Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It was my question. Thank you for answering.

Do you believe that the statements made by the AFA are factual? For example:


“As with smoking, homosexual behavior’s ‘second hand’ effects threaten public health… . Thus, individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of the general population.”

— Gary Glenn, president of Michigan chapter of AFA, 2001


“Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.”

— Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010

I already pointed out that the Hitler qoute was OTT, and while I don't have first hand knowledge on it, my gut tells me it's wrong.

As for the first qoute, I'd say that it is true. The rampant sexual promiscuity of homosexual society of the 70's and 80's led to an explosion of HIV/AIDS within the country. That is fact. Second hand effects have led to it's greater introduction into the heterosexual segment of the population. Without the rampant growth in the homosexual segment, the growth in the hetero would likely have been much slower.

Edit: I'm not longer going to argue that they are right or wrong. That is not anything I want to do. I'm just going to stand by my original assessment that the majority of the cited material is material that is backed by factual information, and using it to justify claiming they are a hate group is weak at best.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It was my question. Thank you for answering.

Do you believe that the statements made by the AFA are factual? For example:

“Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.”

— Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010

On this question... I would disagree with the way Mr. Fischer phrased his comment. By that I mean it was incorrect.

While there were Homosexuals in the NAZIS, and quite frankly I believe it was a big part of the NAZI movement, I think it is incorrect to say that homosexuality "caused" the NAZIS and the holocaust.

I think he should have chosen his words a bit more carefully.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It was my question. Thank you for answering.

Do you believe that the statements made by the AFA are factual? For example:

“Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.”

— Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010

On this question... I would disagree with the way Mr. Fischer phrased his comment. By that I mean it was incorrect.

While there were Homosexuals in the NAZIS, and quite frankly I believe it was a big part of the NAZI movement, I think it is incorrect to say that homosexuality "caused" the NAZIS and the holocaust.

I think he should have chosen his words a bit more carefully.

GG

You do realise that homosexuals were targeted to be sent to death and work camps? It's silly to state it's a big part when only singular members were homosexual, as it would be generalisation to claim that it was homosexuality that influenced the Nazi movement as a whole.

Bloody hell you did know that homosexuals were targeted by the Nazi's right? Rohm was murdered during the Night of the Long knives, while his influence had slowly degraded . This idea that Nordic and Viking theme's might of caused homosexuality to be seen as a positive by the Nazi's in their ideology is tripe. It was only really Himmler and the SS that were into the Nordic ideology, with Hitler didn't truly approve of.

 Imposter101 wrote:


You do realise that homosexuals were targeted to be sent to death and work camps? It's silly to state it's a big part when only singular members were homosexual, as it would be generalisation to claim that it was homosexuality that influenced the Nazi movement as a whole.

Bloody hell you did know that homosexuals were targeted by the Nazi's right? Rohm was murdered during the Night of the Long knives, while his influence had slowly degraded . This idea that Nordic and Viking theme's might of caused homosexuality to be seen as a positive by the Nazi's in their ideology is tripe. It was only really Himmler and the SS that were into the Nordic ideology, with Hitler didn't truly approve of.

Of course I realize this, but they persecuted the effeminate homosexuals. Many of the leaders of NAZI's believed in an Idealized Aryan "Homoerotic" fantasy of what a heterosexual German should be, but also what a homosexual german should be. A lot of this came about from the homosexual movements of Weimar republic, which were huge and very open during the early 20th century. NAZIS like Rohm pictured "Butch" homosexuals the only acceptable form of homosexual, much like the Greeks did, where many of their warriors were homosexual, but in a hyper masculine way.

Anyway, I didn't want to post this stuff, because it's kind of off topic.

If you want to know more about the history of homosexuals in the NAZI's and Adolf Hitlers past here ya go.

HBO documentary The Hidden Hitler. It's eye opening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fMwOzVIYbg

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:


You do realise that homosexuals were targeted to be sent to death and work camps? It's silly to state it's a big part when only singular members were homosexual, as it would be generalisation to claim that it was homosexuality that influenced the Nazi movement as a whole.

