The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 101

Casimir the Great (Kazimierz Wielki) started anti-Semitism?


Linguist 1 | 37
17 May 2010 #31
Any sense of unfairness, real or perceived, will cause some form of hatred

It still doesnt justify racial intolerance, does it?

Just look at the the Poles in UK.

What is wrong with Polish immigrants in the UK?

As opposed to answers, I thought questions can hardly be incorrect.

For your information "rhetorical questions" could be gonna need correction in case of incorrectness. Like "are women equal to men? Are they?! or "are not all your girls cheap easy-pierced sluts?!"
z_darius 14 | 3,968
17 May 2010 #32
It still doesnt justify racial intolerance, does it?

First, I did not make any attempts to justify intolerance. But then, anything can justify intolerance. The issue is whether intolerance is accepted or not and that depends on ethics/law and such. On various levels intolerance is as natural as eating and sleeping. A lot of times intolerance varies only be the degree which it reaches. We all are intolerant in one form or another.

What is wrong with Polish immigrants in the UK?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Poles in the UK.

For your information "rhetorical questions" could be gonna need correction in case of incorrectness.

Oh, that question!
I see no need to correct it. The question stands.

Is it always the perceived aggressor that is 100% at fault?
Sometimes yes, other times not. It all depends on the context and just to illustrate it with an example: a thief gets jail time. Is the thief persecuted by the judge?
Linguist 1 | 37
17 May 2010 #33
We all are intolerant in one form or another.

Sounds like an idea of compulsory fatality. Contrary to your opinion I firmly believe that human beings are by no means doomed to be intolerant in any ways.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Poles in the UK.

So why did you ask me to observe their position in the UK?!

I see no need to correct it. The question stands.

I hope you would alter your mind.

It all depends on the context and just to illustrate it with an example: a thief gets jail time. Is the thief persecuted by the judge?

Let me see according to this context on one side there is "a thief getting convicted by a judge's suggestion, therefore would the judge be a persecutor?". And on the other hand there is "you suggesting to detect the cause of hatred within the hated people, therefore would you be a persecutor?". Then you are supposed to be the "judge" and the people who endure discrimination are the fellow "convict" and expectedly you should not be speculated as a "persecutor" at all. What an impressive rationality of course!
z_darius 14 | 3,968
17 May 2010 #34
Contrary to your opinion I firmly believe that human beings are by no means doomed to be intolerant in any ways.

This statement contradicts basic biology. A mother will be intolerant of anybody endangering her offspring. A belief group will be intolerant of another belief group is the latter tries to impose its values on the former. A mountain of examples can be added.

I hope you would alter your mind.

Why? What's wrong with asking questions?

The rationality is really pretty simple. The stronger sets the rules and the victors are not judged. It's been like that for the last, I dunno... millions of years? But no need to look further than today's Israel and the Occupied territories.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that you are trying to mix in morality/ethics into the mix. And that's where everybody is right and everybody is wrong. Morality is relative.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
17 May 2010 #35
why did not Polish people find abhorance about kingships that were allegedly given to privilige particular classes during their sovereign?

Polacks pissed, Ukies too...Why they not overthrow landlords/landowners?...Why you not overthrow a government you think is corrupt?...Simple: You do not have the power or organizational capability...It takes money, BIG money to have a revolution...Look at Bolsheviks...Baby, big money behind them, and Nazis, too...Take money buddy.

Most those who lived on Polish territories were Poles, whether they were peasants or not, and whether the sense of nationhood was strong or not.

Sure, common sense...People like to engage in 'rhetorical suppositions'.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,426
17 May 2010 #36
When in the beginning of the 13 century the Teutonic order started the policy of settling the newly arrived peasants in the areas they occupied

At this time alot of polish towns and whole territories were destroyed and depopulized by the brutal raids of the Mongols.
At this time german settlers were invited (yes invited) to settle and rebuild those towns who otherwise had stayed empty and wasted.
Krakow for example got rebuild and resettled by german settlers who in the later centuries became wholly polonized. And that happened not only in Krakow.

Alot of Poles have german ancestry (and vice versa)! :)

But I don't think they got invited because they had been Germans (a german nation state didn't exist then) but because they were neighbours and known for their hard work and skills.

Germans always made good settlers!
Linguist 1 | 37
17 May 2010 #37
This statement contradicts basic biology.

Where the heavens has biology confrimed "racial intolerance" as a base?!

A mountain of examples can be added.

