General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[LemmyCaution]

To be fair, everything should be online.

It isn't. That's the reality. Should doesn't count when we are trying to discuss matters using what exists.

 

[Belz...]

I've seen deniers duck questions from each other, never mind noobs, fence-sitters or the merely curious.

Well, I would love to observe them in their natural habitat, then, free of skeptical thinkers to dilute the insanity. Must be quite entertaining.

 

[Belz...]

There's just that little problem of server space and time to get it up there. Maybe by the time our kids are grown, most written docs will be available.

Until then we'll just have to keep using those printed thingies, what are they again, oh yeah - books.

Pfft. Paper is so quaint !

It isn't. That's the reality. Should doesn't count when we are trying to discuss matters using what exists.

Don't you think I know that ? I'm just saying that it would be a lot more convenient if, and when, things are all available so readily.

 

[thedopefishlives]

They can´t afford not practicing that sort of behavior, even in the safest environment - or else they´re going to risk slipping up someday and giving a skeptic an honest answer:

"No, I know exactly what the evidence says - but how are we ever going to be in a position to enact our Nazi agenda if we don´t continuously lie through our teeth about the Holocaust?"

Actually, from earlier in this very thread Dogzilla accidentally stumbled upon a rare moment of honesty that earned him a Stundie nomination.

 

[A'isha]

Well, I would love to observe them in their natural habitat, then, free of skeptical thinkers to dilute the insanity. Must be quite entertaining.

CODOH is pretty close to that (Stormfront is probably even closer, but as vile as CODOH is, Stormfront is worse).

At CODOH, you can watch deniers, unfettered by things like "reality" or "facts", come up with new and interesting contortions to explain away the inconvenient historical details of the Holocaust.

This particular entertaining bit of logical nonsense comes to mind (note especially how it completely contradicts the previous denier position about that particular historical detail, as exemplified by Irving's arguments during his trial).

 

[LemmyCaution]

Pfft. Paper is so quaint !



Don't you think I know that ? I'm just saying that it would be a lot more convenient if, and when, things are all available so readily.

We have the wee little problem of dcouments in archives, etc.; Nick would know whether this is an if/when question or a not-in-your-lifetime deal. We are talking about perhaps millions of pages, massive investment - and virtually no market for such material.

E.g., I am reading Kulka/Jaeckel's massive book on reports on popular opinion in Germany during the 12 year Reich. The English edition, brought out in 2010, was based on a German edition of 2004, years in the making by a research team, containing ~750 documents. A German-language CD of the originals accompanies the English version, supplementing the printed book with over 3,700 documents. The gestation time and effort were massive. Yet this is a tip of an iceberg on a focused topic.

I am sure you realize my point, which, to make it clear for anyone who doesn't, a lot of stuff isn't digitized, let alone online, and won't be in the near future. When deniers demand a scan or link, I don't know what to say other than the world doesn't work that way, yet. Many times questions can be answered - but not to the satisfaction of someone who wants the instant gratification of a link or who doesn't grasp that professional historians have access to information amateurs like me can't get to. Or the answers do require looking somehwere else, for now.

 

[000063]

I've seen deniers duck questions from each other, never mind noobs, fence-sitters or the merely curious.

I especially like it when they get into a slapfight and start arbitrarily declaring each other not "real" deniers revisionists.

 

[TSR]

Just FYI, it appears that charlie porter managed to get himself banned for an abusive email, so if anyone was waiting on a response from him (as if he ever gave a substantive response to begin with) it's not going to happen here.

 

[A'isha]

Just FYI, it appears that charlie porter managed to get himself banned for an abusive email, so if anyone was waiting on a response from him (as if he ever gave a substantive response to begin with) it's not going to happen here.

cwporter was apparently Carlos Porter, who as far as I recall didn't actually interact here, just spam content from his website.

Charles Traynor, who has been interacting here (such as it is, anyway) still appears to be unbanned.

 

[Dogzilla]

...

in·cre·du·li·ty/ˌinkrəˈdo͞olitē/
Noun:
The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Synonyms:
disbelief - unbelief - scepticism - distrust - mistrust


00063: X is true but I don't have any evidence that X is true.

Dogzilla: If you don't have any evidence that X is true, I am unable and unwilling to believe that X is true.

00063: Do you have any evidence that X is not true?

Dogzilla: No.

00063: Then the only reason you are unwilling or unable to believe that X is true is because I don't have evidence that X is true?

