Quotes? MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!
January 10, 2013 at 12:09 pm
(This post was last modified: January 10, 2013 at 12:36 pm by Something completely different.)
Warning. This is a rant.
I am a cynic, a genuine miserable basterd who hates everything he runs across, who is angry about everything, who when confronted with something new first searches for it`s bad qualities rather than for it`s good, a pessimist, the kind of person who after watching on TV what is called "entertainment" today - wishes for a nuclear holocaust.
So there are alot of things which annoy me, but there are a few things whcih really make my blood boil to extrem levels.
To one of these things I shall dedicate this:
Quoting.
And not just quoting anyone, but of course quoting famous people.
But not just quoting them generaly, but quoting them because one is a stupid intelectualy bankrupt moron!!!
There is nothing as dispicable and idiotic as to quote someone in a debate, because of a lack of argument.
Hitler said that, Jefferson said that, Staln said that, Churchill said that, MY ASS SAID THAT!!!!!
People who do this are silly and I shall show you why.
I was in London some time ago, and whilest there I thought I had to buy something really british, and I thought I should buy a really British book, so I bought this:
![[Image: 019449823-churchills-wit.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.weltbild.at%2Fmedia%2Fab%2F2%2F019449823-churchills-wit.jpg)
A nice book by a conservative british publisher which contained some of his most famous quotes, which are indeed wity and amazing, and of course oftern quoted.
There is one quote in which Churchill compares Hitler to the Quoran, which is oftern used by dishonest people who critizise Islam.
Why dishonest?
Because It doesn`t state that Islam is like national socialism, it underlines who Hitler is seen as a prophet by the German people.
But my main problem with quoting him and with quoting historic figures in general is the following.
A quote doesn`t justify a political statement!
A quote isn`t backed up by facts! It is simply a statement by a mostly historic figure. The only correct way to interpret a quote by a historic figure, is to review it within the historic context of that time.
To use quotes as an argument, is to give the figure from which the quote originates a somehow prhophetic state. As if they were some kind of absolute of wisdome, a perfect being which had unquestionable wisdome.
Amongst all the famous quotes by Churchill, there is one fairly unknown to alot of people:
Charles Dickens was an advocat for the reinterduction of slavery in the Britsh Empire.
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves.
Benjamin Franklin was a racist, who wrote in one of his letters that:
Much unknown, Franklin oposed slavery not because black people should have the same rights as caucasians, but because it would have dangerous potential for the racialy "pure" americans to mix with black people.
Emanulel Kant, the first philosopher who advocated personal responsibility and an individuals rights, also thought that in order to have a personality and therefor have the right to own a personality was that one had to be a man (not a woman) and white.
Historic figures were not infalible! And certainly not figures of unquestionable wisdom!!!!
I do believe (and cannot prove) that the gloryfication of historic figures can lead to a wrong picture of history.
I do believe that the glorification of the american founding fathers lead to things such as Michele Bachman stating that: "The founding fathers abolished slavery".
There is no such thing as a glorious past or glorious lost knowlege of the past. Only a better futute, and quotes of historic figures - must always be reviewed within the context of the time period in which they lived.
The only real way to have a rational debate with a positive outcome is by using arguments based on facts and thought, and not one the statements of others.
And then there is outright dishonesty!!!
Hitler seems to be one of the worlds favorite figures for dishonest assholes.
There are numerous quoted by Hitler and other nazis in which they refer to something as evil.
And one can bet that almoust every single one of these quotes is misused by some dishonest asshole.
When refering to evil he almoust always refered to the jews!
To put such a quote out of context is like claiming that your own political affiliation was once persecuted by the nazis and thrown into concentration camps.
Which is beyond the lowest existing low.
One of my favorite examples of dishonesty is a quote by the brutal SS fieldmarshal Heidrich.
This quote is oftern given by people who argue against the right of the state of Israel to exist:
Now Heidrich was one of the most brutal monsters this planet has ever seen, Due to his sadism and brutal nature, he was selected by the national socialist leadership to plan and execute the eradication of the jews in Czechaslowakia.
A correct interpretation of the quote would be simple, it is a distastefull joke - because by bringing the jews into concentration camps - he joked that he was bringing them to zion.
It even streches out to figures of today, I constantly find liberterian posting and arguing with quoted by Penn Jillette.
The guy performs magic tricks!
He is not some economist let alone some sociologists!
If one quotes him, have the curtesy to post the facts which lead him to the concluding statement.
The same of course with Noam Chomsky, Andrew Breitbart and others!
Quoting these peoples statements in a debate, is not delivering an argument!!!!!!!!!!!!
It simply shows that you are uncapable of delivering a valid argument!
And someone might point out that I have a quote in my signature.
