(Rolf Tueschen) wrote in message ...

I was defamed as an Anti-Semite.

Rolf

Defamed? :-) You?! :-) It's so funny :-) :-)

Wlod

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...

So, I don't get the interest of people who try to put me into a false
corner
just because I had called a young Israeli for what he is when he insulted
a
German politician as a 'Nazi *******'. I called him a lying Jewish
*******.
And I heard no arguments why I shouldn't do that.

Rolf,

Let me try to present two arguments as to why your statement is taken in a
negative light by those who have responded to you.

1) A discussion was taking place. I will assume for the moment that it was
following a logical pattern. He then made an invalid and offensive
statement about the politician. Your response was an ad hominem attack
against your debate partner. Rather than participate in the argument, you
attacked your debate partner. A response that would have kept the debate in
logical grounds would have been to attack the validity of his statement, or
to question its relavance.

You did not challenge his statement. Rather, you challenged his character.
To challenge his statement, you could have said, "You are mistaken, let me
help you with some facts." If you knew that he was lying (an intentional
mistatement of fact), then you could have said, "You are lying. You know
that he is not a Nazi, but rather a member of the XXXXX party. You said so
in YYYY post on ZZZZ day." Instead, you implied that he was a habitual
liar.

2) Calling someone a lying ******* is a negative statement. The only reason
to add the adjective Jewish is to imply that this worstens the insult. For
example, you would never call someone a "lying well-educated *******," or a
"lying intelligent *******," or "lying Nobel Prize winning *******." This
point has been made by others in this thread. You have stated that you have
not heard any arguement as to why you shouldn't have made the statement.
The arguement was made previously; it is up to you to hear it.

Is it possible that this is a convention of the English language only? In
German, is it a common convention to include irrelevant but factually
correct adjectives without implying a hightening of the insult? If you
really did not intend your insult to be hightened by use of the word Jewish,
maybe this is the source of the problem. If you called me an idiot, that is
a statement about me. If you call me an American idiot, you are making a
statment about me, about America, and about your sentiment regarding America
and Americans in general.

I hope this helps.

David

--
without the block

(Rolf Tueschen) wrote in message ...
(TommyBoy) wrote:

Labeling someone a Nazi is nothing to be taken lightly. One had better
be right, damn right, or one is spitting on the graves of those
millions who died at the hands of those butchers. Those were real
Nazis. To call some lightweight offender (or even non-offender) a Nazi
is to dilute that terrible evil.

The more so as the original assumption, that all Nazis are authentic butchers,
is false! Not to speak of all Germans being Nazis, hence being butchers.

Rolf

Your response isn't worth much. How many Nazis must be authentic
butchers before damning the Nazis as butchers can be fair? That mark
was reached a few times over.

But if you'd like to extol the virtues of the "nice Nazis," then go
ahead.

(TommyBoy) wrote:
But if you'd like to extol the virtues of the "nice Nazis," then go
ahead.


Where did you But if you'd like to extol the virtues of the "nice Nazis," then
go
ahead.


Where did you read something written about "nice Nazis"? - Don't twist the
whole topic.
by inventing something nobody had mentioned.

Rolf

"David" wrote:

Rolf,

Let me try to present two arguments as to why your statement is taken in a
negative light by those who have responded to you.

1) A discussion was taking place.

Yes.


I will assume for the moment that it was
following a logical pattern.

Yes and no. As I wrote the young Israeli, Omid David, is the resident
propaganda expert who almost always is twisting the truth when it comes to the
point that the Israeli policy towards the Palestinians is ok. At that point
there is no more logic but only the twisted content of propaganda.


He then made an invalid and offensive
statement about the politician.

Yes.


Your response was an ad hominem attack
against your debate partner.


No! - I think you discovered the key of the whole question I published in the
group here. I stated that I made a turn-table just to teach the guy a lesson.
NB I was NOT in the whole topic. I was NOT the debate partner of the guy. I
entered that thread to make that try - under the assumption that perhaps the
guy was NOT a habitual liar and propaganda crook. Because if that would be the
case he now could have reacted with astonishment. But he didn't. He reacted
exactly as a propaganda crook should react. What he had said wasn't insultive
but what I told him was extremely evil - in his perception (as the resident
propaganda liar from Israel - defending the Sharon military policy. To be
exact, he mentioned from time to time that he is in favor of the former MP
Nethanjahou.



Rather than participate in the argument, you
attacked your debate partner.

No! Because now you know that I didn't step out of a civil debate and started
to insult.


A response that would have kept the debate in
logical grounds would have been to attack the validity of his statement, or
to question its relavance.

No! Because that has been tried without success many times before. The
propaganda crook has his tricks to run away if you had found the key to take
him to task. But he will never admit a mistake or a false position - or- and
that is the most important - he will never admit of being in favor of inhuman
actions or arguments. It works following the usual propaganda: if you show that
Israel didn't obey to resolutions of the UN, then the existence of the UN as a
_whole_ is questioned. So that suddenly there is no need to obey.



You did not challenge his statement. Rather, you challenged his character.

As the resident propaganda liar, yes. I hope you understand what I'm talking
about. If he wasn't the malicious propaganda liar he would react with surprise
on my intentional reverse of his own insult. But no, he split the one insult
into two halves, one allowed because of the Israel causa, and one unallowed
which dealt with him in person. That his propaganda against Moellemann was a
complete lie, was not a problem for him, because that is a part of his daily
propaganda. I hope that you can understand now why there is no logic pattern
other than the twist in favor of Israel /Sharon against the Palestinians.



To challenge his statement, you could have said, "You are mistaken, let me
help you with some facts."

We can discuss if he really is mistaken. Intentional lying normally requires
that you know what the truth is. But then you become habitued to the daily
lying and from a certain moment on you might believe in your own lies.




