Können sich Mobber selbst eigentlich leiden?
Jetzt hat sich also eine ganze Mobber Blase auf angesammelt, welche gleichgültig was auch gefragt wird, immer mit dem Gegenteil antworten muss.
Sprich: Die Behauptung heißt “Der Hund bellt”, worauf prompt kommen muss “Nein, der Hund bellt nicht. Das ist die Katze”.
Oder: Wenn die Behauptung lautet “Bei rot bleibt man bei der Ampel stehen” muss die Antwort lauten “Aber nur, wenn Du sie von Deiner Seite her anschaust”. usw.
Zugegeben: Ich persönlich schätze dieses Verhalten als ein wenig verhaltensinnovativ ein. Bin dies allerdings aus meiner ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeit, ich agierte da auch eine Zeit lang auf der Baumgartner Höhe, gewöhnt.
Das was ich allerdings bisher noch immer nicht sicher weiß:
Können sich Mobber selbst eigentlich leiden?
(1 votes)
Loading...
No, they must have enormous problems and be dissatisfied with themselves.
Why else should they humiliate other people to feel better.
No, that’s not bullying, but the opposite is to perpetually repeating bullshit, mostly their texts are still badly written, with dozens of writing and grammar errors.
I’d rather see harassment…
All right. Then let’s just tell people like you just harass me. Right?
Incorrect, they know the word ‘Exegese’?
He also thinks that he knows the history of the Old Church better than all the researchers in the field who can even read the Greek and Latin sources.
And even more funny, he even knows better than those who were there. Thus he negates the contemporary texts from the time of 4. Crusades because they don’t match their sources.
Peitl as a universal scholar is of course of the opinion that he can interpret laws more consistently and correctly than anyone studied lawyers, and rather better than all judges. How wrong do you have to be to have such a conviction?
This is once again typical Peitl-Nonsens. It wasn’t some, it was some, it was only the Winkler. Of course, you also have in German law and to an empire citizen, it would be surprising if not, but the quote is extremely low.
Peitl, you’re a really designated dummy. You pick up something somewhere and then you are very quick to believe that you have understood it. As a rule, however, you did not understand. Especially in all the cases where you cite laws, you are almost always wrong because you lack the entire basis for understanding and interpreting laws. Note: the legal friend reads the entire paragraph, and also the one before and behind it.
You always read only the title or title in law. And Jehovah’s Witnesses are also not a recognized church. They have the status of a body of public law, but are generally considered a sect. However, these are fine legal differences that you do not understand.
You are, and remain, a fool who has absolutely everything a robust and almost always completely insane and differing from the view of all others.
You always comforted with alleged criminal violations of others. You can only say, bring it to the ad, because it’s like to do, it’s just rougher.
Your – really stupid – excuse that you can only report it to Zara is total nonsense. Unlike the authorities that would immediately show you a bird – in the transmitted sense – the Zara people must bear your nonsense with their voluntary commitment. Of which you have certainly never received a positive feedback in such a way that Zara has initiated measures against a person accused of you.
No. The statement of the texts is clear. There are only instances that ignore these laws. I really like the question mark at the end of the penultimate post.
The young Empress seems to be overwhelmed by the exposing of legal texts.
Don’t read correctly again, that’s not gonna be anything with the Kaisertitel?
Let’s end the senseless discussion now. Let’s stick to it. §188 has not been violated.
You only perceive that because you are still not sober. Go back. You have time. Sleep one or two more hours. Then this goes by itself.
Yes, because Sissi hopes for the emperorship again, where Dubai and Saudi Arabia are now infiltrating Österrich.
That sounds very drunk…
Actually, I’m calmed. Since you know how many it is, you probably know each one of you. That would be the basic requirement for such a statement. Right?
Does the bottle of egg liqueur circle in the Kaiserkeller?
Exciting how you get off the subject again because you lie next to it.
The undiscovered citizens of the Reich are in the nano field. Therefore, to call the whole legal system as corrupt, that is slander and, according to your definition, bullying.
Your assumption that the others who were not arrested adhere to the laws is not necessarily conclusive. Right?
And even if, how many were that compared to all employees in the legal system?
Since when do you live in Germany?
In Germany, a number of court officials were arrested as Reich citizens. Don’t you read newspapers?
Exciting attitude to the rule of law.
People also act there. Often people also see the laws as suggestions.
If you want to call dishes like that, yes.
And whether he is or not, that’s what he’s doing.
No, that’s not what it means, but that it must be very serious before the paragraph attacks.
translated into German: There are these paragraphs, but it is not executed. Just as many other paragraphs do not. Something that does not mean that it is not criminal, but means that the offender remains criminal.
