It's undeniable
HHW
went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
Zionism is racist." (Haaretz)
drahcir
Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
last_per...@yahoo.com
And obvious fact, undeniably.
drahcir
Nope. I deny it. See? You're wrong.
HHW
That's not what he said and were you alert you'd know it. He isn't
dealing in opinion here. "No doubt" about it, he says. He uses the
words "must argue" that Zionism is racist. On this issue as a matter
of simple logic he's correct of course.
Unless you argue that Palestinians and Israelis are of the same stock
and differ only on some minimally relevant cultural grounds, you
would, presuming minimal candor and honesty, be forced to agree.
HHW
Indeed.
HHW
What you don't do is argue it. See? You're not participating, as usual.
drahcir
What you don't do is see clearly. My reply was to an idiot who tried
to establish undeniability without support - an idiot just like you.
He made a pat statement, I negated it. But, being an idiot, you can't
see that.
drahcir
> On Dec 13, 5:12 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 4:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
> > > went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
> > > United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
> > > protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
> > > races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
> > > Zionism is racist." (Haaretz)
>
> > Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
>
> That's not what he said and were you alert you'd know it.
What on earth are you babbling about? Are you suggesting that your
post is NOT mr. Feiglin's opinion?
He isn't
> dealing in opinion here. "No doubt" about it, he says.
Oh, are those the magic words that make an opinion fact in HHWorld?
Who gives a shit about what he says?
He uses the
> words "must argue" that Zionism is racist. On this issue as a matter
> of simple logic he's correct of course.
Hehe, this moron thinks if he attaches the words "simple logic" to an
opinion, it magically changes into accepted fact.
>
> Unless you argue that Palestinians and Israelis are of the same stock
> and differ only on some minimally relevant cultural grounds, you
> would, presuming minimal candor and honesty, be forced to agree.
Morons should not presume, especially when they are antisemitic and
have trouble comprehending simple words, let alone concepts like
"Zionism".
You want so badly to snap your fingers, speak the magic words "it's
undeniable", and POOF! you've got undeniability. You are so like a
child. A second child.
HHW
> > > > > On Dec 13, 4:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
> > > > > > went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
> > > > > > United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
> > > > > > protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
> > > > > > races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
> > > > > > Zionism is racist." (Haaretz)
>
> > > > > Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
>
> > > > And obvious fact, undeniably.
>
> > > Nope. I deny it. See? You're wrong.
>
> > What you don't do is argue it. See? You're not participating, as usual.
>
> What you don't do is see clearly. My reply was to an idiot who tried
> to establish undeniability without support
He established undeniably that Zionism is racism as a self-evident
deductive proposition. "Support" is irrelevant to the deductive mode
of thought. You don't understand the difference between deduction and
induction. What he did is the former. Here it is stripped of
unnecessary verbiage:
P. 1: Racism is the creation of distinctions among or between races;
P. 2: Zionism creates distinctions among or between races.
THEREFORE, Zionism is racism.
- an idiot just like you.
> He made a pat statement, I negated it.
What do you think a "pat statement" is? Perhaps you believe it is a
philosophical term and you can gain a reputation for probity by using
it? In fact it's simply a fuzzy avoidance of real analysis.
Think now. You have negated nothing. You don't understand what he's
done. I posted it because I knew you wouldn't.
The United Nations General Assembly understood the principles involved
but you're too poorly educated to follow. What he's done is to create
a primitive syllogistic proof of his proposition. If you think you can
undermine it go ahead, but you can't negate it by a simple denial.
Givens are not amenable to naked denial. You'll have to think to
understand. You're not used to that.
But, being an idiot, you can't
> see that.
"Seeing" clearly in these encounters is not something in which you
excel. You almost never engage ideas presented to you. You're
apparently too insecure. This particular exchange is a good if
relatively trivial example.
HHW
> On Dec 13, 8:41 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 5:12 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 4:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
> > > > went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
> > > > United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
> > > > protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
> > > > races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
> > > > Zionism is racist." (Haaretz)
>
> > > Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
>
> > That's not what he said and were you alert you'd know it.
>
> What on earth are you babbling about? Are you suggesting that your
> post is NOT mr. Feiglin's opinion?
Exactly so.
I'm saying very clearly without a hint of babble that "opinion" is not
relevant to the deductive process. It delivers certainty, not
probability. The latter can be the stuff of which opinions are made.
>
> He isn't
>
> > dealing in opinion here. "No doubt" about it, he says.
There can be no doubt about deductive truths. One has no choice but to
follow the logic.
> Oh, are those the magic words that make an opinion fact in HHWorld?
> Who gives a shit about what he says?
It would help for you to finish your basic education. His thought
process is deductive. It uses definitions, not data. Feiglin
understood it. So, as I say, did the UN General Assembly which is made
up largely of gentlemen you Zionists think are mere "wogs," the Arabs
for example.
>
> He uses the
>
> > words "must argue" that Zionism is racist. On this issue as a matter
> > of simple logic he's correct of course.
>
> Hehe, this moron thinks if he attaches the words "simple logic" to an
> opinion, it magically changes into accepted fact.
Let me say it in a way which you will find easier to parse, he uses an
elementary deductive process which delivers certainty.
> > Unless you argue that Palestinians and Israelis are of the same stock
> > and differ only on some minimally relevant cultural grounds, you
> > would, presuming minimal candor and honesty, be forced to agree.
Here I've given you an opening to go over to the attack, purposely.
You can't see it, can't grasp my kindness so I won't explain it right
now. You need to think.
> Morons should not presume, especially when they are antisemitic and
> have trouble comprehending simple words, let alone concepts like
> "Zionism".
But it has just been proved irrefutably that Zionism is racism. That's
what deductive logic does. But take cheer, Zionism can and no doubt is
a lot of other things too.
> You want so badly to snap your fingers, speak the magic words "it's
> undeniable", and POOF! you've got undeniability. You are so like a
> child. A second child.
But I understand these principles and you obviously do not.
