• 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.
Tomtomkent said:
You did. You just responded to a post critiquing your statement they were more educational to more people than anything a scholar published. A statement that equated films to scholarship.
Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort. You're misinterpreting what I said or what people around here call "lying." Kids growing up in the United States today will probably hear or see a commercial warning them to call a doctor if they have an erection lasting more than four hours before they learn exactly what an erection is or what to do with one. Does that mean that mass media advertisements and formal sex education in the classroom are equal? No. It means that people aren't getting their information from the best possible source.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Will beers be served? Will there be a photographic slideshow of the "Parking Lots of Death Camps"? Will there be reflections on the ethnography of Poland? Will there be commentary on Israeli visitor groups to Birkenau?
Click to expand...

We have not yet seen the final program of events planned for this week. Indeed I myself would be very surprised to find that slots tackling those difficult subjects have not already been tentatively pencilled into the dates of his current lecture cycle at JREF.

Yes, "Münchener Bürgerbräukeller bier" will be available.
 
Last edited:
Charles Traynor said:
I’m new here and was not allowed to post links, I have also had approximately 12 posts either censored or deleted; so don’t blame me if you can’t find all the information I post.
Click to expand...

And had you checked the help or asked, there are a couple of workarounds, or you could have said "Google blahblah" and we'd've found it.
 
TSR said:
You see, CT, there's this little thing enshrined in the US constitution called "the right to free speech" which means that with very few exceptions anyone can say anything they care to.

Which is rather a good deal for you, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...n-stolen-valor-act-about-military-medals.html

From this article:
L.A. NOW
Southern California -- this just in
« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »


Supreme Court ruling on Stolen Valor Act rests on 1st Amendment
June 28, 2012 | 8:38 am 5020

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Thursday striking down the Stolen Valor Act says the 1st Amendment "protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace," according to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

By a 6-3 decision, the high court said the right to lie about medals and military service, while "contemptible" and worthy of outrage and ridicule, is protected by the 1st Amendment.

To allow the government to outlaw certain speech because it is based on false statements would invite a Ministry of Truth as written about by George Orwell in his novel "1984" about totalitarianism, Kennedy said.
Click to expand...

Which is a good thing, indeed, for Mr Traynor and his fellow deniers, who call for prohibitions on some liars' speech but for free expression to be protected for their fellow liars. That is to say that when it comes to lying about the Holocaust, deniers like Mr Moore and Mr Traynor certainly champion the free speech rights of their own, even while whining that marginal characters like Zisblatt need to be shut up.

I am guessing, based on the Stolen Valor decision this week, that the US Supreme Court disagrees on the question of whom to shut up.
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
I said nothing of the sort. You're misinterpreting what I said or what people around here call "lying." Kids growing up in the United States today will probably hear or see a commercial warning them to call a doctor if they have an erection lasting more than four hours before they learn exactly what an erection is or what to do with one. Does that mean that mass media advertisements and formal sex education in the classroom are equal? No. It means that people aren't getting their information from the best possible source.
Click to expand...

So you agree your statement about Hollywood doing more to educate is wrong then, as that is not a description of education. Nor is it the same comparison you original statement made.
 
Charles Traynor said:
I’m new here and was not allowed to post links, I have also had approximately 12 posts either censored or deleted; so don’t blame me if you can’t find all the information I post.
Click to expand...

If your posts are moved to Abandon All Hope, then yeah, you are to blame, not the poster who can't find that post anymore. Maybe turn it down on the "troll" and "JREF bot" accusations a bit.
 
Dogzilla said:
Who cited which Hollywood movie and what was the evidence that it provided? The fact that Hollywood does more to educate the public about the holocaust than anything the genuine scholars publish isn't a new idea around here.
Click to expand...

So you state as FACT that Hollywood does more to educate the public than scholary publications, but you aren't comparing and equating them?

You just mean to suggest they are comparable sources of information. By "more to educate" you din't mean that they are educated by it at all, just hear stuff?

Let's look again at your response:
Kids growing up in the United States today will probably hear or see a commercial warning them to call a doctor if they have an erection lasting more than four hours before they learn exactly what an erection is or what to do with one.
Click to expand...

Probably? That doesn't sound like fact. So as well as not meaning what you said, and assuming that discussing what you said rather than what you meant equates to misrepresentation and lying, you have not even be able to make you retro-fitted re-branded meaning with the actual "fact"?
 
Charles Traynor said:
This would be the same Kurt Gerstein who died in very mysterious circumstances whilst a prisoner of the Allies.
Click to expand...
No, this would be the Kurt Gerstein who very simply hung himself.

Nothing mysterious about it.
Charles Traynor said:
Which of the many versions of the alleged statement do you consider to be genuine?
Click to expand...
All of them which were authored directly by Gerstein.
Charles Traynor said:
Which of the many versions of the alleged statement do you wish to discuss here?
Click to expand...
It matters not, since they do not contradict each other on anything other than the most minor of details.
 
LemmyCaution said:
That conversation didn't meander. It was a direct response to points you raised. As explained above. For you to try wriggling out of your misrepresentation this way, after we engaged in debate about open-air shootings, explicitly, and you later mischaracterized the discussion, is craven and pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah it did. All conversations here meander.


No, as Nick wrote, you grossly misrepresented the discussion. You mischaracterized it to cast doubt on my reply and on the state of the evidence about the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

I didn't grossly misrepresent the discussion. But I will concede I have thrown your words back at you to cast doubt on your replies and the state of the evidence about the holocaust.


I guess you mean I don't like it when people misrepresent what I've written. I guess you also mean that I do like pointing out when deniers fail epically. I guess you don't like it when I give a factual, speciifc reply to a question you asked.
Click to expand...