No, you’re revealing your unawareness again.
https://fm4v3.orf.at/stories/1752099/index.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9EGesch%C3%BCtzt%2520will not%2520the%2520Religion,%E2%80%9C
Yes. Only I now experience the x-th time that you are not interested in laws.
Yeah, he’s clear, but not as you mean.
Please stop bullying. The law is clear. You don’t want to see this as a state refuser is clear. What do you care about laws? Right?
Please stop with laws to throw you and constantly postulate crimes. Since you do not understand the content of the laws anyway.
Because this paragraph presupposes that public order malfunctions are caused by anger. And this is definitely not the case here.
You have decided to pursue a special craft: the bullying.
And as regards CouplingA:
Since Jehovah’s Witnesses are a recognized church, this was just a felony.
§ 188 StGB Degradation of Religious Teachings
StGB – Criminal Code
Observations
remember
Legislative status: 05.09.2024
Anyone who publicly forms a person or a thing that constitutes the subject of the worship of a church or religious society existing in the country, or a doctrine of faith, a legally admissible custom or a legally admissible establishment of such a church or religious society, under certain circumstances, is to be punished or mocked, under which his behaviour is capable of causing legitimate anger, with imprisonment of up to six months or with a fine of up to 360 daily sentences.
No, that’s not the reason for the dispute and not the Synod of Serdica.
Both paragraphs are nonsense and far from reality. A marriage between Jesus and MM is pure speculation and certainly did not pass through the 2nd letter of Johabbe. This is the typical Peitl-Nonsens.
And as far as the interpretations of Jehovah’s Witnesses are concerned, they are far away from the possible interpretations that you twist your eyes. The ZJ are true world champions in the aftermath of explaining why this has not occurred, of which they were absolutely certain that it is coming.
You should market it as a comedy, a willing pastor, without writing and reading talent and the attention span of a fruit fly wants to conduct biblical research
No, you never have. You run ice cream, but that’s something completely different.
And you do not do Christian philosophy.
For the church it is unimaginable that Jesus was married to Maria Magdalena and had children. For the Christian philosophy a completely valid consideration, with which 2 John’s letter even proved.
The reason for the dispute between the Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses, which came from Christian philosophy, Bible research under Russell.
Our Lord Schlumberger seems to be quite tied to his church teaching. I’m not angry with him. The world of the Church and of the Christian philosophy is far apart.
Christian philosophy seeks what can be read between the lines of the Bible.
The Church represents the faithful teachings of the Council.
It already has a reason why she has been us since the 17th century. Christian philosophy came up, always told us that we were heretics.
Yeah, so? You did Kelle Exegese, you might have tried to do it, but you were less successful in it, as you were already confirmed by a real pastor in another forum known to you. And that the word exegesis is not also limited to Christian studies, do not allow you to be clear, for Meiko has used the word recognizable and correct in the non-religious context.
I did it for years. I originally came from a Bible school. The one in Schloss Klaus.
The word exegese is used predominantly in the religious context, but it is absolutely customary to use the word in another context, of course with the same meaning, namely the interpretation of texts (one can also interpret other, non-religious texts). In this respect, Meiko has used a word that is rather seldom used by the language, but he has used it correctly, you have misunderstood it – as so often –
No, I just noticed that they have less skills than originally assumed.
The next one claimed 9,1 x 10 would be 910?
Oh, funny, @coupleA has read and understood this correctly, Sissi doesn’t.
The reading and writing weakness of Sissi is well known, but that you already fail with the simplest computing tasks, has been unknown to me.
No. He didn’t know what there was word exegese. Otherwise, he would have known that it was just as bad at this point as yesterday the same computational error was alleged by two different users who both claim:
9.1 x 10 = 910.
It is obvious that it is the same user.
And with this word Meiko speaks exactly your vulnerability when reading and interpreting texts, because you often understand the opposite of what is there. Meiko said you were harassing us, not vice versa.
Yes. Text layout. It comes from theology.
It’s less bullying for me, it’s more smart shit.
There are a lot of people here who always have to lie against the spike.
Hm?
Mobber usually have no stable self-esteem. Not all, however, is also BEWUSST that they are even Mobber. Often, for example, there is a certain group compulsion in order not to become the target itself (I experienced with a school “friend” who at some point played with it because otherwise they would have taken it). Or some even think that what they do is not bullying, be only harmless fun, etc.
I think most people don’t like themselves. How often is it that self-hass is projected outward? I don’t have a nice feeling, that’s what you’re trying to get.
There are actually studies that the mobber itself have a very low self-esteem – and I can imagine that very well.
But of course, the forced circulation must always have a problem with itself and his life. Otherwise you wouldn’t be looking for the problems with others.