PS: Have you considered my proposal for a truce? Be clear about it
now.
drahcir
> On Dec 13, 9:29 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > > On Dec 13, 4:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
> > > > > > > went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
> > > > > > > United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
> > > > > > > protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
> > > > > > > races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
> > > > > > > Zionism is racist." (Haaretz)
>
> > > > > > Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
>
> > > > > And obvious fact, undeniably.
>
> > > > Nope. I deny it. See? You're wrong.
>
> > > What you don't do is argue it. See? You're not participating, as usual.
>
> > What you don't do is see clearly. My reply was to an idiot who tried
> > to establish undeniability without support
>
> He established undeniably that Zionism is racism as a self-evident
> deductive proposition.
If you think so, you have no clue what a self-evident, deductive
proposition is.
"Support" is irrelevant to the deductive mode
> of thought.
LOL!!
You don't understand the difference between deduction and
> induction. What he did is the former. Here it is stripped of
> unnecessary verbiage:
>
> P. 1: Racism is the creation of distinctions among or between races;
WRONG supposition. One doesn't "create" distinctions among races -
they exist ipso facto, otherwise races could not be distinguished from
each other.
Since you obviously are not familiar with the definition of "racism",
here are a few:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various
human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually
involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right
to rule others.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
- Random House
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character
or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
- American Heritage
>
> P. 2: Zionism creates distinctions among or between races.
Wrong again. Zionism distinguishes between RELIGIONS, being concerned
with Judaism and those of the Jewish faith. For example, Ethiopian
Jews were evacuated into Israel. Did you ever hear of Operation Moses?
>
> THEREFORE, Zionism is racism.
No, therefore, you are an ignoramus who gets it wrong 100% of the
time, as per above. As my computer programming teacher used to say,
garbage in, garbage out. So much for your deduction.
>
> - an idiot just like you.
>
> > He made a pat statement, I negated it.
I can see H below is off on one of his blahblah episodes. I'll use it
as my exit music.
drahcir
Please see my earlier reply of today in this thread. I don't have time
to wade through this ignoramus's errors again.
dsharavi
> > > > > > > > "There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
> > > > > > > > went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
> > > > > > > > United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
> > > > > > > > protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
> > > > > > > > races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
> > > > > > > > Zionism is racist." (Haaretz)
> > > > > > > Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
> > > > > > And obvious fact, undeniably.
> > > > > Nope. I deny it. See? You're wrong.
> > > > What you don't do is argue it. See? You're not participating, as usual.
> > On Dec 13, 9:29 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What you don't do is see clearly. My reply was to an idiot who tried
> > > to establish undeniability without support
> On Dec 15, 2:16 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > He established undeniably that Zionism is racism as a self-evident
> > deductive proposition.
On Dec 15, 6:38 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you think so, you have no clue what a self-evident, deductive
> proposition is.
HHW has no clue about statements taken out of context, that's certain.
And the foregoing comment he pasted from one of his Jew-hating
websites has the comment grossly out of context.
In context, from the Haaretz article in question:
Saturday, December 13, 2008 Kislev 16, 5769
Feiglin, his cronies are fascists by any definition
By Yossi Sarid
Each list of candidates is tinted with its own characteristic hue.
Sometimes, one drop is enough to paint a whole list. Likud's list
offers quite a few rotten drops, and with each drop the cup
overflows.
The list's color is as brown now as that brown house in Hebron.
Likud's official spokespeople did try to console and be consoled
yesterday, when they said that the devil isn't all that bad now that
it's been pushed down to number 20 on the list. But full revulsion is
better than partial consolation in this case.
Moshe Feiglin has been described as a radical rightist but that's not
his main problem - which has now become the Likud's problem and our
problem. In certain respects, he's less legitimate than Meir Kahane
and far less so than Rehavam Ze'evi, the man who Benny Begin once
defined as "a moral infection."
Those were the days in old Jerusalem.
Sometimes, one wonders how what began as an ignominy deteriorates into
abysmal lows. This paper published an interview with Feiglin from
1995, conducted by Ada Oshpiz. "When he reads about Hitler, it is with
astonishment," the reporter wrote.
In describing Adolf Hitler, Feiglin is quoted to have told her,
"Hitler was an unparalleled military genius. Nazism promoted Germany
from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged,
trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and
Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and
public order. Hitler savored good music. He would paint. This was no
bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals."
The time has come to break free from the shackles of politically
correct speech and call these people - Feiglin and his cronies - by
their explicit name. They are not "radicals" but fascists by any
acceptable definition. And had they not been born - through no fault
of their own - to Jewish mothers, they would have been damn anti-
Semites to boot.
"There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
Zionism is racist."
Later in the interview, Feiglin addressed the Palestinians. "There is
no Palestinian nation. There is only an Arab-speaking public which has
suddenly identified itself as a people, a negative of the Zionist
movement, parasites. The fact that they hadn't done so earlier only
serves to prove how inferior they are. The Africans have no nations
either. Only Zulus, Tutsis."
One is left to wonder under which tribe Feiglin classifies the Obama
household.
Not only are Feiglin's people radicals and fascists, but also the
bearers of severe personal disturbances, which hide behind a layer of
patriotic make-up, under the camouflage of the Jewish faith.
If the Knesset is a temple, then Feiglin is the idol. A Knesset where
Feiglin presides is an impure Knesset.
Now all of Jabotinsky's distinct disciples - Begin, Dan Meridor,
Reuven Rivlin - will preside alongside Feiglin. They will all lend
force to one another, and then they will come to us to explain that
the Greater Land of Israel is bought with pain and prohibitions -
their own pain.
For Zion's sake they will rush, and for Jerusalem they will fall
silent and still - at least until the day of the election. And then
they will complain to the whole world about the tie-wearing skinheads
infiltrating parliaments and cabinets, whereas back in Jerusalem, even
the skull cap can't hide the close shave.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045101.html
Deborah
drahcir
What a little creep HHW is.
dsharavi
In context, from the Haaretz article in question:
"There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
Later in the interview, Feiglin addressed the Palestinians. "There is
NefeshBarYochai
We all agree that you should stop using your socks to jack-off in.