I could give you the same amount of examples pertaining to molestation. As well as an already attested biological fact asserting copulation as a human necessity. So could I rationalize molestation in the same way that you do in favor of intolerance?!

What's wrong with asking questions?

No one says any thing's wrong with asking questions. Also there is no need to explain what is wrong with this question:

Are there no reasons for anti-semitism withing the Jews themselves? None?

The rationality is really pretty simple. The stronger sets the rules and the victors are not judged.

So you accepted that kind of so-called rationality as a pretty simple one. But I am afraid on the other hand you exemplify Israeli occupation, therefore you acknowledge that your supposed "judgement" could hold the same conception as that of "occupation". Yes I agree this time. Both racial intolerance and occupation are odious subjects. And for your knowledge they both are not reasonable and cannot hold any rationality due to their irrational substances.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that you are trying to mix in morality/ethics into the mix.

Our nature is ingrained with morality. Not a single action or inaction of us should be immoral indeed. Afterwards it includes issues pertaining to intolerance too.

And that's where everybody is right and everybody is wrong.

Immanuel Kant, as a paragon of ethicality, declares that "good will" is the only thing within the entire universe which is "unquestionably good". So I disagree, ethics is not where everbody would be found both right and wrong at the same time or anything like that.

Morality is relative.

Is it supposed to sell intolerance as a moral stuff?

Polacks pissed

To my knowledge "Polack" got an offensive meaning in English. So plz do not use it when you write in English.

You do not have the power or organizational capability...It takes money, BIG money to have a revolution...

I do not think so. People in Iran achieved an Islamic revolution in 1979 with no significant sources of money while facing the monetary giants as sworn opponents before theirselves. Anyways they, Poles, could still hate the royal families instead of privileged classes, couldnt they?!

Look at Bolsheviks...Baby, big money behind them

Bolsheviks triumphed in 1917 with a "big money behind them"?! But as far as I know they were mostly ordinary communists fanatically loathing the rich as well as bourgeois (both as the major possessors of money within every society). Then where from this "big money" got allotted "behind them"?!
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
17 May 2010 #38
He means the Jews. Or more precise, the Zionist Jews. Joe always means Zionist Jews. Just look up his posts, you will know.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
17 May 2010 #39
To my knowledge "Polack" got an offensive meaning in English. So plz do not use it when you write in English.

Linguist, does your matka still wipe dupa for you?..Stop politically correct.

I am 56 year old Polish-American man, I use any term I wish, and am proud to be a Polack.

PLZ!!!
z_darius 14 | 3,968
18 May 2010 #40
Translation? :)

Germans wound manual crossbows, Poles crossbow machines; German released arrows and Poles released arrows and other missiles, Germans rolled in slingshot machines with stones, and Poles milling stones and sharp poles.

Where the heavens has biology confrimed "racial intolerance" as a base?!

Species and races.

I could give you the same amount of examples pertaining to molestation.

Not a good example. Molestation is not necessary for reproduction. Defending one's offspring is.

So you accepted that kind of so-called rationality as a pretty simple one.

Rationality is a social concept. Not biological one.
On social levels, as I said before, anything can be rationalized. Germans rationalized the murder or Slavs, Jews, gays etc. The British rationalized the murder of natives of many lands. Poles rationalized the occupation of Ukraine. American rationalized the war with Mexico. Jews rationalized the extermination of a few nations, and they still rationalize a lot of their own atrocities. In all those cases the one who hold s the power is right. If the balance of power changes then the other side is right Ergo, ethics, rationality and morality is but an illusion, a temporary creation that takes the shape needed by those who can dictate what is and what isn't ethical, moral or rational.

Our nature is ingrained with morality. Not a single action or inaction of us should be immoral indeed.

Our nature has zero to do with morality. Nature is morally neutral, except for the perpetuation of itself. That is the only morality.

Immanuel Kant, as a paragon of ethicality, declares that "good will" is the only thing within the entire universe

You are certainly free to agree with one of thousands of philosophers, and I see you tend to lean towards those with anthropocentric views. I don't, as I don't think humans are any more special in the universe than any other creatures.

Is it supposed to sell intolerance as a moral stuff?

I'm not selling anything, but yes, sometimes intolerance can be defined as moral.
Linguist 1 | 37
18 May 2010 #41
I am 56 year old Polish-American man, I use any term I wish, and am proud to be a Polack.

Sure thing you could be whatever you wish, but I am afraid whether you got the right to tag such a term as "Polack" on the other Polish individuals or not? Anyways forget about it.

Species and races.

Are you jesting? Plz give a more precise indication that wherein the biology affirms "racial intolerance among human beings as a biological base".

Molestation is not necessary for reproduction. Defending one's offspring is.

Aha, so now you twist it as a matter of "reproduction" and fruitfulness. Then according to your book "racial intolerance" is what people need to ensure the existence of their progenies? What an incredible idea. I wonder how many people over there, God forbid, contemplate like you!

Rationality is a social concept. Not biological one.

Is it supposed to mean rationality fails?

On social levels, as I said before, anything can be rationalized

It is of no importance if people attempt to rationalize, it matters how much their justifications would match with the ethical standards. All your mentioned states have done, or still do, irrational things. This is why people exemplify them. We got humanitarian values which benefit a worldwide acceptance and admiration. Your areguments are entirely against these valuse and unbelievably in order to moralize your unjustifiable intolerance idea you resort to some behaviors of a few countries which are already the unquestionable exemplars of immorality as well as unjustness themselves.

ethics, rationality and morality is but an illusion, a temporary creation

Well we do not discuss what is moral and what is immoral. Germans did not justify their actions by referring as "moral" to them, they simply acknowledged that they are "racist". British prime minister, Churchill, once declares that "we (British government) should use chemical weapons against those people who do not accept our viewpoints". Thereby the first air raid by chemical weapons took place, if I am correct, in 1920s against both civilian and militant Iraqi individuals in the history. As you see they all admit their bestiality nevertheless humanitarian values refutes it by all means. The same thing is held for racial intolerance as well.

Our nature has zero to do with morality.

Then you gotta take a glance at the so-called primitive people such as american natives or eskimos whom proverbs and native anecdotes are teemed with ethical points, and for sure they could be speculated as the closest people to the human nature. Morality is the fruit of mankind evolution. It is ridiculous that I have to relate such a sentence for you.

You are certainly free to agree with one of thousands of philosophers

Well it, same as most of your sayings, is a fallacious sentence. You couldnt underestimate Einestein's opinions just by referring to him as "one of thousands of scientists" neither you could disregard Imannuel Kant's ethical viewpoints just like that. Since personages such as them are among the best ones in their related fields, if not the best ones!

and I see you tend to lean towards those with anthropocentric views.

If there was no "anthropocentrism" or "ethical compulsion" so there would be no "fight for mankind freedom" and of course thereafter a Polish guy like you might even not had the faintest hint on this earthy planet by now becuz without any "moral necessity to fight for freedom", American tax payers and lawmakers would never ever take it for granted to help you directly (with your resistance forces) or indirectly (via aiding Soviets) during the WWII, which caused the salvation of your backs for the rest of the history.

I don't think humans are any more special in the universe than any other creatures.

A sincere confession. Now I can conceive a better impression of you in my mind.

sometimes intolerance can be defined as moral.

I see. So would you plz indicate that which philosopher has asseverated "racial intolerance" in his ethics? Or maybe it is in accordance with your own devised ethicality, if so then I think you are gonna need to refute those principles of Kant in a scientific manner first. "Sometime intolerance can be defined as moral" what the ... heavens!
1jola 14 | 1,879
18 May 2010 #42
No one says any thing's wrong with asking questions.

Linguist rejects this question outright because his concept of antisemitism is that Jews are automatically victims of deranged prejudice.

The question is not wrong if you bother to look at the issues. Eva Hoffman writes:

In this respect, the nature of the Polish-Jewish relationship is exceptional.

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shtetl/reflections/excerpt.html

Eva Hoffman, Shtetl: The Life and Death of a Small Town and the World of Polish Jews (Boston and New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 8-9.
plk123 8 | 4,149
18 May 2010 #43
True man. There are more Jew-related threads on this forum than on any other forum I have been to LOL

i don't agree but the number is high, none the less.

the thread where I asked about what is in the Polish interest

"they" are not.. i bet..

why the f*ck do people like Polonius and other sockpuppets feel the need to obsessively discuss the topic on forums about Poland?

because he's a jew..

All of 'Jewish problem' stem from greed of sczhlata,

or is it because of jewish greed? hmm

If you don't care, why do you have so much to say?

he doesn't care which = he hates them..

Are there no reasons for anti-semitism withing the Jews themselves? None?

of course not.. they are the chosen folk.. lol

and Israel is on the other bloody hemisphere.

actually it is not..

i noticed there's baiting happening here.

and you love to bite.

