• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
LemmyCaution said:
Why would you ask such a question? What brings this up, and why does it matter?
Click to expand...

Why would any self-hater hate? It doesn't matter, it's just the denier's way of trying to distract us from the fact that they know almost nothing about the subject under discussion. Idiotic information from bonehead denier sites is not knowledge. They think it is though.
 
SnakeTongue said:
This book-the first detailed treatment of Jewish escape and hiding during the Holocaust-tells the dramatic story of the hidden Jews of Warsaw. Gunnar S. Paulsson shows that after the 1942 deportations nearly a quarter of the ghetto's remaining Jews managed to escape. Once in hiding, connected by elaborate networks of which Poles, Germans, and the Jews themselves were largely unaware, they formed what can aptly be called a secret city. (...)

(...) Using diaries, witness testimony, and quantitative analysis (in which he tries to ascertain the precise numbers of people in the various groups he is writing about) Paulson draws a vibrant portrait of the complexity of Warsaw life, and especially of what he calls the "secret city," a collection of 28,000 Jews not confined to the ghetto, "together with the many non-Jews who helped hide them, and the criminal element that ceaselessly hunted them." (...)

http://books.google.com.br/books?id...dir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gunnar paulsson&f=false​

"Dramatic stories" and "quantitative analysis" of "which he tries to ascertain the precise numbers" is not statistics.

...and I am not willing to buy books of story-telling.
Click to expand...
Anyone who confuses promotional copy about a text with the text itself has said already he isn't to be taken seriously. It sounds like SnakeTongue is afraid to read Paulsson's book. And, of course, my citation wasn't about a "dramatic story," as the puffery has it, nor even about Paulsson's statistical analysis (Paulsson's attempt to determine approximately how many Jews hid outside Warsaw ghetto - and the death rates of Jews in the different occupation situations - is actually quite interesting, but off topic), but about the "Networks" chapter for an explanation of Jewish-Polish relations. But SnakeTongue is so ignorant he thinks reading a promotional blurb is the same as reading the chapter - and he thinks he will have to buy a Googlebooks excerpt!
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
Denying the truth of the Holocaust is like trying to stop a tank with a feather duster. A hopeless task and amusing to watch. They never reveal their reasons for their denial delusion. Could they be anti-Semites?
Click to expand...

In Snaketongue's first post in this thread, he said he was researching military history and demanded a video. A few posts later he linked to video of a German Tiger tank as an example of the evidence he required for his research.

A researcher can't tell the thickness of a tank's armour by looking at photos of its exterior, nor its engine capacity, nor its range, nor its weight , how much ordinance it carried or anything a researcher would be interested in. This indicated he was crapping on from his first post.
 
000063 said:
(...) ST whined about having to look them up without giving any indication he had tried to get to them online. You're doing basically the same thing.
Click to expand...

I am not surprised that you assume I had "whined about having to look them" when yourself did not provided one single link to primary evidence...

Do not blame me for your inability to post URLs.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
In Snaketongue's first post in this thread, he said he was researching military history and demanded a video. A few posts later he linked to video of a German Tiger tank as an example of the evidence he required for his research.

A researcher can't tell the thickness of a tank's armour by looking at photos of its exterior, nor its engine capacity, nor its range, nor its weight , how much ordinance it carried or anything a researcher would be interested in. This indicated he was crapping on from his first post.
Click to expand...

Here's a tip ST. If that is true then try opening some military history books.
 
SnakeTongue said:
I am not surprised that you assume I had "whined about having to look them" when yourself did not provided one single link to primary evidence...

Do not blame me for your inability to post URLs.
Click to expand...

SnakeTongue, please find me the online URL for the following source

Soviet Consulate General in Harbin to AmbassadorRoshchin,15November, 1949,
AVPRF, f 0308, o 1, p 4, d 31, pp. 2 – 20

cited in Odd Arne Westad, 'Losses, Chances and Myths: The United States and the Sino-Soviet Alliance, 1945-1950', Diplomatic History, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Winter 1997), pp.105-115, here p.108
 
000063 said:
I like how he can't actually come up with any real problem with ANTPogo's post, and is reduced to attacking ANTPogo, questioning minutae, and repeatedly demanding "evidence", which he has a remarkably flexible definition of and standards for.

And he honestly thinks he's being clever and intellectually honest. "Aye, there's the genius and the wonder of the thing!"
Click to expand...
And at the end of his monumentally irrelevant gibberish, he winds up pleading falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. Whilst ignoring that ANTPogo has already answered his question how he knows which of Rauff's statements to believe and which not to believe. An astonishing meltdown, right before our eyes.
 
SnakeTongue said:
I am not surprised that you assume I had "whined about having to look them" when yourself did not provided one single link to primary evidence...

Do not blame me for your inability to post URLs.
Click to expand...
I don't have to. Others have provided more than enough evidence, and you repeatedly moved the goalposts, which I have called "whining". Whether I have posted any evidence or not is entirely irrelevant to whether you have been whining or not, and your attempt to conflate the two is a personal attack. Heck, you can find a lot of this information at your local library, as I have already asserted.

