[ced smythe]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

Then you’re deliberately misrepresenting my words.

They're your words and they represent your feelings. You've tried harder than anyone I've known to twist and wriggle out of these first three or four strange answers you gave to a simple question. This makes you a staunch errorist and really does put a question mark over your ability to tell the truth on any issue whether important or not.

Actually I was talking about the meaning of pride from the beginning, and your lame accusation of "indecent behavior" can be considered indecent indeed.

I've already posted your initial strange, hateful mistakes on the meaning of pride. After those mistakes you posted this:

Originally Posted by Berty

Let's say being proud of Germany's cultural, technical, scientific and economic achievements and of the stable democracy that Germany has managed to become over the past decades.

which is more or less pride. As I said, the beauty of your errorism is that it's unnecessary and makes you seem unreachable and untrustable.

No, a choice between your question being less clear than you claim it to be and my having responded in a provocative manner.

The question is very clear, infact, crystal is opaque by comparison so I discount your jest that it's unclear; and I mentioned that baiting is futile, the reason being I don't take neurotics seriously.

OK. I’m convinced of the possibility, even the probability, of pride leading to hatred against who or what harms the object of pride.

"Possibility, probability". This is not conviction.

Whatever makes you happy, as I’m not following you here.

Feigning ignorance is indecent behaviour from you again.

I’m proud of my country.

Some crazy fellow leads my country (the object of my pride) to shame and disaster.

I hate that crazy fellow for having led my country (the object of my pride) to shame and disaster.

Kind of non sequitur but:

The fear of the object of pride being damaged or hurt leads to hate and everlasting determination to exact revenge in your case - and many others who fear the resurgence of authority.

What point am I supposed to be avoiding, my friend?

Ah, and if you’re looking for someone who needs a lecture on character, I suggest your friend Gerdes.

You're such a fastidious, meticulous man. Consider your modus operandi: your legalistic, prim lawyer type posturing; frequently pointing to previous posts here and elsewhere to reiterate a point you've made as though you keep track of everything. This makes asking for these explanations seem like deceitful game playing and evasive manoeuvres; meaning that's all you have. Again it demonstates a niggardly personality.

Occam’s razor gives preference to the simplest explanation that takes all evidence into account. Which would that be in this case?

I say fear, directly leads to hate; you say:

Originally Posted by Berty

Your statement is wrong in two respects. One is that fear may but must not lead to hate.

What applies to the fear of what may harm what you love also applies to the outrage about harm done to what you love.

Besides, exemplifying meaning on hand of a consequence and "playing a game" by antagonizing my opponent with the consequence chosen as an example are not mutually exclusive propositions.

This whole thread is full of tedious verbosity from you. Occam's razor says you are a relentless liar and I agree.

Unless the issue of critical importance to world Jewry was proof of what happened at Chelmno and not violation of religious principles by desecration of human remains, what you say doesn’t affect the correctness of my assessment.

Non sequitur: this statement has no bearing on the original points made. Indecent behaviour from you again.

When talking to Jew-hating fanatics who spout nonsensical preconceived notions, that’s sort of unavoidable.

This statement changes nothing: you stand ideologically against the interests of White children.

No, the standard is enforced to avoid wasting a court’s time on proof of what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt already.

You conveniently - and typically - omitted the bit where I said "and is compounded by laws forbidding debate elsewhere."

Setting up straw-men I leave to my opponents, and your "lie" postulation is dogmatic indeed.

This is clearly a lie considering your world is flat and dinosaur strawman. As for dogma, revisionists don't accept the word of men without question on matters of extreme importance; scientists ask for empirical evidence, as in proof, not religious reverence for the words of priests such as the rabbi and Kola etc.