You, as Poles, should take care of every single hint of intolerance within your society towards other people.

lol.. fat chance..
Linguist 1 | 37
18 May 2010 #44
We do know, however, that Jews had their ... strictly guarding certain business practices and "secrets" from non-Jews

For God sakes the European ecclesiastical system was given to denounce and prosecute the entire body of Jews on behalf Jesus Christ regarding to his crcuifixion! Shall we take it for granted moreover?!

became more rigorously observant.

What is wrong with that? It puts the freedom of belief under a groundless question mark.

I wonder Poland is a member of European Union, but some Polish opinions dont appear to be in unison with EU beliefs (it was the best description I could give for the obvious "racist" ideas fallaciously generalizing intolerance toward a specific people on account of unsavory behaviors of some of them).

... and that, much as they may be the targets of prejudice, they are not themselves immune to it.

It uses the verb "may". Here and overall throughout the history we have observed significant animosities towards Jews. But I have never ever heard of or seen any accounts on Jews loathing Polish people or whatever.

You, as Poles, should take care of every single hint of intolerance within your society towards other people.

What an unfortunateness. :(

they are the chosen folk.. lol

Sounds like jealous! lol, kidding ;)
1jola 14 | 1,879
18 May 2010 #45
Shall we take it for granted moreover?!

You are quoting Eva Hoffman not me, and no reason to freak out. We haven't gotten to the religious aspect yet. When we do, you tell us all about the Judaic prejudice toward Christianity and Christians.

I wonder Poland is a member of European Union, but some Polish opinions dont appear to be in unison with EU beliefs ).

There is no thought control in EU yet, but I'm glad you have the prescribed and correct thoughts and opinions.

the best description I could give for the obvious "racist" ideas fallaciously generalizing intolerance

So, a phrase like "Polish anti-semitism" would be racist, right?

Once again. Do you not agree with Ms. Hoffman that Jews were also prejudiced toward Poles and Christians?

We tend to forget that minority groups are not powerless in the perceptions

Linguist 1 | 37
18 May 2010 #46
You are quoting Eva Hoffman not me

I adress you since you do have resort to her.

We haven't gotten to the religious aspect yet.

Sure we have. Your cited text directly involves both Judaism and Christianity. Particularly it stresses Judaic instructions as the probable "casus belli"!

you tell us all about the Judaic prejudice toward Christianity and Christians.

lol, there aint no such a thing at all. Judaism antedates Christianity. I also do not argue the divinity of Christianity ever. To me Christianity is an Abrahamic religion and extremely respectable. But some people among the ecclesiastical echelon had been spiteful towards Jews and certainly it is all their own personal culpa not, God forbid, pertaining to the Christianity in any ways! But you do denounce Judaism just becuz of some rumored accounts.

There is no thought control in EU yet

Oh hell yes there is. Do not make me split hairs. Is not there any restrictions curbing Nazis?! Maybe I should add the discriminational prohibitions towards some Islamic instructions and customs over Belgium, France, and Switzerland. Let me guess, perhaps your personal role models are the fellow Belgian, French, or Swiss legislators?!

but I'm glad you have the prescribed and correct thoughts and opinions.

I wish I could be glad in the same way about yours.

So, a phrase like "Polish anti-semitism" would be racist, right?

No need to the preceding terms like "Polish" etc. "Anti-semitism" is indisputably a kind of "racism".

Once again. Do you not agree with Ms. Hoffman that Jews were also prejudiced toward Poles and Christians?

Leave this very revered ma'am alone with her ideas in the middle of nowhere. Plz give me a tangible example of Polish Jews loathing Polish Christians unanimously ever.

Contrary to your probably initial presumptions, I am not Jewish. I am Muslim and according to my religous instructions and my personal perception colors, races, tribes, families, ancestors, languages, and even all monotheist creeds do not make any difference at all. But it is our "submission to the divine providence" as well as our "goodness" which make us more or less preferable before the Lord. I dont know what ever for you have found such sentiments towards another people, but be sure there is nothing wrong with Jews. Only if you were immoral athiests their adherent faith in monotheism throughout the history would be wrong indeed! Do the white Bambinos or the blonde Jesus depictions on the cross delude you and make you forget that he was from Nazareth and surely a Jewish by blood?! Are you gonna claim that it was also Jesus' fault that Romans crussified him, why not? Since he was a Jew too!!!

I just hope guys like you would comprise an insignificant minority within the Polish society!
1jola 14 | 1,879
18 May 2010 #47
I just hope guys like you would comprise an insignificant minority within the Polish society!

