have failed to support your contentions, and one in which the others posting have both good knowledge, and reliable standards for judging the value of the materials presented.