Well that`s a example of wit by the fantastic Irish novelist Samuel Becket, and not a quote used in a dishonest way.
I am a cynic, a genuine miserable basterd who hates everything he runs across, who is angry about everything, who when confronted with something new first searches for it`s bad qualities rather than for it`s good, a pessimist, the kind of person who after watching on TV what is called "entertainment" today - wishes for a nuclear holocaust.
So there are alot of things which annoy me, but there are a few things whcih really make my blood boil to extrem levels.
To one of these things I shall dedicate this:
Quoting.
And not just quoting anyone, but of course quoting famous people.
But not just quoting them generaly, but quoting them because one is a stupid intelectualy bankrupt moron!!!
There is nothing as dispicable and idiotic as to quote someone in a debate, because of a lack of argument.
Hitler said that, Jefferson said that, Staln said that, Churchill said that, MY ASS SAID THAT!!!!!
People who do this are silly and I shall show you why.
I was in London some time ago, and whilest there I thought I had to buy something really british, and I thought I should buy a really British book, so I bought this:
A nice book by a conservative british publisher which contained some of his most famous quotes, which are indeed wity and amazing, and of course oftern quoted.
There is one quote in which Churchill compares Hitler to the Quoran, which is oftern used by dishonest people who critizise Islam.
Why dishonest?
Because It doesn`t state that Islam is like national socialism, it underlines who Hitler is seen as a prophet by the German people.
But my main problem with quoting him and with quoting historic figures in general is the following.
A quote doesn`t justify a political statement!
A quote isn`t backed up by facts! It is simply a statement by a mostly historic figure. The only correct way to interpret a quote by a historic figure, is to review it within the historic context of that time.
To use quotes as an argument, is to give the figure from which the quote originates a somehow prhophetic state. As if they were some kind of absolute of wisdome, a perfect being which had unquestionable wisdome.
Amongst all the famous quotes by Churchill, there is one fairly unknown to alot of people:
Quote:The people of India are a savage race with a savage religion.
Charles Dickens was an advocat for the reinterduction of slavery in the Britsh Empire.
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves.
Benjamin Franklin was a racist, who wrote in one of his letters that:
Quote:The italians are a sleasy race
Much unknown, Franklin oposed slavery not because black people should have the same rights as caucasians, but because it would have dangerous potential for the racialy "pure" americans to mix with black people.
Emanulel Kant, the first philosopher who advocated personal responsibility and an individuals rights, also thought that in order to have a personality and therefor have the right to own a personality was that one had to be a man (not a woman) and white.
Historic figures were not infalible! And certainly not figures of unquestionable wisdom!!!!
I do believe (and cannot prove) that the gloryfication of historic figures can lead to a wrong picture of history.
I do believe that the glorification of the american founding fathers lead to things such as Michele Bachman stating that: "The founding fathers abolished slavery".
There is no such thing as a glorious past or glorious lost knowlege of the past. Only a better futute, and quotes of historic figures - must always be reviewed within the context of the time period in which they lived.
The only real way to have a rational debate with a positive outcome is by using arguments based on facts and thought, and not one the statements of others.
And then there is outright dishonesty!!!
Hitler seems to be one of the worlds favorite figures for dishonest assholes.
There are numerous quoted by Hitler and other nazis in which they refer to something as evil.
And one can bet that almoust every single one of these quotes is misused by some dishonest asshole.
When refering to evil he almoust always refered to the jews!
To put such a quote out of context is like claiming that your own political affiliation was once persecuted by the nazis and thrown into concentration camps.
Which is beyond the lowest existing low.
One of my favorite examples of dishonesty is a quote by the brutal SS fieldmarshal Heidrich.
This quote is oftern given by people who argue against the right of the state of Israel to exist:
Quote:As a national socialist, I am also a zionist.
Now Heidrich was one of the most brutal monsters this planet has ever seen, Due to his sadism and brutal nature, he was selected by the national socialist leadership to plan and execute the eradication of the jews in Czechaslowakia.
A correct interpretation of the quote would be simple, it is a distastefull joke - because by bringing the jews into concentration camps - he joked that he was bringing them to zion.
It even streches out to figures of today, I constantly find liberterian posting and arguing with quoted by Penn Jillette.
The guy performs magic tricks!
He is not some economist let alone some sociologists!
If one quotes him, have the curtesy to post the facts which lead him to the concluding statement.
The same of course with Noam Chomsky, Andrew Breitbart and others!
Quoting these peoples statements in a debate, is not delivering an argument!!!!!!!!!!!!
It simply shows that you are uncapable of delivering a valid argument!
And someone might point out that I have a quote in my signature.
Well that`s a example of wit by the fantastic Irish novelist Samuel Becket, and not a quote used in a dishonest way.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)