HHW
> On Dec 15, 2:16 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 9:29 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 13, 4:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > "There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
> > > > > > > > went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
> > > > > > > > United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
> > > > > > > > protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
> > > > > > > > races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
> > > > > > > > Zionism is racist." (Haaretz)
>
> > > > > > > Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
>
> > > > > > And obvious fact, undeniably.
>
> > > > > Nope. I deny it. See? You're wrong.
>
> > > > What you don't do is argue it. See? You're not participating, as usual.
>
> > > What you don't do is see clearly. My reply was to an idiot who tried
> > > to establish undeniability without support
>
> > He established undeniably that Zionism is racism as a self-evident
> > deductive proposition.
>
> If you think so, you have no clue what a self-evident, deductive
> proposition is.
>
> "Support" is irrelevant to the deductive mode
>
> > of thought.
>
> LOL!!
Fool, deductive proofs are based on givens, empirical data.
> You don't understand the difference between deduction and
>
> > induction. What he did is the former. Here it is stripped of
> > unnecessary verbiage:
>
> > P. 1: Racism is the creation of distinctions among or between races;
>
> WRONG supposition.
It is by no means a "supposition". It is a given. It can not be
contradicted. Whining about a given you dislike gets you nowhere.
One doesn't "create" distinctions among races -
> they exist ipso facto, otherwise races could not be distinguished from
> each other.
The distinctions Feiglin's "given" contemplates are created by man,
obviously. But nonetheless they are givens and therefore cannot be
questioned. They are not amenable to empirical analysis. They are
immutable.
>
> Since you obviously are not familiar with the definition of "racism",
> here are a few:
Givens are not subject competing givens.
>
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various
> human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually
> involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right
> to rule others.
>
> 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
>
> - Random House
>
> 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character
> or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
> 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
>
> - American Heritage
>
>
>
> > P. 2: Zionism creates distinctions among or between races.
>
> Wrong again. Zionism distinguishes between RELIGIONS, being concerned
> with Judaism and those of the Jewish faith. For example, Ethiopian
> Jews were evacuated into Israel. Did you ever hear of Operation Moses?
A given can't be wrong.
>
>
>
> > THEREFORE, Zionism is racism.
>
> No, therefore, you are an ignoramus who gets it wrong 100% of the
> time, as per above. As my computer programming teacher used to say,
> garbage in, garbage out. So much for your deduction.
Givens are incapable of being garbage. One doesn't have to the
deductive process but if he does he must play by the rules.
> > - an idiot just like you.
>
> > > He made a pat statement, I negated it.
>
> I can see H below is off on one of his blahblah episodes. I'll use it
> as my exit music.
Please, good sir, none of your music.
HHW
> On Dec 15, 2:40 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Please see my earlier reply of today in this thread. I don't have time
> to wade through this ignoramus's errors again.
Givens are true by definition. They are impervious to error.
Clip for brevity.
HHW
> > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 4:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
> > > > > > > > > went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
> > > > > > > > > United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
> > > > > > > > > protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
> > > > > > > > > races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
> > > > > > > > > Zionism is racist." (Haaretz)
> > > > > > > > Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
> > > > > > > And obvious fact, undeniably.
> > > > > > Nope. I deny it. See? You're wrong.
> > > > > What you don't do is argue it. See? You're not participating, as usual.
> > > On Dec 13, 9:29 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What you don't do is see clearly. My reply was to an idiot who tried
> > > > to establish undeniability without support
> > On Dec 15, 2:16 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > He established undeniably that Zionism is racism as a self-evident
> > > deductive proposition.
>
> On Dec 15, 6:38 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you think so, you have no clue what a self-evident, deductive
> > proposition is.
>
> HHW has no clue about statements taken out of context, that's certain.
> And the foregoing comment he pasted from one of his Jew-hating
> websites has the comment grossly out of context.
Haaretz is a Jew-hating web site?
Clip for focus.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045101.html
Givens in deductive proofs are never statements taken out of context.
They are irrefutable by definition. Feiglin's entire deductive proof
is entirely contained in the paragraph I quoted. It really is quite
elegant.
HHW
You are reduced to imitating DoD, the most stupid man on this board.
HHW
Agreements can't change the givens in a deductive proof.
DoD
I have been smart enough to generally ignore a morally bankrupt,
washout like yourself....
:::::snicker:::::::
DoD
> On Dec 15, 8:39 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 2:40 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Please see my earlier reply of today in this thread. I don't have time
> > to wade through this ignoramus's errors again.
>
> Givens are true by definition.
It is a given that you are error addled.
> They are impervious to error.
You are impervious to facts. That and you are a general asshole.
drahcir
Here, my poor H, is the definition of "given":
8. an established fact, condition, factor, etc.
Your two points below are anything but "givens", since they are not
established facts. You have not established them as facts, and they
are certainly not known to be established facts, as proven by me.
Since they are not "givens", your deduced conclusion is flawed.
>
> > You don't understand the difference between deduction and
>
> > > induction. What he did is the former. Here it is stripped of
> > > unnecessary verbiage:
>
> > > P. 1: Racism is the creation of distinctions among or between races;
>
> > WRONG supposition.
>
> It is by no means a "supposition". It is a given. It can not be
> contradicted.
No, it's a supposition, according to the definition of "given". It's
not a given, any more than if I say that racism is the unreasonable
devotion to NASCAR. A given must be either previously established and
accepted, or demonstrated and then accepted. Your two points are
neither, therefore they are not givens.
Whining about a given you dislike gets you nowhere.
>
> One doesn't "create" distinctions among races -
>
> > they exist ipso facto, otherwise races could not be distinguished from
> > each other.
>
> The distinctions Feiglin's "given" contemplates are created by man,
> obviously.
Sorry, your P.1 above makes no such qualification.
But nonetheless they are givens and therefore cannot be
> questioned.
Your points are not givens as proven by me.
They are not amenable to empirical analysis. They are
> immutable.
Nope. A given can either be a previously accepted condition (yours
aren't) or something that is demonstrated and then accepted (you
haven't). Therefore, your points are not givens, rendering your
deduction faulty.
