9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[popscythe]

Relax. I didn't say I disagreed with you, and you clarifying what was supposed to be a humorous understatement is really kind of silly. You being angry at someone you haven't met over the internet will not resurrect genocide victims. If you want to make a difference, you should try doing some volunteer work instead of jumping all over wry statements on a forum.

As far as historical events I have investigated, (we're talking internet/library research here) I've tried to look into the truth behind any issue that is disputed, when my attention is brought to the dispute. I've touched a Titan rocket with my bare, 10 year old hands (they're older hands now) and yet I looked into the Moon landing to see if there was any credibility to the claims that it had been faked. I don't believe that there is. I've been constantly reminded of various tragedies that have occurred in our time and before, and have heard many (poor) theories regarding them, and so I looked into them as much I could (meaning viewing copies of the evidence that led experts to their opinions on the subject, instead of just the expert's opinions themselves, yes, this means I had to do a terrible translation of things written in german as pertain to this discussion to "see for myself".)

So the point that I was trying to make is that questioning commonly held beliefs is not only acceptable, but necessary. No matter how right you are, getting angry when someone does so and calling them a "monster" (I don't believe you did so, but someone did and my comments are not wholly directed at you) is wildly unscientific and is in fact detrimental to your point. Any point that cannot bear examination is usually untrue. Luckily for history, the truth of the holocaust CAN bear examination, even if it makes you angry and uncomfortable.

Edit: Unarmed Civilians and Women and Children are "People". The way you say that makes it sound like one type of person is more valuable (or at least more important not to murder) than others. I would avoid seeming like you value one type of person over others in this crowd, or someone will call you a monster.

 

[TSR]

Relax. I didn't say I disagreed with you, and you clarifying what was supposed to be a humorous understatement is really kind of silly.

.
It was not at all clear from your message that humour was meant. You may want to consider smilies in the future for such "jest."
.

You being angry at someone you haven't met over the internet will not resurrect genocide victims.

.
Could you please point out where I have expressed such anger? Or indicated that the resurrection of the victims of genocide was my goal?
.

If you want to make a difference, you should try doing some volunteer work instead of jumping all over wry statements on a forum.

.
And you probably shouldn't quit your day job to pursue your dreams of a career as a psychic, given how completely wrong about about my volunteerism.
.

As far as historical events I have investigated, (we're talking internet/library research here) I've tried to look into the truth behind any issue that is disputed, when my attention is brought to the dispute. I've touched a Titan rocket with my bare, 10 year old hands (they're older hands now) and yet I looked into the Moon landing to see if there was any credibility to the claims that it had been faked. I don't believe that there is. I've been constantly reminded of various tragedies that have occurred in our time and before, and have heard many (poor) theories regarding them, and so I looked into them as much I could (meaning viewing copies of the evidence that led experts to their opinions on the subject, instead of just the expert's opinions themselves, yes, this means I had to do a terrible translation of things written in german as pertain to this discussion to "see for myself".)

.
So, do you remain sceptical of the normative history surrounding the Holocaust? Your comment seems to include the Holocaust in the list of events of which you are skeptical.
.

So the point that I was trying to make is that questioning commonly held beliefs is not only acceptable, but necessary. No matter how right you are, getting angry when someone does so and calling them a "monster" (I don't believe you did so, but someone did and my comments are not wholly directed at you) is wildly unscientific and is in fact detrimental to your point. Any point that cannot bear examination is usually untrue. Luckily for history, the truth of the holocaust CAN bear examination, even if it makes you angry and uncomfortable.

.
When have I objected to such examination?

I have pointed out lies and fallacious argumentation when I encounter them.

You know what else is unscientific: attributing emotions to one's correspondant instead of arguing their points.
.

Edit: Unarmed Civilians and Women and Children are "People". The way you say that makes it sound like one type of person is more valuable (or at least more important not to murder) than others.

.
No, it makes it sound like. as a general rule, rounding up unarmed women and children and killing them because of who their grandparents were preceived to be tends to be considered more barbaric than unarmed men because of a societal assumption that the latter are better able to defend themselves.

You may disagree with that assumption, but it exists nonetheless.
.

I would avoid seeming like you value one type of person over others in this crowd, or someone will call you a monster.

.
If you have a problem with the name that someone called you, might I suggest it would be more productively taken up with that individual, rather than with someone who did not?

Or is it that you cannot keep straight to whom it is you are responding?
.