You seem sincere. What should guys like me do then?
z_darius 14 | 3,968
18 May 2010 #48
Plz give a more precise indication that wherein the biology affirms "racial intolerance among human beings as a biological base".

How much more precise can you be than seeing the very existence of the races, and the affinity that races feel towards one's own kinds? Tolerance is the necessary step towards self annihilation in the areas of not only biological but also cultural and social. That's how some European countries started loosing full control their country and their way of life.

Aha, so now you twist it as a matter of "reproduction" and fruitfulness. Then according to your book "racial intolerance" is what people need to ensure the existence of their progenies?

Millions think alike. And they have been for millena with Plato being just one of the examples. You have heard about Plato's "Republic" haven't you. Take some time and read it too.

Is it supposed to mean rationality fails?

Yes, the very rationality that you hoped to mix us all into one nondescript masses, deprived of individualism and group identity does fail indeed. On the biological scale we are indeed one species, but as individuals we do not think on the scale of the entire human kind. We think on the scale of and individual. the basic family unit, the basic and closest social group and so on and so forth. There can not be, and I doubt there ever will be, the nirvana of unconditionally loving thy brother. The scale is too large and, frankly, the governments around the world will not let that happen as peace is bad for business.

It is of no importance if people attempt to rationalize, it matters how much their justifications would match with the ethical standards.

And you are a linguist?
So tell us about that vast difference between rationalization and ethical standards. Are these standards inherent in nature and completely irrational?

Then you gotta take a glance at the so-called primitive people such as american natives or eskimos whom proverbs and native anecdotes are teemed with ethical points

How rude! The "eskimos"? Is this your ethics at work? How can you call people derogatory name and then pretend to be some kind of defender of cross racial relations?

Are you in grade 5 reading some 19th century novels?
"Noble savage", huh?
No such thing. ALL human groups are perfectly capable of committing acts that are considered unethical by other groups. Still, is it ethical for them to kill baby seals? The whole world protests when they do so. For them it is an important part of their meager economy. We kill cows, they kill seals. If need be we kill them, and they kill us. The "need" can be any need as defined by the perpetrator of the aggression.

Morality is the fruit of mankind evolution. It is ridiculous that I have to relate such a sentence for you.

Morality is part of control system. Killing is deemed unethical except when... insert a few sound reasons that have been and are still used until this day. The key words are "except when" and they tell us that in fact killing is not unethical. It;s just a question of whether you can justify killing. The Nazis justified murder and they called it the law. Jews justified murder and they called it the Bible. Examples abound throughout history and around the world. As of late, murder has been given other labels, such as jihad, or the war on terror. Yes, the American and British war crimes are easily justified and accepted by their respective populations. The same withing the muslim world within the framework of their own approaches, which certainly are in opposition to those of the US and UK.

So tell me, who is moral here?

If there was no "anthropocentrism" or "ethical compulsion" so there would be no "fight for mankind freedom"

As someone said, fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity. Empty words and hogwash.

American tax payers and lawmakers would never ever take it for granted to help you directly (with your resistance forces) or indirectly (via aiding Soviets) during the WWII, which caused the salvation of your backs for the rest of the history.

A completely idiotic argument. You clearly have zero idea about Poland, US and USSR during WW2. So let me offer you an accelerated crash course in the subject - the US did not give one bit about Poland and in fact sold Poland out to the USSR in Yalta. The help the USSR received from the US amounted to about 5% of the Soviet costs. It could be argued that Poles fighting in Poland during WW2 contributed more to the war effort than Americans ever did. When you consider then number of Poles fighting on the Western front then those 5% of American cash pales in comparison to Polish input towards the liberation of others.

Just thought you might want to know.

A sincere confession. Now I can conceive a better impression of you in my mind.

Not a confession but a statement of fact. And that fact concerns you too.

So would you plz indicate that which philosopher has asseverated "racial intolerance" in his ethics?

David Hume and Immanuel Kant would be a start.

"Sometime intolerance can be defined as moral" what the ... heavens!

heavens indeed. Look for proof in the old testament. Heck, there is some in the NT too.

In conclusion, you need to read more, study more and get some facts straight. For now you have very little material to form half decent arguments. Unless you consider propaganda posters and motivational speeches actual knowledge.
Linguist 1 | 37
18 May 2010 #49
How much more precise can you be than seeing the very existence of the races, and the affinity that races feel towards one's own kinds?

All due respect, these are craps! Plz give the biological evidence as you claimed. Otherwise stop nonesensical sophistry.