Bloody hell you did know that homosexuals were targeted by the Nazi's right? Rohm was murdered during the Night of the Long knives, while his influence had slowly degraded . This idea that Nordic and Viking theme's might of caused homosexuality to be seen as a positive by the Nazi's in their ideology is tripe. It was only really Himmler and the SS that were into the Nordic ideology, with Hitler didn't truly approve of.

Of course I realize this, but they persecuted the effeminate homosexuals. Many of the leaders of NAZI's believed in an Idealized Aryan "Homoerotic" fantasy of what a heterosexual German should be, but also what a homosexual german should be. A lot of this came about from the homosexual movements of Weimar republic, which were huge and very open during the early 20th century. NAZIS like Rohm pictured "Butch" homosexuals the only acceptable form of homosexual, much like the Greeks did, where many of their warriors were homosexual, but in a hyper masculine way.

Anyway, I didn't want to post this stuff, because it's kind of off topic.

If you want to know more about the history of homosexuals in the NAZI's and Adolf Hitlers past here ya go.

HBO documentary The Hidden Hitler. It's eye opening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fMwOzVIYbg

GG

People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish. This idea of 'Aryan' and the 'Nordic' ideals of SS are somewhat different. Even then, the SS's chief Himmler who was one of the few to be really into such Nordic ideologies, did not approve of homosexuality. Let's also remember Rohm's influence ended before 1935, and that even if specific individuals approved, it does not equate to an entire ideology. As a whole, homosexuality was openly opposed by the Nazi party. Rohm was a similar case to the phrase; "There's always a good jew", seen as a singular case and exception to the rule.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:


Anyway, I didn't want to post this stuff, because it's kind of off topic.

If you want to know more about the history of homosexuals in the NAZI's and Adolf Hitlers past here ya go.

HBO documentary The Hidden Hitler. It's eye opening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fMwOzVIYbg

GG

People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish. This idea of 'Aryan' and the 'Nordic' ideals of SS are somewhat different. Even then, the SS's chief Himmler who was one of the few to be really into such Nordic ideologies, did not approve of homosexuality. Let's also remember Rohm's influence ended before 1935, and that even if specific individuals approved, it does not equate to an entire ideology. As a whole, homosexuality was openly opposed by the Nazi party. Rohm was a similar case to the phrase; "There's always a good jew", seen as a singular case and exception to the rule.

There are a lot of rumours about Hitlers private life his sexuality and even claims he had Jewish grandparents. IIRc most of this stemmed from wartime propaganda. I am sure it is not hard to understand why such a rumour mill would be useful.

 Imposter101 wrote:

People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish.

He was also claimed to have had some black ancestry according to DNA taken from some living relatives. Wow, what a combination, black, jewish and gay, no wonder he was so evil.

This thread feels like a History Channel "gay secrets of the Nazi's" special now...

If only the Nazis had quit diverting resources from their Gay Bomb program to such fantasies as the STG and the ME 262 they might have been able to stop the Rooskie hordes at the gates of Berlin. Oy Ve!

cadbren wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish.

He was also claimed to have had some black ancestry according to DNA taken from some living relatives. Wow, what a combination, black, jewish and gay, no wonder he was so evil.

Hitler can be whatever you want him to be that's what makes him so special.

cadbren wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish.

He was also claimed to have had some black ancestry according to DNA taken from some living relatives. Wow, what a combination, black, jewish and gay, no wonder he was so evil.

Hitler is composed of whatever people feel like insulting at the time...

The proper term is "The Hitler"

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The proper term is "The Hitler"

NICE!!!

GG

Ahem.

Teh Hitler.

 d-usa wrote:
This thread feels like a History Channel "gay secrets of the Nazi's" special now...

They should just rename that to the Nazi Channel as that is all they seem to show, oh, that and men carefully chosen to look like medieval peasants rooting in the mud for old floor plans - winning stuff.

Not any more Cadbren. It's all about ancient aliens and the like.

Also it's the "Hitler Channe" not the Nazi Channel.

