Roberto wrote:How can I have an "ideological bubble" if I don't hold opinions, Victor? A bit contradictory, isn't it?
Victor´s Justice? wrote:No, it is not, Roberto. Unfortunately your lack of understanding about logical methodology makes you unable to comprehend what I meant...you do have an ideological universe to defend (madly), but simply cannot hold opinions of your own, just quoting others to cover your will...on the other hand,
What’s that “will” and "ideological universe" of mine supposed to be about, Victor?
Opinions and views matter little to me. Facts matter. So if I quote, in case you haven’t noticed, it is usually not opinions and views but accounts of facts and references to evidence.
Victor´s Justice? wrote: you simply disagree with every contrary opinion radically, automatically disregarding ANYTHING when it comes out of participants like "Victor´s Justice", "Scott Smith" or other so-called "deniers"...
Isn’t that likely to be related to the folks mentioned having produced little other than demonstrable propagandistic distortions, half-truths or downright lies?
Victor´s Justice? wrote:we are free to "deny" any of your ideological positions or sources shown,
You don’t deny “ideological positions”. You deny facts.
Victor´s Justice? wrote: as you do that for ours, many times in an unsubstantiated and unpolite (by far the most unpolite here) manner...
I admit to being impolite to folks like you, but show me an instance where my deconstruction of your contentions lacks substantiation.
Victor´s Justice? wrote: you should recover some basic social interaction lessons, as already exhaustively stated in this forum.
I’m not interested in social interaction with hate propagandists. Got that?
Roberto wrote:The kind of people I would expect to be Victor's acquaintances.
Victor´s Justice? wrote: Once again your lack of respect toward others is in evidence...
Yes indeed. Respect is earned, and I have so far read nothing from Victor et al that would command mine. On the contrary.
Victor´s Justice? wrote: the difference is that now you don´t even know the persons you refer to shallowly and offensively; double standards are your rule, or else you wouldn´t make such preconceived absurdities;
Not altogether absurd. People can to some extent be judged by the company they keep, and if the company is Victor, well …
Victor´s Justice? wrote:I must assume that, in your limited views, unlimited bombing, destruction of property or even rape serve only as arguments to Jewish compensations, not applying to the defeated ones.
If that’s your assumption, you should read my posts more attentively and preferably without an ideological blindfold. Most surviving victims of war and genocide never got or get any compensation, unfortunately, which is why I’m glad that at least some do – even if it’s those filthy Jews that Victor is so obsessed about, among other victims of National Socialist persecution – far too few, in my opinion.
Roberto wrote:From what statements of mine does Victor infer the idea that I harbor any particular sympathy for Israel or "Jewry/Zionist groups"? I like the "Jewry", by the way. It says a lot about what makes Victor tick.
Victor´s Justice? wrote:Easy answer: you have always defended Israel, or the "Jewry" if you prefer, when it comes to terrorism of state or apartheid-ish practices by your beloved Israel against Palestine or other neighboring countries.
Have I? Give me a quote from which this becomes apparent, Victor. The fact that I think your bringing up the Palestinians in discussions about Nazi crimes sucks doesn’t mean that I’m taking the side of Israel in this respect. As I stated in the “Israël vs Palestine” thread where I’m still missing the presence of ostensibly so dedicated a defender of the Palestinian cause as my friend Victor, I don’t care for either of the opponents.
The link to the mentioned thread, once again:
http://milhist.phpwebhosting.com/phpBB2 ... e34ffda0e2
Roberto wrote:You are allowed to show any sources you want. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if your sources are "Revisionist" propaganda rather than the product of criminal investigation or serious historical research.
Victor´s Justice? wrote:Your already rusted arguments keep showing themselves; YOU are the one who defines what is criminal investigation or serious research;
I’d say that what is criminal investigation is defined by law, whereas what is serious research is defined by the control of critical and envious peers – something to which your gurus don’t even submit.
Victor´s Justice? wrote:this is a classical case of "ad hominem" arguments, when you intend to win any discussion by narrowing the acceptable universe of ideas and concepts. Just like a stubborn child.
Why, is it “ad hominem” to call nonsense by the name that it deserves? I’d say it’s free speech. Which works both ways, whether you like it or not.
Better cool down and enjoy what’s left of the soccer world cup, my friend. Your statements makes even less sense than they usually do when uttered in rage, you know.