And they have been for millena with Plato being just one of the examples. You have heard about Plato's "Republic" haven't you.

Do you mean Plato is arguing "racial intolerance"?!

On the biological scale we are indeed one species, but as individuals we do not think on the scale of the entire human kind.

For your knowledge we all are different indeed from a biological aspect. No one would possess the same body of genes as any one else had ever did. This is what makes us look different in many ways. But we are all human beings and there are humanitarian values which are accepted worldwide. Some may prefer Democritus and some Sokrates, some follow Muhammad, some Jesus, some Moses, and some Buddha. But there is no universally accepted and admired creed according to which "racial intolerance" would be interpreted alright. I am not talking about the useless political systems of our times, I am talking about "racial intolerance" which you maintain it fanatically.

And you are a linguist?

Not professionally. I am an amateur linguist.

So tell us about that vast difference between rationalization and ethical standards

Read Kant's dissertations on ethics.

Are these standards inherent in nature and completely irrational?

If you mean ethical standards, yes they are innate stuffs as well as philosophically "rational".

How can you call people derogatory name and then pretend to be some kind of defender of cross racial relations?

Thanks for insisting on your fallacy. For your information it is a general term in use which is sometimes considered to be offensive, not always nor often. My usage could not be including its "sporadically offensive meaning" becuz I did not mean to, as opposed to your malicious misrepresentation.

Are you in grade 5 reading some 19th century novels?

I am sorry that you still do not know some stuff are ageless.

"Noble savage", huh?

Are you trying to insult primitive people by remarking the term "savage"?!

ALL human groups are perfectly capable of committing acts that are considered unethical by other groups.

lol, it is amusing how you run forward (likely unintentionally). Did I say primitives are infallible?! You asked whether ethics is ingrained with humans nature or not and I exemplified these purely natural men and their obvious point of view abt ethicality.

Still, is it ethical for them to kill baby seals? The whole world protests when they do so.

lol, you are unbelievable. Nature is able to sustain a natural food circle (one eats the other and another its it and so on). Not the early men nor the primitives have ever caused something noticeably wrong within this circle. It is us-the so-called modern men who seriously jeopardize this planet. It was the civilized European hunters taking prideful photographs while standing next to the "Mounds of Buffalo-skulls", not the native Americans. By the way you hinted since some Eskimos hunt some baby seals, then the whole ethicality within the entire primitive creeds on this planet would be nothing?! Thanks again for your faithfulness to fallacy.

If need be we kill them, and they kill us. The "need" can be any need as defined by the perpetrator of the aggression.

Makes sense! (sick!)

The Nazis justified murder and they called it the law. Jews justified murder and they called it the Bible.

Do you really think these rush lines of examples would refute morality and thereby confrim your unsound idea of "racial intolerance"?!

Yes, the American and British war crimes are easily justified and accepted by their respective populations.

Wrong. Many celebrities (Noam Chomsky, S. Kubrick) never ever admitted any craps justifying unfair wars. And I think most Britons as well as Americans are already against war. Obama (true or false) polled becuz of his motto of changing the ongoing belligerency.

The same withing the muslim world within the framework of their own approaches, which certainly are in opposition to those of the US and UK.

It still has nothing to do with approving the "refutal of morality" and subsequently the "confirmation of racial intolerance", in your eyes.

So tell me, who is moral here?

Ok suppose I told you none. So could that mean "morality" is wrong?! Lets make another supposition, one day you get up and find all men on the earth claiming 2+2=3 for their own irrational reasons, so could you believe that 2+2=4 is wrong even though science has already confirmed it?! Utilize your gray cells man! "Rightness" is not up to its pretending followers, even if all men turned into wrong ones, Rightness still would be Rightness.

As someone said, fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

As someone [God knows who] said, fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity [therefore there could not be any real "fight for peace" at all] ... after this therefore becuz of this....

the US did not give one bit about Poland and in fact sold Poland out to the USSR in Yalta.

As a fallacious arguer I knew you are going to say that. Werent the bulk of your resistance forces clustered in the UK? Are you denying that US saved the UK and afterwards all of you?! Yes they first rescue you from the Nazi occupation and racisim, then-for presently obscure reasons, entrusted you to Communism. Throughout the Communist rule you had your own country but probably under an unsavory government, nevertheless the Communist party members were indeed Polish natives. Anyways Communists didnt kill you becuz of your nose, or your non-German genes, etc. Your army just lost your home in a few months (or maybe only 30 days I am not sure) but US aids, thru Bolsheviks, saved you forever.