 Cheesecat wrote:

cadbren wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:

People clutching at straws in an attempt to paint Hitler as a homosexual is not something I see has eye opening. It's almost like trying to claim he was Jewish.

He was also claimed to have had some black ancestry according to DNA taken from some living relatives. Wow, what a combination, black, jewish and gay, no wonder he was so evil.

Hitler can be whatever you want him to be that's what makes him so special.

He can even be a little teapot, short and stout

Definition of Hitler (Hit-ler)
1. A historical figure used in arguments to sour the opponents arguments during debates, or associate with groups to ruin their reputation, see examples below;

Hitler was an Atheist, thus all Atheists were evil

Hitler was a Roman Catholic, thus all Catholics are evil

Hitler was a gay, black, transgender Jew/Atheist roman catholic, thus all gay, black, transgender, Catholics are evil

2. Fictional character played by Charlie Chaplin.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The SPLC lists several veterans groups as hate groups of one kind or another, including the recently more radical Oathkeepers.

Oath Keepers pretty regularly engage in all kinds of weirdo New World Order nonsense, and being an active, militarily capable organisation set to defend the constitution from the government (which is totally going to go evil any day now, guys) is pretty much their entire reason for being.

The defence of these guys typically comes down to "but they're veterans, and veterans served and therefore we can't question anything a group of soliders does".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
They are by the SPLC. That doesn't make it so, however. Not that I'm a strong defender of the Oath Keepers. I've always gotten a weird vibe.

So you're not going to defend them, but you are going to criticise another group for attacking them.

Nevertheless, we'd have to be using Kanluwen's rules to declare them a hate group.

Or we could use the SPLC's rules. Which I've already given to you.

The defence of these guys typically comes down to "but they're veterans, and veterans served and therefore we can't question anything a group of soliders does".

I beg to differ Sebster.

 sebster wrote:


The defence of these guys typically comes down to "but they're veterans, and veterans served and therefore we can't question anything a group of soliders does".

There are extensions to that argument that are understandable though. My neighbour hates Japanese people. Not in a 'I'll kill them with a knife' way, but he will leave a corner store if he sees a Japanese person enter, refuse to talk to them and give them the time of day, etc. Now that's pretty bad, but he did fight them for years in some of the worst terrain around, and saw his friends tortured and killed at their hands. So you can forgive a 96 year old guy for holding onto his hate.

But 'veterans should be able to break laws and stuff because they are veterans' is a problem.

 Orlanth wrote:
Here is part of SPLC's own mission statement on 'hate groups'

The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We publish our investigative findings online, on our Hatewatch blog, and in the Intelligence Report, our award-winning quarterly journal. We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.

By their own definition they
1. Classify 'hate groups' . Which is according to their own criteria.
2. 'Expose' them to law enforcement and the media. This involves accusing them of being criminals.

Oh come on. Informing a government agency about someone doesn't mean you're accusing them of being criminals. "Hey, there's this group that you should be aware of" is not accusing them of being criminals.

You came in to this having no idea how the SPLC actually worked, and went off on some weird idea about how the SPLC's list of hate groups meant there was government action. You were wrong, and are now just contriving whatever you can to get away from that basic fact.

Just stop it.

By getting people in authority to 'recognise and deal with hate crimes' means to get them to define hate according to the standards of the SPLC, not the US government.

They're not hypnotists, "you are getting sleepy, when you open your eyes you will believe entirely in the definition of hate groups as defined by the SPLC and that their classification of all hate groups is true and unquestionable..."

The SPLC tells people about their definition and the groups they believe meet that definition... and people are free to agree or disagree. What happens is discussion and awareness. That's how conversation works.

What you're trying to do is invent some ridiculous idea that simply the act of saying a thing is so pervasive that it is, in your own words 'dangerous', and that's a thing that's so fething stupid that it's been quite remarkable to witness how you've ended up there.

The SPLC lists the AFA as anti-gay, fair enough, but they are not obl;iged to be pro-gay, nor are they obliged to like gays, and if they believe that gays cause evils in the worlds then thats an ok opinion so long as they don't call people to commit hateful actsd against them. So far noone has given any indication that the AFA is calling for gays to be persecuted.

