General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Nick Terry]

I am trying to show that is not a problem to admit that you do not know something, but you and others like to play along with this loop game of intellectual arrogance:

So now it's intellectual arrogance to expect that someone participating in a discussion on the Holocaust should know the name Heinrich Himmler? Jesus Christ...

Look, just admit that you were trolling when you pretended to be ignorant of who Himmler was. Hell, maybe even apologise for your childish trolling, that way you might recover a smidgeon of credibility.

Or, if you really, really didn't know who Heinrich Himmler was, then please for the love of God borrow a general history of the Third Reich from the library and read it.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I am not your student, I am not subscribed in your school system, I did not point out you as authority to shape my cognitive discernment.

Of course not. But it is only your obtuse and arrogant posture that prevents you from using this forum to learn. People often learn from others who are not in a position of authority to teach them, by the way, often much more from colleagues and peers, writers and commentators than from those in formal positions of authority.

 

[uke2se]

I am not your student, I am not subscribed in your school system, I did not point out you as authority to shape my cognitive discernment.

It is obvious that you aren't my student. If you were, you would have some familiarity with Adolph Hitler before you pretended to engage in a discussion about anything related to WWII.

I care less for what you pretend with your quiz.

If you were capable of lateral thinking, you would have understood that my aim with these few posts was to expose your deep ignorance to everyone reading this thread. I believe I have done so successfully.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Because people other than you also read them.

It make all sense. Now I understand why I do not feel willing to address your long posts. It not exactly for me, it is for the audience.

As I once typed, this is certain a stage of intellectual show off.

 

[uke2se]

It make all sense. Now I understand why I do not feel willing to address your long posts. It not exactly for me, it is for the audience.

As I once typed, this is certain a stage of intellectual show off.

Nick knows much more than you on this subject. In fact, he knows much more than any (most) of us. The rest of us are able to learn from his posts. You should try it some time. It might allow you to finally understand something about history.

 

[LemmyCaution]

. . . Now I understand why I do not feel willing to address your long posts. . . .

Be honest: you claim you don't address Nick's posts because you can't, due to your ignorance. In fact, however, you do address them - not by responding to their substance but with quips and handwaving, because you seem to have a gnawing need to get in the last word, so you make rather silly dismissive statements, every one of which reinforces the impression you give of your ignorance, as uke2se notes.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I was referring to this and this gibberish I don't see any calculations to check. Just your comedy act with the "race . . . among the captured communists" and a pompous question about data referring to a link without any.

So what this has anything to do with "pseudo-science"?

Which science I using there?

No, you demonstrate a lack of familiarity with important figures and critical texts - not simply with who x was. You cover over your ignorance with pseudo-science and diversionary rhetoric.

 

[uke2se]

So what this has anything to do with "pseudo-science"?

Which science I using there?

No science. That was his point.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Well, actually, this

Why would a scientist demand skeletons from a race which happen not to be among the captured communists?

describing Jews as a race sounds sadly like the pseudo-science of the 1930s and 1940s. I am sure you didn't mean it to, but describing Jews as a race in this way is odd.

 

[SnakeTongue]

No science. That was his point.

Of course, of course...

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience​

So, which science I explicitly presented "as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method" in the regarded post?

 

[uke2se]

Of course, of course...

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience​

So, which science I explicitly presented "as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method" in the regarded post?

I believe this is a language thing. The text you just quoted explains exactly what we were talking about. If you feel unable to understand it, please consult someone more fluent in English to explain it to you.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I think it is pretty funny, given your arrogance and condescension, that you keep floundering on such simple stuff.

Perhaps you can only comprehend very short posts with small words and very, very simple ideas. This, which has to do with your general ignorance of a topic you post on and your incapacity to deal with, well, narrative texts - - was Nick's main point.

No, you demonstrate a lack of familiarity with important figures and critical texts - not simply with who x was. You cover over your ignorance with pseudo-science and diversionary rhetoric.

Of course not. But it is only your obtuse and arrogant posture that prevents you from using this forum to learn. People often learn from others who are not in a position of authority to teach them, by the way, often much more from colleagues and peers, writers and commentators than from those in formal positions of authority.

Be honest: you claim you don't address Nick's posts because you can't, due to your ignorance. In fact, however, you do address them - not by responding to their substance but with quips and handwaving, because you seem to have a gnawing need to get in the last word, so you make rather silly dismissive statements, every one of which reinforces the impression you give of your ignorance, as uke2se notes.

This is a discussion forum in which we all engage. Your inability to reply to the substance of my post is duly noted.

"Substances" which I am not inclined to address.

 

[uke2se]

"Substances" which I am not inclined to address.

You really should, though. It might have salvaged some credibility for you. Right now it's looking pretty bleak. You have exposed yourself as someone who knows nothing about the subject matter at hand (the Holocaust), almost nothing about the broader context (WWII), and is disinclined to learn anything about either while insisting on having the last word in the discussion despite this just making appearances even worse.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I believe this is a language thing. The text you just quoted explains exactly what we were talking about. If you feel unable to understand it, please consult someone more fluent in English to explain it to you.

I was explicit confronted with this:

No, you demonstrate a lack of familiarity with important figures and critical texts - not simply with who x was. You cover over your ignorance with pseudo-science and diversionary rhetoric.

Which science I explicitly presented "as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method" to "cover over" my ignorance?

 

[uke2se]

I was explicit confronted with this:



Which science I explicitly presented "as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method" to "cover over" my ignorance?

No science. That was the point. Please, try to understand that your English isn't good enough to get this. It isn't going to make anyone think less of you. I don't think that's possible anyhow.

 

[uke2se]

Now you going to argument that I cannot possible understand English?

Amusing.

Please, proceed with the script.

It is kind of obvious that you don't understand that particular text. It's not a bad thing to admit that you don't understand. English is my second language as well.

No idea what script you are referring to. I'll leave you with the last word for the night, as it is a good bet that whatever it is, it isn't going to blow any minds. See you tomorrow.

 

[SnakeTongue]

So now it's intellectual arrogance to expect that someone participating in a discussion on the Holocaust should know the name Heinrich Himmler? Jesus Christ...[/I]

When questioned more than an month after I have already demonstrated that I read one his speech, YES, I consider a good demonstration of intellectual arrogance.

adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities:
he’s arrogant and opinionated
a typically arrogant assumption

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arrogant?region=us&q=arrogant​

 

[SnakeTongue]

Well, actually, this describing Jews as a race sounds sadly like the pseudo-science of the 1930s and 1940s. I am sure you didn't mean it to, but describing Jews as a race in this way is odd.

Let's analyse:

I was referring to this

If "Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars" is a canard, and Jews were not among captured communists, why would the Professor Hirt require the skeletons from "Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars"? Why would a scientist demand skeletons from a race which happen not to be among the captured communists?

and this gibberish

Does the source have any inconsistent data?

I don't see any calculations to check. Just your comedy act with the "race . . . among the captured communists" and a pompous question about data referring to a link without any.

No, you demonstrate a lack of familiarity with important figures and critical texts - not simply with who x was. You cover over your ignorance with pseudo-science and diversionary rhetoric.

How does a question about a canard is "scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method"?

Because the subject the phrase refers to scientific community from years ago I am not applying the addressed science.

So I am curious know, where is the "pseudo-science"?

More:

The response of the data was regarding a post which I presented results from mathematical calculations and I was indicated to not use the source:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8295051&postcount=1879

So, where is the "pseudo-science"?

 

[Clayton Moore]

That thread did not reach the second page yet... Hilarious.

Dr Nicholas Terry write so many fat answers to Dogzilla that he cannot cope to "educate" the JREF users participating in that thread.

PREFACE

We decided to publish a study, for the fortieth anniversary of Hitler’s defeat, devoted to the terrifying episode of the assassination of 87 Jews, including 30 women, for the purpose of constituting a collection of skulls and skeletons to be kept at the Institute of Anatomy of a large German university. Because they were Jewish, these men and women were selected, asphyxiated, dismembered and carved up by men of science. Racist science.

(...)

The record is a terrible one, but the world must confront it, for it exemplifies the horror of the Jewish condition during the Nazi period. Those things that happened must be known. They cannot and must not be forgotten. Such is the main ambition of the publications we have undertaken.

Beate and Serge Klarsfeld​

Obvious political biased work.

The war in the East now presents us with the opportunity to remedy this shortage. By procuring the skulls of the Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars, who personify a repulsive yet characteristic subhumanity, we have the opportunity of obtaining tangible scientific evidence.

The actual obtaining and collecting of these skulls without difficulty could be best accomplished by a directive issued to the Wehrmacht in the future to immediately turn over alive all Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars to the field police [Feldpolizei].​

The above "attachment to the letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 29th February 1942", whose author explicit indicate a notion of:

"Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars"

[qimg]http://www.ushmm.org/museum/press/kits/propaganda/images/screen/prop_11.jpg[/qimg]

VINNITSA
Nazi antisemitic propaganda frequently linked Jews to the fears of their German and foreign audiences. This poster, displayed in the German-occupied Soviet Union to foment both anti-Soviet and antisemitic fervor, uses the stereotype of the bloodthirsty “Jewish Bolshevik commissar” to associate “the Jew” with the murder of more than 9,000 Soviet citizens in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, an atrocity committed by Stalin’s secret police in 1937–38. German forces uncovered the massacre in May 1943.
Unknown artist, 1943.​

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/press/kits/download.php?content=propaganda&image=prop_11

Jewish Bolshevism, Judeo-Bolshevism, and known as Żydokomuna in Poland, is an antisemitic stereotype based on the claim that Jews have been the driving force behind or are disproportionately involved in the modern Communist movement, or sometimes more specifically Russian Bolshevism.

(...)

Categories: Antisemitic canards​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

If "Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars" is a canard, and Jews were not among captured communists, why would the Professor Hirt require the skeletons from "Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars"? Why would a scientist demand skeletons from a race which happen not to be among the captured communists?

Invisibility as a weapon works well for team Holocaust. They forever ask about millions of non-existent Jewish deportees "If they weren't killed by the Nazi's what happened to them? Where did they go?"

They used their invisibility weapon again in the fifties with a twist. They said there was no Communist problem and that the McCarthy hearings were witch hunts of non-existent subversive communists.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Invisibility as a weapon works well for team Holocaust. They forever ask about millions of non-existent Jewish deportees "If they weren't killed by the Nazi's what happened to them? Where did they go?"

They used their invisibility weapon again in the fifties with a twist. They said there was no Communist problem and that the McCarthy hearings were witch hunts of non-existent subversive communists.

I don't know what point you're trying to make with the McCarthyism reference, but asking where the Jewish deportees went is a perfectly valid question to ask the deniers. After all, if they weren't murdered, as the historical record shows, they had to go SOMEwhere. You get to tell us where.