What is it that deniers deny?

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:56 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Deniers, like Maryzilla, have been known to reduce the Holocaust to six/gas/plan - that is, to define (and deny) the Holocaust by three key elements: 6 million Jewish victims, the use of gas chambers, and a master plan to murder all the European Jews.

To be clear, this is not my definition of the Holocaust. I have a different view of how the extermination of the Jews came about and occurred, in line with what I've tried explaining in this and other threads. In particular, I don't think the Germans had a plan, spelling out at a technical, operational, and detail level how Jews across Europe were to be done away with. Here, however, rather than re-assess the denier proposition in full, and rather than say yet more on how I think the Holocaust took place, I want to drill down on the last element - the existence of a basic or master plan - and a statement that Raul Hilberg made on this issue.

Now, before quoting from Hilberg, one more point: deniers have a corollary to simplistic definitions like six/gas/plan, turning their claim into a strawman. You see, according to deniers "a master plan" is supposedly a core component of an "official" story. And, according to deniers, historians have their knickers in a twist because they are unable to defend "the master plan" plank of Holocaust belief in the face of the revisionist critique.

But it is not just me - and the current generation of historians - who don't conceive the Final Solution, let alone the Holocaust, in terms of the unfolding of a pre-determined German master plan. Here's where Raul Hilberg comes in: "The Germans did not have a basic plan, but their actions fell into a basic pattern."

Hilberg wrote this in . . . 1955. In his doctoral dissertation. He considered the point important enough to have included the statement on the very first page of his dissertation. Deniers are at least 60 years behind events.

As our discussion in this thread continues, I will come back to Hilberg's very important point.

Just this week, over at RODOH, a thread popped up on this topic. In that thread, rollo the ganger AKA Chester from SSF defined revisionism (that is, Holocaust denial) in exactly the same terms discussed above - as the denial of six/gas/plan:
I propose that there are three question which define "Revisionism" or whatever term one wishes to use to define those who may not agree with the current holocaust narrative. These questions have already been asked and I believe any other questions are irrelevant to the discussion. Here are those three questions:

1. Did six million really die?

2. Were there homicidal gas chambers that were actually used to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?

3. Was there an official program by the "Nazis" to exterminate, i.e. "kill", "murder" the Jews of Europe and if possible, the world?

All the rest is nonsense.

For the record, my understanding is that 1. the death toll of Jews perishing in the Holocaust was in the low 5 millions; 2. gas chaambers were indeed used to kill millions of people, about half the victims in the Holocaust as well as, in related crimes, victims of the T-4 and 14f13 programs and members of other groups (Roma, POWs, etc), and 3. there was no master plan as described above but there was a state policy to exterminate, by different means including murder, starvation, and destruction through labor, European Jews.

The definition of HD used by trollo and Maryzilla (Kollerstrom and associates have recently written in similar terms) interestingly labels a great deal of argumentation from revisionists as "nonsense" and even hateful rhetoric; this narrow way of thinking about denial implies that a great deal of what revs say is simpy irrelevant. Indeed, in the thread at RODOH trollo and FP Berg, who was unable to master the subtleties of logging in and posting here at SSF, at once got into a dispute over whether "Pseudo-Scientific Jew-baiting literature by unqualified Judeo-phobes" were "welcome in this thread." Berg ("The Nazis are the great heroes of modern history who with their extraordinary bravery and military skill saved the world") freaks out because he is an extreme case - been-there, generic, Scott Smith are others - of dwelling on what trollo now considers "nonsense."

What is telling is that in their definitions both Maryzilla and trollo set aside open air shootings and other means of extermination yet both have refused to acknowledge evidence for such. Trollo, e.g., was the creator of the IFWF argument against the Jäger report on the basis of "Zhikharev Cyrillic Bold" font and Maryzilla long inveighed against the evidence in the Jäger report and for the mass murders in Lithuania, describing them as rogue operations not sanctioned by Reich authorities and not aimed at eliminating Jews from the region.

