Huh. I had a similar impression when I came across the work of fiction that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was plagiarized off of. It started out like an almost entertaining mystery story, but segued into vitriol after a few pages.
I repeat it over and over, and you just don’t get it.
If Hitler says “2 + 2 =4” it is a reasonable statement. It is not unreasonable simply because Hitler said it. Even if he says it only as an excuse to murder minorities. The statement itself is still reasonable.
Similarly (for the third time) If a bigot prefaces a diatribe against minorities by saying “prejudice is an evil thing,” the diatribe that follows does not invalidate the truth of the preface.
Yes, he doesn’t mean it. Yes, it’s a sleazy lie intended to draw in the gullible. It doesn’t matter. The statement itself is still reasonable. The message and the messenger are not the same thing.
Hitler’s professing open-mindedness and tolerance as a virtue is a reasonable statement. It is a virtue. Hitler lying when he said he posessed it doesn’t make it a vice.
How do you not get this?
Oh God, you’re helpless. If I was being the moron’s advocate I suppose that would be better than being the moron. Sadly, you don’t appear to have the choice.
Page 1, post 24, my one and only post concerning Pat Buchanan, in what conceivable way do you consider my attack on his argument “defending” Pat Buchanan?
How do you get that?
I did admit to taking a few liberties with my restatement, so yeah.
That doesn’t address the stronger argument which is that perhaps it was meant to signify that prices weren’t the issue, National Socialism was. None of this is to say your interpretation was wrong, just that I don’t know it to be wrong
No, and in all fairness, you’re quote doesn’t appear to be an appeal to reason so much as a rhetorical and emotional flourish.
That’s kind of weird the way those first two cites look like fragments of a torn page. Am I correct that the third cite contains the piece you refer to in full.
I’m no means an expert or a historian. I just read Mein Kampf to try to understand Hitler’s mass appeal.
That appears the latest iteration of Google’s negotiation treatment of copyright law.
I originally read the snippet in the Economist magazine. After searching online I found that reference. It’s not exactly a detailed account, alas.
Loose Change includes numerous examples of ludicrous claims that were known to be false or in error before it was ever released.
Depending on what year and what country, the claims against Catholics might be either reasonable or unreasonable. In early 21st century North America, with hundreds of examples of actions by Catholics as individuals and groups opposing statements from the Vatican, it is not reasonable. In 1872 Italy with the excommunication of some leaders of the independence movement and the recent declaration of papal infallibility, it might be reasonable even though wrong.
I have no idea what Pixy Dickery might be. If it is a claim that one might use numerology or blind chance or some other agent to guide playing the market, it would not be reasonable. If it is a system based on arranging an inadequate number of facts from which to draw conclusions, it might be reasonable, (right or wrong), or unreasonable, based on the general knowledge of the information on which it is based.
And where did you get this idea to shift the goalposts from “reasonable” to “perfectly reasonable”?
I’m glad you brought it up.
Much like claims that Jews were an evil global entity dedicated to the annihilation of humanity.
Of course, Scylla has yet to identify a single argument in Mein Kampf that he claims is reasonable, let alone “not unreasonable”. Yes yes, he’s lied plenty and deliberately distorted actual arguments by purposefully cherrypicking quotes and making claims while trying his best to trick people about their real context.
Like Hitler’s ‘support’ for trade unions. Or how the evil of the Jews and the necessity of Nazism to fight against it wasn’t the central focus of MK. Or how Hitler’s main objection was to Marxism and not that he saw Marxism as a Jewish plot. Or how the main point of MK was the necessity for National Socialism without mentioning that he claimed it was necessary in order to combat the cancer of Jewish influence and domination that would lead to the end of the world.
Etc…
But of course he’ll whine about how he’s totally clarified his position, while lying with every single example he’s given.
Every, single, one.
With no exceptions.
Much like he cited text from MK without listing its source, but then pretends that if someone else does it it’s “plagiarism”.
Where did you get the idea to quiz me on catching Scylla at his silly bullshit rather than inaccurately taking me to task for “shifting the goalposts”? You didn’t catch my reference to my example of magic pixies living in an investment banker’s penis, so rather obviously you’ve probably missed some highly visible parts of the thread. 
I mean, for fuck’s sake, didn’t you just notice his massive goalpost shifting (yet again) of what he himself was saying in order to (yet again) toss out bait and then insult people for catching him at what he’s saying? Seriously, read over since you haven’t.
He’s now gone from claiming that the book as a whole is reasonable to claiming that “Hitler’s professing open-mindedness and tolerance as a virtue is a reasonable statement. It is a virtue. Hitler lying when he said he posessed it doesn’t make it a vice.”
Doesn’t that even tickle your funny bone a bit, Tom? Here Scylla is arguing that Hitler’s pretense of lacking racial bigotry is “a reasonable statement” and a “virtue” even while admitting that Hitler was lying when he said it. His apologia is blatant and blatantly deliberately dishonest. How many ‘mistakes’ has he been caught in, from distorting his own words to lying about Hitler’s actual arguments in Mein Kampf? And he keeps backing away to smaller and smaller tidbits (now Hitler was saying reasonable things for pretending to be religiously tolerant, evidently that’s why he called the book as a whole “reasonable” :rolleyes:). He’s rather obviously decided to be a dishonest contrarian asshole since he discovered that this is a good hill to fight on in order to piss people off.
Anyways, as for the bogus claim that Scylla’s own endorsement of something is a strawman that he endorsed it: I just pointed out and Scylla just cited his endorsement of Frylock’s claims as an explanation of what he meant about the inherent “reasonableness” of Hitler’s politics (between prevaricating between it being not-unreasonable and reasonable and not-unreasonable and reasonable and…). Frylock rather clearly said that there were certain arguments that were “perfectly reasonable” and that he saw Scylla saying that MK was like that and that, in that context, it was “reasonable”. Frylock did not add any caveats in the post that Scylla confirmed was his opinion, Frylock drew no distinction between the hypothetical ‘perfectly reasonable argument with perfectly terrible consequences’ and the ‘reasonable arguments with terrible consequences’ in MK.
Scylla confirmed that’s exactly what he meant.
Now of course he’s denying it. Just like his not-unreasonable-reasonable-not-I-didn’t-say-that schtick. Or his " 'it’s reasonable because it persuaded people and helped wage a war, but if you are say that that I’ve said it’s reasonable because it persuaded people and helped wage a war, that’s a strawman!" schtick. Or his continued ‘mistakes’ on what Hitler’s arguments were in Mein Kampf.
And so on…
I think he’s gonna pop.
Its getting to be like a blind matador and a three-legged bull.
Naw Scylla ol’ buddy don’t flatter yourself, you’re really not that good at trolling.
Hitler sure seems like he makes sense here:
Now I can forgive you for calling me an asshole. 
Thank you. Hitler has solved our conflict and brought us closer together.
BTW: Esquire named Pat Buchanan one of the 75 Best people in the world: “Weird and possibly dangerous, but he’s seen a thing or two. Plus he’d be kind to the dog.”
Also Bill Clinton on the list: “if you were trapped in a North Korean prison and told to walk through a door, who else would you want to see there?”
Some might want to see a squadron of heavily armed Rambos, come to kick ass and hustle you aboard the hilicopter.
But like most sane people, I’m a cringing craven, I’d be much more pleased to see Bill Clinton, as that would mean I’m not going to be exposed to anything more deadly than nookie.
This sounds like a capsule summary of Hitler as well.
Remember, Adolf was also nice to his doggies. Up until having them poisoned, that is.*
*And quite the reasonable thing to do, if you fear the consequences of them falling into the hands of the Juwes.