View Single Post
Old July 31st, 2008 #917
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Maybe because you didn’t word your question clearly enough. Maybe because I felt like baiting you a little. You’ll never know.

The question was clear: What is pride? What does being a proud German mean to you?
Meaning includes consequence, doesn’t it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Baiting is a futile, time wasting exercise.
That’s why I don’t do it very often. But some of your brothers-in-spirit seem to love it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
I think you imagined you were going to be able to talk your way out of an error and now that your imagination has reached it's limit you tacitly admit as much.
I’m not conscious of an error. The most you can claim is that we misunderstood each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Actually it was neither complicated nor an attempt to spread the issue. It was a clear explanation of my position.

It was an imaginative attempt to cover an error: your assertion that pride leads to hate;
My assertion was that pride may lead to hate, just like fear, and it expresses a conviction that I see no need to change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
contrast that against your apparent inability to understand that an insult is still an insult whether truthful or not.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, but both may result from pride when the object of pride suffers harm.

Why bring outrage into a discussion on the meaning of pride? It's spreading and that's simple deception.
No, outrage is related to pride, as a possible consequence of pride when the object of pride is harmed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Still no more logic, and I definitely like the "Jew". It illustrates the deplorable contents of your skull.

This grasping insult changes nothing.
That’s right, it especially doesn’t make the "Jew" look any better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
That you’ll have to explain in some detail, my friend. What does Occam’s Razor have to do with an opinion of mine that happens to differ from yours?

My argument is simple and consistent, yours is complicated, shifting and evasive. Occams' razor has nothing to do with differing from my opinion.
Simple and consistent is what I consider my argument to be, somewhat incoherent is how your argument comes across to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Unless that issue was proving the crimes committed at Chelmno, your argument is singularly irrelevant.

Non sequitur: the rabbi deliberately gave a speech which was spread via an international Jew magazine. He or one of the others present should've taken a picture for the sake of the unfaithful.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, the postulation that there should be "meaningful photos" is hollow conjecture.

Now you assert that the reasonable expectation of photographic proof of what is claimed to exist in abundance is hollow conjecture.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, it doesn’t make your "explanation" look any better indeed.

Still, this doesn't change the fact that you seperate sentences and respond out of context in niggardly fashion.
Did I? If so, my apologies. And you should be careful with describing one of Mr. Gerdes’ common practices in such terms, he might resent it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
By a true believer hooked on baseless preconceived notions? That’s the lousiest guarantee I can think of.

You do - as is shown by this thread - , and will critically assess all things in favour of Jewish interests; using material logic based on the premise that what is good for Jews is real, and what is bad for Jews is false, with some give and take for the sake of appearances.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, it works for or against any party at a judicial proceeding, depending on the circumstances. It’s relevant insofar as you claimed it was a "Jewish" standard, and I don’t see where the obfuscation might be.

It protects a dubious claim made by Jews, all else is irrelevant and intended to spread the issue.
No, the rule of evidence in question never protects dubious claims. It only protects claims that have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
We don’t have to go there to find answers about what happened; that has been proven on hand of other evidence already. Going there to enhance historical knowledge is fine, and that’s what the current investigations (like any archaeological investigations) are doing.

We do have to go there to find answers;
Answers to what relevant and reasonable questions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
why do current investigations beat about the bush when hardcore evidence is supposed to be everywhere?
How exactly are current investigations supposed to be beating about the bush?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
We need to brush aside the emotionalistic defensive barriers that surround the centerpiece of this ostensibly inscrutable issue.
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.