Dogzilla: Yes. But if you don't have any evidence that X is true, I don't need any other reason to be unable to believe that X is true. If I am unable to believe that X is true, I'm certainly unwilling to believe X is true.

I guess 00063 thinks that we should believe everything is true unless we have positive evidence that it is not true. Incredulity derived from a lack of evidence isn't rational according to 00063. I'd be stunned but I know our churches and synagogues and mosques are filled with people who share that philosophy.

 

[000063]

in·cre·du·li·ty/ˌinkrəˈdo͞olitē/
Noun:
The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Synonyms:
disbelief - unbelief - scepticism - distrust - mistrust


00063: X is true but I don't have any evidence that X is true....

Time to first lie, five lines. You do not know the difference between evidence you do not accept and no evidence. You have provably and repeatedly ignored evidence contrary to your claims, and even flat-out, direct contradictions regarding the positions of others. You have explicitly stated that all you have is incredulity, and moreover, that's all you need*. Nor have I ever claimed on this forum that I believe something without evidence.

You are a liar and a sophist, Dogzilla.

I'd be stunned but I know our churches and synagogues and mosques are filled with people who share that philosophy.

Attempt to ingratiate yourself using certain popular attitudes of this forum noted.

* Circular logic. By your logic, you only need incredulity, because no one on the opposing side is presenting evidence, which you know because you don't find what they present convincing, because of your incredulity. How's that for new material?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Just FYI, it appears that charlie porter managed to get himself banned for an abusive email, so if anyone was waiting on a response from him (as if he ever gave a substantive response to begin with) it's not going to happen here.

So, who is "charlie porter"?

 

[Cyrix686]

Was he Carlos - Jew hating jackal - Porter or just an, "admiring" fan?

I guess we'll never know. Though I don't think it was cwp.

 

[Tomtomkent]

in·cre·du·li·ty/ˌinkrəˈdo͞olitē/
Noun:
The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Synonyms:
disbelief - unbelief - scepticism - distrust - mistrust


00063: X is true but I don't have any evidence that X is true.

Dogzilla: If you don't have any evidence that X is true, I am unable and unwilling to believe that X is true.

00063: Do you have any evidence that X is not true?

Dogzilla: No.

00063: Then the only reason you are unwilling or unable to believe that X is true is because I don't have evidence that X is true?

Dogzilla: Yes. But if you don't have any evidence that X is true, I don't need any other reason to be unable to believe that X is true. If I am unable to believe that X is true, I'm certainly unwilling to believe X is true.

I guess 00063 thinks that we should believe everything is true unless we have positive evidence that it is not true. Incredulity derived from a lack of evidence isn't rational according to 00063. I'd be stunned but I know our churches and synagogues and mosques are filled with people who share that philosophy.

Then your guess, like the rest of this post, is pulled from nowhere and not supported by the facts.

The other poster has supplied evidence and citations. He has not made any argument about "Not having evidence to support" anything. He has shown you evidence. You have not countered that evidence, you have not given a reason to discount that evidence, you have ignored it and claimed no evidence was presented.

Whom exactly is supposed to be convinced by this post Dog? I can only assume you are trying to convince yourself, as it is unlikely to convince the rest of us, who can read back through the entirety of this thread and see it does not reflect the arguments you attribute to '63

 

[Agatha]

Is there a portal through which readers are transported out of the stundie thread into some private argument? Because if not, may I suggest you take your disagreement to the appropriate place so that the rest of us can continue to point and laugh at the reality-challenged. I'm not a moderator so this is merely a polite request.

 

[000063]

I have absolutely no problem with continuing this discussion in the actual HD thread, where a host of other things Doggie ignored are also waiting. Just to add another one, I'd like to ask him, should he choose to continue the discussion, to provide a link to a post where he says what he claimed he said. Not even the entire debate, which is entirely made up. Just the first line, regarding me saying I believe things without evidence.

 

[Dogzilla]

Time to first lie, five lines. You do not know the difference between evidence you do not accept and no evidence. You have provably and repeatedly ignored evidence contrary to your claims, and even flat-out, direct contradictions regarding the positions of others. You have explicitly stated that all you have is incredulity, and moreover, that's all you need*. Nor have I ever claimed on this forum that I believe something without evidence.

You are a liar and a sophist, Dogzilla.



Attempt to ingratiate yourself using certain popular attitudes of this forum noted.