The help the USSR received from the US amounted to about 5% of the Soviet costs.

Who told you that accurate and odd percentage? I dont know the real amount of US aids for Soviets, at the present time, but one thing is obvious for me as an Iranian: our country got no nationwide railway until 1943 when Uncle Sam's financial sources finished it as soon as possible. A great railyway from the hot shores of Persian gulf all the way to the green Caspian coasts. And you know what for they constructed it? To convey the huge amounts of aids to Russia, whilst Nazis were approaching Caucasian mountains and had the main part of the green Europe as an oyster for themselves. It is a fact that without Uncle Sam the eastern frontier would end up a "Slaughterhouse of Communists", where Nazis would be measuring Russian noses to make sure whether they could live in their Utopian society or merit death. Have not you ever heeded this fact that Nazis started off continous retreats on both frontiers as soon as Americans joined the war?! Anyways it is an off-topic stuff and got nothing to do with the fact that no freaks on this planet should be intolerant towards the others.

It could be argued that Poles fighting in Poland during WW2 contributed more to the war effort than Americans ever did.

Are you that much partial?

When you consider then number of Poles fighting on the Western front then those 5% of American cash pales in comparison to Polish input towards the liberation of others.

Ok I will tell them that in accordance with your account it was Poland which liberated the Europe not America!! But I am afraid according to this statement of yours US once, at the same time, sells out Poland. Maybe Polish fighters just freed every where but Poland (such forgetfuls!) and it is why US could librate there and sell you out!

the US ... in fact sold Poland out to the USSR in Yalta.

Just thought you might want to know.

Ok forget abt it at all. The people you feel partial for are undoubtedly the only "Libertador" in the Europe. But would it still give the pretext to hate the others becuz of their race?!

I don't think humans are any more special in the universe than any other creatures.

Then whatever you think is a fact and could concern every body. Another sincere confession of course! Now I am getting the best impression I could ever conceive of you.

David Hume and Immanuel Kant would be a start.

Immanuel Kant cosiders "racial intolerance" as a moral matter?! For your knowledge the basis of such a bestial idea of racial intolerance is one's essentially better entity in comparison to the others. As I told you before according to Kant's ethicality it is the "good will" which is the only essentially "good" stuff within the cosmos, not a race nor a nation! Why are you making mock of yourself?!

heavens indeed. Look for proof in the old testament. Heck, there is some in the NT too.

But I am afraid you are resorting to your believe in a book, to justify your hatred towards Jews, whilst the book itself is brought about by a Jew-who is a universal pragaon of tenderness! Very rational.

In conclusion, you need to read more, study more and get some facts straight.

What a groundless conclusion based on irrelevant and absurd accounts, narrations, or freaky personal views.

For now you have very little material to form half decent arguments.

Let me guess, and it means "racial intolerance" is rational.

Unless you consider propaganda posters and motivational speeches actual knowledge.

For sure I do not care propagandistic craps. For instance stuffs like these are of course nothing to heed:

It could be argued that Poles fighting in Poland during WW2 contributed more to the war effort than Americans ever did.

If you are literally an intolerant person towards any people becuz of their race or religion or stuffs like that, so I am sorry for you in the heartiest way possible. On one hand you seem to detest the undergoing circumstances in the world and you feel that they are not right and fair, but on the other hand, instead of holding the right idea and trying to amend the world, you just sincerely devote yourself to exacerbate it in the worst way. :(
Skrymcz - | 30
18 May 2010 #50
What is wrong with Polish immigrants in the UK?

Ermm most of them are racists.
Linguist 1 | 37
18 May 2010 #51
You seem sincere. What should guys like me do then?

I try to be. Simply stop partiality and hatred. ;)

Ermm most of them are racists.

I see. I was thinking they mainly care for your skin, hairs, or eyes and since Polish people resemble them in these ways so they would be unscathed from racism. Any ways alas for whoever that is racist.
z_darius 14 | 3,968
18 May 2010 #52
All due respect, these are craps! Plz give the biological evidence as you claimed. Otherwise stop nonesensical sophistry.

I have. You need to bite a little biology to understand

Do you mean Plato is arguing "racial intolerance"?!

Yes.

But there is no universally accepted and admired creed according to which "racial intolerance" would be interpreted alright.

Likewise, multiculturalism and tolerance are not universally accepted.

Not professionally. I am an amateur linguist.

Certainly an amateur.

Read Kant's dissertations on ethics.

Which ones?
And why are you insisting on using a racist, which Kant was, as a source of ethical bliss?

For your information it is a general term in use which is sometimes considered to be offensive, not always nor often.

Actually, you could get in legal trouble for calling someone an "eskimo" in Canada, where they actually live. The term is offensive and not used in public media. Might be of use to you as an amateur "linguist".

Are you trying to insult primitive people by remarking the term "savage"?!

I used quotes to cite the British concept, so fire at the British, not me.

Not the early men nor the primitives have ever caused something noticeably wrong within this circle.

See? You're at it again. Why are you constantly offending the Inuit people's of Canada, this time by calling them "primitives".

Many celebrities (Noam Chomsky, S. Kubrick) never ever admitted any craps justifying unfair wars.

Unfair wars are wrong by definition, linguist. No need for Chomsky, who (if you ever read anything of substance by him) does accept that some wars could be fair and justified.

Do you really think these rush lines of examples would refute morality and thereby confrim your unsound idea of "racial intolerance"?!

You keep writing about morality but I still have a feeling you have no idea what you're writing about. So once again - morality is relative and thus subject to interpretation.

I dont know the real amount of US aids for Soviets, at the present time, but one thing is obvious for me as an Iranian:

Awesome. But this is irrelevant to the topic.

Are you that much partial?

Partial? These are facts. So yes, I am partial to truth. You prefer lalaland instead. Americans working for the good o Iranian people. Haha Good one. You like them CIA agents, huh?

Ok I will tell them that in accordance with your account it was Poland which liberated the Europe not America!!

Gibberish, so I'll pass.

But I am afraid you are resorting to your believe in a book, to justify your hatred towards Jews, .

My belief in the book? Actually I don;t believe in one word of the book. It's a racist garbage.

Hatred towards Jews? Where? Quote me.

What a groundless conclusion based on irrelevant and absurd accounts, narrations, or freaky personal views.

Groundless? Didn't you write about Poland being helped by the US? Now, that was groundless.

If you are literally an intolerant person towards any people becuz of their race or religion or stuffs like that

I'm not talking about me, but about ideas and concepts. There are created by man and are subject to whim, interpretation and emotion. Hence, there is no such think as ethics or morality in nature. Not even among the human race.

On one hand you seem to detest the undergoing circumstances in the world and you feel that they are not right and fair

Again, I thought we were taking about issues, not about me. But since you seem to differ I have to admit that what I really detest right now is your scattered minded fishing around without much substance to it. You sound like a Sunday morning sermon or a motivational speech of girl scouts.
1jola 14 | 1,879
19 May 2010 #53
I try to be. Simply stop partiality and hatred. ;)

You're the Persian tourist. I knew you would be a waste of time. Go away.
King Sobieski 2 | 716
19 May 2010 #54
Judaism antedates Christianity

and believe it or not...islam.
plk123 8 | 4,149
19 May 2010 #55
how's that? Muhammed lived between 570-632AD.. Islam didn't exist before that..
King Sobieski 2 | 716
19 May 2010 #56
a tenet of islam is they believe that judaism and christianity have strayed from the true word of god, and that god revealed to the prophet his true word.

that is why they refer to people that convert from judaism/christianity to islam as "reverts".
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
22 May 2010 #57
or is it because of jewish greed? hmm

Sure, Jews greedy, but it was the Polish land magnates who had the decision making power.

Same thing throughout history: This decade in USA you have Jewish neo-cons, AIPAC and such obtaining very high degree of power over US foreign policy, so they maneuver to promote Israeli interests...However, none of this possible without a Bush or Cheney or Congress allowing this to happen.
FateDestiny1 - | 1
30 Aug 2018 #58
Merged:

Descendants of Kasimir the Great?



Are there any proven descendants of Kasimir the Great left?
jon357 67 | 16,836
30 Aug 2018 #59
Lots. His grand-daughter was Empress Elisabeth. Just get a copy of the Almanach de Gotha (or its newer successor); your local public library should have both.
Lyzko 29 | 7,240
30 Aug 2018 #60
Kazimierz Wielki didn't "start" anti-Semitism, any more than Hitler created anti-Jewish hostility; both merely fanned the flames of the smoldering embers which already were in the air at the time. In both cases, hatred of Jews had been successfully submerged for a while, only to rear its ugly head as soon as the right lynch pin was pulled!


Home / History / Casimir the Great (Kazimierz Wielki) started anti-Semitism?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.