General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[FluffyPersian]

The most usual evidence presented here is just books of story-telling...

Got any evidence for that?

 

[plague311]

This might be my total ignorance speaking here, and it's probably been asked\answered several times, but why would people hate Jewish people? I'm not religious, nor do I really believe in any religion.

What a stupid thing to hate someone for, I mean...seriously. You don't hate people because of their actual actions, just because of what invisible man they believe in. Takes a special breed I guess.

 

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

Don't forget the Sonderkommando who did all the work.


[link]

What's the poet trying to tell us?

 

[nomuse]

This might be my total ignorance speaking here, and it's probably been asked\answered several times, but why would people hate Jewish people? I'm not religious, nor do I really believe in any religion.

What a stupid thing to hate someone for, I mean...seriously. You don't hate people because of their actual actions, just because of what invisible man they believe in. Takes a special breed I guess.

Convenient target. First, there has never been (despite what the conspiracy-mongers say) a major Jewish power for most of history. So whereas you can't always afford to piss off the French, or the Roundheads, or the Catholics, or whatever, you can almost always get away with picking on your local Jews (or the local Romany, for that matter).

Second, economics. You have some funny religious doctrines that also are made into official policy meaning most of your local Catholics can't lend money. Whereas a Jew CAN loan money. Which if you are not well-off, already disposes you to be angry at them. But if you are, say, a king in need of a bit of quick cash (as kings so often were), declaring a little pogrom moves some of that liquid capitol into your own coffers. Hard on the money-lenders, but they grow back.

Or at least that's MY grade-school version of European history.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Apparently SnakeTongue is just as good at mathematics as he is at document analysis.

Did they ever teach you units?

Density is mass per volume. If you write it out as a = 1 gm/cm^3 (the density of water) and multiply THAT by 236 gm, then all you have to do is notice which units have canceled out. We have gm on both sides of the equation, therefor all that remains is volume. And I happily down my 236 cc's (one cup) of cool refreshing water.

If you DON'T include the units at all steps of your calculation, you are liable to screw it up and forget what your variables are implying. This is why in any science or engineering class if you start scribbling "1 * x" you are going to have your work corrected toot sweet.

You really posted this mathematical monstrosity?

Oh, dear sweet FSM.

Again, "X" is not a variable in that calculation. It's a unit!

No, it's kilograms per cubic meter. The number of kilograms and the number of cubic meters are variable, but the kilograms and cubic meter notations themselves are not variable.

No, it's kilograms per corpse. The number of kilograms and the number of corpses are variable, but the kilograms and corpse notations themselves are not variable.

No. This is where you're going wrong, and why the Wolfram Alpha output does not mean what you think it means.

"X", in this equation, cannot be replaced by a number, any more than "Kg" can be replaced by a number, or "m^3" can be replaced by a number.

z = (663.4Kg / 1m^3) / (34Kg / 1 * x) cannot be transformed into z = (663.4Kg / 1m^3) / (34Kg / 1 * 1). Because 1 x ("one corpse") is already 1.

The only reason "Kg" disappears from the result is because the two unit measurements cancel each other out.


M^3 does not get canceled out, and so appears in the result. "Corpses" also does not get canceled out, and should also appear in the result.

This part is just sheer nonsense.

Look:

Wolfram Alpha reads your input of "X" as a variable, and screws up your calculation. Fortunately, it contains some other unit notations that can be used to show where you went wrong. For example, B.

If we make B the unit notation for "corpse" instead of "X", and plug that into Wolfram Alpha, like so:

z = (663.4Kg / 1m^3) / (34Kg / 1 B)

We get the proper result:

z = 19.512 B/m^3

That Wolfram Alpha thinks B is actually "bytes" is irrelevant, since it's just a word used as a unit notation. Replace it with any unit notation in Wolfram Alpha, and you'll get the exact same result.

Bels, for instance:

z = 19.512 B/m^3

Oort constants:

z = 19.512 B/m^3

Deciblintzes:

z = 19.512 db/m^3

Knots:

z = 19.512 knots/m^3

Years:

z = 19.512 years/m^3

Radians:

z = 19.512 radians/m^3

If Wolfram Alpha actually recognized "corpses" as a unit notation, it would give the exact same result. The equation would be entered in as

z = (663.4 Kg / 1 m^3) / (34 Kg / 1 corpse)

And would be output, just like in all the above examples, as

z = 19.512 corpses/m^3

Understand, SnakeTongue?

Where is the fixed scale of such unit? How many exactly 1 "body" is equivalent to 1 tonne? How many "body" is equivalent to 1 kilometre? How many "body" is equivalent to 1 litre?

1 kilogram does not change when external factors are applied into 1 kilogram. So if "body" is a fixed unit, it must follow the same principle. It cannot change with mass variation. If changes, it is not a unit of measurement.

Wolframalpha do not recognize the "body" as unit because IT IS NOT AN UNIT!

A distinction should be made between units and standards. A unit is fixed by its definition, and is independent of physical conditions such as temperature. By contrast, a standard is a physical realization of a unit, and realizes that unit only under certain physical conditions. For example, the metre is a unit, while a metal bar is a standard. One metre is the same length regardless of temperature, but a metal bar will be one metre long only at a certain temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement​

"X" in that formula isn't a variable, SnakeTongue. It's a unit. Like "Kg". It stands for bodies/corpses.

Nonsense.

 

[A'isha]

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

 

[SnakeTongue]

That is an unusual measurement for waste generated per every person, not a unit to determine the mass of a given body.

No, kg/person is not a unit to determine the mass of a given body. It's a unit of measurement for an average quantity among the individuals in the mass grave.

(...)

And the Eurostat measure is not unusual at all. It's called a per capita measurement, and it's used frequently in macro economics. Per capita income, the average income across a population, is the most common example.

Really?

Repeat my argument it is really funny.

In the case of Roberto's calculation, that average quantity is body mass. In the Eurostat calculation, it's the average mass of waste produced.

So, what the unit used to measure the quantity of waste produced by each person have anything to do with the total mass of a hypothetical burial pit filled with human bodies?

The more you try to avoid admitting you were wrong about this, the more illogical your arguments sound.

 

[OCaptain]

I do see a lot of crap and lies and futile questions in this post of yours Cm

When I read these type posts from Clayton, I imagine him sitting in his chair, hands up over his ears, singing "la la la la!!!" to keep reality from getting in.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Where is the fixed scale of such unit? How many exactly 1 "body" is equivalent to 1 tonne? How many "body" is equivalent to 1 kilometre? How many "body" is equivalent to 1 litre?

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

Where is the established scale for the unit "body"?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So one day Snake gets a job at the teddy bear factory. He packs teddy bears into boxes for shipping. Not all shops order the same kinds of bears. But the manager needs to know roughly how many boxes he might need for orders. So he asks that notes are kept how many bears are packed in each box. He then asks Snake to calculate an average.

We could express the average as a number of bears/box.
Or "units"/box.
Or products/box.

But not snakey. Those arent real units. They cant be real. The calculation fails.

 

[A'isha]

Where is the established scale for the unit "body"?

Let's say you're given a homework assignment, SnakeTongue, instructing you to go to the store, buy five identical bags of potato chips, and calculate the average number of individual chips per bag.

How would you do that, and what units of measurement would you use?

 

[Clayton Moore]

This might be my total ignorance speaking here, and it's probably been asked\answered several times, but why would people hate Jewish people? I'm not religious, nor do I really believe in any religion.

What a stupid thing to hate someone for, I mean...seriously. You don't hate people because of their actual actions, just because of what invisible man they believe in. Takes a special breed I guess.

A better question would be why is the Jewish community is always accusing anyone who disagrees with their interests of being antisemitic.

 

[FluffyPersian]

Really?

Repeat my argument it is really funny.



So, what the unit used to measure the quantity of waste produced by each person have anything to do with the total mass of a hypothetical burial pit filled with human bodies?

Both examples are used to measure mass for the average person in a population. What they have to do with each other is that the unit is the same for both, kg/person.

It appears you were too busy posting emoticons to address the main point: Why is "persons" a unit of measurement in mass of waste generated per person but not in body mass per person?

And let's try another one: Energy density, measured in watt-hour per kg. I'll use your argument to show that kg is a variable, not a unit of measure.
kg=x.
And since the quantity is energy over an average single kg,
x=1. Want to explain why that argument is wrong?

 

[SnakeTongue]

The point is not that the formula is wrong, as you well know. The point is that you should have changed one number in the formula when making the calculations for the hypothetical group but failed to do so.

The variable or parameter that is wrong in the calculations for the hypothetical group is the size of the box, which ought to be smaller than that of Provan's box because the hypothetical group weights only 209 kg whereas Provan's group weighed 266 kg, as was already explained:

0.44 m³ x 209÷266 = 0.345714 m³

Feel free to write down your formula with the correct box size for the hypothetical group, if that makes you happy.

The correct size of the box is 0.44 cubic meters. Moreover, as I have already stated, you are changing something which you do not even know why is there, so just give it up. That is not your work and not your method.

 

[Tomtomkent]

A better question would be why is the Jewish community is always accusing anyone who disagrees with their interests of being antisemitic.