>
> > Since you obviously are not familiar with the definition of "racism",
> > here are a few:
>
> Givens are not subject competing givens.
BWAHAHAHA!!!! BTW, there's a preposition missing from your above
sentence.
>
> > 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various
> > human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually
> > involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right
> > to rule others.
>
> > 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
>
> > - Random House
>
> > 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character
> > or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
> > 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
>
> > - American Heritage
>
> > > P. 2: Zionism creates distinctions among or between races.
>
> > Wrong again. Zionism distinguishes between RELIGIONS, being concerned
> > with Judaism and those of the Jewish faith. For example, Ethiopian
> > Jews were evacuated into Israel. Did you ever hear of Operation Moses?
>
> A given can't be wrong.
True, But your points are not givens, because they are not established
as accepted either previously or by you. I challenge you to prove your
P.2 above or admit that your conclusion is wrong.
>
> > > THEREFORE, Zionism is racism.
>
> > No, therefore, you are an ignoramus who gets it wrong 100% of the
> > time, as per above. As my computer programming teacher used to say,
> > garbage in, garbage out. So much for your deduction.
>
> Givens are incapable of being garbage.
I have shown that your points are not givens.
One doesn't have to the
> deductive process but if he does he must play by the rules.
In your panic, you omitted at least an infinitive from the first
phrase of your last sentence above, rendering it meaningless. You do
not understand what deduction is, H. Here is the definition of
"deduce":
1. to derive as a conclusion from something known or assumed
Thus, it is clear that if one assumes something untrue, as I proved
you did, that the result will be faulty. Garbage in - garbage out.
THOSE are the rules of deduction.
>
> > > - an idiot just like you.
>
> > > > He made a pat statement, I negated it.
>
> > I can see H below is off on one of his blahblah episodes. I'll use it
> > as my exit music.
>
> Please, good sir, none of your music.
Learn to read, H. It's YOU who are the composer in this case, I just
chose not to listen.
drahcir
I have demonstrated that your points are not givens. See my other
reply in this thread from today.
>
> Clip for brevity.
dsharavi
> > > > > > > > > > "There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
> > > > > > > > > > went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
> > > > > > > > > > United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
> > > > > > > > > > protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
> > > > > > > > > > races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
> > > > > > > > > > Zionism is racist." (Haaretz)
> > > > > > > > > Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
> > > > > > > > And obvious fact, undeniably.
> > > > > > > Nope. I deny it. See? You're wrong.
> > > > > > What you don't do is argue it. See? You're not participating, as usual.
> > > > On Dec 13, 9:29 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > What you don't do is see clearly. My reply was to an idiot who tried
> > > > > to establish undeniability without support
> > > On Dec 15, 2:16 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > He established undeniably that Zionism is racism as a self-evident
> > > > deductive proposition.
> > On Dec 15, 6:38 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you think so, you have no clue what a self-evident, deductive
> > > proposition is.
> On Dec 17, 3:50 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > HHW has no clue about statements taken out of context, that's certain.
> > And the foregoing comment he pasted from one of his Jew-hating
> > websites has the comment grossly out of context.
On Dec 17, 10:35 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Haaretz is a Jew-hating web site?
Poor, silly HHW, your deficiencies seem to extend to simple English
comprehension. You pasted a snippet from an article from Haaretz.
Examination of the article in question shows that it does not reflect
the sentiments you claim it reflects.
> Clip for focus.
Translation: "Clipped to obscure the fact that HHW can't deal with
facts."
"There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
Zionism is racist."
Later in the interview, Feiglin addressed the Palestinians. "There is
dsharavi
> > Fool, deductive proofs are based on givens, empirical data.
> Here, my poor H, is the definition of "given":
> 8. an established fact, condition, factor, etc.
> Your two points below are anything but "givens", since they are not
> established facts. You have not established them as facts, and they
> are certainly not known to be established facts, as proven by me.
> Since they are not "givens", your deduced conclusion is flawed.
Why all the circumlocution? HHW posted an out of context snippet he
found on one of his antisemitic websites, which he claimed set forth
certain "facts". Not having bothered to read the original article, an
op-ed piece by Yossi Sarid, it's easy to see that the claims for his
snippet are opposite the opinions expressed in the article.
IOW, HHW is just shoveling his same old boring fertilizer factory
spew. Probably he's doing it because he's too cowardly to address the
facts presented in opposition to the spew in his recent posts.
And that should end it there. FWIW, here, again, is the complete
article from which HHW's antisemitic website took its snippet:
"There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin
went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the
United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to
protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between
races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that
Zionism is racist."
Later in the interview, Feiglin addressed the Palestinians. "There is
dsharavi
> Givens are true by definition. They are impervious to error.
Clearly HHW remembers the days when it was a given that the sun
revolved around the earth.
Deborah
fla...@verizon.net
On 18-Dec-2008, DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > For Zion's sake they will rush, and for Jerusalem they will fall
> > > > silent and still - at least until the day of the election. And then
> > > > they will complain to the whole world about the tie-wearing
> > > > skinheads
> > > > infiltrating parliaments and cabinets, whereas back in Jerusalem,
> > > > even
> > > > the skull cap can't hide the close
> > > > shave.http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045101.html
> >
> > > > Deborah
> >
> > > What a little creep HHW is.
> >
> > You are reduced to imitating DoD, the most stupid man on this board.-
>
Translation: Devborah has nailed HHW as harshly as it is possible to do.
> I have been smart enough to generally ignore a morally bankrupt,
> washout like yourself....
>
> :::::snicker:::::::
Translation: you've nailed HHW as harshly as it is possible to do.
Susan
dsharavi
> > > > > silent and still - at least until the day of the election. And then
> > > > > they will complain to the whole world about the tie-wearing
> > > > > skinheads
> > > > > infiltrating parliaments and cabinets, whereas back in Jerusalem,
> > > > > even
> > > > > the skull cap can't hide the close
> > > > > shave.http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045101.html
> > > > > Deborah
I didn't write this. And this is NOT the article I quoted.
> > > > What a little creep HHW is.
He's a liar.
