View Single Post
Old July 27th, 2008 #848
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
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.
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.

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?

It's simple silly: not pride but fear gives rise to hate; and not may, not maybe, but does.

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.

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.

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. The original point was and still is that Jews hate White children because Jews fear White children.

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.

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?
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.