Once again... there are lots of groups opposed to homosexuality or any movement towards more rights for homosexuals that the SPLC doesn't list. What sets the AFA apart is their constant stream of lies about homosexuals, and the extremely minimal amount of time they spend on anything other than homosexuality (other than abortion).

Not a single beating, theft or call for a beating or a theft is mentioned, not one. Just people practicing free speech.

Yes, because the SPLC is not concerned simply with crime. fething duh.

The SPLC is concerned with the speach used by groups like AFA, and they use their own free speach to raise awareness about that.

You made that up, they try to reeducate law enforcement into seeing and categorising hate according to their standards.

What? They're not fething hypnotists. They have exactly as much power over police as you, me or anyone else that wants to spend their private time telling police departments about groups that we might personally think are terrible... because the police then get to make their own decision.

I highlighted the mission statement, but linked the entire webpage. Stop clutching at straws.

The KKK could have a website that's nothing but fun learning games for kids aged 7-10... and linking to it in the face of the public statements by their members and leadership would be the most inane drivel.

And, well, we've got a thread full of horrible statements made by the leadership of the AFA, and you still think it's okay to link to their webpage and say 'but none of the contraversial stuff is on here, so they must be fine'.

You must be pretending to be naive, because you cannot possibly to so stupid as to believe that people don't jump on a frenzy when a group is categorised as an actionable ostracisable group.

Of course that can happen, if people attempt to use demogoguery and other methods. It hasn't happened in cases involving the SPLC because that isn't their method, but that reality doesn't seem to phase you one bit.

This is the main difference between the AFA and SPLC in this, the AFA doesnt like what they consider a rise of homosexuality, and it is their right to do so under free speech, but have not called on homosexuals as actionable for discrimination or hatred. The SPLC doesn't like the rhetoric of the AFA, which is acceptable equally under free speech, but then have called for them to be discriminated against because of what they believe in.

They haven't called for them to be discriminated against. That is lunacy you made up in your head. "Hey, people should look at what these people are saying" isn't a call for discrimination.

That should be fething obvious.

This goes back to the irrefutable point that if you are going to have public groups ostracized or discriminated against the criteria for doing so must be done by accredited accountable public figures.

It's not irrefutable. It's fething insane. I mean, you are saying that private groups are not to be allowed to use their own free speach to criticise other groups for their own speach.

Totally fething bonkers.

Getting put on a list that has resulted directly in:

- US military officials discriminating against the AFA.

Once, and immediately after the Pentagon immediately said 'don't do that'. And this is a great big problem that you think means a private organisation should no longer be able to speak freely about other private organisations.

- Media calling them hate groups without further explanation.

So because a private organisation called another private organisation a hate group, then a third private organisation also called them a hate group. Holy gak, scandal!

The list has meaning because some in the media give it meaning, because it had so much meaning it ended up in major pres articles about USD army training and a thread on Dakka.

Yes, because their lists is well regarded and considered very accurate by many. Which would stop being the case if the SPLC started using it as a political beat stick.

On the other hand, the list and SPLC is criticised by many because the list includes some organisation to which they owe sympathy, if not allegiance, are included... even though those organisations are exactly as the SPLC described them.

I mean, here you are trying to defend an organisation that prior to this thread you knew nothing about. You don't know how they operate, or the kind of statements they regularly issue. You just wanted to defend them and attack the SPLC because 'christian'.

For most including myself it was my first media exposure to the AFA.

I follow a Christian blogger (and the greater network of Christian bloggers he is part of) who regularly dismantle and attack statements made by the AFA. I wasn't aware they were listed as a hate group by the SPLC before this thread, but I knew they were an extremely hateful organisation.

And that, I think, is a massive part of the problem. Lots of people, and you especially, came in to this with little knowledge, but a strong opinion.

You were born in the wrong time at the wrong place Sebster. Are you are seriously dumb enough to believe that just because there is a published 'List' of undesirable organisations then the list must therefore be valid and developed with 'care and accuracy'? If so you would have made an excellent NKVD officer, or a henchman for one of Sulla' pogroms.

That's nothing to do with what I stated, and is just hopelessly lazy nonsense on your part. I have not, at any point, said that the list must include only hate groups simply because it was claimed to be completed with care and accuracy.

I have said that, in my experience, the organisations listed on the SPLC list have been shown to all be deserving of their place, and if that wasn't true then I'm sure someone should be able to pick out an organisation that shouldn't be on there.

In response, you've said you aren't aware of any organisation that shouldn't be on there and aren't going to attempt to find any, but you're just sure there must be some that shouldn't be.

As the SPLC doesnt distinguish on its lists between groups that hang people in trees because they are black and those who don't like that homosexuality is now far more outwardly profiled than it used to be.

Actually, they distinguish between different types of hate groups, and for each group they state the behaviour that caused them to put the group on their list. Stop making up nonsense.

By they way have you pointed out which groups should or should not be there, because you have been quite content to call them all unequivocably as "extremist hate mongers" just for being on the list.

Umm, my position is that all of the groups listed meet the SPLC criteria. And did you note how I went and got multiple hateful things stated by Bryan Fischer, to establish why that group is on the list?

Which is kind of sad because of what a little research turns up.

Except, of course, that its been very little research, and that effort took multiple requests from me before anyone bothered at all. And even then consisted of someone mentioning an organisation that they kind of like, without any effort to contradict why the SPLC listed them, and your effort of linking to the AFA main page... and a really weird effort to rationalise one of the multiple bits of hate speach by Fischer.

So if you want to call that enough evidence... well it's probably a good indication of why your position on this issue has been so ridiculous.

Sebster, if an official in the US army acts on this own authority while in uniform doing the job he was asked to do he is still representing the US Army in an official capacity. The fact that he was quickly corrected which is the higher ups establishing their position, that was the system of seniority and control working.
You are choosing to forget that the officer concerned was a supervisory instructor, authorised to teach in the fields concerned and those he taught were in effect under his orders, because funnily enough enough, soldiers are expected to do what they are taught to do in training, not just take it as someone elses opinion.

I'm not choosing to forget it, I simply understand that a system exists even when a person acts outside that system, but is quickly corrected by higher ups. If a teacher gives a lesson on history and uses some alternate textboook she found that tells a story that differs from the official curriculum... and this is identified and corrected... the education system still works. We wouldn't have a big freak out and insist that it is 'dangerous' for alternate textbooks to exist.

This should be fething obvious.

 cincydooley wrote:
Because disagreeing without something doesn't automatically make you hateful.

And you're just going to decide that that's all the AFA does? Because they don't just 'disagree'... they publish wildly innaccurate 'science' that makes all kinds of nonsense claims (such as claiming that homosexuality can be 'cured') and spread lies about them (such as claiming that most homosexuals are paedophiles).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
This thread feels like a History Channel "gay secrets of the Nazi's" special now...

Actually, GG watching a special that argued Hitler was gay is exactly why this exists.

Except it wasn't made by the history channel, it was made by Cinemax. Seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
There are extensions to that argument that are understandable though. My neighbour hates Japanese people. Not in a 'I'll kill them with a knife' way, but he will leave a corner store if he sees a Japanese person enter, refuse to talk to them and give them the time of day, etc. Now that's pretty bad, but he did fight them for years in some of the worst terrain around, and saw his friends tortured and killed at their hands. So you can forgive a 96 year old guy for holding onto his hate.

My Grandad served in the war, and while he didn't see action*, lots of the guys he served with did, and some of them harboured resentment years later. My Grandad once told my cousins and I something very similar to the above. It was powerful because he managed to get the tone just perfectly between making it clear that racism is wrong and not acceptable, but a lot of people have had some really powerful experiences in their lives, and it is easy and lazy to just judge them from afar.

In comparison, my Grandmother was an incredible racist. Said the most outrageous stuff, like once commenting that she felt really bad for half castes, because they don't belong in either world. I've never really been able to figure out if my Grandad's words should apply to stuff his first wife said...

But 'veterans should be able to break laws and stuff because they are veterans' is a problem.