> > > You are reduced to imitating DoD, the most stupid man on this board.-
On Dec 18, 2:05 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> Translation: Devborah has nailed HHW as harshly as it is possible to do.
Nope. Elsewhere, I simply present facts in opposition to H's bs -- and
there's nothing he can do about it, except post more lies.
> > I have been smart enough to generally ignore a morally bankrupt,
> > washout like yourself....
> > :::::snicker:::::::
> Translation: you've nailed HHW as harshly as it is possible to do.
> Susan
Nobody has nailed HHW harshly -- except HHW himself, with his childish
lies.
Deborah
TACHANUN
HHW could very well be a Hun Nazi KKKer. Somewhere in Youtube is a
video about the KKK. They often use the alphabet letters HHW to stand
for Hiel Hitler Willingly. HH is always Hiel Hitler.
fla...@verizon.net
On 18-Dec-2008, dsharavi <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2:05 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > Translation: Devborah has nailed HHW as harshly as it is possible to do.
>
> Nope. Elsewhere, I simply present facts in opposition to H's bs -- and
> there's nothing he can do about it, except post more lies.
>
(Isn't that the same thing???)
> > > I have been smart enough to generally ignore a morally bankrupt,
> > > washout like yourself....
>
> > > :::::snicker:::::::
>
> > Translation: you've nailed HHW as harshly as it is possible to do.
> > Susan
>
> Nobody has nailed HHW harshly -- except HHW himself, with his childish
> lies.
Ah, I see what you mean :-)
Susan
drahcir
> On Dec 18, 6:12 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fool, deductive proofs are based on givens, empirical data.
> > Here, my poor H, is the definition of "given":
> > 8. an established fact, condition, factor, etc.
> > Your two points below are anything but "givens", since they are not
> > established facts. You have not established them as facts, and they
> > are certainly not known to be established facts, as proven by me.
> > Since they are not "givens", your deduced conclusion is flawed.
>
> Why all the circumlocution? HHW posted an out of context snippet he
> found on one of his antisemitic websites, which he claimed set forth
> certain "facts". Not having bothered to read the original article, an
> op-ed piece by Yossi Sarid, it's easy to see that the claims for his
> snippet are opposite the opinions expressed in the article.
I don't see it as circumlocution - my way refutes feiglin and him in
one go. Seeing that his quote was pulled out of context certainly
shows him to be a lying creep, given his attribution to Haaretz,
however I am just now more interested in impugning his intelligence
than his honor.
>
> IOW, HHW is just shoveling his same old boring fertilizer factory
> spew. Probably he's doing it because he's too cowardly to address the
> facts presented in opposition to the spew in his recent posts.
Exactly! Did you notice how easily I goaded him into replying to this
one? He's like a trained dog - i tell him "fetch" and he fetches -
it's great. Hi H, I'm sure you're enjoying this - c'm'ere - who's a
good boy? Who's a good boy? Yes, H is a good boy! Ok, now go lie down.
>
> And that should end it there.
Oh, I hope not...
drahcir
Whatsimatta, H, don't you think "little creep" is an apt description
for someone who pulls something out of an opposite context, then
attributes it as is to the publication in which that opposite context
appears, in order to try to give false validity to the pull? Well, I
suppose this sort of thing is somewhat subjective. How would you feel
about "lying sack of shit"? I must tell you, for me, it's too graphic.
Wait, let's keep this thing minimalist - I got it - how about
"lowlife"? Yes, that sums you up fairly succinctly.
HHW
syllogism
logic
Main
in logic, a valid deductive argument having two premises and a
conclusion. The traditional type is the categorical syllogism in which
both premises and the conclusion are simple declarative statements
that are constructed using only three simple terms between them, each
term appearing twice (as a subject and as a predicate): “All men are
mortal; no gods are mortal; therefore no men are gods.” The argument
in such syllogisms is valid by virtue of the fact that it would not be
possible to assert the premises and to deny the conclusion without
contradicting oneself.
drahcir
Your points are not givens (or, to now segue into the terminology of
the above definition, your premises are flawed), as I have shown,
therefore your conclusion is flawed. Garbage in = garbage out. Now, I
don't know where you got the above definition (true to form, you
didn't cite), but I think it has a problem, although I am no expert.
Its definition of syllogism:
"The traditional type is the categorical syllogism in which
both premises and the conclusion are simple declarative statements
that are constructed using only three simple terms between them, each
term appearing twice (as a subject and as a predicate)."
Now, let's take its example:
“All men are
mortal; no gods are mortal; therefore no men are gods.”
Well, there are certainly three terms (men, gods, mortal), and all
three do appear twice, but your definition states that they do so as a
subject and as a predicate. Please show precisely where, in the given
example, "mortal" appears as a subject. Thanks.
HHW
> On Dec 18, 10:33 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 8:13 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 1:28 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 8:39 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 15, 2:40 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Please see my earlier reply of today in this thread. I don't have time
> > > > > to wade through this ignoramus's errors again.
>
> > > > Givens are true by definition. They are impervious to error.
> > > I have demonstrated that your points are not givens.
No you definitely have not. What you can't grasp is that the concept
of *logical validity* is not a function of empirically determined
reality. It is a function of definitions, of givens. That "Hitler was
a humanist" can be used as a premise in a syllogism. The syllogism is
about logic. It is not empiricist.
See my other
> > > reply in this thread from today.
>
> > > > Clip for brevity.
>
> > syllogism
> > logic
> > Main
> > in logic, a valid deductive argument having two premises and a
> > conclusion. The traditional type is the categorical syllogism in which
> > both premises and the conclusion are simple declarative statements
> > that are constructed using only three simple terms between them, each
> > term appearing twice (as a subject and as a predicate): “All men are
> > mortal; no gods are mortal; therefore no men are gods.” The argument
> > in such syllogisms is valid by virtue of the fact that it would not be
> > possible to assert the premises and to deny the conclusion without
> > contradicting oneself.
As to our differences, the key phrase above is in the first line:
"valid deductive argument". Logical validity and conclusions about
externally verifiable data are very different. The former is a
creature of logic, the latter of study of the world around us. The
former delivers "validity" while the latter delivers at best high
degrees of probability. The former utilizes deductive logic, the
latter uses inductive logic. The best example of the latter is the is
the scientific method.
