SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,084
General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II
- Thread starter SnakeTongue
- Start date
- Status
Yet you have no problem whatsoever with Clayton asking for evidence, then moving the goalposts, and then dismissing the evidence out of hand.
And when sources were provided several pages back, you implied you would have to buy all of it, when several items were available online, meaning you made no actual effort to find them.
Yes, you're clearly consistent and objective.
Yep, clearly objective.
He's suggesting that you will try and dismiss the evidence out of hand (hand-waving), and says that you cannot do that and expect to be taken seriously. He also said that YV has extensive documentation on their provenance.
Since he did so, of course, you ignored the question of provenance entirely to make a personal attack.
I see the "personal vendetta" narrative you're attempting to weave here.
Yet you have made no substantiative response to ANTPogo's criticisms of your discovery. In fact, you actually went back several pages to respond to an old post in order to smokescreen.
He is, however, entitled to criticize that discernment, whether positively or negatively.
JAQing off, we know.
Your arrogance is staggering. Have you considered that Terry simply does not like you, and that it might be your fault?
He is attempting to show you the flaws in your reasoning. I'm not sure how someone can ask if someone is a "self-hating Jew" and with their next breath claim to be a critical thinker, but sure. You cannot dismiss several paragraphs of criticism with an irrelevant remark about what you think someone is trying to do. That's an ad hom.
Nick Terry has pointed out that many of your JAQs can be easily answered with a small amount of effort, and you ignore that to attack him and make baseless statements about his intent. Your so-called critical thinking is largely one-sided.
Last edited:
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,084
The fact that you do not even know where I live and which is my financial situation "is a transparent and nonsensical rationalization".
Snaketongue, stop hunting down posts from pages ago to avoid the current questions, such as #600.
It's irrelevant anyway, because you dismiss online sources just as readily as you dismiss the ones you'd have to buy. In fact, you didn't even search for several of them, as they are available online. If you can't afford books, check out your local library.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
We've already got a strong clue about your educational background.
That's nice. I have made several posts on this page. Feel free to continue to avoid them, as you are avoiding #600, which asks you to back up a claim you made only a page ago.
As Ergo, Clayton, RandFan and several others can tell you, I am very, very good at noticing patterns in others posting habits, especially when they try the same evasive tricks over and over again.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
How can a denier back up a claim? They have no evidence.
Wait, do you think he's trying to distract us from what we're talking about by dredging up old posts he can snipe at?
Sarcasm aside, it sure is weird how almost none of the posts he's responding to are the ones that ask him to prove something.
Sarcasm aside, it sure is weird how almost none of the posts he's responding to are the ones that ask him to prove something.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
If he is intending to prove that Hitler didn't kill millions of Jews then he is on a loser.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
You should get an education. Could help you land a better job. Probably should finish high-school first, though.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
Indeed, I made precisely that point. This is a discussion forum. You asked a question about how the SS identified the Jews. I answered it. I even named some of the sources of my knowledge. That prompted you to escalate to babbling about primary sources. I have patiently explained why this is nonsense.
Nowhere is there a convention where a historical topic under discussion can only be discussed using primary sources. Your attempt to impose such a rule violates every known precept of scholarly discussion. And when called on this, you turn around and say 'this is not a university, this is cyberspace'. Damn right it is. Get over yourself.
If you keep on throwing around nonsense about 'primary sources' and 'statistics' and 'science', then why yes I am in a position. As is everyone else. We can make this easy and simply get everyone to ask you
a) what is your educational background
b) what books you have read on this subject
over and over and over again.
On the contrary, I am an authority on the question of what is and isn't acceptable practice in discussions about history. That's because I have a PhD in history and I teach history at university level.
And yet, it'll be extremely easy to get everyone else to ask you those two irritating questions, over and over and over again.
a) what is your educational background
b) what books you have read on this subject
Yet when people don't answer them to your satisfaction, you throw hissy fits. You are not entitled to throw hissy fits. You just make yourself look like a silly little troll when you do that.