 

[popscythe]

My good person,

I was never called a monster, I simply object to the calling of anyone a monster based on an opinion, no matter how "wrong" that opinion is. I do not, and did not imply that you did the monster calling.

In your attempt to refute what I have said, you have made several errors. Rather than refute what you've said and continue the endless cycle, I will play devil's advocate and accuse you personally of being a murderer, because of what you have posted.

You are a murderer.

Of unbiased discussions.

 

[TSR]

I was never called a monster, I simply object to the calling of anyone a monster based on an opinion, no matter how "wrong" that opinion is. I do not, and did not imply that you did the monster calling.

.
Ah, so the historicity of the Holocaust is a matter of opinion?
.

In your attempt to refute what I have said, you have made several errors. Rather than refute what you've said and continue the endless cycle, I will play devil's advocate and accuse you personally of being a murderer, because of what you have posted.

.
The very behaviour which you (apparently only pretend to) decry.
.

You are a murderer.

Of unbiased discussions.

.
What, exactly, is your definition of "unbiased discussions?" and how is your claim above conducive to them?

Or is this another case of "do as I say, not as I do?"
.

 

[popscythe]

Can't murder the dead, TSR.

 

[TSR]

Can't murder the dead, TSR.

.
And you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd.

Which is about as relevant as your post.

Can I expect that you will actually substatively respond to the questions I have asked any time soon?
.

 

[popscythe]

No. If you'd like to ask some questions that pertain to the meaning of what I actually wrote, instead of a word or assumption you made regarding a word contained in the post, feel free to resurrect a victim of thread murder, if you are able.

 

[TSR]

No. If you'd like to ask some questions that pertain to the meaning of what I actually wrote, instead of a word or assumption you made regarding a word contained in the post, feel free to resurrect a victim of thread murder, if you are able.

.
Is the historicity of the Holocaust is a matter of opinion?

What, exactly, is your definition of "unbiased discussions" and how is your claim above conducive to them?
.

 

[popscythe]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5385465&postcount=3143

 

[TSR]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5385465&postcount=3143

.
So that would be "no, I have no intention of having a discussion, "unbiased" or otherwise.

So why do you project the intention to stifle debate onto me?


Trick question, the answer is obvious.
.

 

[popscythe]

 

[Nonpareil]

Gentlemen, please. When we argue, the neo-Nazis win.

 

[TSR]

Gentlemen, please. When we argue, the neo-Nazis win.

.
I'm not arguing with popscythe, since zie hasn't posted anything to argue, pro or con. Just undefined terms, whining and ad hom.
.

 

[Arkyrion]

TSR, I must concur with Pure Argent. This intellectual flame war has gone far enough. If you insist upon continuing to feed 9/11's need for attention, do so in a way that is constructive to your goals and won't result in our beloved Investigator being able to lean back in his chair and enjoy a chuckle at your expense.

And I see no crime that Popscythe has committed. He is merely expressing skepticism on a skeptics forum. Heaven forbid.

 

[TSR]

And I see no crime that Popscythe has committed. He is merely expressing skepticism on a skeptics forum. Heaven forbid.

.
Nor have I accused him of any crime. I have merely pointed out that if he is here for discussion, it is not unreasonable to expect that he clarify terms which are not clear, such as "unbiased discussion" and justify his own actions which prevent discussion of any kind.

Heaven forbid, indeed.
.

 

[Arkyrion]

I should think that "unbiased discussion" is mildly self-explanatory. Now then. Enough of this senseless bickering. Back to the debate at hand. Let us continue.

 

[Nonpareil]

I should think that "unbiased discussion" is mildly self-explanatory. Now then. Enough of this senseless bickering. Back to the debate at hand. Let us continue.

Oh dear god please no.

 

[dafydd]

The procedure followed around Katyn Forest, when the Germans invited international experts to see with their own eyes that thousands of Polish officiers had been killed by your precious buddies, the Bolsheviks.

If you can show me reports of autopsies of gassed persons carried out by independent witnesses (red cross, Swedes, Swiss) than it would be a different matter.

Again, I do not say it did not happen. I do say I would like to see convincing evidence. You are convinced it happened. You show me.

You can say it as much as you like,it did happen.

 

[dafydd]

At the risk of branding myself as a "monster" I admit that I am skeptical of any claim that I have not personally investigated, even ones as sensitive as the holocaust.

That being said, it seems that Nazi Germany did indeed kill quite a few people.

The understatement of the century.

 

[popscythe]

The understatement of the century.

But not one intended to be inflammatory.