Can you use a dictionary, witness?witness wrote:Sorry David . But I think we still need to define this term which Scott Smith periodically throws into discussions without caring to elaborate it's meaning.
Your points are senseless simply because you are not able to defend what you say.Scott Smith wrote:I'm not responsible for your inability to understand the points I make.witness wrote:Throwing in an ambiguous term and then running away...being unable to explain it .
This term "Victimology" is absolutely empty and pretentious drivel having neither historical nor political or philosophical meaning whatsoever.. You are invited to prove the opposite Scott Smith.
I think you'd better use a bigger dictionary. Victimology is the study of crime victims, and I am using it particularly in the sense of group-psychology and interest-group politics. Scott did not coin the term or invent its usage. Furthermore, I believe that I did post a dictionary definition on the forum long ago and don't care to do it again. I'm not obligated to write to sixth-graders or people that won't do the homework they need to understand the points I make. One can lead a horse to water but one can't make him drink--and I don't really care if you drink or not. You have the right to disagree. Hence my ambivalence at your feigned perplexity.witness wrote:Why can not you give us a definition of the term you constantly use and which one could not find in a dictionary ?
I never said it was bad unless it is wielded as a political tool in the context of interest-group politics. As I have explained before, to borrow from Orwell, all are Equal but some are "More-Equal" than others.witness wrote:Actually I can help you with it .
VICTIMOLOGY the study of the victims of the crimes and the psycological effects on them .
Now can you tell us - what is so baaad in studying the crimes of Nazism and their psychological effects on the victims ?
Oh, Jeez Louise...Scott Smith wrote:Nizkor promotes the Holocaust™ which is Hate propaganda against Germans of the WWII era, if not of Gentiles in general.David Thompson wrote:Scott -- I also believe that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If you have some evidence that Nizkor is a "Hate-Site," or that Nizkor links posted here contain "Hate-Site materials," let's see it.
Untrue. Yehuda Bauer has done major revisionism in the field of Holocaust studies and he is not attacked.Their mission statement is to promote the Gruelpropaganda of the war and to attack those who would seek to revise that orthodoxy.
False analogy. Sorry, pal.Historical inquiry and orthodoxy goes together like mischief and darness. Personally I don't care about Nizkor and what they believe, but if Hannover's forum or Revisionist sites are classed as Hate (except when Roberto links to them, it seems) then so is Nizkor.
Now here we go againScott Smith wrote:I think you'd better use a bigger dictionary. Victimology is the study of crime victims, and I am using it particularly in the sense of group-psychology and interest-group politics. Scott did not coin the term or invent its usage.witness wrote:Why can not you give us a definition of the term you constantly use and which one could not find in a dictionary ?
What exactly do you mean by your "in the sense of group-psychology and interest-group politics".?VICTIMOLOGY the study of the victims of the crimes and the psychological effects on them .
You are using the empty words and calling it ''water " ?"Water" ofOne can lead a horse to water but one can't make him drink--and I don't really care if you drink or not.
No I am genuinly interested what drives such as you to repeat the same old garbage over and over again.Hence my ambivalence at your feigned perplexity.
Who owes them and how ..?Scott Smith wrote:A simple paradigm is that the Zionists have the right to do what they want to the Palestinians because the world "owes" them Israel on account of the Holocaust.
All Germans were Nazis unless they were traitors prior to May, 1945 when Unconditional Surrender was imposed. The P-51s strafing Germans pulling carts or the Soviets assaulting refugees did not discriminate by Party membership. Then denazification and reeducation was imposed by the Victors. The new-regime was carried far into the postwar order and even reunification issues; for example, the War-Guilt for one if not two world wars is crucial to the German problem and any Denial of it is seen as illegal, anti-Semitic, or worse in some circles. Nizkor claims that all Revisionists are neo-Nazis. They are hardly objective regarding Hitler as can be seen from their mission statement.Andrew E. Mathis wrote:Oh, Jeez Louise...Scott Smith wrote:Nizkor promotes the Holocaust™ which is Hate propaganda against Germans of the WWII era, if not of Gentiles in general.David Thompson wrote:Scott -- I also believe that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If you have some evidence that Nizkor is a "Hate-Site," or that Nizkor links posted here contain "Hate-Site materials," let's see it.
Only if one thinks that all Germans were Nazis -- which I categorically deny -- and that this is still the case -- which I also categorically deny --
Half the victims of the war or half the victims of the Nazis? Only Nazi atrocities matter, which is a philo-Semitic view of the war, let alone European history since the Nazis did not invent the Communists. I have read a lot of Jewish periodicals, Andrew, and I know that the "ecumenical" view of the Holocaust is just a necessary evil to dodge the argument that I just made. All of Jewish history is a sacrament about trouble with Gentiles, who are the enemies of a Peculiar People in the sight of God. The first Genocide was the Assyrian in the eighth century BC, unless you can think of another. I don't care about any of that and find Christian Biblical Fundamentalism more offensive personally, but Jews just do not realize how grating "Waving the Bloody Shirt" is to Gentiles. Unbrainwashed Germans get positively livid about it. Mormons had the same Peculiar People mentality and that's why they were driven out of the Gentile lands to their own Zion. They reintegrated with a different attitude. I am not saying that any violence against minorities was justified. Ever. Not even before or during the war. But to understand you have to treat difficult problems dispationately and try to understand other viewpoints.then can the Holocaust be seen as hate propaganda against Germans. I don't even begin to see how it's hate propaganda against Gentiles, considering that half the victims were Gentiles.
Good for him. I doubt he will do any revisionism on the gaschambers, however. It took me over two years to drag Roberto to the logical position that the diesel gaschambers must have been diesel generators for camp power and that if engines were really used for execution they must have been gasoline motors instead. A simple point but one that was resisted with all fours. No orthodoxy? Sure. nizkor never gave him permission. Then Chuck started to obsess about Human Soap. Nizkor never said it was poppycock so it must be true.Untrue. Yehuda Bauer has done major revisionism in the field of Holocaust studies and he is not attacked.Their mission statement is to promote the Greuelpropaganda of the war and to attack those who would seek to revise that orthodoxy.
I don't understand your point. Revisionist sites are suspect and are now banned for reference it seems unless Roberto links to them. Nizkor remains Kosher and has all the answers. I don't want either Hannover or Nizkor telling me what history is Kosher.False analogy. Sorry, pal.Historical inquiry and orthodoxy goes together like mischief and darkness. Personally I don't care about Nizkor and what they believe, but if Hannover's forum or Revisionist sites are classed as Hate (except when Roberto links to them, it seems) then so is Nizkor.
Easy . Just reread your own posts full of baseless claims .Scott Smith wrote:Can you prove this statement?witness wrote:Again you are putting your words in the mouth of an imaginary Jew and then you are being carried away with building up a distorted logic of biased opinion based on nothing else but these imaginary words...
That would be the logical fallacacy that Hannover is guilty of--that if some pundit cannot prove something then it must be false.witness wrote:Easy . Just reread your own posts full of baseless claims .Scott Smith wrote:Can you prove this statement?witness wrote:Again you are putting your words in the mouth of an imaginary Jew and then you are being carried away with building up a distorted logic of biased opinion based on nothing else but these imaginary words...
Scott Smith wrote :Scott Smith wrote:That would be the logical fallacacy that Hannover is guilty of--that if some pundit cannot prove something then it must be false.witness wrote:Easy . Just reread your own posts full of baseless claims .Scott Smith wrote:Can you prove this statement?witness wrote:Again you are putting your words in the mouth of an imaginary Jew and then you are being carried away with building up a distorted logic of biased opinion based on nothing else but these imaginary words...
Now, you made a claim above. Can you prove it or not?
Where did you get this '"simple paradigm "?A simple paradigm is that the Zionists have the right to do what they want to the Palestinians because the world "owes" them Israel on account of the Holocaust.
From the first Zionist documentary that I ever watched in school and over 25 years of reading about Israel, the Holocaust and the Mid-East. I remember the terrorism at the Munich Olympics in 1972 and the 1973 Arab-Oil embargo and the question has interested me ever since.witness wrote:Scott Smith wrote :Scott Smith wrote:That would be the logical fallacacy that Hannover is guilty of--that if some pundit cannot prove something then it must be false.witness wrote:Easy . Just reread your own posts full of baseless claims .Scott Smith wrote:Can you prove this statement?witness wrote:Again you are putting your words in the mouth of an imaginary Jew and then you are being carried away with building up a distorted logic of biased opinion based on nothing else but these imaginary words...
Now, you made a claim above. Can you prove it or not?
Where did you get this '"simple paradigm "?A simple paradigm is that the Zionists have the right to do what they want to the Palestinians because the world "owes" them Israel on account of the Holocaust.
I'm not going to go to the library to get you smoking-guns from what the Jews themselves have said about the issue. All you would have to do is say that this is some Jew's opinion. But as long as the Likkud Party rules Israel my point is valid and everybody with a modicum of understanding with this issue knows it.The answer is obvious -your own imagination .. unless you are able to prove that Jews (or whoever you deem to be the evil plotters such as the Christian fundamentalists from the Bible belt ) think that the whole world owes them because of the crimes of Nazism .
You still can't prove that I made it up. Basically, whether my view is right or wrong (and I usually admit that I could be wrong) you don't know what you are talking about.Now you made this claim. So it is your ball . Prove it .Can you ?
