Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
595 messages in 12 discussions
Latest Jan-27 by ElDotardo
17032 messages in 736 discussions
Latest Jan-25 by PTG (anotherPTG)
Latest Dec-31 by I Want Flowers (LiberalDem)
9331 messages in 64 discussions
Latest Jan-22 by PTG (anotherPTG)
Latest Jan-6 by Di (amina046)
Latest Jan-4 by NISSY (NISSY2)
1689 messages in 106 discussions
Latest Jan-14 by CamGeary
Latest Jan-8 by I Want Flowers (LiberalDem)
5805 messages in 163 discussions
Latest Jan-11 by NISSY (NISSY2)
647 messages in 37 discussions
Latest Jan-7 by katiek2
7264 messages in 176 discussions
Latest Jan-7 by Di (amina046)
1972 messages in 83 discussions
Latest Sep-9 by adwil
Latest Jan-2 by Di (amina046)
Latest Dec-31 by NISSY (NISSY2)
4803 messages in 200 discussions
Latest Dec-30 by NISSY (NISSY2)
I agree that anti-vaxxers need to be dealt with, as they are a danger to all of humanity.
But if you are a grown adult and think that you can cure cancer with chia seeds and goji berries - then that is just natural selection.
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:
I agree that anti-vaxxers need to be dealt with, as they are a danger to all of humanity. But if you are a grown adult and think that you can cure cancer with chia seeds and goji berries - then that is just natural selection.
You're just being contrary.
Since I'm being accused of supporting David Irving, let me post here an argument that, while it need not totally discredit him, does show reckless disregard for historical "truth".
Importantly, his own web-site carries his own apologetic Times letter of 1966 saying the number of deaths was 25,000 with 35,000 missing. If he has changed his mind, from new evidence or some other cause, he should present it in an orderly fashion. Not lie about it in speeches that (especially not ones that he himself was recording!) http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/TheTimes070766.html
The following was lifted from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/David_Irving_v_Penguin_Books_and_Deborah_Lipstadt/XI (though I saw it first at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Irving/Archive_1#Dresden_numbers )
In 1963, Irving wrote "The Destruction of Dresden" and stated as "authoritative" the figure of 135,000 for the number of German dead (though estimates varied between 35,000 and over 200,000).
(As noted and commented above) - in a letter to the Times in 1966 he apologised and said the number of deaths was 25,000 with 35,000 missing. http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/TheTimes070766.html - however, in the 1971 edition of the Dresden book the figure had jumped back up to "more than 100,000". And in the 1995 edition the attack was estimated to have killed between 50,000 and 100,000 inhabitants;
In a speech in South Africa in 1986 Irving stated that 100,000 people were killed in one night in Dresden.
In 1989 when launching the 'Leuchter Report' in the UK, he told journalists present that there were 1,000,000 refugees in Dresden of whom "hundreds of thousands" were killed. At the same event (or a different launch of the same book?) he appears to have said the number was between 100,000 and 250,000 killed.
In Ontario in 1991 he told an audience that over 100,000 people were killed in one night in February 1945.
In a television documentary screened on 28 November 1991 Irving said that 25,000 people may have been executed in Auschwitz but five times that number were killed in Dresden in one night.
In 1992 he told the Institute of Historical Review that 100,000 people were killed in twelve hours by the British and the Americans.
In 1993 in a video made for the Australian public he contended that over 130,000 died.
In 1996 his book "Goebbels: The Mastermind of the Third Reich" 1996 says that between 60,000 and 100,000 people were killed in these raids.
On his web site in 2004 he used the phrase "which burned alive over one hundred thousand people, mostly civilians". [ed - http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/Cesarani.html - still there in Dec 2017]
No hijacking - I don't care how you twist things in order to justify it.