Yeah, that's basically it. That said, I should clarify that neither I nor the SPLC are saying the OathKeepers have broken any laws... just that they shouldn't get a free pass on paranoid New World Order stuff just because they served.




*Somehow managed to turn up in each location just as Japanese resistance ended. Incredibly lucky.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The SPLC lists several veterans groups as hate groups of one kind or another, including the recently more radical Oathkeepers.

Oath Keepers pretty regularly engage in all kinds of weirdo New World Order nonsense, and being an active, militarily capable organisation set to defend the constitution from the government (which is totally going to go evil any day now, guys) is pretty much their entire reason for being.

The defence of these guys typically comes down to "but they're veterans, and veterans served and therefore we can't question anything a group of soliders does".

And I'm right with you, none of that though, including "Hey guys prepare for the end days" makes them a hate group, which the SPLC calls them.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And I'm right with you, none of that though, including "Hey guys prepare for the end days" makes them a hate group, which the SPLC calls them.

Actually they don't call them a hate group. When they do pop up it is part of anti-government 'Patriot Organizations', but that is about it, which makes sense what with their language on the government and Americans they don't like, but if you go to the hate map and check all the lists they never come up, even in their home state of Nevada. They aren't considered a hate group, but they are increasingly paranoid and heading to the fringes.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And I'm right with you, none of that though, including "Hey guys prepare for the end days" makes them a hate group, which the SPLC calls them.

Paranoid worldviews makes them a group worth watching, I think. I get that that doesn't mean 'hate' per se, but honestly the difference between 'these guys peddle hate' and 'these guys believe crazy radical stuff that could quickly get dangerous' kind of feels like splitting hairs from where I'm sitting.

That said, I have to admit I'm not completely sure if SPLC classifies them as a hate group. Ahtman notes they're just classified as a Patriot Group, and that's all I can find them appearing as on SPLC's website*. Wiki shows the Oath Keepers listed as a hategroup, though...



*Man the SPLC website sucks. You guys want to find a way to discredit the organisation, pick that

 sebster wrote:


the difference between 'these guys peddle hate' and 'these guys believe crazy radical stuff that could quickly get dangerous' kind of feels like splitting hairs from where I'm sitting.

Who decides that latter part though? You can believe in crazy radical stuff and not be dangerous except to another ideology. The crazy radical stuff is also subjective, it depends on where you stand with your own ideologies. That's when subjective opinion starts getting masqueraded as thoughtful opposition to radicalism, to extremism.
Those two descriptions are only splitting hairs because the audience is only allowed to choose between believing a group is nuts and believing a group is evil. How about the group in question has a different set of beliefs that do not affect people outside the group and don't pose a threat to those outside the group. The threat being posed is that they choose to live a lifestyle that another group finds intolerable.

The logic I'm seeing here is that anti-abortion activists threaten to kill doctors etc so they're classified as haters. A moderate group like the AFA also oppose abortion so they must be haters too.
Mary hates apples. John hates apples. John is Mary. Doesn't make a lot of sense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:


While there were Homosexuals in the NAZIS, and quite frankly I believe it was a big part of the NAZI movement,

Define big.

I read something about nazi homosexuals or whatever they were. The concept is that homosexuals represent some kind of evolution beyond the physical need for procreation. Sounds all very well until you consider that a true evolution would be self sustaining. I'd also settle for some kind of ascention to a higher form of being, but rolling over for some hairy guy just doesn't fit my definition of evolved being.

Crazy ideology is not defined by its position relative to someone's individual beliefs, it is defined in relation to the general beliefs of society.

If you take US society as a whole, the majority view is that black people should not be made slaves. Anyone who thinks they should, due to some kind of unproved justification (the Bible, innate superiority of whites, or other) has espoused a crazy ideology.

Obviously they themselves will not see it as crazy, and they will see everyone who opposes them as crazy.

Wow this thread sure has gone places beyond the reasonable scope of the presented discussion. Off topic is now a hate group.

 juraigamer wrote:
Off topic is now a hate group.

I prefer "cesspool" but I suppose "hate group" also works.