No, you asked how the SS knew how to identify the Jews. I answered that, and now you're Gish Galloping by asking more questions. **** off.
On the contrary, I most certainly did provide sources. You just tried to dismiss them.
No they're not. They are based on conventionally accepted standards of proof and evidence as well as the internationally accepted standards of historiography for any subject you care to name.
Whereas you're the one who is engaged in blatant special pleading by insisting on a method of discussion - 'only primary sources', dismiss all existing scholarly literature with ad hominems, dismiss primary sources because of ad hominems, Gish Galloping - that is totally unacceptable in polite society. Which is why your reputation is now mud on this thread.
LOL. Deniers have spent more than 20 years trying to dismiss Pressac. It'll take a lot more than three throwaway sentences to do that.
You have a remarkable habit of quote-mining, by the way. You argue by quotation, like every other crank in cyberspace, and seem incapable of forming joined up arguments. You ARE I trust aware that sustained, reasoned arguments require more than three sentences, aren't you? Or have scientists and historians taken to tweeting their research findings?
You can start practicing your critical thinking by realising that no matter how much you hate Yad Vashem, they are going to provide information which is the same as provided by people other than Yad Vashem. It is usually easy to tell what that information is because it will exist in primary source form.
No, I'm suggesting that your ad hominem dismissals are logical fallacies and very easily demonstrated to be false. For example, here is a document reproduced in translation on Yad Vashem's site, a letter from Victor Brack to Heinrich Himmler dated 23 June 1942, proposing to spare 2-3 million Jews out of 10 million. The 2-3 million Jews are to be 'kept alive' but sterilised:
http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/documents/part2/doc122.html
Yad Vashem indicate this is Nuremberg document NO-205.
Here is a photostat of the same document on the Harvard Nuremberg Trials Project website.
In this source,on page 203, in a chapter which I happened to write, the archival file is indicated: BA NS19/1583, p.16, which means it is in the Bundesarchiv in Berlin-Lichterfelde today.
Meanwhile, the premiere Holocaust denier author Carlo Mattogno was "happy" enough to quote the same document on page 271 of this book and does not call the document a forgery or dismiss it out of hand.
Unfortunately, Mattogno's citation of the Brack to Himmler letter would conventionally be regarded as a quote-mine, since he cited only the first two lines and evidently decided the rest of the document was too problematic to quote.
Still, what this all shows is that a source on Yad Vashem can be found on
1) an Ivy League website
2) cited in its archival location
3) in a book by a Holocaust denier
so there is not really much excuse for you to start pretending that the document is fake. But it's extremely damning evidence against the denier case.
Except you didn't, and have been repeatedly shredded by ANTPogo on the Rauff letter.
No, the crap is your apparent insistence on going to the original exclusively. Since you cannot show that there are originals available for all the documents on another subject in modern history, any further gambits along these lines will be dismissed and laughed at.
Sure, you are free to continue to use entirely bogus methods of evidence evaluation, but that will simply result in more people pointing and sniggering at you.
Your repeated attempts to dismiss secondary sources and online websites as biased on the flimsiest of grounds (we are now up to Pressac, Paulsson, Yad Vashem just for starters) are entirely bogus because they are entirely knee-jerk.
Take your pathetic attempt to dismiss Pressac. Are you even aware of how many revisionists have tried to do this in the past? Every single denier writer of any note since 1989 has been yammering on about Pressac. Yet nobody outside denier-land is convinced by the yammering. Pressac uncovered documents which nobody else had published before, and most of his findings remain part of the accepted historical record today.
Moreover, deniers have written huge books attacking Pressac. Mattogno wrote one in 1994, which ran to 150 pages. He wrote another in 2009, which ran to 750 pages. And you think three sentences is enough?
Even by your own side's standards, your ad hominem dismissals are pathetic.
Yeah, JAQing off and Gish Galloping, we know. I'm sorry, but 'asking questions' is what you do when you're at school or in polite society. Informed discussion is meant to unfold by an exchange of statements and assertions backed up with evidence that can be justified and defended. Your 'asking questions' routine is not an example of informed discussion. It's JAQing off and Gish Galloping. Cut it out.
One thing you don't do is think critically. How can I be afraid of someone who is the gift that keeps on giving? I am simply bone tired of watching cranks spew out manifestly incorrect nonsense.
I am actually curious as to whether you honestly believe you are arguing effectively here. I appreciate you are not a native English speaker, but really, you come over as a complete loser. You clearly don't know very much about the Holocaust or about history. You know even less about basic logic, scientific and scholarly methodology, and less still about presenting your ideas coherently.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
A good troll give the impression that he/she actually knows something about the subject. SHC is hopeless. My kids stopped using the ''why?'' strategy before they hit 12.
Wroclaw
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,500
Oh, for Christ's sake...
Yes. That distinction had been established at least a thousand years ago, with the relevant communities originating in Spain (Sephardi) and France (Ashkenazi).
The Sephardi community remained in Spain (and Portugal) until 1492, acquiring Spanish as its principal language, after which point it was expelled in toto. The vast majority ended up in North Africa and parts of the Mediterranean; a minority in the Netherlands wound up in England and the Western Hemisphere by several routes. These make up about 15% of the world's Jews. The Sephardi community most impacted by the Holocaust was the one in Greece, which was completely exterminated.
By the 13th century, the Ashkenazi community had migrated into Germany, where it acquired the German dialect that ultimately became Yiddish. In the 16th century, the community migrated first east to Poland and then both further east into the Russian Empire and back west again, mainly back to Germany but also elsewhere into Central Europe. These are the Jews you are likely most familiar with if you're European. They were the group most impacted by the Holocaust, but they still make up about 80% of the world's Jews, as well as the majority in the United States, to which they began emigrating in large numbers in the 1880s.
The Ashkenazi Jews in Central Europe were the ones that formulated Reform Judaism — in the mid-19th century or thereabouts.
That clear that up for you, Sparky?
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Actually the Holocaust's death knell will ring when the truth of 9/11 and the neocon/Israeli participation becomes official. Hopefully BRIC will be compassionate.
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
LOL. Do you even read the text - because it contains the answer to your very question. The split between Sephardim and Ashkenazim predates the development of Reform Judaism by centuries, as you could have seen from the date given of the expulsion of Sephardi Jews from the Iberian peninsula.
Or look at the dates of construction of these two synagogues:
Portuguese (Sephardi) synagogue in Amsterdam
Great (Ashkenazi) synagogue in Amsterdam
And the claim that 61% of world Jewry is Sephardim doesn't seem right, even if you chip in the Mizrahi Jews under the moniker of Sephardim.
I see you're new around these parts. If you've been here a while you will see the most amazingly irrelevant material passed off as evidence of a German extermination program by the holocaust promoters. For example, if you ask to see a photograph of a mass grave holding 800,000 bodies you will initially be rebuked and insulted for implying that anybody would take a photograph of such a thing. If you are persistent, you will directed to photographs such as this, this, or this. If you want to see a photographic evidence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, you'll be pointed to something like this.
I read the 'don't show me Anne Frank's diary" comment as a 'don't show me non-evidence as evidence' warning. Because there are people out there who think that a picture of Anne Frank and asking "what happened to this little girl" is an effective rebuttal to holocaust deniers.
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
Note: The normative understanding of the Holocaust dies, not because of denial's non-existent merits, but because some event several decades later fulfills another wet dream of CM's.
Actually, when you say "when the neoonc/Isralie participation" in 9/11 becomes official you quite correct.
In the same way as if you had said "when the moon being made of green cheese becomes official". Or "when proof is found that vaccines directly cause autism".
Or "when CM stops running from zir posted lies and ignorance".
ddt
Mafia Penguin
That sounds plausible, but the text clearly said "today account for 61% of the world Jewish population", without mentioning Orthodoxy.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
It is, but you will go to your grave without understanding why.
- Status