Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

For Fear of the Jews

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 10:16:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

Hitler was intent on racial extermination.

In 1922, when Josef Hell asked Hitler what he intended doing if he ever had full freedom of action against the Jews, his response was:
"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!"
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 6:48:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

It's not inherently anti-black to argue that states rights should supercede federal rights. It's not inherently anti-black to say that the Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with oppressing black people and was all about property rights. However, when the person arguing just so happens to be wearing a confederate flag while giving a speech on the burial ground of civil rights workers who were massacred for attempting to sign blacks up to vote...

It gets you thinking.

Of course, Sobran probably wouldn't find it offensive to say "every holocaust survivor who thinks Hitler wanted to exterminate them is either misleading the public, stupid, or uninformed."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 6:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, the fact that perhaps exterminating Jews was plan B and exiling them was plan A, but plan A wasn't logistically feasible means nothing.

That's like saying the thought process "I'd like to throw every Tutsi out of Rwanda, but that's not feasible so lets massacre them with machetes."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 6:55:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 6:48:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

It's not inherently anti-black to argue that states rights should supercede federal rights. It's not inherently anti-black to say that the Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with oppressing black people and was all about property rights. However, when the person arguing just so happens to be wearing a confederate flag while giving a speech on the burial ground of civil rights workers who were massacred for attempting to sign blacks up to vote...

It gets you thinking.

Of course, Sobran probably wouldn't find it offensive to say "every holocaust survivor who thinks Hitler wanted to exterminate them is either misleading the public, stupid, or uninformed."

The Confederate flag is not racist, some people who use the confederate flag is racist, but the majority are not; the majority are southerners who see it as nothing more than a cultural symbol of their heritage.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 7:00:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 6:55:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2012 6:48:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

It's not inherently anti-black to argue that states rights should supercede federal rights. It's not inherently anti-black to say that the Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with oppressing black people and was all about property rights. However, when the person arguing just so happens to be wearing a confederate flag while giving a speech on the burial ground of civil rights workers who were massacred for attempting to sign blacks up to vote...

It gets you thinking.

Of course, Sobran probably wouldn't find it offensive to say "every holocaust survivor who thinks Hitler wanted to exterminate them is either misleading the public, stupid, or uninformed."

The Confederate flag is not racist, some people who use the confederate flag is racist, but the majority are not; the majority are southerners who see it as nothing more than a cultural symbol of their heritage.

If someone were standing around with a confederate flag on their shirt, I wouldn't necessarily think much of it.

However, if they were talking about Jim Crow while on the grave of a lynched civil rights leader, I'd become a bit suspicious.

There's no single factor (other than outright stating your beliefs), it's combining factors until the simplest explanation involves racism/prejudice.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 7:01:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So what if there are a little less Jews massacred than projected? That doesn't mitigate the evil of Hitler's actions. I think that your pathetic need to point this out is more so an attempt to delegitimize the victims of the Holocaust, than push for accuracy.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 7:01:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For instance, if this was the first thread of Reasonings I've encountered, I wouldnt know what to make of it.

However, when you look at the history of what topics Reasoning disproportionately focuses on, you start to see patterns suggesting more than just intellectual curiosity.

Also a trend I noticed with JimTimmy for awhile.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 7:13:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 7:00:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/1/2012 6:55:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2012 6:48:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

It's not inherently anti-black to argue that states rights should supercede federal rights. It's not inherently anti-black to say that the Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with oppressing black people and was all about property rights. However, when the person arguing just so happens to be wearing a confederate flag while giving a speech on the burial ground of civil rights workers who were massacred for attempting to sign blacks up to vote...

It gets you thinking.

Of course, Sobran probably wouldn't find it offensive to say "every holocaust survivor who thinks Hitler wanted to exterminate them is either misleading the public, stupid, or uninformed."

The Confederate flag is not racist, some people who use the confederate flag is racist, but the majority are not; the majority are southerners who see it as nothing more than a cultural symbol of their heritage.

If someone were standing around with a confederate flag on their shirt, I wouldn't necessarily think much of it.

However, if they were talking about Jim Crow while on the grave of a lynched civil rights leader, I'd become a bit suspicious.

There's no single factor (other than outright stating your beliefs), it's combining factors until the simplest explanation involves racism/prejudice.

What if he was talking negatively about Jim Crow, while placing flowers at the grave?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 7:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 7:01:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
So what if there are a little less Jews massacred than projected? That doesn't mitigate the evil of Hitler's actions. I think that your pathetic need to point this out is more so an attempt to delegitimize the victims of the Holocaust, than push for accuracy.

