How do they find them?

[seanD]

In that case I think I'll believe his words. As for the picture depicting a nazi as George Soros, I saw that in several places and it was shared to me on Facebook as well. Thankfully I was able to explain to my distant relation that it wasn't him.

What words are saying you believe? He admitted he pretended to be a Christian and that he took part in the nazi confiscation of the property of Jews. The reason he felt no guilt about it was because he justified it by basically saying it would have happened anyway, whether he was there or not.

[Leonhard]

What words are saying you believe? He admitted he pretended to be a Christian and that he took part in the nazi confiscation of the property of Jews. The reason he felt no guilt about it was because he justified it by basically saying it would have happened anyway, whether he was there or not.

He also said he didn't help them, he was just brought along. I think your biases against him are showing a bit here. I honestly don't know what US Conservatives have against him. As for him lying to be a Christian, that is a sin of course, but I won't fault a jewish kid doing what he could to survive. I think neither of us are in a position to shame him for it.

[seanD]

He also said he didn't help them, he was just brought along. I think your biases against him are showing a bit here. I honestly don't know what US Conservatives have against him. As for him lying to be a Christian, that is a sin of course, but I won't fault a jewish kid doing what he could to survive. I think neither of us are in a position to shame him for it.

Are we talking about the same interview? He did admit he helped.

Kroft: “My understanding is that you went … went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.”

Soros: “Yes, that’s right. Yes.”

Kroft: “I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?”

Which was followed by the interviewer wondering how he dealt with the guilt of it. I think what Soros was saying is that since he didn't actually order it to occur, he felt no guilt because it would have happened whether he took part or not. It sounded sort of contradictory probably because of the language barrier.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Dehumanizing a group of people IS an action.

Regarding some beings as less than human is not an action, unless you consider brain functions to be actions. Do you?

[CivilDiscourse]

Regarding some beings as less than human is not an action, unless you consider brain functions to be actions. Do you?

You called them less than human. Your personal thoughts are not an action, your voicing them IS. You keep trying to defend your vile and disgusting actions.

[Whateverman]

You called them less than human. Your personal thoughts are not an action, your voicing them IS. You keep trying to defend your vile and disgusting actions.

You're exaggerating.

[CivilDiscourse]

You're exaggerating.

You said dehumanizing a group of individuals was wrong. She did just that.

[Leonhard]

Are we talking about the same interview? He did admit he helped.



Which was followed by the interviewer wondering how he dealt with the guilt of it. I think what Soros was saying is that since he didn't actually order it to occur, he felt no guilt because it would have happened whether he took part or not. It sounded sort of contradictory probably because of the language barrier.

We are but he also explains at the end

"whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

Seems clear he was just brought along and it was done without his help.

[Whateverman]

You called them less than human. Your personal thoughts are not an action, your voicing them IS. You keep trying to defend your vile and disgusting actions.

You're exaggerating.

You said dehumanizing a group of individuals was wrong. She did just that.

That's not a vile and disgusting action, though.

In the context of her posting history and the topic being discussed, it was wrong, but also pretty common around here.

You've beaten the bloody pulp of the dead horse into the ground. If you had a point about the dehumanization, it's being eroded by hyperbole.

[JimL]

You said dehumanizing a group of individuals was wrong. She did just that.

Would you find morons to be a more apropo definition.

[seanD]

We are but he also explains at the end

"whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

Seems clear he was just brought along and it was done without his help.

Come on, Leon, stop bro. Why are you so intent on defending this guy? I don't get it. It sounds almost personal.

You would have to argue that he either contradicted himself in like less than 30 seconds of the interview, or he didn't actually mean he took no part, but that he meant he had no control over the fact it was being taken, which is why he felt no guilt. Which sounds more logical?

[Whateverman]

You would have to argue that he either contradicted himself in like less than 30 seconds of the interview, or he didn't actually mean he took no part, but that he meant he had no control over the fact it was being taken, which is why he felt no guilt. Which sounds more logical?

Where's the contradiction?

[Leonhard]

Come on, Leon, stop bro. Why are you so intent on defending this guy? I don't get it. It sounds almost personal.

Why the personal attack seanD? This is a discussion forum. I could respond similarly about conservative animosity towards him, which is a phenomenon I don't quite understand.

You would have to argue that he either contradicted himself in like less than 30 seconds of the interview, or he didn't actually mean he took no part, but that he meant he had no control over the fact it was being taken, which is why he felt no guilt. Which sounds more logical?

I think he responded to a question, and later nuanced his answer. You're acting as if there was only a yes or no answer to the question. It's like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The answer to that question might be "I've never hit my wife". I don't think there's any reason to elevate an informal discussion of a persons memories like that to the states of a formal didactic debate.

He was asked whether he "helped in the confiscation", which can cover everything from malicious participation, to just being brought along but being passive. He later clarifies that it was the latter. He had no say in it.

Without more to go on I'd prefer that interpretation.

[CivilDiscourse]

That's not a vile and disgusting action, though.

In the context of her posting history and the topic being discussed, it was wrong, but also pretty common around here.

You've beaten the bloody pulp of the dead horse into the ground. If you had a point about the dehumanization, it's being eroded by hyperbole.

Given what happens when you dehumanize groups, it's vile and disgusting.

[seanD]

Why the personal attack seanD? This is a discussion forum. I could respond similarly about conservative animosity towards him, which is a phenomenon I don't quite understand.



I think he responded to a question, and later nuanced his answer. You're acting as if there was only a yes or no answer to the question. It's like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The answer to that question might be "I've never hit my wife". I don't think there's any reason to elevate an informal discussion of a persons memories like that to the states of a formal didactic debate.

He was asked whether he "helped in the confiscation", which can cover everything from malicious participation, to just being brought along but being passive. He later clarifies that it was the latter. He had no say in it.

Without more to go on I'd prefer that interpretation.

I'm not responding to the "conservative animosity" towards him, I'm responding to his direct words.

It WAS a yes or no question, and that's how he answered it at first. Your argument is that he contradicts himself. First he confirms that he took part in the confiscation (and that was the direct question to him), then less than 30 seconds later he denies he took part. That makes no sense. My argument is that meant he took no part in the sense that he wasn't part of the actual orders, it's just he doesn't have command of the English language, so it came out that way.

He even compared it to the market. Why do you think he did that? The reason he did it is because he has a reputation of being an immoral (at least questionable) and ruthless hedge fund trader, where he makes profits off other folks' misery. What he was essentially saying is yeah it's a shady disreputable business but I didn't invent it, it's part of the international markets, and if I didn't do it, someone else would.

You can believe what you want, but your explanation makes no sense.