Trollo's more recent definition and his statement that "All the rest is nonsense" would seem to indicate his at least re-thinking such "fine points."

Based on what deniers obsess about - from Weckert's trash on Kristallnacht to been-there's anti-Semitic drivel on international Jewry, from Berg's teenybopper crush on Dolfy to Traynor's dressing up in jack boots, from Graf's 2011 debate with Christian Lindtner on the EGs to Frau Haverbeck's defense of the KLs - trollo is flat-out wrong to try to narrow denial as Maryzilla tried a few years ago. Revisionism is as revisionism does.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4560
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:23 am

1. Did six million really die?

No. That was an early estimate that has since been lowered. My calculations clock in at 4.8 million, but I tend to be very conservative.

2. Were there homicidal gas chambers that were actually used to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?


Yes ten thousand times. Ask Kurt Franz, Franz Stangl, Kurt Bolender or Georg Michelson that question and you will get the same answer.

3. Was there an official program by the "Nazis" to exterminate, i.e. "kill", "murder" the Jews of Europe and if possible, the world?


No. There were a number of initiatives, from the local extermination of the Lodz Ghetto, to the wholesale killing of Russian Jews under the deluded guise of "security", to the killing of nonworking Jews in the GG and deported to the GG, concluding with the killing of unfit Hungarian Jews. All these actions and many others constitute the Judeocide. "Official Program" is a filty rotten {!#%@} strawman.


Next question.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:11 am

Does the actual concern for those 'denying' (or competing to justify the Nazis) actually relate to supporting the political ideology rather than history itself? When we find someone doing something horrific, we tend to brand any of their beliefs as just as significantly evil by association. As such, this would be like if we discovered that Einstein was a sexual predator and so then dismiss his theory of Relativity false and evil by association to the author's other bad acts. So my question is whether the "revisionists" are simply trying to 'fix' a part of history because the Holocaust acts to dismiss ALL beliefs on the philosophical underpinnings of National Socialism based on what they perceive is a non-essential intent of the view politically: hating Jews?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Nessie
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2512
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Nessie » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:17 am

Denier/revisionists want to live in a place where there are no Jews and a world where there is no Jewish influence. The Nazis had a go at doing that and so they are attracted to Nazism. They deny the Nazis went about creating that place by means of a genocide because they cannot face their idols being so cruel and to try and attract others to their cause. They are trying to get the Holocaust revised so that Jews and Israel cannot use it to get compensation and sympathy.

I do not believe their claim that they are trying to right a wrong and correct history to show the truth because that in itself is the right thing to do.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:27 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
3. Was there an official program by the "Nazis" to exterminate, i.e. "kill", "murder" the Jews of Europe and if possible, the world?

No. There were a number of initiatives, from the local extermination of the Lodz Ghetto, to the wholesale killing of Russian Jews under the deluded guise of "security", to the killing of nonworking Jews in the GG and deported to the GG, concluding with the killing of unfit Hungarian Jews. All these actions and many others constitute the Judeocide. "Official Program" is a filty rotten {!#%@} strawman.

Next question.

I agree with using the term "strawman" for "master plan," but I'm not clear on how it can be argued that deniers invent a claim that scholars talk about a program or policy of European-wide extermination. Most do (to name some prominent scholars, Hilberg, Browning, Longerich, Gerlach, Roseman, Gerwarth); a few don't.

My own viewpoint: The evidence fits independent and local initiatives to do away with Jews during 1941 and early 1942 - with mid-1942 being debatable. But I don't see how the evidence supports the notion that there wasn't a European-wide policy of extermination by sometime in 1942 at latest (e.g., Silberklang's recent book on Lublin district) - when in January 1942 in the Wannsee protocol a continental viewpoint and reach were laid down - "Approximately 11 million Jews will be involved in the final solution of the European Jewish question, distributed as follows among the individual countries"; when the Wannsee protocol explained to authorities that they would "collect' and share with one another "practical experience . . . which is of the greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the Jewish question"; when the RSHA, Foreign Office and other authorities coordinated on making the FS successful in the "individual countries"; when the paper trail for France and the Netherlands, for instance, shows central guidance coming from Berlin and has instances where the local authorities are urged to speed things up, or even modulate actions, to meet quotas and achieve success; when in summer 1942 we have Himmler urging completion of the FS in the GG by year's end - Himmler to Krüger (!) on 19 July; when removal of Italian protection for Jews in France or Greece (both in September 1943 on the collapse of the Fascist government), the Jews of Salonika already having been subject to the FS as a result of the German occupation of that zone meant their earlier inclusion in the killing; when in countries like Hungary (the action beginning within about a month of German occupation) and Italy (within two months' time), Germany's military intervention led directly and immediately to inclusion of the Jews in deportations of to Auschwitz for mass murder and lethal labor; when at Posen Himmler said without limit "the 'Jewish evacuation': the extermination of the Jewish people"; when already in early 1942 central agencies (e.g., Führer's Chancellery) had transferred personnel to help with the killing program in the GG; when you have a central office (Eichmann's) to coordinate transport and other logistics of the European-wide policy; etc. As we've been discussing in the "France" and "Morgen" threads.

But those are my views; as to Trollo's formulation, which "improves" a bit on Maryzilla's cruder "master plan," I don't think it is a strawman to claim that most scholar's argue a European-wide program or policy of extermination.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:28 am

Nessie wrote:Denier/revisionists want to live in a place where there are no Jews and a world where there is no Jewish influence. The Nazis had a go at doing that and so they are attracted to Nazism. They deny the Nazis went about creating that place by means of a genocide because they cannot face their idols being so cruel and to try and attract others to their cause. . . . I do not believe their claim that they are trying to right a wrong and correct history to show the truth because that in itself is the right thing to do.

I agree with this statement for 99% of deniers. I think it is spot on.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:39 am

As to why six/gas/plan is a strawman, taken as the whole of or essential core of denial: it excludes (a) much of what deniers claim, as noted in the OP - and (b) key elements of the Holocaust. On the latter, point, about half the number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust were not gassed; once again, with Maryzilla, Trollo, Kollerstrom et al, and so on, we see a bizarre obsession with gas chambers and with killing methods - perhaps as a repressed wish of some sort, in line with Nessie's post.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Balsamo » Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:45 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:As to why six/gas/plan is a strawman, taken as the whole of or essential core of denial: it excludes (a) much of what deniers claim, as noted in the OP - and (b) key elements of the Holocaust. On the latter, point, about half the number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust were not gassed; once again, with Maryzilla, Trollo, Kollerstrom et al, and so on, we see a bizarre obsession with gas chambers and with killing methods - perhaps as a repressed wish of some sort, in line with Nessie's post.


I think that Deniers focus on the 6/gaz/plan because it is the easy part, and unfortunately at the core of the memorial approach to the tragedy.
And I would point out that among those 3 major elements, the 6 millions hold the first place.
Why, because it is easily contested, and is very useful to raise doubts. Like:
"I can show that 6.000.000 is BS", then, once convinced, the poor guy who never read Hilberg or Reitlinger, who has always heard the number 6 on TV, will probably show more interest to what follows: " They LIE to you about the 6.000.000, I will show you that they lie for the rest as well".

This is why the 6.000.000 gambit is effective. To induce o introduce the concept of "LIE".
Remember, the famous Denier's bud (Ugly voice) who would then highlights other suspicious cases during the Koweit War (babies killed at hospitals in Koweit) all the way down to Amin Dada... using a kind of domino effect...If 6.000.000 is a lie, then why not the gas chambers which destroyed, etc...