000063 said:
We did provide specific sources, from the exact time period that Moore requested after moving his goalpost. He claimed they were "off-topic" and refused to discuss them. ST whined about having to look them up without giving any indication he had tried to get to them online. You're doing basically the same thing....
Click to expand...

It also, by coincidence, happens to be very similar to Dr. Terry's remarks.

Nick Terry said:
You seem to have not noticed that in my previous reply I provided sources just as in a term paper, even though this is an internet forum and not a college course. This prompted SnakeTongue to troll away by whining about having to buy books, which in turn prompted me to outline some of the easily available online sources.
Since this is a discussion forum and not a college course, I don't intend to be made to dance and jump through hoops to source easily ascertained information which can be found all over the internet in multiple locations and which ought to be known to anyone who has a reasonable familiarity with the subject they are meant to be discussing and debating.

It is more interesting and more useful to draw people's attention to some of the potential sources and issues. Judging by PMs and public comments on other threads, people appreciate that. I don't care if that satisfies you or SnakeTongue.

I followed up with a further post about the niceties of sourcing, which seem to be a huge issue for SnakeTongue, despite the fact that he has given no indication of his educational background or actual knowledge of the conventional literature and sources on the Holocaust.
It's exam season soon, and I must say the deniers continue to fail at failing.
Click to expand...

You implied that you would have to buy said books, yet several are available online. The further implication was that you were being given evidence you could not readily access, and that the people who were giving it to you were being dishonest. Since you did not actually see whether you could find them, that means you were being intellectually dishonest.

Now, if you would like to respond to something simple and more recent, like post #600.
 
LemmyCaution said:
And at the end of his monumentally irrelevant gibberish, he winds up pleading falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. Whilst ignoring that ANTPogo has already answered his question how he knows which of Rauff's statements to believe and which not to believe. An astonishing meltdown, right before our eyes.
Click to expand...

Yet if you prove him wrong on anything, he just ignores it, makes an excuse, or Gish Gallops. Or his new tactic of drowning out the current responses to him by responding to a few dozen old posts. And even then, he still has to quote-mine.
 
000063 said:
Now, if you would like to respond to something simple and more recent, like post #600.
Click to expand...

Yes, rather. For clarification's sake, this was the question of why Eichmann's having been kidnapped and taken to Israel to stand trial (both things true, by the way) would mean that, logically speaking, you couldn't trust his testimony.
 
Nick Terry said:
That would be the 'overwhelming lack of scientific evidence' which we somehow managed to write 571 pages about, and which features the longest discussion of mass graves and open air cremation at the Reinhard camps of any work currently available on pages 383-517? As in, 134 pages worth of such discussion?

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed.

I will explain.

Part of the blog title is "A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues".

Where is the lack of scientific evidence?

Very simple: in the critique itself.

If you and your team were really concerned with the false claims of Mattogno, Graf and Kues from an scientific point of view, you would wisely not address the false claims, you would develop a scientific methodology and develop a research which would answer the questions raised by the false claims.

Do you understand?

You 571 pages is nothing more than a critique of a critique.

You and your team could had made a new research based on scientific data without the need to prove any "falsehoods".

Strangely, you had decide to address the so called "deniers" and not the data...

From the earliest days of their movement, Holocaust deniers have largely centred their arguments on the Auschwitz death camp. Surveying the literature which makes up so-called Holocaust Revisionism, the obsession with Auschwitz is undoubtedly one of its defining features. Since the early 1990s, with the advent of the modern world-wide web, Holocaust deniers have taken to the internet to try and argue their case. Until recently, the ensuing online debates between advocates of Holocaust denial and their critics have likewise focused on Auschwitz. In 2005, there was even a formal debate on Auschwitz between several prominent Revisionists and their critics, hosted at the Real Open Debate on the Holocaust.

(...)

Moreover, refuting Revisionism was an opportunity for us to expand our historical work on the Holocaust into a larger text than the blog format allows, while synthesizing and developing some ideas already present in those articles. It was also a chance to enjoy the satisfaction of exposing shoddy and deceitful history. We feel that, despite the claims of some commentators that refuting Holocaust denial is a waste of effort, the opportunity to debunk the output of pseudoscholars is one that should be taken for its own sake. It does not mean that we regard deniers as equal debating partners on an intellectual or ethical level; instead, we proceed in the knowledge that deniers operate in ignorance and bad faith.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6G...kYi00NzFiLTg5NTMtNWNlMWY2ODcxZDI2/edit?pli=1#​

Hilarious.
 
nomuse said:
Freaking amazing. Because there are no guards in a photograph (which was carefully taken when no guards were looking), there are no guards?

Seriously? They are behind barbed wire with no where to run, their food as well as their continued survival dependent on the whims of their guards, and you are going to say that unless a gun was at their heads every single instant they weren't actually under duress?

I had to revise this post six times. It was that hard not to express in plain language what I felt of the stupidity and failed empathy on display.
Click to expand...

No, I questioned the force employed by such guards.

I am not questioning if there was guards or not, I am questioning how the prisoners were forced.

Do you have a picture which shows guards forcing prisoners to kill they own people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom