Yes, the "something else" that is different is that one is the holocaust and the other is the not-holocaust. Of course the evidence is going to be different--the events are different.
.
So, you choose to go with begging the question.
The Holocaust is different because it is held to a different standard, and we know this because the Holocaust is held to a different standard because it is the Holocaust.
Denier "scholarship" in action.
.
Let's try a hypothetical example to see if it helps you understand. Let's say you're conducting a survey of people's attitudes toward the holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. You developed a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions. After the survey was complete, if you found out that the answers didn't support your hypothesis, would it be OK to throw out some of questionnaires or change the answers so you would get the results you want? Even you would probably say that it is not OK to do this. Would it matter if there was more evidence of the Armenian Genocide than there was for the holocaust? Would it matter if there was more evidence for the holocaust than the Armenian Genocide? Would it matter if the results you were getting would really be offensive to the Armenian community? Would it matter if it would offend the Jewish community? Would there be any circumstances at all in which you could change answers to a questionnaire to get the results you want?
You would have to say that there are not. So you could say, as a general statement of principle that it's not OK to change answers to survey questions so you can get the results you want. Or to simplify, the maxim is: "You can't make up evidence to support your point."
No matter how much or how little evidence you have on any question at all, it's not OK to fabricate evidence.
We don't have nearly as many testimonies from Armenian Genocide survivors as we do from holocaust survivors. Would it be OK to make up Armenian Genocide survivor testimonies? If I said it's OK to fabricate Armenian Genocide survivor stories but it's not OK to do that with the holocaust, would you say I'm employing a double standard?
.
And here, you passively agressively attempt to suggest without having the balls to actually say it, that many important pieces of eyewitness testimony supporting the Holocaust have been fabricated.
Something you have yet to demonstrate, and which ignores all of the other types of evidence we have.
Let's try another example: Leon Uris' book "Exodus". If all it takes is being about the Holocaust, then why do we not accept the historicity of Dov Landau?
.
Shermer said Coles questions were "important" and that it would be "good to have answers to" them. I guess "important" and "not significant" are synonymous. You're right that Shermer wasn't talking about absence of evidence for the holocaust. He was talking about David Cole's important questions, the lack of evidence to answer these questions, and the reminder that not having evidence is OK.
.
What questions are those, and what impact do they have on the historicity of the Holocaust? Which of Cole's "46 Questions" remain unanswered, or indeed weren't answered then (you discount the possibility that Shermer is simply *wrong* about their importance and their answers -- he is not, after all, a Holocaust historian.)
And why do you lie that Shermer ever, in any forum, stated that not having evidence is OK?
.
Really, I haven't seen anybody say that it is true that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
.
Sure you have. What you *haven't* seen is anyone agreeing with you that the Holocaust is held to a different standard, which is what you lied about everyone else conceeding.
.
Since you believe that "important" and "not significant" are synonymous, I assume you are similarly confused about the meaning of "spectacularly failed to demonstrate"
.
I stand corrected that Shermer characterized the questions as important in this interview.
He was wrong.
.
And you can be assured that the topic is addressed in "the passage" and nowhere else? I suggest you find somebody who is literate as well as reliable to do your homework for you.
.
Where else than under the heading "UFOs and Alien Abductions" is the matter discussed?
.
It's important to you, not me. You show me on what page he doesn't.
.
Any of them. Go ahead -- prove me wrong by citing the page number.
Prove me wrong by citing anyone here conceeding that the Holocaust has been held to a different standard.
Prove me wrong by citing any Holocaust historian or court case who cite the experiences of Dov Landau.
Prove me wrong by actually citing equivalent pieces of evidence which you can show were handled differently (*not* that they simply led a different conclusion).
Or continue flailing -- we have a pool going as to how long you can keep up the farce you've created before you stamp your feet and leave this part of the thread. I've taken one of the longer slots, don't let me down.
.