> Your points are not givens (or, to now segue into the terminology of
> the above definition, your premises are flawed), as I have shown,
> therefore your conclusion is flawed.
"Hitler was a humanist" could a perfectly good premise in a syllogism
irrespective of its objective falsity. Therefore, it can be a given, a
definition which delivers logical validity in the operation
Try this one:
P. 1: All Nazis were humanists.
P. 2 Hitler was a Nazi.
THEREFORE, Hitler was a humanist.
You, Richard, will agree with the subordinate premise, P. 2, but you
will claim that the major premise is objectively false. You will be
correct but that will be irrelevant. P. 1 is a definition which must
be accepted as if true in order to evaluate the logical VALIDITY of
the proof. Here the conclusion is perfectly valid as a matter of
deductive logic. That the facts in the major premise are debatable is
a different subject altogether. That would be dealt with, for example,
by the scientific method, a method distinct from deduction even though
scientists use deductive processes to create hypotheses which must
later be examined empirically in the "laboratory".
Garbage in = garbage out.
Of course, "All Nazis are humanists" is objectively false, "garbage".
That's irrelevant to the fact that a VALID deductive proof can be
generated in a syllogism which has it as it's major premise.
I'm clipping the rest here because what we differ on is more basic.
Let me know if you will your response to the above. Your reference to
garbage is very telling. That "All Nazis are humanists" is truly
garbage but my conclusion is perfectly valid. That this can be is what
you do not understand. Beyond that we need not go from my point of
view unless you want to separately debate a different subject, the
objective empirical truth of the original author's premise or
premises which also delivered a perfectly valid conclusion.
drahcir
<snip message prefaces>
>
> > > > > > Please see my earlier reply of today in this thread. I don't have time
> > > > > > to wade through this ignoramus's errors again.
>
> > > > > Givens are true by definition. They are impervious to error.
> > > > I have demonstrated that your points are not givens.
>
> No you definitely have not.
Let us here notice that HHW has chosen to reply to a sentence that was
clearly referring to my other reply in this thread. The complete
sentence was
> > > > I have demonstrated that your points are not givens.
> > > > See my other
> > > > reply in this thread from today.
So, rather than defend against my actual post that the above refers
to, the place that I proved that his points were not givens because
they were false, he chooses to "rebut" a one-sentence reference to
another post. It that other post, I proved that his points 1 and 2
were not givens. Since the premises were false, the conclusions were
false. Of course, HHW chooses not to reply to that post.
What you can't grasp is that the concept
> of *logical validity* is not a function of empirically determined
> reality.
YOU said above:
> > > > > Givens are true by definition.
I proved your points false in the referred-to post, therefore your
points are not givens.
Your premises are false, therefore your conclusion must be false. All
of your pretentious crap can't obfuscate that simple truth.
It is a function of definitions, of givens.
Your premises are not givens, as I have proven in the above url.
That "Hitler was
> a humanist" can be used as a premise in a syllogism. The syllogism is
> about logic. It is not empiricist.
Sorry, that's not what YOU said. YOU said that givens are true by
definition. I have proven your points false, therefore they are not
givens. Your premises are false, therefore your conclusion must be
false. All of your pretentious crap can't obfuscate that simple truth.
Garbage in = garbage out. What you are trying to do now is to
backpedal on your pronouncement that Feiglin's conclusion was
"undeniable", although his premises were flawed, and to declare that
you didn't really mean that his conclusion was undeniable in the real
world, just that it was undeniable in some strange place where his
premises were accepted as truth. That's just HHW crap, trying to avoid
being trounced yet again. You are attempting to turn this into a
simple exercise in logic to avoid admitting that Feiglin's premises
were flawed, and therefore his conclusion was flawed.
>
> See my other
> > > > reply in this thread from today.
>
> > > > > Clip for brevity.
>
> > > syllogism
> > > logic
> > > Main
> > > in logic, a valid deductive argument having two premises and a
> > > conclusion. The traditional type is the categorical syllogism in which
> > > both premises and the conclusion are simple declarative statements
> > > that are constructed using only three simple terms between them, each
> > > term appearing twice (as a subject and as a predicate): “All men are
> > > mortal; no gods are mortal; therefore no men are gods.” The argument
> > > in such syllogisms is valid by virtue of the fact that it would not be
> > > possible to assert the premises and to deny the conclusion without
> > > contradicting oneself.
<snip irrelevant HHW dance, which needlessly introduced irrelevant
crap about nazis >
>
> Garbage in = garbage out.
> I'm clipping the rest here because what we differ on is more basic.
LOL! You are a liar, once again. You're clipping the rest here to try
to escape admitting that your syllogism definition was flawed. Here's
what HHW "clipped"
***********
Now, I
don't know where you got the above definition (true to form, you
didn't cite), but I think it has a problem, although I am no expert.
Its definition of syllogism:
"The traditional type is the categorical syllogism in which
both premises and the conclusion are simple declarative statements
that are constructed using only three simple terms between them, each
term appearing twice (as a subject and as a predicate)."
Now, let's take its example:
“All men are
mortal; no gods are mortal; therefore no men are gods.”
Well, there are certainly three terms (men, gods, mortal), and all
three do appear twice, but your definition states that they do so as a
subject and as a predicate. Please show precisely where, in the given
example, "mortal" appears as a subject. Thanks.
***********
You "clipped" for one reason: to avoid having to show where "mortal"
is a subject in your example. YOU ARE JUST A LOWLY LIAR, forced into
lying yet again simply because you are too proud to admit error. You
fool, you live in some dream world where you can simply say that you
clipped because "what we differ on is more basic", and you think I am
not going to catch you. You clipped for one reason: to avoid being
proven an idiot yet again.
NOW PLEASE SHOW WHERE "MORTAL" APPEARS AS A SUBJECT IN YOUR EXAMPLE,
OR ADMIT THAT YOU HAVEN'T A CLUE.
