Your reading is very generous to him.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion.
Understandable. But when the discussion is about German law, German sources are to be expected.
It is not relevant that it is wrong.
If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.
Yes, as I said: the “Jewishness” of the people should not matter when you’re attacking their arguments. And yes, he is very obvioulsy trying to defend this instead of admitting that he shouldn’t have said that.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
OP’s claim was that official call anti-zionist Jews ‘allegedly Jewish’ (ostensibly actually, a synonym) and that they decided if they are “bad” or “good” Jews. It seems obvious to me from the choice of words as well as the punctuation he is not referring to official acts but bias of the official. Which may well affect their official decisions.
If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
Are the communities not the ones referred to by the commissioner in his defense? That makes them relevant. If the article is wrong that you have to be part of such a community to be “officially” Jewish it’s irrelevant, the issue is that the commissioner tried to defend his position by appealing to them.
You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.
You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.
OP makes a claim, I asked for a source. That’s not an attack.
And how is on the other hand “he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job)” and “shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism,” and “he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take” not an “attack” against the commissioner?
edit: anyway, I have spend enough time on this.