No, the question as asked was perfectly valid.

Given one of Hitlers own speeches included the statement "people call me Anti semitic. I say yes." Given the Nazi propagander machine classed the jews as undermensch etc. It is a valid question.

Then again perhaps we can answer your question: sometimes because those who disagree with them are anti-semitic. Russia circa 1860 for example. Were those pogroms or disagreements? The attempts to scour the jews from cities, were those disagreements or antisemitic?

 

[TSR]

A better question would be why is the Jewish community is always accusing anyone who disagrees with their interests of being antisemitic.

And the answer is "they aren't" along with a rejection of the implication that "disagreeing with their interests" is mostly, or even significantly the reason someone is termed a Jew-hater.

*You*, for instance...

 

[SnakeTongue]

So one day Snake gets a job at the teddy bear factory. He packs teddy bears into boxes for shipping. Not all shops order the same kinds of bears. But the manager needs to know roughly how many boxes he might need for orders. So he asks that notes are kept how many bears are packed in each box. He then asks Snake to calculate an average.

We could express the average as a number of bears/box.
Or "units"/box.
Or products/box.

But not snakey. Those arent real units. They cant be real. The calculation fails.

Then Tomtomkent is warned that a new Teddy bear model is ready for order. The new model is still the same as the old Teddy Bear model, with approximate volume as the old one, except by a significant change in the average mass. Then Tomtomkent is called and required to calculate the new capacity of the usual box based on the average mass of the new model. So, the manager tell Tomtomkent that the new Teddy bear model have two times the mass of the old Teddy bear model. The delivery department must to know how many new Teddy Bears models will fit into the usual box. Tomtomkent already know that 10 old Teddy Bear models fits in the usual box and each one have about 200 grams:

10 Teddy Bear / 1 box

2000 g / 1 box

2000 g / 1 box / 400g / Teddy Bear

5 Teddy Bear / 1 box

When the manager is informed that the usual box can only fit half of the previous quantity, he becomes furious. More boxes are necessary, which means more money! Suddenly, a new employee pops up with the usual box filled with 10 new Teddy Bear models.

Tomtomkent fails when the manager looks at him...

 

[SnakeTongue]

Let's say you're given a homework assignment, SnakeTongue, instructing you to go to the store, buy five identical bags of potato chips, and calculate the average number of individual chips per bag.

How would you do that, and what units of measurement would you use?

I asked you where is the scale of the "body" measurement and you are dodging the question. Bags of potato chips are produced with a determined quantity of mass, which is expressed in well know established units, not "chips per bag". So your "homework" argument is completely irrelevant.

 

[SnakeTongue]

No, kg/person is not a unit to determine the mass of a given body. It's a unit of measurement for an average quantity among the individuals in the mass grave. In the case of Roberto's calculation, that average quantity is body mass. In the Eurostat calculation, it's the average mass of waste produced.
And the Eurostat measure is not unusual at all. It's called a per capita measurement, and it's used frequently in macro economics. Per capita income, the average income across a population, is the most common example.
The more you try to avoid admitting you were wrong about this, the more illogical your arguments sound.

Why on earth would kg/person not be a valid unit of measurement simply because the individuals in question are dead? Eurostat, to take just one example, uses it. In general, per capita measures are commonly used in a large number of social science disciplines.

Also, SnakeTongue: A week or so ago, you said Roberto's calculation resulted in inverse length. Please lead us through you got that result if kg/kg doesn't equal 1.

Both examples are used to measure mass for the average person in a population. What they have to do with each other is that the unit is the same for both, kg/person.

It appears you were too busy posting emoticons to address the main point: Why is "persons" a unit of measurement in mass of waste generated per person but not in body mass per person?
And let's try another one: Energy density, measured in watt-hour per kg. I'll use your argument to show that kg is a variable, not a unit of measure.
kg=x.
And since the quantity is energy over an average single kg,
x=1. Want to explain why that argument is wrong?

So, what the quantity of waste produced by each person have anything to do with the calculation to determine the capacity of a burial pit?

You are doing contradictory statements, as I had highlighted above.

What "energy density" and "per capita income" have anything to do with body volume?

 

[A'isha]

I asked you where is the scale of the "body" measurement and you are dodging the question.

It can be found in the exact same place you found the "scale" of the box unit measurement and the teddy bear measurement you used in your calculations in the post right above this one.

Bags of potato chips are produced with a determined quantity of mass, which is expressed in well know established units, not "chips per bag"

I know. That's why you need to calculate it yourself, rather than simply read it off the chip bags' labels.

So how would you calculate average number of individual chips per bag, and what units would you use?