If you knew that he was lying (an intentional
mistatement of fact), then you could have said, "You are lying. You know
that he is not a Nazi, but rather a member of the XXXXX party. You said so
in YYYY post on ZZZZ day." Instead, you implied that he was a habitual
liar.

Yes, that is all well thought but that has been tried more than once. NB that
you speak of the resident propaganda liar of that forum. You can bet that I
also tried to argue this way. But then his favorite trick is to leave the
thread and start a new lie. You know what I mea? We are NOT talking about
consistence. We are NOT talking about someone who wants to prove the validity
of his arguments. We are in fact talking about an Israeli who wants to make his
daily propaganda against the Palestinians whose President Arafat should be
eliminated better today than tomorrow.




2) Calling someone a lying ******* is a negative statement. The only reason
to add the adjective Jewish is to imply that this worstens the insult. For
example, you would never call someone a "lying well-educated *******," or a
"lying intelligent *******," or "lying Nobel Prize winning *******." This
point has been made by others in this thread. You have stated that you have
not heard any arguement as to why you shouldn't have made the statement.
The arguement was made previously; it is up to you to hear it.


No. It is not my problem to hear it but yours at first to understand what I
meant with my psychological lesson to the guy. The lesson failed to succeed,
yes, but not because I was too harsh. The situation was extremely favorable for
such a lesson. Because what he had said was an outright lie and everybody knew
that. You could also read it here in some messages. This German politician
might have been all kind of things but he wasn't a Nazi or a Fascist. Hence he
couldn't have been a 'Nazi *******'.



Is it possible that this is a convention of the English language only? In
German, is it a common convention to include irrelevant but factually
correct adjectives without implying a hightening of the insult? If you
really did not intend your insult to be hightened by use of the word Jewish,
maybe this is the source of the problem. If you called me an idiot, that is
a statement about me. If you call me an American idiot, you are making a
statment about me, about America, and about your sentiment regarding America
and Americans in general.

No, I must object. You fail completely to address that Omid David is the
resident propaganda writer of that forum. Speaking in defense of Sharon for
Israel. And then you also fail to keep in focus that I made a technical
reversing of what he had said. It was an artifical construct so to speak. The
item 'Jewish' had nothing to do with a possible, a thinkable Anti-Semitism on
my side. The whole expression was NOT made in the heat of a debate. However it
was made to break the propaganda routine of the resident liar.

Hours later I tried it with humour. Look, I said that I would come and
influence his computer so that he would lose speed in the coming Wch. The
reaction was serious. I was accused of having physically threatened the
integrity of his life as a Jew! Know what I mean?!



I hope this helps.

Yes, you made a lot of reasonable thoughts. But you missed the problem how to
deal with a propaganda liar. And you also failed to discover the irony that
such a propaganda crook is tolerated in that forum. 'Nazi *******', even as
intentional lie is tolerated while 'lyimg Jewish *******' is a too heavy
"personal insult" - also if it could be proven as a psychological intervention.
Good luck to Israel if it needs such malicious propaganda defenders.

Rolf


David

--
t without the block

On 09 Nov 2003 22:20:19 GMT, (Rolf Tueschen)
wrote:

So fine. Your position is at least one. You tolerate the insulting of a German
as Nazi ******* because it might not be meant literally. Fine. But I have a
different view, so we might agree to disagree.

No, your position is not one that is admissible in a rational
discussion. I have not read all the blather that you have posted, but
I have read enough to see that you are a nationalistic fool.

Jürgen

I call a lie a lie. And a liar a
liar.

Rolf

(Jürgen R.) wrote:

No, your position is not one that is admissible in a rational
discussion. I have not read all the blather that you have posted, but
I have read enough to see that you are a nationalistic fool.

Jürgen

You sound as if you couldn't read properly at all. And you are impolite. So far
about rationality that you can judge. You are impostering, admit it.

Rolf

Rolf Tueschen wrote:

cut

The more so as the original assumption, that all Nazis are authentic butchers,
is false!

Yes! yes, but aren't ALL nazis complicit in authentic inhumanity to
'man'?..

Not to speak of all Germans being Nazis, hence being butchers.

Rolf

michael adams wrote:

Yes! yes, but aren't ALL nazis complicit in authentic inhumanity to
'man'?..

A difficult and also easy question. Thanks.

Morally I myself and the whole German people is responsible and guilty - to be
clear about it.

But if you then think about justice you must find a personal guilt for every
participant. And under this perspective I was stating that
- not all Germans were Nazis

- not all Nazis were butchers or sadistic perverts.

The most dagerous group of nazis is the seemingly innocent bureaucratique
elite. With one like Eichmann at the top. They were extremely guilty because
they knew of the intentional fraud starting with a perversion of language - to
veil the terrible crimes.

But also in that hierarchy you will find those who are higher placed and who
ordered crimes while others were just mere fellow travellers.

The momenmt it becomes a justice thing it deteriorates into something injust
and odd.

Rolf

(Rolf Tueschen) wrote in message ...
(TommyBoy) wrote:
But if you'd like to extol the virtues of the "nice Nazis," then go
ahead.


Where did you But if you'd like to extol the virtues of the "nice Nazis," then
go
ahead.


Where did you read something written about "nice Nazis"? - Don't twist the
whole topic.
by inventing something nobody had mentioned.

Rolf

Puzzling. You take a stand against calling Nazis butchers and call a
challenge to that defense "twisting the topic" while in your previous
message you offered your own twisting of the topic by saying it was
wrong to say all Germans were Nazis. That's your invention so stop
pretending that others are twisting topics.

That's two posts by you in "response" to my posts that offered
nothing. Two strikes... three and you're out you know... can't waste
too much time with