View Single Post
Old July 29th, 2008 #870
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Yep, hatred for Hitler as a consequence of pride in what he damaged.

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.

I didn't ask after the consequence of pride; you just self-substantiated a non sequitur response to a very simple question.
No, the consequence is part of the meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Your inability to understand my arguments doesn’t make them convoluted.

I understand your words; look at how complex your language has become on this simple issue; yet you called my explanation that an insult is an insult whether truthful or not convoluted, thus plummeting to ignorance at will.
Look who’s accusing me of complex or convoluted language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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.

Pride does not give rise to hate; fear, directly gives rise to hate.
However often you repeat your statement, that doesn’t make it any more logical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
As for your interpretation of what I said, I think you're grasping.
In what respect am I supposed to have read you wrong, my friend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
I didn’t know a subjective argument could be based on objective foundation.

That's my point, you used a pilpul in an attempt to pass off emotionalism for objectivity and it failed.

Quote:
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.

The rabbi's description of what he claims to have seen is the word of a Jew; the absence of intention to bear witness is unlikely and insignificant.
Wow, now he’s down to "Jews always lie" – BS …

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
If there were anything to see we'd have photos as every Jew editor/producer/reporter in the world knows the value of a picture.
… and hollow conjectures based on equally hollow preconceived notions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
You don’t respond to a request for clarifying a catch phrase with the same catch phrase, do you?

You call that a point? I’d call it one of your baseless articles of faith.

The phrase was followed by an explanation; seperating the two sentences and responding out of context is what I expect from a niggard.
You're providing an appropiate designation for your friend Gerdes, who quotes people out of context all the time. As to your "explanation", I don’t see how it explains the catch phrase. Actually the "explanation" is such a showpiece of imbecility that the catch phrase would have been better off without it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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.

You, as all good Jews, do, and will side with Jews on important issues, guaranteed.
The only important issue I’m interested in is that of historical facts about a criminal regime’s crimes against innocent people and human garbage that denies such crimes in support of an ideological agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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?

The it is simply a fact standard is Jewish despotism, a sure sign of the legal domination which you conveniently ignore.
No, it is an expression of a procedural rule rooted in Anglo-Saxon legal tradition that has nothing to do with the "legal domination" you phantasize about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
These digs that have taken place, are they the ones where no photos have been produced for seven years?
I wouldn’t go there if I were you – at least as long as there’s no report from Mr. Krege, who unlike Prof. Kola (who seems to be pissed off at who commissioned his investigation) has no "technical" reason for not having published his report but has obviously refrained from publishing it because he found exactly what he had hoped not to find (see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 for details ).