View Single Post
Old July 31st, 2008 #923
ced smythe
ced smythe's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Meaning includes consequence, doesn’t it?
You claimed to be a proud German and I doubt your claim; and ever since I asked you a simple question: what is pride, you've excused mistaking hate for pride with irrelevant consequence talk which is intended to waste time. In the post before this you admitted that you are playing a game; now you are talking about consequence again. This behaviour says much about your character; I should point out that you are an ambassador of sorts.

I’m not conscious of an error. The most you can claim is that we misunderstood each other.
There's no misunderstanding. Deliberately complex language followed time wasting deception from you and it failed to achieve the desired confusion.

My assertion was that pride may lead to hate, just like fear, and it expresses a conviction that I see no need to change.
It's not a conviction due to the "may"; in fact it's an ambiguity and you tacitly admit that by italicising "may". It's plain old sleight of wording and clear proof of intention to deceive.

If you were to, as I do, say: fear, directly leads to hate, but swap "fear" for "pride" that would be a conviction.

Did I show such inability? I have no problem with accepting that calling someone an obnoxious asshole is an insult even if that someone is your friend Gerdes.
Asking whether you did is deliberate time wasting; I suppose that's all you have.

No, outrage is related to pride, as a possible consequence of pride when the object of pride is harmed.
Again the "possible" makes this an ambiguous statement indicating a deceitful personality. When you finally make the conviction I will ask for some real world examples of how pride gives rise to outrage and hate.

That’s right, it especially doesn’t make the "Jew" look any better.
Whinging about being called a Jew at this point is grasping.

Simple and consistent is what I consider my argument to be, somewhat incoherent is how your argument comes across to me.
I say with conviction: fear, directly leads to hate.

You say:

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.

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.
Occam's razor say's you are a deceiver and I agree.

You are baselessly postulating that the issue of the article was proving the crimes committed at Chelmno, and even in that case the shortage of photographs (there’s one in the article, actually) wouldn’t mean a thing. Actually the issue was desecration of human remains, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the author had refrained from copiously photographing such remains lest he be guilty of some of the behavior he was complaining about.
Non sequitur: you assert that the rabbi unintentionally gave testimony making the speech particularly credible evidence. This new statement seems to be an about turn and contains more of that emotionalism which protects the disputed centerpiece; also the photo I saw was of no relevance to mass murder claims - just a few guys at a distance standing around a hole.

Photographic illustration of physical evidence might be a reasonable expectation in the context of a present-day forensic investigation, but in the context of a religiously motivated complaint about desecration of human remains it is rather unreasonable to expect such illustration.
More emotionalism = deception.

That’s just more of the same "guarantee" from the same lousy source, actually. Unlike yours and that of your brothers-in-spirit, my reasoning does not follow the criterion of convenience to certain interests. If it happens to favor certain interests, that’s but an incidental consequence of following the evidence where it leads.
Your ideological posture is profoundly Jewish: only Jews and their dupes enforce the 'caust and then not to the extreme you display; you claim to know nothing of Jew media/money/legal/political control; you say things such as this:

One thing they seem to have learned: that however hard they try to be good citizens of the countries they live in (like the German Jews before and during the First World War) there will always be fanatics trying to "expel" them.
The odds that a White man would say this in honesty - assuming he would study the phenomenon and reach that erroneous conclusion - are nil.

No, the rule of evidence in question never protects dubious claims. It only protects claims that have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The claim is hotly disputed although it is protected by this despotism.

Answers to what relevant and reasonable questions?

How exactly are current investigations supposed to be beating about the bush?

The centerpiece of this "ostensibly inscrutable issue" has long been laid bare without regard for any "emotionalistic defensive barriers". Nobody cared about the emotions of survivor eyewitnesses when they were "grilled" in cross-examination before West German courts, and the essential facts of this "issue" have been laid bare by participants in the killing, in court or in documents issued at the time of the killing. What we need to do now is brush aside any barriers – emotionalistic, administrative or whatever – that hinder expanding our knowledge about this "issue" through archaeological research.
You responded to my sentences out of context again. As I've already said, the current so called investigations are digging up bits and bobs: whistles, spectacles etc., nothing of any substance and that's unsatisfactory for the unfaithful majority whilst being totally in keeping with predictions. The myth will not be denied by science because Jew power will put a stop to genuine investigation.
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.