Matt Giwer always makes me laugh because he has a penetrating gaze exposing human foibles - and the skill of translating those foibles for others. I had saved this mini-essay below some time ago but my hard disk had swallowed it, and only recently did I find it again.
I offer it here an anecdote filler.
Little sidebar, though: Matt made a mistake thinking that a horse did not give milk - it does; it is a mammal! - and I cut that part out because it otherwise blurred what he was trying to say, but the rest of it is more or less intact, and those of us who have tried to "debate" our Jewish opposition can surely relate to this Giwer Gem.
Matt writes:
"Most should be familiar with Hitler's observation that no matter how telling a debating point, they will come back the next day as though nothing had happened and be right where they were the day before.
I have been thinking of that for quite some time. The following is an expansion on the basic idea.
Something to be observed about Zionists. No matter how wrong they are shown to be, they always come back the next time with exactly the same big lie. The Jewish method of "debate" is not trading facts and positions - rather it is an exercise in who can be the most stubborn, intransigent.
It is an endurance contest.
There are even Yiddish stories and jokes about it - lifelong positions that are "stubborned" every day for an entire lifetime, and the punch line is something like the one who dies finding a way to have the last word after death.
But the last word is still the same stubborn opinion held throughout life.
This not to be viewed as a means of exchanging or sharing opinions. Even in the formal debate in the western sense it is not; (it is) rather a test of debating skills.
In the Jewish culture it is not a matter of a test of skill, it is a test of will - the ability to repeat a position in the face of every attack, including fact.
We often confuse this with conviction but it has nothing to do with conviction. It is known in these stories that it is "Mensch-hood" that is at stake.
The person who gives in is shamed, is less of a man. Facts, figures, observation - nothing is relevant.
One of the standard parries is to attempt to frustrate the opponent. This is why, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they will come back the next day with the same position as though the overwhelming evidence had not been presented.
If the challenger gives up, they count that as a victory. If someone else challenges the same position, they will announce that they "won" the same "debate" before - which in their minds is true. All they did was hold out longer. The ones honored in their stories are those who manage to hold an impossible position all their lives.
We see this (in) many places. The attack on the Liberty is one. Gas chambers is another.
We see this on alt.revisionism and talk.politics.mideast - in fact, any place where they show up.
It is not their intention to arrive at the facts. It is their intention to hold their position despite the facts.
The more compelling the reason presented for them to change their position, the "greater" their accomplishment in refusing to change it.
Right now in several conferences, for example alt.conspiracy, they are demonstrating this "mensch"-style debate by insisting that fat does not burn in a fire.
Watch them. They have taken a patently absurd position.
Rather than an embarrassed, ". . . did I say that?" we see them sticking to it.
Lets look at the methods used.
The matter started with one of their Yiddish stories - with the impossible "fact" that fat does not burn in a fire.
This discussion, which any rational exchange of facts would have resulted in mutual agreement that the story is nonsense, has gone on for weeks! Every few days they come back to the beginning - by repeating the ridiculous story that started it.
The response that is frustrating them no end in the". . . fat won't burn" (claim) is people coming back and simply repeating: "Fat does burn!" Stubborn is being met with stubborn.
In their stories there are also regular exchanges of ". . . you won't admit it because you are meshugga" (sp)
In the ". . . fat won't burn" exchange it is ". . . because you are a Nazi!" or ". . . because you are anti-Semitic!"
You will also find the Yiddish insults of drinking too much wine being the reason.
"Because your business is poor" is given as a reason. Everyone who disagrees instantly becomes a "failure" in life.
You will also find variants of ". . . because you wife won't have you."
There is a lot more I could go into. Everything they are doing has direct parallels in Yiddish literature. It is instructive to read some of them to see what they are doing.
However, it is most important to see what they are NOT doing. They are NOT attempting to arrive at the facts.
What you do not see is, "That's right! fat does burn! Let us examine the story carefully and see if there are special circumstances here that might make it true."
You will not see that because it would be a "loss of face" concession. As with the horse without udders, there is never a concession that the horse he was talking about might be a special horse.
The position is always that the horse without udders is the special horse being brought in to cheat and trick him into agreeing and, thus, losing Mensch-hood.
(Example:)
"I will sell you six (million) chickens."
"But you only have one chicken."
"I will sell it to you six times. Now give me my money."
"But you don't have any chickens."
"I'll give you an IOU. Now give me my money."
"But you didn't deliver any chickens."
"Are you trying to impoverish me?"
Or, as the famous beggar said, "Because your business is slow, why should I suffer?"
Thought for the Day:
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it."
(William Ralph Inge)