Ok, let's sum up. HHW started this thread with great bravado,
confidently asserting "It's undeniable". When I showed that it's not
only deniable, it's total bullshit, because the points that Feiglin
based his conclusion on were flawed, HHW tried to backpedal and
contend that, well, we can't judge his premises in the real world, we
have only to see that, if we accept his premises as valid without
regard to their actual validity in the real world, then we must accept
his conclusion as valid. The problem is, that that is NOT what HHW
maintained in the beginning - he said that Feiglin's conclusion was
"undeniable", meaning, not true in some hypothetical logical
construct, but true, "undeniable", period, in the real world.
yet more bullshit below:
drahcir
<snip for focus>
> What you can't grasp is that the concept
> of *logical validity* is not a function of empirically determined
> reality. It is a function of definitions, of givens.
Ok? So, according to HHW, logical validity is a function of givens,
not of empirically determined reality. Got it so far? Good. Now read
this:
From
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/b9582575b1d0fe30
http://tinyurl.com/9e25p9
"Fool, deductive proofs are based on givens, empirical data."
Ok, now you get it? Givens have nothing whatsoever to do with
empirically determined reality, yet they are empirical data. Uh-
huh.....
And if you think that's funny, just wait until you hear what he has to
say about subjects, predicates, and syllogisms.
I think my job is done here.....
HHW
> On Dec 20, 2:05 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
>
> > What you can't grasp is that the concept
> > of *logical validity* is not a function of empirically determined
> > reality. It is a function of definitions, of givens.
>
> Ok? So, according to HHW, logical validity is a function of givens,
> not of empirically determined reality. Got it so far? Good. Now read
> this:
>
>
> "Fool, deductive proofs are based on givens, empirical data."
Sorry, Richard, but this sentence is unfinished and therefore wrong as
it stands. What I intended to say in the finished version but
overlooked in the drafting process is that "...., empirical data on
the other hand are relevant to the inductive process and involve
levels of probability, not deductive validity." I'm sorry to have
gotten you so excited and then having to take your claimed victory
away. In fact as you can see if you understand my position, arbitrary
definitions and givens, i.e., syllogistic premises are definitely NOT
equated with empirical truth. They may be consistent with what we know
of it or they may not. Yet they can be *logically* valid in either
case.
>
> Ok, now you get it? Givens have nothing whatsoever to do with
> empirically determined reality, yet they are empirical data. Uh-
> huh.....
Sorry, not so. Deduction and induction are two different processes.
Just remember my Hitler syllogism. It's logically valid but its major
premise is obviously false nevertheless. The Israeli author's
syllogism we're talking about is logically valid.
>
> And if you think that's funny, just wait until you hear what he has to
> say about subjects, predicates, and syllogisms.
>
> I think my job is done here.....
You don't have a job. And you've been floundering from the beginning.
So, in summary, the Israeli's syllogism is logically valid. If you
wish to debate it's premises "scientifically" as matters of fact, and
its conclusion in degrees of probability, that's a very different
matter. I'll be happy to participate in that. Just remember that in
this new, separate quest the issue will be the probability that the
conclusion is true, not whether it is valid in terms of deductive
logic.
Just so you know in advance my initial estimate is that the
gentleman's conclusion will prove to have a high degree of
probability.
HHW
> On Dec 18, 1:24 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Miss Ratner,
I've clipped your entire post for the time being so that we can focus
on the elementary distinction which heretofore you have not had the
wit/education to absorb. Unless you can be brought to understand we
cannot move forward. Once you do understand the difference between
deductive and inductive systems I will be happy to go back to anything
(!) to which I have not felt it useful at this stage to respond to.
Below I have gleaned from Wiki descriptions of the deductive process
used in logic, semantics, philosophy and mathematics as opposed to the
primarily inductive scientific method.
Deductive system
A deductive system (also called a deductive apparatus of a formal
system) consists of the axioms (or axiom schemata) and rules of
inference that can be used to derive the theorems of the system.[1]
Such a deductive system is intended to preserve deductive qualities in
the formulas that are expressed in the system. Usually the quality we
are concerned with is truth as opposed to falsehood. However, other
modalities, such as justification or belief may be preserved instead.
In order to sustain its deductive integrity, a deductive apparatus
must be definable without reference to any intended interpretation of
the language. The aim is to ensure that each line of a derivation is
merely a syntactic consequence of the lines that precede it. There
should be no element of any interpretation of the language that gets
involved with the deductive nature of the system.
(HHW: Note especially the last paragraph above and compare it with the
descriptions of the scientific method below)
Also from Wiki, an inductive system:
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating
previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and
measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in
making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them
empirically..., (etc.)
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scientific_method
drahcir
> On Dec 20, 2:54 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 2:05 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip for focus>
>
> > > What you can't grasp is that the concept
> > > of *logical validity* is not a function of empirically determined
> > > reality. It is a function of definitions, of givens.
>
> > Ok? So, according to HHW, logical validity is a function of givens,
> > not of empirically determined reality. Got it so far? Good. Now read
> > this:
>
>
> > "Fool, deductive proofs are based on givens, empirical data."
>
> Sorry, Richard, but this sentence is unfinished and therefore wrong as
> it stands.
<snip insufferable, pretentious, and endlessly repetitious blather>
Fine, you screwed up, NOW PLEASE REPLY TO MY OTHER REPLY OF DECEMBER
20 AND SHOW PRECISELY WHERE "MORTAL" APPEARS AS A SUBJECT IN THE
EXAMPLE CONTAINED WITHIN YOUR DEFINITION OF "SYLLOGISM".
>
> > Ok, now you get it? Givens have nothing whatsoever to do with
> > empirically determined reality, yet they are empirical data. Uh-
> > huh.....
>
> Sorry, not so.
There is no need to reply here, H. You have already said that you
screwed up, therefore this is all superfluous. You had better get to
the matter at hand, which is replying to my other reply of December
20.
Deduction and induction are two different processes.
Oy, here we go again. The moron who can't even post a valid definition
of "syllogism", yet he lectures.
> Just remember my Hitler syllogism. It's logically valid but its major
> premise is obviously false nevertheless. The Israeli author's
> syllogism we're talking about is logically valid.
WE are not talking about his syllogism. WE are talking about an issue
YOU claimed was undeniable. Now, ONLY AFTER I have shown that it is
not only deniable, it is patently false, you want to backpedal and
say, well, you only meant "undeniable" without regard to its actual
truth in the real world, but only with regard to its logic. Of course
any normal person will see this as laughable. Just another HHW lie,
motivated by the same, old HHW motivation: unwillingness to admit
error. After all, H, what in heaven's name would be the point of
posting something false in the real world but logically consistent,
especially having to do with Zionism? No, H, this is just more HHW
lying. Would you like to see UNDENIABLE proof that you are lying? Here
it is:
> > Yup, it's undeniable that the above is Mr. Feiglin's opinion.
> And obvious fact, undeniably.
Indeed.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/ddce8c4ad7e19860
First line is mine, second is Ben's under another alias, third is
yours. Here you agree that Feiglin's conclusion is obvious fact, NOT
simply logically consistent although false. You are a liar through and
through, and I find that disgusting.
>
> > And if you think that's funny, just wait until you hear what he has to
> > say about subjects, predicates, and syllogisms.
>
> > I think my job is done here.....
>
> You don't have a job. And you've been floundering from the beginning.
>
> So, in summary, the Israeli's syllogism is logically valid.
That's not the issue. The only issue is whether his conclusion is
undeniable, i.e. "obvious fact", as you agreed to above. Since it is
false, it is not obvious fact, and it is deniable.
If you
> wish to debate it's premises "scientifically"
What is with you stupid antisemites? Why can't you learn the
difference between a contraction and a possessive pronoun? I just
don't get it.
as matters of fact, and
> its conclusion in degrees of probability, that's a very different
> matter.
You began this thread by writing "it's undeniable". I proved that
Feiglin's conclusion is not only deniable, it's false. You didn't
title this thread "IF we ignore the fact that Feiglin's premises are
false and for some reason view this issue only as a silly logical
construct without relevance to reality, for reasons known only by
silly HHW, then Feiglin's conclusion would be undeniably consistent
with those (false) premises", yet that's what you're claiming now. So
your original title was just another lie, just as it was a lie to
credit Haaretz without citing the context, implying that your snippet
represented the paper's viewpoint, just as it was a lie when you
claimed in an earlier reply that you clipped for some ridiculous
reason other than the truthful one, which was that you wanted to hide
the fact that while you pretentiously lecture about logic, you posted
a flawed definition of "syllogism". I AM STILL AWAITING YOUR
DEMONSTRATION OF PRECISELY WHERE "MORTAL" APPEARS AS A SUBJECT IN YOUR
GIVEN EXAMPLE OF A SYLLOGISM.
So H, tell me, isn't it ridiculous that your positions are so utterly
weak that you are forced to constantly lie? Rather pitiful, wouldn't
you say?
I'll be happy to participate in that. Just remember that in
> this new, separate quest the issue will be the probability that the
> conclusion is true, not whether it is valid in terms of deductive
> logic.
>
> Just so you know in advance my initial estimate is that the
> gentleman's conclusion will prove to have a high degree of
> probability.
Sheesh, H, would you kindly get a grip and fuck yourself? Who cares
about an imbecilic liar's "initial estimate"?
Peace Power
Jewish and Gentile sayanim operate in almost every sphere of day-to-
day life, and have done an immense amount of damage to innocent non-
Jewish persons.
One Response to “Are ALL Jews evil?”
fourthreichisrael, on December 21st, 2008 at 7:14 pm Said:
This Is How Violent Zionist-Jews Are: Zionist, Cannibalistic “Recipe”:
Deborah Sharavi Oct 11 2004, 11:32 pm wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:17:58 +0200,
>”Heinrich”wrote:
> As usual, you left out the part about the IDF
> eating their palestinian prey after they kill them.
> It’s the reason the dead palestinian numbers
> are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
8 small sage leaves
1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture)
2 Tbsp. chicken fat
1 medium onion, chopped coarsely
1 carrot, chopped coarsely
1 small turnip, chopped coarsely
2 cups apple cider or apple juice
1 bouquet garni made by tying together
3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf
1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions
and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole,
melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat,
and then remove and reduce the flame.
Add the onion, carrot and turnip,
cover and let simmer for an hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider.
Bring to a boil, add the bouquet garni,
cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2 hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole
and set aside to keep warm.
Strain the liquids in the casserole,
pressing down on the vegetables
to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter,
pour over some of the juices
and sprinkle with the parsley.
Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Pallies.
Deborah
http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post)
http://jewsribsinbearjaw.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/are-all-jews-evil/
drahcir
> On Dec 18, 8:12 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 1:24 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Miss Ratner,
>
> I've clipped your entire post for the time being so that we can focus
> on the elementary distinction which heretofore you have not had the
> wit/education to absorb.
LOL! And here, folks, we have HHW lie #4. (For the first 3, see here:
It's amazing how similar this is to Lie #3. In this case, as in that,
H is obviously clipping my post to avoid answering, not "so that we
can focus on blahblahblah". I direct readers to the post of mine that
H snipped in his cowardice. For convenience, here is the link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/35620de68b668ffe
http://tinyurl.com/a3wejz
Regarding the below, I would guess everyone knows why it's there and
how ridiculous it is, so I will ignore it.
JB
> On Dec 21, 12:27 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 8:12 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 1:24 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Miss Ratner,
>
> > I've clipped your entire post for the time being so that we can focus
> > on the elementary distinction which heretofore you have not had the
> > wit/education to absorb.
>
> LOL! And here, folks, we have HHW lie #4. (For the first 3, see here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7thc7o )
>
> It's amazing how similar this is to Lie #3. In this case, as in that,
> H is obviously clipping my post to avoid answering, not "so that we
> can focus on blahblahblah". I direct readers to the post of mine that
> H snipped in his cowardice. For convenience, here is the link:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why do you talk about lies when you are just as big a liar as the rest
of the cocksuckers.