He is using the same argument communist make, when they say "Mao killed 49,000,000 of his own people not 78,000,000"
Either way the guy was a douche
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 7:22:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 7:13:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2012 7:00:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/1/2012 6:55:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2012 6:48:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

It's not inherently anti-black to argue that states rights should supercede federal rights. It's not inherently anti-black to say that the Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with oppressing black people and was all about property rights. However, when the person arguing just so happens to be wearing a confederate flag while giving a speech on the burial ground of civil rights workers who were massacred for attempting to sign blacks up to vote...

It gets you thinking.

Of course, Sobran probably wouldn't find it offensive to say "every holocaust survivor who thinks Hitler wanted to exterminate them is either misleading the public, stupid, or uninformed."

The Confederate flag is not racist, some people who use the confederate flag is racist, but the majority are not; the majority are southerners who see it as nothing more than a cultural symbol of their heritage.

If someone were standing around with a confederate flag on their shirt, I wouldn't necessarily think much of it.

However, if they were talking about Jim Crow while on the grave of a lynched civil rights leader, I'd become a bit suspicious.

There's no single factor (other than outright stating your beliefs), it's combining factors until the simplest explanation involves racism/prejudice.

What if he was talking negatively about Jim Crow, while placing flowers at the grave?

And wearing a confederate shirt? It'd be harder to come to any sort of inference, since I can't know if someone is being genuine or not (since his words against Jim Crow aren't as socially informative as if he were in favor of Jim Crow).

Wearing a confederate shirt in 2012 says something (depending on his geographical location). Saying "I'm sad people died" sends little information as a social signal (a racist could easily not be genuine).

To me, it'd be like seeing someone wearing WW2 german military helmet while placing flowers on a holocaust survivor's grave. He might just be a german patriot, but it's a weeee bit more suspicious than if the man wore a skull-cap.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 8:30:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 7:22:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/1/2012 7:13:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2012 7:00:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/1/2012 6:55:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2012 6:48:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

It's not inherently anti-black to argue that states rights should supercede federal rights. It's not inherently anti-black to say that the Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with oppressing black people and was all about property rights. However, when the person arguing just so happens to be wearing a confederate flag while giving a speech on the burial ground of civil rights workers who were massacred for attempting to sign blacks up to vote...

It gets you thinking.

Of course, Sobran probably wouldn't find it offensive to say "every holocaust survivor who thinks Hitler wanted to exterminate them is either misleading the public, stupid, or uninformed."

The Confederate flag is not racist, some people who use the confederate flag is racist, but the majority are not; the majority are southerners who see it as nothing more than a cultural symbol of their heritage.

If someone were standing around with a confederate flag on their shirt, I wouldn't necessarily think much of it.

However, if they were talking about Jim Crow while on the grave of a lynched civil rights leader, I'd become a bit suspicious.

There's no single factor (other than outright stating your beliefs), it's combining factors until the simplest explanation involves racism/prejudice.

What if he was talking negatively about Jim Crow, while placing flowers at the grave?

And wearing a confederate shirt? It'd be harder to come to any sort of inference, since I can't know if someone is being genuine or not (since his words against Jim Crow aren't as socially informative as if he were in favor of Jim Crow).

Wearing a confederate shirt in 2012 says something (depending on his geographical location). Saying "I'm sad people died" sends little information as a social signal (a racist could easily not be genuine).

To me, it'd be like seeing someone wearing WW2 german military helmet while placing flowers on a holocaust survivor's grave. He might just be a german patriot, but it's a weeee bit more suspicious than if the man wore a skull-cap.

1st off the confederacy was nothing like Nazi Germany, and even more so the Civil War was nothing like WWII.
Slavery was not the reason for establishing the confederacy. If slavery was the only reason for starting a new nation, the south would have probably started a new federation. Many in the south opposed slavery, but fought in the civil war.
Lincoln was going to make Lee a union General but Lee declined because his state seceded.
The Civil War was because the North wanted to control the south and the south wanted independence.
WWII was because Nazi Germany wanted to rule the world. If one was to compare the Civil War and WWII one would find the union more closely resembles Nazi Germany. Further more Lincoln was Nationalist, and Hitler was Nationalist.

That aside, what if the helmet belonged to their father, who helped plot operation valkyrie, and the grave, located in Germany, belonged to his wife's mother(making his wife Jewish)?