You're babbling.


Your writing gibberish that even you can't sort out is not an example of my not listening.
Click to expand...

No, but cutting me off mid-sentence and ignoring what I have to say is an example of you not listening. Let's try a test. This should be easy because you can simply click back in the conversation to find the answer. Your response above is your latest response to a statement I made upthread. I said that I don't do something. What is it that I don't do?


Except I didn't "jump in right here." I'd previously written about this quite a bit and given at the outset three names, just as I wrote above http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7571462&postcount=5853 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7572449&postcount=5858.

My view of the challenge had already been expressed in this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7575125&postcount=5874, saying I was probing to see how Saggy reasoned and what he'd offer as proof of lack of credibility. Which I expanded on in subsequent posts . . .



Except that this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7586416&postcount=5984, over a month before the one you quoted, shows that I always was talking about multiple witnesses for Ponar. Meaning that from the beginning of the discussion I'd already stated that we should And this post, analogizing to the multiple witnesses at the Auschwitz trial, expanded on and underscored the point: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7589179&postcount=5996. And this one http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7597834&postcount=6056, in which I explained my interest in the discussion about credibility of witnesses in these terms, (Until looking just now, I'd forgotten that in addition to the three witnesses I'd recalled, I also tried to get Saggy to discuss the Auschwitz trial.)

When Saggy finally replied to the example of Oscar Strawczynski, my answer to him http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7612092&postcount=6222 was that

And right after the post you quoted, here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714733&postcount=7000 is what I wrote:

And you are trying to make out that my explanation is some kind of retrospective recasting of my intent or something I pulled out of . . . thin air . . . after the fact?
Click to expand...

You tried to discuss several witnesses at one time. I know that's what you wanted to do. You wanted to talk about Pesye Schloss along with Yudis Trojak, and Oscar Strtawczynski, etc. But Saggy was persistent. He was persistent enough for me to begin getting a little weary of it all. All he would do is repeat over and over again that he wanted Nick to nominate one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust. I didn't readily see what his point was. Nick evidently did so Nick said no. After several annoying days (weeks?) of Saggy's repetition and you and others trying to expand the question to include more than eyewitness, you finally nominated Pesye Schloss.

If you didn't want to play by Saggy's rules you should not have played Saggy's game. Following the comprehensive shredding of Pesye Schloss, I think you can see why you shouldn't have played Saggy's game.

But play it you did. Damage control after the fact doesn't undo your nomination of Pesye Schloss. Sorry. It doesn't. Stomping your feet and flailing your arms doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Good grief, despite your attempt to ....
Click to expand...

Stop right there! Don't even try. We've can see through it all.
 
What sheer idiocy.

"After the fact," you write, despite my links to "before the fact" statements of . . .

Never mind, you aren't worth the trouble, except to say that I was more than happy with the outcome of the Ponar discussion. Do you want to try again putting over that Jaeger's outfit was about anti-partisan actions, population removal, or renegade ops? Go for it . . .
 
Under the expectation that Traynor like nearly every other denier gets his primary information from movies and not books is he thinking of quoting something about Gerstein from, "Amen," next LemmyCaution?
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
If you didn't want to play by Saggy's rules you should not have played Saggy's game. Following the comprehensive shredding of Pesye Schloss, I think you can see why you shouldn't have played Saggy's game.
Click to expand...

You might want to go back and reread that part of the thread as it looks like your memories about it have become corrupted.
 
I'd also like to see him, using source material, defend his propositions, which he feels he put across so well:

1) "[The Jaeger Report uses] the type of language we see when the overall Jewish policy of the German government is an ethnic cleansing"; "all that documentation clearly shows a policy of ethnic cleansing. Intending to make regions free of Jews does not prove an intent to kill the Jews."

2) "The Jaeger Report is evidence of anti-partisan actions. Some might say the anti-partisan actions were sometimes excessive but unfortunately excesses have always been a part of war."

3) "At best you might have something to support the David Irving notion of murdering innocent Jews being the result of local actions by a few Kraut Lynndie Englands and Charles Graners out in the field."

These are the three arguments he made about the Jaeger report and the mass murder of Jews in Lithuania in 1941.

Right here. Right now. No need to re-read his past "victories." Let's see him substantiate these three claims in real time.
 
LemmyCaution said:
I'd also like to see him, using source material, defend his propositions, which he feels he put across so well:

1) "[The Jaeger Report uses] the type of language we see when the overall Jewish policy of the German government is an ethnic cleansing"; "all that documentation clearly shows a policy of ethnic cleansing. Intending to make regions free of Jews does not prove an intent to kill the Jews."

2) "The Jaeger Report is evidence of anti-partisan actions. Some might say the anti-partisan actions were sometimes excessive but unfortunately excesses have always been a part of war."

3) "At best you might have something to support the David Irving notion of murdering innocent Jews being the result of local actions by a few Kraut Lynndie Englands and Charles Graners out in the field."

These are the three arguments he made about the Jaeger report and the mass murder of Jews in Lithuania in 1941.

Right here. Right now. No need to re-read his past "victories." Let's see him substantiate these three claims in real time.
Click to expand...

Then why did the Red Cross of that era say there was no genocide by Germany against the Jewish people or any group?
 
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rules 0 and 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clayton Moore said:
Then why did the Red Cross of that era say there was no genocide by Germany against the Jewish people or any group?
Click to expand...

As pointed out, the answer is easy: They didn't. And since your own source offers you correction on this point, the only possible explanations are willful ignorance or mendacity.

Which do you prefer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom