Someone asked why I have to call people liars, and why I don't "engage" with them.
The vast majority of you on this board, and the world at large, have never had a logical debate, have never used reason even for a small moment, nor do you know what truth looks like or how to find it.
Let me try to fill you in on some of the secrets that are too complicated for jews to grasp, making it impossible to "debate" them. Once you understand some of these principles, you will be on the path to learn others on your own, but especially you will be armed enough to know when you're wasting your time and effort and when you aren't.
I'm going to use an example here. Let's say someone says something, whatever that is, and the other person hears it. Here is how a logical and rational and reasonable argument would go.
A: "I declare X." (NOTE: He doesn't use wishy-washy language like "I think that" or "I would say that" or "some people say" or "I heard". He makes a definitive, precise statement and stands behind it.)
B: "I disagree." (NOTE: Again, no wishy-washy language. Note also that the fact that there is a disagreement does not mean there is antipathy. Simply that B does not accept A's claim.)
A:"I understand you agree, but I think I can persuade you to declare X as well. I will demonstrate to you that X is true by showing you the foundations of my declaration." (This is often implied, but I find it helps sometimes to make it clear what you are trying to say. Again, no personal attacks -- just an introduction.)
B: "Let's see your arguments and reasoning. If I disagree with something I will let you know, and we can discuss that thing later."
A: "X is based on the logical step Y based on the statements I and J. I assume I without explanation, however J is inferred."
B: "I agree with I. Let's not discuss it further. However, I disagree that you can use logical step Y to conclude X given I and J." (Here, he is showing where he agrees and that there is a disagreement on the LOGIC that is being applied.)
A: "Let me explain why Y is a proper application of logic. ..."
B: "OK, I understand and now I agree that Y is logical. However, I do not admit that J is true."
A: "Very well, let's discuss my reasoning behind J..."
and so on and so forth.
This is what logical discussions sound like. They are incredibly dry. They use definitive statements and do not try to infer too much. When someone is inferring something, this is called out explicitly. For instance, someone might say "The Bible says X, though" and the response might be "You are assuming too much, especially that the Bible is authoritative on this topic." If you can't agree that the Bible is authoritative, then it's pointless to talk about what you think the Bible means. But even if you did think it was authoritative, you'd have to actually come to an agreement that the Bible actually says X. Given the nature of the text, this is an all but impossible task for many things.
Moving on...
When people make vague or baseless claims, meaning, they simply shout out something or they get wishy-washy or they don't use precise enough terms to mean anything, then there's no point in arguing. It's like if I said "The sun is blue" and you're like, "No, the sun (the object in the sky during the day) is most definitely yellow (as it appears to our eyes.)" And then I might say something like, "No, I meant 'son' and I meant he is depressed." See how stupid arguing about something like that is? If you wanted to argue logically, you have to be very precise with your language.
How Jews argue:
The patterns I often find with jews and jew followers is something like this.
1. They make really broad statements without substance, and then they get angry if anyone questions their statements.
2. They use personal attacks. Logically, you cannot say something is wrong (or right) because someone said it. Everyone is fallible and so they might get something wrong, but more importantly, even a homeless drug addict can say something true sometimes.
3. They use foul language and often refer to bodily functions. Whites simply don't talk like this in a logical or debate arena.
4. They never admit error nor do they know how to properly apologize. Whites simple say "I made a mistake" and move on. Jews can't do this. It's always someone else's fault and it's a mortal sin to make a mistake.
5. The purpose of the argument is never to make a point, it's always to develop some kind of feeling. In short, just like porn excites your lust, their arguments excite feelings of hatred or anger or sadness or whatever. They're trying to manipulate emotions.
As you pay attention to these things, you'll see that there are different types of people out there and you'll start to be able to identify jews on your own.
Having an argument is wonderfully fun when it is done without emotion with a fellow white. We can argue about all sorts of things without getting angry, because we are humble and compassionate and want to see each other succeed. This is not possible with a jew.
The vast majority of you on this board, and the world at large, have never had a logical debate, have never used reason even for a small moment, nor do you know what truth looks like or how to find it.
Let me try to fill you in on some of the secrets that are too complicated for jews to grasp, making it impossible to "debate" them. Once you understand some of these principles, you will be on the path to learn others on your own, but especially you will be armed enough to know when you're wasting your time and effort and when you aren't.
I'm going to use an example here. Let's say someone says something, whatever that is, and the other person hears it. Here is how a logical and rational and reasonable argument would go.
A: "I declare X." (NOTE: He doesn't use wishy-washy language like "I think that" or "I would say that" or "some people say" or "I heard". He makes a definitive, precise statement and stands behind it.)
B: "I disagree." (NOTE: Again, no wishy-washy language. Note also that the fact that there is a disagreement does not mean there is antipathy. Simply that B does not accept A's claim.)
A:"I understand you agree, but I think I can persuade you to declare X as well. I will demonstrate to you that X is true by showing you the foundations of my declaration." (This is often implied, but I find it helps sometimes to make it clear what you are trying to say. Again, no personal attacks -- just an introduction.)
B: "Let's see your arguments and reasoning. If I disagree with something I will let you know, and we can discuss that thing later."
A: "X is based on the logical step Y based on the statements I and J. I assume I without explanation, however J is inferred."
B: "I agree with I. Let's not discuss it further. However, I disagree that you can use logical step Y to conclude X given I and J." (Here, he is showing where he agrees and that there is a disagreement on the LOGIC that is being applied.)
A: "Let me explain why Y is a proper application of logic. ..."
B: "OK, I understand and now I agree that Y is logical. However, I do not admit that J is true."
A: "Very well, let's discuss my reasoning behind J..."
and so on and so forth.
This is what logical discussions sound like. They are incredibly dry. They use definitive statements and do not try to infer too much. When someone is inferring something, this is called out explicitly. For instance, someone might say "The Bible says X, though" and the response might be "You are assuming too much, especially that the Bible is authoritative on this topic." If you can't agree that the Bible is authoritative, then it's pointless to talk about what you think the Bible means. But even if you did think it was authoritative, you'd have to actually come to an agreement that the Bible actually says X. Given the nature of the text, this is an all but impossible task for many things.
Moving on...
When people make vague or baseless claims, meaning, they simply shout out something or they get wishy-washy or they don't use precise enough terms to mean anything, then there's no point in arguing. It's like if I said "The sun is blue" and you're like, "No, the sun (the object in the sky during the day) is most definitely yellow (as it appears to our eyes.)" And then I might say something like, "No, I meant 'son' and I meant he is depressed." See how stupid arguing about something like that is? If you wanted to argue logically, you have to be very precise with your language.
How Jews argue:
The patterns I often find with jews and jew followers is something like this.
1. They make really broad statements without substance, and then they get angry if anyone questions their statements.
2. They use personal attacks. Logically, you cannot say something is wrong (or right) because someone said it. Everyone is fallible and so they might get something wrong, but more importantly, even a homeless drug addict can say something true sometimes.
3. They use foul language and often refer to bodily functions. Whites simply don't talk like this in a logical or debate arena.
4. They never admit error nor do they know how to properly apologize. Whites simple say "I made a mistake" and move on. Jews can't do this. It's always someone else's fault and it's a mortal sin to make a mistake.
5. The purpose of the argument is never to make a point, it's always to develop some kind of feeling. In short, just like porn excites your lust, their arguments excite feelings of hatred or anger or sadness or whatever. They're trying to manipulate emotions.
As you pay attention to these things, you'll see that there are different types of people out there and you'll start to be able to identify jews on your own.
Having an argument is wonderfully fun when it is done without emotion with a fellow white. We can argue about all sorts of things without getting angry, because we are humble and compassionate and want to see each other succeed. This is not possible with a jew.