Once again, you seem to forget cultural identity, and focus on what the symbols mean to you as an outsider. You need to place yourself in their shoes, and think about what those symbols mean to them.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 8:31:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

The OP is ignorant, and draws an illogical conclusion from said ignorance. It's obvious he is trying to rationalize racism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 12:20:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally take offense to the confederate flag. Not because its racist, but because flying it is in essence flying the colors of traitors. Heritage my as$, the flag represents one thing; the Confederacy.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 6:00:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 8:31:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

The OP is ignorant, and draws an illogical conclusion from said ignorance. It's obvious he is trying to rationalize racism.

Sobran admits his ignorance.That's the point. But what illogical conclusion does he draw and why is it illogical?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 9:17:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 12:20:52 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I personally take offense to the confederate flag. Not because its racist, but because flying it is in essence flying the colors of traitors. Heritage my as$, the flag represents one thing; the Confederacy.

It represents the south. The south was much different culturally than the north, and after the civil war it began to assimilate, as they feared would happen. The Confederate flag represents a cultural identity, much like the Betsy Ross flag. It's a way of embarrassing one's heritage, much like the Pan-African flag. The south may not have their own country anymore, but they still have their own nationality; their own language, their own culture, their own heritage and their own identity. The confederate flag can be seen as the same as a state flag, in that it represents a nation within a nation; only it is comprised of multiple states. A national flag does not represent a government, it represents a nation; likewise a political flag represents a party, and a military flag represents those who served in the military, past or present. Flags represent a body of people, not a government organization (although a flag may represent the body of a government agency).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 9:18:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 9:17:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:20:52 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I personally take offense to the confederate flag. Not because its racist, but because flying it is in essence flying the colors of traitors. Heritage my as$, the flag represents one thing; the Confederacy.

It represents the south. The south was much different culturally than the north, and after the civil war it began to assimilate, as they feared would happen. The Confederate flag represents a cultural identity, much like the Betsy Ross flag. It's a way of embarrassing one's heritage, much like the Pan-African flag. The south may not have their own country anymore, but they still have their own nationality; their own language, their own culture, their own heritage and their own identity. The confederate flag can be seen as the same as a state flag, in that it represents a nation within a nation; only it is comprised of multiple states. A national flag does not represent a government, it represents a nation; likewise a political flag represents a party, and a military flag represents those who served in the military, past or present. Flags represent a body of people, not a government organization (although a flag may represent the body of a government agency).

And, they are a separate nation from the rest of us because....?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 9:22:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 7:20:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Jews are a conspiracy created by reptilians. Have you ever actually met one? I think not.

Truestory.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 9:22:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?

Jews are a hard working people. Culturally they are taught the important of doing one's job, and doing it well. Culturally Jews are taught to give 125%.

Your train of thought is the same as Hitler's; your mind jumps to the negative, and assumes a connection of unrelated events.

If I look up at the sky, I can connect the straws to create constellations; does that mean those stars are somehow connected? No, the lines are imaginary, and only exist in the mind.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 9:23:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 9:22:41 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?

Jews are a hard working people. Culturally they are taught the important of doing one's job, and doing it well. Culturally Jews are taught to give 125%.

Your train of thought is the same as Hitler's; your mind jumps to the negative, and assumes a connection of unrelated events.

If I look up at the sky, I can connect the stars to create constellations; does that mean those stars are somehow connected? No, the lines are imaginary, and only exist in the mind.

stars not straws
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 9:23:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?

No, the Ashekanazi Jews have an average IQ of 113, far above any other group. No wonder they are wealthier than other groups.
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 9:28:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 9:23:55 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?

No, the Ashekanazi Jews have an average IQ of 113, far above any other group. No wonder they are wealthier than other groups.

Mines higher :P
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 9:29:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 9:28:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2012 9:23:55 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?

No, the Ashekanazi Jews have an average IQ of 113, far above any other group. No wonder they are wealthier than other groups.

Mines higher :P

Mine too, lol. But people of my religion and race average lower.
President of DDO
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 9:47:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 9:52:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?" - Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com...

I don't really understand the purpose of the quote. This article in the link is not about holocaust. And the author seems to agree that holocaust did take place and was bad.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 11:12:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 9:29:45 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 4/2/2012 9:28:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2012 9:23:55 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?

No, the Ashekanazi Jews have an average IQ of 113, far above any other group. No wonder they are wealthier than other groups.

Mines higher :P


Mine too, lol. But people of my religion and race average lower.

I never really put too much emphasis on IQ averages, because the larger the group the more stupid people are in the group, which brings down the average.

