_cnt0

After Camus and Sartre, I threw in some random Cicero (first half) and then something completely random (second) because I should hate to be predictable.

That stance is fair enough. Though I’d like to point out that language can shape perception. And using terms like “trans rights” suggests that trans people are sufficiently different from “normal” humans that they require special rights. But, in my humble opinion, it would be so easy to formulate human/basic rights in a way that no subset specific rights are required, that the entire notion of X rights seems alien to me. Let’s assume we have four tiers of laws (true for some nations): constitutional law, common law, policy, and judicial precedence. Imagine the following subset of constitutional law:

• Constitutional law applies to all humans residing in the jurisdiction of the nation.

• Nobody has a right for unhurt feelings.

• Nobody shall perform an act solely for the purpose of hurting someone else’s feelings.

• Everybody has a right for individual bodily autonomy.

There’s no mention of race, religion, gender, … Yet, I’d argue that, for example, trans people are fully covered and protected by the wording. Required exceptions, for example limited accountability for minors, can easily be put into common law. If it becomes evident that some minority is factually disadvantaged, that could be addressed in policy without any need to extend the law because that is neutral and all-encompassing.

I feel like “we” (politicians/societies) are talking way too much about special laws for trans people, women, … when we should fix the root causes of overly specific laws/constitutions.

TL;DR: humans are humans, and imho human law should be for all humans and avoid special treatment of any subset, but be worded in a way that any special need is met as best as possible.

The only thing that bothers me about terms like “trans rights”, “women rights”, … is that there should be no need to prefix “rights” with anything but “human”. And human rights should apply to all humans indiscriminately, obviating the need to label any subset of human rights that shouldn’t exist. In my book, the slice of bread should read:

Humans have human rights. Trans people are humans.

And in a better world every bit of that should be so obvious that it wouldn’t need mentioning at all.

Friendship improves happiness and abates misery, by the doubling of our joy and the dividing of our grief. Now, insert your recreation rod into my receptacle.

This comment section is a prison. I’m not stuck here with you, though. You’re stuck with me!

Overall I’m pretty happy with myself. The only thing I’d improve is my weak jawline. But, you’ll be the judge:

Haben wir noch Apostrophs? Keinem mehr? Gar keinem? Zwei noch?

Jetz’ gibt’s Maul!

Wat? Kaum drei Haare auf’m Sack und schon ein’ auf dicke Hose machen hier, wie?

Hätten sie lieber die Spanische Inquisition?

I wasn’t going to. But maybe if you think I was, then I should.

I regret to inform you, Sir, that you are horribly mistaken. My memes are most splendid!

And what did the Catholic church at least used to do with people denouncing their faith?

Ok but that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact they targeted Catholics.

Nonsense.

The GOP has gay members yet it is 100% accurate to say the GOP does not believe gay people should have equal rights with straight people, so even though the GOP is targeting gay people they still have gay members.

Straw man.

Catholics being part of the Nazi party doesn’t have the significance you think it does.

Lie: 20% Catholics in the party is significantly more than the one or two alibi open homosexuals in the GOP.

As n aside why are you calling them anything other than the Nazi party? I get NSDAP was the name they preferred but why grant Nazis respect?

Diversion.

All the numbers and historical circumstances I layed out are easily verifiable facts. Your compulsive urge to cling to a false narrative in the presence of irrefutible evidence and attempt to dance around that by picking out fragments of what I said and attempting to ridicule everything by extension is preposterous. And everybody with the reading comprehension of a high schooler should see right through it. I’m out of your bad faith (or ignorant) excuse for a conversation.

Well, they also didn’t during his lifetime, did they? And that while being aware of the Holocaust: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/researchers-find-evidence-pope-pius-xii-ignored-reports-holocaust-180974795/

Maybe from a revisionist perspective. ~20% of NSDAP members were Catholic. Keep in mind that the NSDAP was founded in deeply Catholic Bavaria. ~400 Catholic priests from Germany ended up in concentration camps, out of 20.000. It was no attack on the Catholic church, but on individuals within the church who publicly opposed the Nazis. That’s political persecution, not religious persecution. Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism.

