Is this a true Christian?

[Aardverk]

You openly stated that you admired assholes for their convictions, and that we should, too.

Here you go again inserting your own words and mocking me for your words. Try to be honest for once. I was VERY clearly admiring the oaf's bravery. No one can read my words in any other way. I said, 'Whilst I do not accept a single thing he was saying (or believing).......he was brave enough to stand up and shout about it. You've got to admire him for that but at the same time you've got to laugh in his face.'.... You completely ignored the qualifiers and only quoted the bit that you thought you could twist. You only quoted, 'You've got to admire him for that' to which you replied, 'No I don't any more than I would have had to admire Hitler'. You deliberately of carelessly ignored what I had actually said. My response to you was that, 'I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions' which was very clearly relating to the oaf in the video. It is all there in black and white - just go back and read it.

Following that I responded to your comment about Hitler.

Then, when the subject of Hitler was raised, you went off the deep end praising the man for the good things he did and asking if that was not a good way to look at him, rather than exclusively negatively.

'went of the deep end'? Perhaps you don't know what good things he achieved. I feel that my praise was well balanced by my two clear condemnations of Hitler. If you can't take in a whole paragraph, I suppose it is not surprising that you get confused.

When it was pointed out that Hitler himself did nothing good because he was a completely bad egg, you defended him even as you sidestepped and "condemned" him.

I very clearly condemned him twice in my very first resonse to you. Not a 'sidestep' but a very deliberate part of my wording intended to make it clear to everyone who read them that I was not praising Hitler, I was just praising some of his achievements. To deny him any credit for the huge advances in Germany is rather like denying Napolean any credit for his military success. After all, it was all done by other soldiers, not Napolean ( I presume is your logic). What about the boss of NASA, he has never done a thing it was all his underlings and sub-contractors (I presume is your logic). What about every other statesman who has presided over huge advances in their country? Do you deny all of them any credit as well? Name me just one statesman who has had as many advances under their direction or even just their regime. The reason I introduced the subject of investment from American is that the whole world could see Germany catching them up and overtaking them at a vast rate - admirable progress under Adolf. If another country had been doing that, they would have got the American investment. You are either not aware of what happened in Germany or you are scared to acknowledge it now for fear of looking foolish.

Here's a little line you sent out to all of us, who then proceeded to get you so wrong and to stumble over your massive logic:"I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions."

I am not sure what you find strange about that. I do admire people with the courage of their convictions. It is the courage which is being admired, not the conviction. I made that perfectly clear in my words, ''Whilst I do not accept a single thing he was saying (or believing).......he was brave enough to stand up and shout about it. You've got to admire him for that but at the same time you've got to laugh in his face.'.... I don't see how I could have made the distinction any more clear yet you keep trying to put different words in my mouth.

This was the beginning of your jumping hoops. Then you started bouncing all around, from admiring the people for their convictions, to admiring what they did, to the net effect of what they did, to any fucking thing at all to keep from being pinned down as having made a foolish statement.

I have been completely consistent and have answered every question. It is you who has constantly avoided the question of why YOU think we should be unfair to fools and villains. You obviously have no answer that you think will stand scrutiny and are simply trying to avoid the issue by issuing insults instead.

Let us get this clearly, master of logic: You have been all over the place on this, but the core kernel of your argument has been that, if someone believes in what he or she does fully, that person is admirable. It is a very simple point, although you have danced all around on it to try to make it stick. It doesn't.

No, Epi, that is absolutely NOT what I said and you know that very well. Those highlighted words are instead the core of your twisted words. I admire people for their qualities which certainly includes 'courage', not for their convictions I have made that very clear, starting with my very first post in this thread - #11. Would you like me to quote it again? I don't immediately see how ANY convictions can be admirable - they are simply what they are. Perhaps I will start a new thread in the philosophy section asking that question: 'Can convictions be admirable?' Perhaps I should also start one asking: 'Should we be fair to fools and villains?' I am sure you would appreciate an opportunity to shine again.

The fact that you have been insulting people by suggesting they are less intelligent or logical than you, all while demonstrating thinking errors yourself has shown you to be an inconsiderate ass, but then, you revealed that early on in this thread.

I don't recall insulting anyone who has not insulted me first. If I have I apologise to them. I try not to do that. The person who issues the first insult is usually the one who has lost the argument.

Now, are you going to try to address the issue or run away from it?