View Single Post
Old July 28th, 2008 #852
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
You are misrepresenting my argument. I’m not mistaking hate for pride. I’m saying that hatred of what harms the object of pride may be a consequence of pride.

I asked you: What is pride? What does being a proud German mean to you?

You responded with hatred for Hitler:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berty
Opposing apologists of the Nazi criminals who led Germany to shame and disaster, among other things.

Considering that he led my country to shame and disaster unparalleled in its milenary history, I don't see why I should not hate the fellow, and why hating him should be incompatible with being proud of my country.

Pride in my country implies hating who damaged it as badly as your beloved Führer did.
Yep, hatred for Hitler as a consequence of pride in what he damaged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
I am not misrepresenting your argument; you misrepresented pride with hate and this ongoing "consequence" talk is a consequence of an unwillingness to concede error on your part.
No, you’re trying to make believe that I equaled hate with pride when what I actually did was to point out an implication and consequence of pride: opposition to or hatred of what damages the object of pride.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
What applies to the fear of what may harm what you love also applies to the outrage about harm done to what you love. Both may lead to hate. I’d say the latter is even likelier to do that than the former.

Mistaking hate for pride and stating that hate (against what harms the object of your pride) may result from pride (in that very object) are two different pairs of boots. You are obviously trying to mix them up.

This truly is convoluted, extraordinary stuff. What does Occams razor say about this?
Your inability to understand my arguments doesn’t make them convoluted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
It's simple silly: not pride but fear gives rise to hate; and not may, not maybe, but does.
Your statement is wrong in two respects. One is that fear may but must not lead to hate. The other is that the same applies to pride.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Whether or not the language is "emotional", it expresses scorn that has an objective foundation. And that scorn, contrary to your baseless insinuations, is not meant to be a pretext for anything. It’s just an expression of well-founded opinion.

This is classic pilpulism, your subjective argument is based on objective foundation.
I didn’t know a subjective argument could be based on objective foundation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
I didn’t say the religious feelings themselves are credible evidence. But they are a credible motivation for describing physical evidence perceived as offending those feelings, just like the Wehrmacht commandant’s sense of smell is a credible motivation for referring to physical evidence perceived as offending that sense.

The rabbi's emotional description of what he claims to have seen is more dubious eyewitness testimony.
Actually eyewitness testimony is intentional evidence, which is not what the rabbi’s complaint about his hurt feelings can be called. And there’s nothing about that complaint to make the description of the complaint object – physical evidence of the mass murder at Chelmno – seem "dubious". On the contrary, the absence of intention to "bear witness" to a crime makes this description unintentional and thus particularly credible evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
One of your favorite catch phrases. Anything behind it?

As I said before, what applies to the fear of what may harm what you love also applies to the outrage about harm done to what you love. Both may lead to hate. I’d say the latter is even likelier to do that than the former.

Non sequitur.
You don’t respond to a request for clarifying a catch phrase with the same catch phrase, do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
The original point was and still is that Jews hate White children because Jews fear White children.
You call that a point? I’d call it one of your baseless articles of faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
That’s absolute nonsense. Jewish individuals may have done a lot of wrong (like individuals of other ethnic or social groups have), but the people murdered in Nazi extermination camps or by Nazi killing squads had nothing to do with such wrong.

Actually I have a strong dislike for a Jewish attitude aptly described by Peter Novick as striving for "permanent possession of the gold medal in the Victimization Olympics". But denying the murder of millions of innocent people because one hates Jews and/or loves the Nazis is a more contemptible attitude, which is why I focus on the garbage that promotes such attitude.

These are mere tokens: harmless opposition. You do, and will side with Jews on every meaningful issue, guaranteed.
I side with Jews as victims of Nazi mass murder, just as I side with non-Jews as victims of Nazi mass murder or any other victims of any mass murder. Simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
So no existing institutions would qualify? Good, that’s what I wanted to know. As to "volunteers", how do you make sure that they don’t side with either NAFCASH or "Jews"?

TBH, Bert, I don't think there's going to be a dig. Why should there be when Jews can force with law the it is simply a fact standard?
Your evasion is duly noted.

What you call the "is simply a fact standard" is a rule of evidence that has an old Anglo-Saxon tradition, and if it is applied today regarding the events you deny that’s because these events have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence assessed by criminal investigators and historians over the past six decades.

As to "digs", they have taken place and are currently taking place. Not because they are required to prove what has been proven already, but because their results are expected to enhance historical knowledge. And enhancement of knowledge is always an undertaking that merits approval, don’t you think so?