View Single Post
Old August 1st, 2008 #933
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
Meaning includes consequence, doesnít 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.
Actually my first response to your question what being a proud German meant to me was the following:

Quote:
Opposing apologists of the Nazi criminals who led Germany to shame and disaster, among other things.
You made that into "hatred for Hitler" (which I did not object to because I donít like the fellow indeed), and accused me of "mistaking hate for pride".

I responded saying that I had responded to your original questions by referring to one of the implications or consequences of pride: hating what harmed the object of pride.

You then went splitting hair on not having asked about a consequence of pride but about the meaning of pride, as if meaning did not include consequence.

I pointed out that meaning includes consequence.

You ignored my reply an simply repeated your first stance with the following question:

Quote:
Why would you want to talk about the consequence of pride when the simple question was what is pride? Why would you waste so much time doing this?
I thereupon gave you the following possibilities for you to choose from:

Quote:
Maybe because you didnít word your question clearly enough. Maybe because I felt like baiting you a little. Youíll never know.
Actually the way your question was worded allowed for exemplifying the meaning by pointing to a consequence, which was what I did. The specific example I picked arguably included an element of baiting, considering that it obviously conflicts with your notions of what pride in being German means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
In the post before this you admitted that you are playing a game; now you are talking about consequence again.
No, I gave you "playing a game" as a possibility to choose from. 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. They may well go together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
This behaviour says much about your character;
Actually your ignoring or misrepresenting my arguments says much about yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
I should point out that you are an ambassador of sorts.
Yep, from the world outside the cloud-cuckoo-land of ideological fanaticism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Iím 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.
I donít think you can explain what Iím supposed to have "deceived" you about and what Iím supposed to have desired confusion about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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.
Utter nonsense. I may be convinced of a possibility as I may be convinced of a certainty. And Iíd say one has to be a more than a little paranoid to spot an "intention to deceive" in my statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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.
Itís an introduction to what follows, and your supposition is baseless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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.
No, it indicates differentiating observation that avoids undue generalization, while your comment indicates more than a little paranoia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
When you finally make the conviction I will ask for some real world examples of how pride gives rise to outrage and hate.
I already provided such an example. You havenít been paying attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Thatís right, it especially doesnít make the "Jew" look any better.

Whinging about being called a Jew at this point is grasping.
I'm not whining, I'm having fun with that crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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:

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. Iíd 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.
So considering something possible but not certain is supposed to be "deceitful", according to Occamís razor? Iíd say thatís simply nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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 (thereís one in the article, actually) wouldnít mean a thing. Actually the issue was desecration of human remains, and I wouldnít 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.

Quote:
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.
More utter nonsense from you, actually. A forensic investigator is likely to take photographs of what he intends to document, a religiously motivated complainant is likely to consider taking photographs comparable to what he is complaining about. This is not about whether emotions are understandable or not, but about what kind of behavior they may lead to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Thatís 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, thatís 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;
Actually I have no ideological posture at all but a strong aversion to ideologically motivated propaganda, and rather than enforce anything Iím exposing the fallacious reasoning and mendacity of who tries to enforce such propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
you claim to know nothing of Jew media/money/legal/political control; you say things such as this:

Quote:
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.
The conclusion is not erroneous (see, for instance, the RODOH thread under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2487 about the Reich Association of Jewish Frontline Soldiers and the site that this thread links to), and you seem to equate "White" with adherence to articles of faith the foundation of which one hasnít bothered to study let alone question. If thatís what it takes to be "White" then Iím not, what the heck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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.
There are also people who "hotly" dispute that the earth is round or that dinosaurs ever existed, and I guess they also complain about the "despotism" of who considers their theories a load of bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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 Ė emotionalistic, administrative or whatever Ė 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 current investigations are digging up objects that are of archaeological and historical interest, actually. And from what Iíve learned they will also proceed to digging up what you call "substance" and thus further demonstrate that the "unfaithful majority" are what all known evidence has already shown them to be: a lunatic fringe of self-projecting fanatics faithfully clinging to baseless, ideologically motivated and quasi-religious dogmas.

Such as expressed in the following prayerlike utterance:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
The myth will not be denied by science because Jew power will put a stop to genuine investigation.
whose author baselessly postulates that the facts he doesnít accept are a "myth", that ďscienceĒ would disprove that "myth" and that "Jew power" wonít let that happen Ė apparently without realizing the utterly unscientific, mythological nature of his postulations.