You know for someone who accuses others of engaging in pilpul you sure do seem to love that form of rhetoric.
Pilpul is argumentation that's used to evade actually conversing about something, which you constantly do. You have zero knowledge of the Holocaust nor history in a thread almost 300 pages long that's discussed it endlessly. So why are you here? What is your motivation?
More worthless ad hominem.
No it's not you fucking retard, that's an ad hominem. Calling you ignorant because you don't know what you are talking about is identifying your ignorance on this topic.
If Jews are an existential threat to humanity then yes, otherwise you're only taking half-measures. You don't deal with cancer by taking it and moving it somewhere else, you purge it from the body.
Why wouldn't he take half measures? Jews are still human and can be allowed to change, unless you are implying something else.
Reading comprehension dumbass; I said it's strange that the only people who ever seem to engage in Holocaust denialism are all motivated by ideology. My pattern-recognizing brain has never noticed a Holocaust denialist who was merely an independent truth-seeker. I've seen people who were skeptical of the Holocaust who were, but never full-blown denialists. Granted, this may be because only those who are ideologically motivated have the will to actually talk about it in a social climate where the Holocaust is taken as unassailable fact.
I'm identifying that your starting point is ideologically motivated. You assume that anyone who questions or denies the holocaust is a Nazi to begin with. Your pattern noticing brain notices what jews have told you to notice, strange. If you read the thread half the people who deny the Holocaust so so because of a search for truth, but again you haven't read it, so you argue from ignorance.
It's funny that you joked that I was a robot who only spouts the same few talking points while you behave like some kind of chatbot. It's like you don't actually parse what I'm arguing, you just know that I'm your opponent and so I must believe such and such a thing and behave in such and such a way.
You are a robot, I've answered you and you don't like the answers so you dodge the conversation and fall back into your routine. I'm not here to spoon feed you readily available information. You can do that on your own. So instead of spending 10 minutes writing a response to page 1 and start there.
Here you are again, characterizing my arguments as "pilpul" so that you don't actually have to engage with them. It's a weird thing to do when I'm not even Jewish. Is your frame of reference so narrow?
At what point haven't I engaged, just because you don't like my response and frame them as faulty doesn't mean they are. I've shown your own faulty argumentation over and over again.
I'm sorry, what? Illegal immigrants are a threat to mankind? I can say quite a few things about illegal immigrants but I don't think that they pose an existential threat to humanity as a whole. And if they did then yes, they should be annihilated because as a threat to humankind, allowing them to exist means that they will pose a threat no matter where they are, unless they're only a threat when they immigrate to other countries illegally and are otherwise nonentities.
Look at you almost getting it.
I'm going to be fully good faith and assume there's some grave miscommunication going on here because equating "people who enter another country illegally" to "a group of people whose modus operandi is to subvert and puppeteer all nations and lead humanity to ruin out of spite" is a bit of a leap.
Almost like the danger is when it happens at your doorstep and doesn't matter when it's halfway across the world.
Do you even know what words mean or are you just a series of blurbs?
The destruction of the Jewish race is not some slippery slope that Hitler was going to fall down because he dared dance with antisemitism, it's the logical conclusion of his ideology, or was he blowing smoke up everyone's ass in Mein Kampf, pretending Jews were an existential threat for political gain?
Tangentially, I also don't know where you got this impression that I think I'm some kind of "argument king" from. Are you sundowning and you've mistaken me for someone else you argued with in this thread? Being retarded myself, I don't have to be the King Of All Arguments to know retardation when I see it.
Its a slippery slope because you've bought into post war propaganda that the aim was the eradication of jews instead of expulsion. Your thought process is built on the Jewish ideology. If they were removed and they stopped being a problem, there's no reason to do anything further.
I'm starting to wonder if you even know what pilpul means or if you just think it's some silver bullet which slays any argument raised against you.
You can easily look up the definition and see how it applies to a controversial topic like the holocaust. You've done that right? I'm identifying how you dodge answering and discussing this directly but respond in roundabout ways that have nothing to do with actually discussing the holocaust.
When have I done this? The closest I think I came to putting words in your mouth was saying that your bigfoot conundrum was intended as a trick question where both answers would lead to the same conclusion.
You on the other hand have consistently ascribed meaning and motive to me which I don't possess, shadowboxing with an imaginary version of me while I watch bewildered from the corner.
I literally quoted you doing it, right there. Of course it's trick question, because it's the logical process of what he said his own methodology was. Remember he said i have no standard of evidence when I've explicitly said what mine was a hundred times in this thread alone. I've even offered a simple test that will make me shut up about the holocaust forever, but again you've never read the thread.
This is the most slippery, evasive non-answer I've ever seen. Are you certain you aren't a member of the Tribe?
No it's a direct answer. You just don't like it because you are fishing for a response so you can discredit me.
The question should it have happened presupposes the idea that it did happen. Should the Californian's have genocided all those Bigfoots? It's a stupid question to ask.
Jews do most of the things they are accused of and are an evil and immoral people. They use every trick they can to hide behind their awful fake religion. Does that mean I want them all indiscriminately killed? No, punishments should fit the crime.