* Circular logic. By your logic, you only need incredulity, because no one on the opposing side is presenting evidence, which you know because you don't find what they present convincing, because of your incredulity. How's that for new material?

OK. Let's try it this way:

in·cre·du·li·ty/ˌinkrəˈdo͞olitē/
Noun:
The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Synonyms:
disbelief - unbelief - scepticism - distrust - mistrust


00063: X is true but I don't have any evidence that you accept as compelling evidence that X is true.

Dogzilla: If you don't have any evidence that I accept as compelling evidence that X is true, I am unable and unwilling to believe that X is true.

00063: Isn't the fact that I believe the evidence is compelling enough of a reason for you to accept it as compelling evidence?

Dogzilla: No.

00063: Then the only reason you are unwilling or unable to believe that X is true is because you do not accept the evidence that I believe is compelling evidence that X is true?

Dogzilla: Yes. But if you don't have any evidence that I accept as compelling evidence that X is true, I don't need any other reason to be unable to believe that X is true.

I guess 00063 thinks that we should believe everything is true as long as somebody somewhere believes there is compelling evidence that it is true. Or is your philosophy tempered somewhat by believing that evidence that somebody doesn't accept as compelling should be accepted anyway as long as alot of other people believe it is compelling?

See, I understand the difference between not having evidence that X is true and not having evidence that I believe is compelling evidence that X is true. However, I don't think you understand the similarity. That is, neither of them are a good reason to accept that X is true.

 

[Robrob]

Was he Carlos - Jew hating jackal - Porter or just an, "admiring" fan?

I guess we'll never know. Though I don't think it was cwp.

On that point, I find it interesting while many CT have a certain percentage, HD are guaranteed to be 110% anti-Semites.

 

[jaydeehess]

OK. Let's try it this way:

in·cre·du·li·ty/ˌinkrəˈdo͞olitē/
Noun:
The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Synonyms:
disbelief - unbelief - scepticism - distrust - mistrust


00063: X is true but I don't have any evidence that you accept as compelling evidence that X is true.

Dogzilla: If you don't have any evidence that I accept as compelling evidence that X is true, I am unable and unwilling to believe that X is true.

.....

THAT is a very good description of a religious style belief Dogzilla. You believe in your own incredulity because you choose to believe in it rather than evidence based fact, or indeed any evidence that contradicts your incredulous viewpoint..

 

[Nick Terry]

OK. Let's try it this way:

in·cre·du·li·ty/ˌinkrəˈdo͞olitē/
Noun:
The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Synonyms:
disbelief - unbelief - scepticism - distrust - mistrust


00063: X is true but I don't have any evidence that you accept as compelling evidence that X is true.

Dogzilla: If you don't have any evidence that I accept as compelling evidence that X is true, I am unable and unwilling to believe that X is true.

00063: Isn't the fact that I believe the evidence is compelling enough of a reason for you to accept it as compelling evidence?

Dogzilla: No.

00063: Then the only reason you are unwilling or unable to believe that X is true is because you do not accept the evidence that I believe is compelling evidence that X is true?

Dogzilla: Yes. But if you don't have any evidence that I accept as compelling evidence that X is true, I don't need any other reason to be unable to believe that X is true.

I guess 00063 thinks that we should believe everything is true as long as somebody somewhere believes there is compelling evidence that it is true. Or is your philosophy tempered somewhat by believing that evidence that somebody doesn't accept as compelling should be accepted anyway as long as alot of other people believe it is compelling?

See, I understand the difference between not having evidence that X is true and not having evidence that I believe is compelling evidence that X is true. However, I don't think you understand the similarity. That is, neither of them are a good reason to accept that X is true.

Actually I think everyone else understand the original reference to 'incredulity' to mean that you were making an argument from incredulity, more specifically an argument from personal incredulity. Which is a fallacy, in case you were wondering.

The words that you stuck in 00063's mouth

X is true but I don't have any evidence that you accept as compelling evidence that X is true.

are true, because there is literally nothing you personally will accept as compelling evidence regarding the subject at hand. That's why you're a denier.

But the dialogue is actually made-up fantasy. The precise response from 00063 to your Stundie read as follows

Once again; what you, personally, "believe" ain't worth crap. Skepticism requires evidence. Provide it, seek it, or be quiet.

Your response was to misattribute more claims to 00063, (post #4533) which makes this latest showpiece in solipsistic gibberish doubly dishonest.