If all else fails, Mr.
crime writer Schmiester ,
we flee to hermeneutics.
I would like to follow you to venture a few steps to hermeneutics, even if I fear not your speed to keep pace. Curb your speed so something, you will notice that there are some nice roadside flower, on the other you rush over. It missed a so many nice little things, when only one goal in mind, and forget about it all the way. I have always taken for a flaneur, a man of the strolls, and enjoys nothing. I regret to say that in spite of all the romantic elevation, do nothing more than to rush. (The word "rush" at this point is aware of me, whether its ambiguity was chosen. Interpreters of the world unite!)
So, Mr. crime writer Schmiester, leave us a little by the word "offender" stroll. It is immediately apparent that you have the word "offender" directly play a role that is likely to reduce the word on only one aspect. They claim the word correlates with an illegal, criminal doing as they happen, you do not explain. Instead, they claim in the usual high-handed tone of utter conviction that meaning is created from a linguistic convention, just as it had at some time been a meeting between the language-gods and the people who carved on which this interpretation for all eternity in stone. Well, on this memorable day of decision, I need it be at Sinai, but have been lying on the beach.
your description by no means defines the word "offender" but the term "perpetrator of a crime." Why do you associate the word "offender" with a crime, I could now explain psychoanalysis, but as long as you pay me but not a therapist salary, I would like to make an analysis of the work is not better. Instead, I would point out that your reduction only proves that you are not willing to stand by your own actions. Like all people who wish to gloss over the consequences of their actions, help yourself to the word "artist". This shows your true liberal convictions.
The word "artist" namely, Mr. Schmiester crime writer, you weigh yourself in the false appearance that there are actions that create not only nothing but. It's that simple but unfortunately not. Every action brings forth new, you are right, but also destroys every deed. With every deed we destroy the infinity of possibilities. Rather than assert that an act is still creative, you'd better think about your act destroyed the possibilities for all time. That is the responsibility to act, I mean.
This responsibility goes to the fact that you esteemed crime writer, once again completely off. Otherwise it is not to say that you believe herauszulesen serious analysis of my victims, I would therefore "the legal rights executed by the brutal power of the defeated, the victims of war and also the gas chambers in Auschwitz" insult. For such a result only a man can get, which is aimed rather than understand. The role of the judge I leave it to you but bestowed you. I will retain them in the picture, then play well the lawyer.
as with my analysis, I sacrifice to the fact that there are basically two different types of victims. First, there are those people who are victimized. These are the people who actually do not be a victim, where the self-determination but is taken. Then there are those people who make themselves victims, in order to justify your actions. On those same type of sacrifice I was referring to, since it is precisely that group willing victim. In the other group I have not been collected, very good reason, because I their self-determination eighth, for they do so just be a victim, but will be made to do so.
Let me take a historical example. Zionism lives in the belief that it can not address that Judaism is constantly made to the victim. To the achievement of an Israeli state and the Zionistinnen Zionists have finally shaken off the curse of the victim. That this development was bound to cause problems, it was clear from the beginning. The non-Jewish world had become accustomed to holding Jews as victims. As long as they bravely took the death of their enemies in the purchase, they were a popular subject at the good guy and an easy target of anti-Semites. But from that day, because they dared to defend himself, because you dared to action, began to lament. The Jews were perpetrators. But only to offenders in your definition of fact, Mr. Schmiester crime writer. Instead of looking for reasons for the individual actions, instead of recognizing that, particularly in Israel, every act of government hot and controversially discussed and criticized will be behind every act of Israel's population directly suspects a crime. The UN is no longer so after with resolutions that are imposed on this small country. But it had to come as well, because who years with the image of poisoners and murderers children grew up, can not now time to get used to another meaning of the word "offender" in connection with Jews.
you are in this respect, unfortunately, a typical German, master crime writer Schmiester. They belong to a nation, are responsible for Auschwitz, as the word slips willy-nilly into a negative area. But a nation that makes desert habitable, and the idea of democracy in a world that, where individual freedom is not respected, has a natural way, a better concept of "offenders".
Now that I have used the word "offender" again and used primarily in connection with Eretz Israel, you've virtually been a through ball for insults and misunderstandings, you can again decide whether to send me back only, or finally want to venture to the understanding. I hope you like Focus on understanding.
PS: have the movie "The Silence" by Ingmar Bergman, unfortunately, you probably do not quite understand. For now, this film deals with the consequences of a very special indeed. Being aware of your approaching death a terminally ill woman has decided in agreement with her sister to spend their own newborn child as the healthy sister. This act is in the film never directly addressed, but only hinted at. Nevertheless, the film shows the cruelty of this act in light of the fact that the child is now several years old, the birth mother is still alive. In shocking images, the film shows how you can live with such a deed, or better just can not live. This is only a tiny aspect of the film and would not Ingmar Bergman, to see if there were not many more. However, that you did not notice this aspect seems to be I can only explain with your very one-sided understanding of the word "offender".
PPS: Whether you trust me a prepuce schmockegal me to say the least, but again you have misunderstood something, the piece has the figure of the Christian is a prepuce. My penis is not the subject of the piece - even if it disappointed you. If you do, however, I can someday write a nice piece about my genitals. Such a piece will get to read it but only you, as a gift for this stimulating debate.
Buurmann,
theater director
0 comments:
Post a Comment