95% of the German population was either Catholic or Protestant. And so was the NSDAP and their voter base. It tilted more to Protestants, but Catholics were not excluded. The Reichskonkordat benefitted the Protestant and Catholic churches equally.

This is more of a reply to everybody and not just your comment specifically. Where do you people think the antisemitism in 1930s Germany came from? Hitler and the NSDAP came around and turned “everybody” into anti-Semites? No. The Christian antisemitism was already there and the NSDAP tapped into it. Especially, but not limited to, from the Protestant side: Martin Luther was a raging anti-Semite. Pogroms had been taking place all over Europe for hundreds of years before the NSDAP arrived. The NSDAP “only” brought it to the next level. The entire anti-Semite NSDAP movement was deeply rooted in Christianity. If any Christian individual was persecuted by the Nazi regime it was for political opposition, not for their Christianity. If a fringe Christian sect was persecuted by the Nazis, they were persecuted by other flavors of Christianity! That the Nazis (who were by and large Christians) persecuted Christians for being Christians is complete revisionist nonsense!

Remember the past or you are condemned to repeat it!

That’s simply not true. They didn’t target Catholics, they targeted parts of the Catholic church (the institution) for political opposition. That’s a very different thing.

And are to this day not even considered a religious group, but a sect monitored by the intelligence service (Verfassungsschutz) in Germany. In Germany in the 1930s, ~95% of the population were either Catholic or Protestant; other Christian denominations only accounted for .5% of the population. Don’t nitpick in the .5% when talking about Christianity in Nazi Germany. Red herring much …

Indeed.

Oh that’s great news, maybe you should go ahead and tell the families of the 2500 priests who were incarcerated in Dachau concentration camp …

… for opposimg the Nazis. They were incarcerated for political opposition, not for being Christians. The entire persecution of the Jews only worked because of the cooperation of the Christian churches with the Nazi state. There was no central birth register at the time. It was the church books that determined how (non-) jewish you were. Especially the Catholic church facilitated the fleeing of Nazis to Argentia and other places at the end of the war. Lots of the Christian churches actively supported the Nazis, many did not oppose them, and the few that did were persecuted for that; not for being Christian. This is all very well documented.

They will be so happy to know that they weren’t discriminated against for their religion. I’m sure those long term plans from the Nazi party to de-christianize Germany were just Nuremberg propaganda.

This is plain and utter nonsense. That article is pure garbage, misrepresenting what actually happened. Never did the Nazis (as a whole/party line) want to replace Christianity. They wanted to replace the existing denominations with one state run church, with a Nazi-flavored Christianity, but still Christianity. They created new versions of the Bible where they adjusted some parts to better reflect their ideoligy. When they failed to establish that, they intensified their cooperation with the existing churches. Again, this is all very well documented. These top secret documents don’t really provide any new information, unless, like that “news article” you lie about their content and misrepresent “replacing existing churches with a state church” as “replacing Christianity”. What a heap of garbage. You should adjust your bullshit filter and read some proper history books about Nazi Germany and the involvement of the Christian churches. There was just a tiny fraction of Nazis with Himmler on the top who would have liked Christianity gone, who were neither representative of the party line nor in a position to realize that. Representing anything they said as “the Nazis wanted to …” is disingenuous at best.

Still doesn’t make sense to me. The way I’m reading what you’ve written is that you’re insinuating that peoples’ Christianity played a role in them being discriminated by Hitler and his cronies, which was never the case. Peoples’ beliefs played no role in political persecution and hence I don’t see the point in emphasizing Christianity here. He also had no trouble discriminating against Atheist, agnostic, Pagan, … people if they were politically opposed.