For example, say Christians have an average IQ of 100, and Jews have an average IQ of 115.
Now say there are 6 million Jews and 100 million Christians
Now say 50% of each group has an IQ of 100, and 33% an IQ of 95 and 17% an IQ of 200

3 million Jews would have an IQ of 100
2 million Jews would have an IQ of 95
1 million Jews would have an IQ of 200
on the other hand
50 million Christians would have an IQ of 100
33 million Christians would have an IQ of 95
17 million Christians would have an IQ of 200
(More Christians have an IQ of 200 than all the Jews combined.)

Now say 6 million were polled on their IQ. The Jews having a population of 6 million would have an average IQ of 115.

The Christians on the other hand have a larger population, an the odds are 50/50 that the 6 million would be picked from the 50 million Christians with an IQ of 100.
This brings the recorded Christian average to 100, although the actual average is 115 just like the Jews.

Now one could also look at it another way.

If 7 million of the Christians with an IQ of 200 instead had an IQ of 100, the average would be brought down for Christians even though there are more Christians with an IQ of 200 than all the Jews combined.

This is why average IQs say nothing about the segment polled.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 11:32:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 9:22:41 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?

Jews are a hard working people. Culturally they are taught the important of doing one's job, and doing it well. Culturally Jews are taught to give 125%.

Your train of thought is the same as Hitler's; your mind jumps to the negative, and assumes a connection of unrelated events.

If I look up at the sky, I can connect the straws to create constellations; does that mean those stars are somehow connected? No, the lines are imaginary, and only exist in the mind.

Haha I knew this would happen, I ask a simple question about an anomaly and you jump straight to Hitler. I would think that one could ask a question without becoming Adolf Hitler...guess not.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 11:59:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 11:32:13 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/2/2012 9:22:41 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?

Jews are a hard working people. Culturally they are taught the important of doing one's job, and doing it well. Culturally Jews are taught to give 125%.

Your train of thought is the same as Hitler's; your mind jumps to the negative, and assumes a connection of unrelated events.

If I look up at the sky, I can connect the straws to create constellations; does that mean those stars are somehow connected? No, the lines are imaginary, and only exist in the mind.

Haha I knew this would happen, I ask a simple question about an anomaly and you jump straight to Hitler. I would think that one could ask a question without becoming Adolf Hitler...guess not.

Well that was Hitler's train of thought. I didn't call you Hitler, I said Hitler thought the same.
Hitler was a Socialist, but was also a Nationalist. He saw allot of successful Jews, ignoring the equally successful "Aryans" and assumed that Capitalism was controlled by "Jewish Bankers". This is the same line of thought used by the Occupy movement, and others on the left, only they replaced the word "Jew" with "Zionist" (a word which has lost all meaning, and has become more of a left wing slang to meaning "Jews the speaker does not like") Some anti-Semitic Christians have even resorted to using the term "Zionist bankers" . Some anti-Semites switch back and forth between "Zionist", "Zionist bankers" and "Jewish bankers".

History is repeating it's self, and it's ignorance which is allowing such evil to reemerge
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 12:18:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 11:59:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2012 11:32:13 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/2/2012 9:22:41 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:37:00 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that Jews make up something like 2% of the population, yet nearly every position of importance in American fiscal and monetary policy is and has been held by a Jew?

Jews are a hard working people. Culturally they are taught the important of doing one's job, and doing it well. Culturally Jews are taught to give 125%.

Your train of thought is the same as Hitler's; your mind jumps to the negative, and assumes a connection of unrelated events.

If I look up at the sky, I can connect the straws to create constellations; does that mean those stars are somehow connected? No, the lines are imaginary, and only exist in the mind.

Haha I knew this would happen, I ask a simple question about an anomaly and you jump straight to Hitler. I would think that one could ask a question without becoming Adolf Hitler...guess not.

Well that was Hitler's train of thought. I didn't call you Hitler, I said Hitler thought the same.
Hitler was a Socialist, but was also a Nationalist. He saw allot of successful Jews, ignoring the equally successful "Aryans" and assumed that Capitalism was controlled by "Jewish Bankers". This is the same line of thought used by the Occupy movement, and others on the left, only they replaced the word "Jew" with "Zionist" (a word which has lost all meaning, and has become more of a left wing slang to meaning "Jews the speaker does not like") Some anti-Semitic Christians have even resorted to using the term "Zionist bankers" . Some anti-Semites switch back and forth between "Zionist", "Zionist bankers" and "Jewish bankers".

History is repeating it's self, and it's ignorance which is allowing such evil to reemerge

Nothing you said is new or helpful.
Can't even talk about an issue without being an anti-Semite and compared to a genocidal dictator.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler