Posted on 08/21/2014 5:49:06 AM PDT by Borges
ATLANTA — An old Jewish joke goes like this: “What’s the definition of a Jewish telegram? ‘Start worrying. Details to follow.’ ”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If one says “no matter the source” then one assumes that one source or the other has not tampered with the truth.
Fair enough.
Thats a good summary of it, basically there’s Left Wing statism and Right Wing statism, the latter being different from Right Wing conservatism.
It’s to the benefit of the Left Wing statists to confuse the two, cherry-picking certain aspects/perceptions of Right Wing statism and applying them to Right Wing conservatism for political gain.
Thats why Liberals like to claim Obamacare is “center right”. Being Third Position Economics (Command economy where the means of production remains privately held) it is. But only from a Left statist vs Right statist perspective.
This is a message board, not a scholarly article. Wiki is fine for such purposes
Not when the references they use have to come into question. Otherwise we would end up like DU.
Maybe. Not the case her, however.
Not the case here? It’s always the case with Wikipedia.
OK, so you don’t have a factual rebuttal and resort to the liberal tactic of attacking a source, regardless.
Got it.
Wikipedia is not a source; it is a self-purported “encyclopedia” that is subject to being edited by anyone on the web.
And questioning sources is not a “liberal tactic”, especially if you have potentially liberal sources with a predilection towards revisionism. Nothing wrong with vetting sources at all; they certainly do not do that very much with “scholarly articles” these days, frankly.
Like I said, you have no facts to dispute what was stated.
Now that’s a liberal tactic; defending Wikipedia by soliciting “facts”. Most of the books cited in that article date from a very short time ago, from the early 1980s to the mid-2000s, a big period in revisionism.
Ultimately, what I originally said is that Wikipedia is not a primary source. It gets filled with lots of personal opinion. The Democrats are fond of doing such things in order to drive a wedge between US conservatives and the Jews at large.
Like I said, you have no facts and are apparently butt-hurt that it is well-known to even Wikipedia that Martin Luther planned out the Final Solution.
You’re not making sense. All I said was that Wikipedia is not a primary source and the opinions of liberal professors are suspect. I did not say that Luther did not write the treatise, remember; although anything is possible in the realm of Romish propaganda.
Like I said, you don’t like the facts, so you attack the source.
A government school teacher.
You make Lutherans out to be Islamists or something!
More precisely, the Wikipedia editors do.
It’s not really credible to accuse others of not having “facts” for merely pointing out that Wikipedia has no value as a source.
I don’t know anything about Lutherans, but I do know a fair bit about Martin Luther’s writings and how Hitler used them as his inspiration and a foundation for the murder of millions of Jewish people, given Luther detailed the plan for the Final Solution in 1543 CE and Hitler finally acted upon it:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
“You make Lutherans out to be Islamists or something!”
Well, on reading Luther’s own words, he does seem rather Islamist (same source):
“I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above . . .like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow . . . Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them . . . slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish . . . If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs . .. “
Do Lutherans accept his words? You tell me.
I know nothing about Lutherans, except that they are apparently named after Luther.
My take: bad doctrine leads to bad outcomes. Luther didn’t go far enough in his attempts at reform. You’re safe with me, though. ;-]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.