Putin wants to rename city Volgograd to Stalingrad, whats next? Gulag reopening?

+1. quote of the day "specific kind of person. "

 

As I have already many times repeated, you have to attack the message, not the messenger.

Saying that the messenger is a "bad guy" is only your personal opinion, but this is not a valid counter-argument.

Unfortunately, this forum has degraded to "name calling", and that is pathetic.

A couple of years ago this board was an excellent discussion forum, I do not know what happened with it.

 

sorry, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its a duck.

Pat Buchanan is a notorious bigot and his ideas about WW2 and the Jews are very well known.

 

That is typical circular reasoning.

BTW, even a "bad guy" can have valid arguments.
If you call somebody a "bad guy", that does not refute his arguments.

According to your simplistic logic it is sufficient to call somebody a "bad guy", and there is no need to debunk his arguments.

BTW, the Soviets used the same tactics.

They called their opponents "bad guys" (antisovietchiks, fascists, racists, etc.), and they believed that this was enough to prove that their arguments were false.

 

so you think Ovadia Yosef, Ariel Sharon, and David Ben-Gurion may have had some great ideas?

 

Well, it depends on the interests.

There is always an "ingroup" and an "outgroup".

These guys did what they believed was in the interests of people they presented.

But to the "outgroup" they were/are "bad guys".

So if Ovadia Yosef says that non-Jews were created to serve the superior Jews, like a donkey serves his master, then this idea may be good for the ingroup (Jews) but not for the outgroup (non-Jews).
There may be some people from the outgroup who do not act in their own interests, but these people are just an exception.

What to Buchanan - he represents the European Americans, that is his ingroup, and it is possible that some Jews find his arguments "hateful".

But this is not important, the crucial point is if his arguments are valid or not.

Buchanan put forward a lot of arguments. These arguments can be true or false.

Some people believe that the truth can be "hateful", but this has something to do with emotions and with the viewpoint, but not with the arguments.

Truth is truth, it cannot be bad or good.

That is how logic and argumentation works.

 

But what, if the one who is writing pure BS to troll inhere is insulting the reader by an idirect way? What, if he does write the most absurd theories about history? What, if that poster is writing ideas you easily also find in the programs of extreme right wing parties? How to deal with people, who denie the holocaust?

Could you give me an idea what can be done to people who permanentely ignore facts in history as the german attack on Poland?

Do you have an idea how such posters can be described? Do you have an idea? Yes or no? Do you? Yes or no? Tell me.

 

absurd is so right word for all his posts here...all his posts full of UFO/Bigfoot conspiracies

 

This is very simple. The name Stalingrad is associated in Russia not with Stalin, but with a battle, which was the turning point in Great Patriotic War- most terrible war in the history of Russia.

 

I do not think you are right here. Art_Allm does not present absurd theories. He gives the references to the different sources, try to put forward arguments, based on this sources. If they are right or wrong-it is another point. Here we start to deal with logic and face the following problem. If let us say, you have some initial statement, that is wrong (but it is not obvious that it is wrong at the beginning), then by doing further correct logical steps you can come to the conclusions, that will be correct from logic point of view. But from the actual point of view they would be false, just because the initial statement was false. In fact, as they say, the history does not have subjunctive. We can only guess that if Poland gave away Gdansk to Germany, then Hitler would find another reason to intervene Poland and start WW2. Same staff with Stalin. Probably he had plans to start a war against Germany. But the reality is that he did not. The crime becomes crime, when it is committed, but not when it just sits as a plan in a head.

 

to UFO forums? youtube videos ?
like this one
[video=youtube;suBp3ai-xG8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=suBp3ai-xG8[/video]
[video=youtube;C53OYAST9CI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C53OYAST9CI[/video]

 

i don't care , but i care about millions of Stalin´s victims of all nationalities . Stalin was way worst then Chikotilo ,better rename Rostov-on-Don to Chikotilograd

 

Vis,

dispite my respect I must disagree. To plan and prepare a crime is allready considered as crime:

Art 26 German constitution:

(1) Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen werden, das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker zu stören, insbesondere die Führung eines Angriffskrieges vorzubereiten, sind verfassungswidrig. Sie sind unter Strafe zu stellen.

In english:

(1) actions that are appropriate to and undertaken with intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They are to be punishable.

But that is another issue...

About my particular friend the problem is different:

He is presenting sources of very questionable origin and presenting them as they where facts. It is a phenomen that most people do think: "it was said in the internet, it must be a fact".

The internet is filled with stuff like:

"nex month earth will explode"

"baby born with 2 tales"

but also like (more popular):

"The jews want to conquer earth planet"

or

"free measonars do have a secret plan to take over control of everything"...written by blablabla...

Than that "blablabla" text is send here, my friend is saying: "look, the Holocaust did not happen" or "Poland attacked Germany in WW2" and he expects that you answer on such crap.

The moment you do, you have lost. If you answer on absurd theories, you get more absurd theories. I give you an example inhere:

The absurd theorie: "Poland did attack Germany in 1939 first"

The absurd source: http://de.scribd.com/doc/25147104/H...it-uber-die-Gleiwitzer-Senderaffare-2009-S-10

If you know german, you can read at first never ending stories about what polish all did to germans...all sort of crime discriptions. In the end they say:

The broadcast was really attacked by polish soldiers...al looks very oficially and nicely prepared.

That the guy who wrote that crap was an extrem right wing jurist from Schlesien, nobody knows so easily.

http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/12/038/1203844.pdf


Such people did always doubt any german responsibility for anything.

But a source is a source and we are confrontated and unable to manage so much information and we are also unwilling to check all.

Result: My friend gets away with the idea, that Poland did cause the 2 WW,

It works that system.

But I tell you:

My friend does manipulate what he finds
My friend does fill you with crapy abstruse absurd theories nobody is so happy to check, because if you check one

"Gorbatchov was also ukrainian" he wrote for example

and you proof as wrong, I insure you he will bring you ten more and one more absurd than the other.

The goal of such mechanic: That you surrender to all the stuff he brings inhere.

Our president did call such people recently "Spinner" (idiots) and these people (neonazis) did call the supreme court. They lost.

The best to handle these people is NOT to react to these most absurd theories. You will never win that story. The best is to systematically ignore them. I had to learn that lesson. I do recomand to ignore my nice friend inhere. Completely ignoring him. Any post he will write: IGNORE HIM!

I had to get that lesson. I recomand all inhere with good will: IGNORE HIM. He needs constant attention. Let's react by ignoring him.

 

If you care about the victims, as you say, then move from Stockholm to Volgograd and take part in the referendum

 

Farce? a referendum in a non-democratic country calls for Farce

 

Why farce? There are no referendums held in non-democratic countries. Therefore, Russia is a democratic country.