I've noticed that during debates, religious apologists often forget what they've said previously and end up contradicting themselves. I'm not sure why this is. Unles of course, I'm being trolled and haven't realised it.
Here's an example. When I pointed out to a religious apologist that he was wrong to say the majority of people voted for Hitler, he replied...
"Actually I never claimed that the majority of citizens voted for Hitler"
Really?
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Jan 2014 at 12:22AM
The majority of Germans voted for Hitler at one point. They may have felt that the alternative--Stalin--was even worse.
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by JimC on 25 Jan 2014 at 5:04PM
The majority of Germans didn't vote for Hitler or Stalin. There was no opportunity to vote. Both of those regimes were dictatorships.
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 27 Jan 2014 at 2:52AM
False. Note the sub heading "Weimar parties fail to halt Nazis" in the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by JimC on 27 Jan 2014 at 7:10AM
Note that the link provided demonstrates that the Germans didn't vote for Hitler. Or Stalin..
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:11AM
The link I provided demonstrated otherwise. So where do we go from here--or am I to assume again that you have nothing to offer on topic?
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by JimC on 29 Jan 2014 at 7:28AM
Hitler was never elected to power. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor as the result of various backroom deals and manoeuvring. Hitler then had the authority to remain in power unelected and used his power to ban elections.
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 31 Jan 2014 at 2:33AM
Again let's examine what really took place under the heading of "Weimar parties fail to halt Nazis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by JimC on 31 Jan 2014 at 10:37AM
Hitler was never elected to power. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor as the result of various backroom deals and manoeuvring. Hitler then had the authority to remain in power unelected and used his power to ban elections.
Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 2 Feb 2014 at 2:28AM
True but such machinations can take place within democracies as well, as was the case in Hitler's party garnering more votes than any other in the November 1932 elections.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by JimC on 2 Feb 2014 at 9:42AM
Hitler was not appointed as Chancellor in the November 1932 elections. Adolf Hitler was appointed as the chancellor of Germany by President Paul Von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 4 Feb 2014 at 1:32AM
Yes, and in the 1932 elections the Nazis actually lost seats--yet they still remained the largest party with the largest number of representatives.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by JimC on 4 Feb 2014 at 8:04AM
Hitler was never elected to power. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor as the result of various backroom deals and manoeuvring. Hitler then had the authority to remain in power unelected and used his power to ban elections.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 6 Feb 2014 at 12:23AM
True but not relevant. The UK is a democracy but you don't directly elect your leaders either--you vote for political representatives who gather to form a government which then chooses a leader.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by JimC on 6 Feb 2014 at 7:52AM
Hitler did indeed achieve power in a democracy, by bypassing the German democratic system and then creating a dictatorship. But the fact remains that your statement “The majority of Germans voted for Hitler at one point.” is factually incorrect.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 8 Feb 2014 at 1:12AM
Actually I never claimed that the majority of citizens voted for Hitler, although they probably would have at one point.
Here's an example. When I pointed out to a religious apologist that he was wrong to say the majority of people voted for Hitler, he replied...
"Actually I never claimed that the majority of citizens voted for Hitler"
Really?
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 25 Jan 2014 at 12:22AM
The majority of Germans voted for Hitler at one point. They may have felt that the alternative--Stalin--was even worse.
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by JimC on 25 Jan 2014 at 5:04PM
The majority of Germans didn't vote for Hitler or Stalin. There was no opportunity to vote. Both of those regimes were dictatorships.
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 27 Jan 2014 at 2:52AM
False. Note the sub heading "Weimar parties fail to halt Nazis" in the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by JimC on 27 Jan 2014 at 7:10AM
Note that the link provided demonstrates that the Germans didn't vote for Hitler. Or Stalin..
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:11AM
The link I provided demonstrated otherwise. So where do we go from here--or am I to assume again that you have nothing to offer on topic?
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by JimC on 29 Jan 2014 at 7:28AM
Hitler was never elected to power. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor as the result of various backroom deals and manoeuvring. Hitler then had the authority to remain in power unelected and used his power to ban elections.
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 31 Jan 2014 at 2:33AM
Again let's examine what really took place under the heading of "Weimar parties fail to halt Nazis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power
Re: I think this is ironic
Posted by JimC on 31 Jan 2014 at 10:37AM
Hitler was never elected to power. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor as the result of various backroom deals and manoeuvring. Hitler then had the authority to remain in power unelected and used his power to ban elections.
Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 2 Feb 2014 at 2:28AM
True but such machinations can take place within democracies as well, as was the case in Hitler's party garnering more votes than any other in the November 1932 elections.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by JimC on 2 Feb 2014 at 9:42AM
Hitler was not appointed as Chancellor in the November 1932 elections. Adolf Hitler was appointed as the chancellor of Germany by President Paul Von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 4 Feb 2014 at 1:32AM
Yes, and in the 1932 elections the Nazis actually lost seats--yet they still remained the largest party with the largest number of representatives.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by JimC on 4 Feb 2014 at 8:04AM
Hitler was never elected to power. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor as the result of various backroom deals and manoeuvring. Hitler then had the authority to remain in power unelected and used his power to ban elections.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 6 Feb 2014 at 12:23AM
True but not relevant. The UK is a democracy but you don't directly elect your leaders either--you vote for political representatives who gather to form a government which then chooses a leader.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by JimC on 6 Feb 2014 at 7:52AM
Hitler did indeed achieve power in a democracy, by bypassing the German democratic system and then creating a dictatorship. But the fact remains that your statement “The majority of Germans voted for Hitler at one point.” is factually incorrect.
Re: Democracies and their necessary basis in a HMFR
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 8 Feb 2014 at 1:12AM
Actually I never claimed that the majority of citizens voted for Hitler, although they probably would have at one point.
So - what to make of all this? It is easy to assume that I've been feeding a troll, but I like to think it is a genuine lapse in memory. But if that's the case, how can you forget something that was apparently known as a fact at the start of the conversation?
No comments:
Post a Comment