[Smilin' Dave]

I completely agree with Einherjer about how arguing sentence-by-sentence can kill the essence of a debate. It's intellectually empty, and is the tactic of someone who wants to "win" a debate without actually saying anything.

I have consistently put forward evidence for my argument, and I demolished your own 'evidence' as factually inaccurate and logically unsound. I have put forward a fairly nuanced view (that while the British empire was not without 'sin', it was still the better option compared to Nazi Germany), where you have simply blamed propaganda and heaped up contradictions in the hope of satisfying one tendency or another. If we want to talk about empty, one need only look at the sham of your posts.

Let's look at your (hopefully) final contribution:

What point? What "actual events?" This sentence is a fragment that doesn't relate to the main body of the argument we were having. It's just soft trolling, really. "I disagree because..." **add reason if necessary.**

Facts and events? Why actually disprove those when you can lazily dismiss them without basis and hide behind a smokescreen, or perhaps a curtain-patchwork of old ideologies. And how dare I submit reasons for my disagreement! It's just not fair to disagree with someone just because they are demonstrably wrong and not a little bit belligerent. Don't tell me to stick to the topic, that's trolling. The only thing you have missed Qatz is your usual failed tactic of pointing to my status as a moderator and crying victim.

Posting with quality mind while dealing with you Qatz would be like pearls before swine. You never deal with the topic at hand, you ignore evidence that is contray to your world view and retreat leaving nothing by nonsense in your wake. I don't post to 'win' while dealing with you Qatz, because we all lose when we descend to your level of discourse.

[QatzelOk]

Smilin' Dave, your "argument" style is to troll any opinion that isn't mainstream, sheep-like submission to the Elite's "message" and spin.

It's not very intellectually useful, though - as I said earlier - it can earn you "points" in the minds of those who think the truth of various subjects don't matter so much as "winning" the thread through word-attacks on individual sentences out of context.

It's a Machiavellian strategy that only serves to kill any truth or ideas in the vicinity.

[Smilin' Dave]

And your only approach is to brand anyone that doesn't agree with you part of the mainstream and make up nonsense about some elite you can never identify. In the end, my posts are more convincing because I am willing to demonstrate to others why I am correct, while you are only willing to evade and appeal to your true believers.

Now, do you have anything to add to the thread?

[GandalfTheGrey]

I would argue that you've read books that were written by British and American and Jewish historians who have spun Germany's history as "sinister."

I guess thats what it boils down to. Of course its impossible to argue against. However overwhelming the consensus of opinion is, it can always be dismissed as the victor's "spin". There is no such thing as "evidence", no matter how thoroughly it has been cross-checked and analysed - it is only propaganda that is made "fact" by powerful and sinister colonial forces.

Qatz simply can't accept that actual historical events can be milked for sinister purposes. If the victims of an attrocity are able to use their suffering to justify attrocities of their own - the original attrocity must necessarily have been a fabrication.

[QatzelOk]

If the victims of an attrocity are able to use their suffering to justify attrocities of their own - the original attrocity must necessarily have been a fabrication.

Not so.

The original atrocity wasn't so uncommon, and wasn't so atrocious.

There were a lot of people killed in World War Two because of who they were. That the Jewish people who were killed was spun into a pivotal event with lots of significance (compared to all the other millions of deaths in wars in that period)... is a product of politics, not of decency.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The original atrocity wasn't so uncommon, and wasn't so atrocious.

While I'm critical of those who attempt to exclude non-jews from the victims list, 6 million murders is hardly common or un-atrocious. And we're not talking about people who merely go caught in the cross fire. We are talking about ~2 million who were lined up and shot and ~4 million who were led into a gas chamber. No other people were deliberately and systematically targeted on such a scale. So yeah it was actually a pivotal and significant event

[QatzelOk]

we're not talking about people who merely go caught in the cross fire

In World War Two, 80 million people got caught in the crossfire of powerful people who didn't die.

The people who started this war (and profited from it) weren't the same people as those who died in it. No rich person would be so self-sacrificing as to put himself at risk from one of his wars. Self-sacrifice is something the poor learn to use as a weapon. The rich have money with which to buy allies.

[Truth-a-naut]

QatzelOK honestly now, do you give preferential treatment to the Nazis simply because they didn't mess around with Quebec/Acadians like the Anglos did? This is obviously yet another extension of your "Anglos ruined North America" dialectic. Yawn.

You're a lot more transparent than you think.