--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yahoo, truncated my message, so can't refer to the > original text, but I think the request for citations > in this is entirely reasonable. The statement was made > that there is "evidence that Hitler was appalled by > the Holocaust" (paraphrased), which goes against any > popular view of his objectives. Saying "some evidence" > without providing the evidence (or providing > citations) makes for a weak argument... > > Damon.
Your falling right into the whole twist of Dans post. You obviously didn't read everything I wrote, only Dan's selective editing. You see I said in effect that whether or not he gave the orders did not and does not matter. He, as the leader of the nation or impire had the same responsability as if he had given the orders. There was certainly no question about whether or not he knew what was happening, so giving the orders (or not) makes absolutly no differnce as to his moral charachter and of course _guilt_. I ask you, why would I spend any time trying to find citations for somthing that I was saying was inconsequential? If you had been following the thread(s) you would know that others had mentioned that there are differing opinions on the mans feelings and intent. I was esentialy saying that none of that really matters. Dan used a portion of that statment out of context as if I were defending Hittler and then reqested citations for that deffence. I do not personaly care to engage in that deffence. Especialy when I just got through shooting down any actual deffence of the man that particular possibility could provide. I was discussing a knee-jerk mistake people often make. I will continue to wonder what Dan's motives are in pourpously using the same pattern as a tactic in an argument that had no reason to be an argument to begin with. I can not imagin that he has anything against me personaly. Perhaps he is just so wrapped up in knee-jerking that he honestly thinks I have opinions I do not have, and perhaps he further feels obligated as a good citizen to squash any bad ideas he thinks I might be spreading. If he can't have an official censorship, then he can create a kind of social censorship. While would make me feel much more sympathetic to him, and while I would then feel sorry for his ugly view of the world, and hope that he would some day overcome it, I am much more inclined to believe that it is a much more simple explination. He simply has an egotistical need to turn any conversation into an argument and then ~win~ it. The fact that he was useing the very oddity I was discussing as anoying as a tachtic in that arguemnt, all the better. And what better way to win an arguemnt than to make your apponent out to be an anti-semite. Or maybe it is simpler still, maybe he just is incapable of understanding the consepts being discussed and is getting himself wrapped up in the examples. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
