As much as I'm not a Fuentes fan and having an appreciation for IP's work:
This was embarrassing. They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said. It was a 3 on 1 but worse than that because they were reacting to a recording. Even with those odds in their favor, they still face-planted.
They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said.
The first thing they challenged was at 2:35. They specifically said that the "best of the gentiles should be killed" is actually a reference to Exodus, and they are trying to understand why God did not kill all of the Egyptian soldiers, but did strike down their animals. The conclusion is that the soldiers themselves may not be rebelling against God, but you have a legitimate right to kill a gentile who is trying to kill you, particularly in war, even if he is not an enemy of God.
That seems like an extremely specific and direct attack on what was said. I don't know (or really care) about in-depth theological arguments, but you can't just claim that his positions were just dismissed out of hand as if there was no thought into them. They were dismissed out of hand for being patently wrong because of the specific assumptions he made about what he thought the Talmud said.
If a communist tells me that I'm being dismissive of Karl Marx's Surplus Value, it's true, but not because I'm simply choosing to dismiss it. I'm dismissing it because all objective theories of value are evidentially wrong on their face. The very premise of the Labour Theory Of Value is false. Then I can go through the premises of LTV and prove it's wrong on top of that.
If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.
As much as I'm not a Fuentes fan and having an appreciation for IP's work:
This was embarrassing. They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said. It was a 3 on 1 but worse than that because they were reacting to a recording. Even with those odds in their favor, they still face-planted.
The first thing they challenged was at 2:35. They specifically said that the "best of the gentiles should be killed" is actually a reference to Exodus, and they are trying to understand why God did not kill all of the Egyptian soldiers, but did strike down their animals. The conclusion is that the soldiers themselves may not be rebelling against God, but you have a legitimate right to kill a gentile who is trying to kill you, particularly in war, even if he is not an enemy of God.
That seems like an extremely specific and direct attack on what was said. I don't know (or really care) about in-depth theological arguments, but you can't just claim that his positions were just dismissed out of hand as if there was no thought into them. They were dismissed out of hand for being patently wrong because of the specific assumptions he made about what he thought the Talmud said.
If a communist tells me that I'm being dismissive of Karl Marx's Surplus Value, it's true, but not because I'm simply choosing to dismiss it. I'm dismissing it because all objective theories of value are evidentially wrong on their face. The very premise of the Labour Theory Of Value is false. Then I can go through the premises of LTV and prove it's wrong on top of that.
Reminds me of that song “Kill the Boer”
If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.