I would say the plan is of lack importance, and I would have added Auschwitz to Gas chambers.
The famous google test is quite eloquent:
6 millions Jews - and its various written variations leads to almost 30.000.000 result, Asuchwitz 23.000.000, Gas chambers 17.000.000.
The champion being Holocaust with almost 50.000.000.
Treblinka like 500.000, Belzec 340.000, etc.

So in order to demolish the Holocaust, the targets are quite obvious.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:10 am

Nessie wrote:Denier/revisionists want to live in a place where there are no Jews and a world where there is no Jewish influence. The Nazis had a go at doing that and so they are attracted to Nazism. They deny the Nazis went about creating that place by means of a genocide because they cannot face their idols being so cruel and to try and attract others to their cause. They are trying to get the Holocaust revised so that Jews and Israel cannot use it to get compensation and sympathy.

I do not believe their claim that they are trying to right a wrong and correct history to show the truth because that in itself is the right thing to do.

My question reduces to asking if National Socialism had any value external to Hitler and the Holocaust philosophically because I wonder if those 'deniers' are actually fighting against the association with the contingent history? To me, I find that Israel IS a National Socialist construct. The Nation = Jews (and Jew ONLY in practice) and they have a Socialist structure that FAVORS preservation and strong social supports for their people's survival through their political system. And the social supports are unusually high compared to other countries and extends to their people world-wide beyond the borders.

To me, if these deniers are intending affect, they too are National Socialists but simply prefer a different distinct culture/religion but think in kind: they believe in preservation of their race/culture/ethnicity over ALL others and oppose the Jews (or Israelis?) based on the same interpreted belief in both favoring ones own with absolute disrespect for all others, especially those who think the same as it threatens them the most. This psychology is interpreted by those like Nietzsche who believed that, even if people may all be equal, struggle in life always goes to those who impose their will with any necessary force and requires preferential strengthening of a cultural ethnic bond between its members in exclusion to all others by utilizing religion (even if it has to be made up) in order to secure their fortune. I believe that where the original National Socialists may have intended a non-revolutionary means to take over, this was likely modeled on what they perceived gave the Jewish diaspora that same power. But they would also perceive that since the major power of the Jewish community to act for their favor with strength requires defeating them as they represent the ones who would fight back with the same strength of 'will' power in return.

Today's neo-Nazis may interpret how the present Israeli community backed by its diaspora and its social/political/economic powers deriving their major sustenance only demonstrates proof that the Jews still represent the strongest threat to any other group. To those groups/ethnicities/cultures/religions who are just as socially isolated but perceive themselves as suffering will adhere to a reflexive interpretation against those others who represent a similar belief in their own group's preservation.

I apologize if this insight appears to insult those favoring the state of Israel (or the supporters, usually other Jews and/or Christians of the 'right' political spectrum) but believe that much of the problems are something that can be resolved if we attend to the underlying philosophical questions that derive differences between the extremes of those with strong national prides.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Balsamo » Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:58 pm

Scott,
would you consider to explain yourself with more simple words, and clarify your points?
Just to make sure with what kind of garbage one is dealing with.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:16 pm

Balsamo wrote:Scott,
would you consider to explain yourself with more simple words, and clarify your points?
Just to make sure with what kind of garbage one is dealing with.

LOL I have him on ignore so can only guess ... probably something to do with Israel, judging from his past performances . . .

I agree with your earlier post but would add a) some of them still probably see clearing away the nasty issue of mass murders as necessary to get anyone to listen to NS arguments, thus, as you say, a focus not on history but on scoring cheap points (like Weber shifting to Israel saying that the denial strategy hasn't produced gains for them), and b) they can't help themselves for their Jew hatred and racism so they concoct a stew full of all sorts of odds and ends mixed in with SGP, e.g., the prettifying of KLs as with Berg or Haverbeck, Berg's and Scott Smith's obsession with disease, been-there's WUF, excursions into foreign and military policy of the Third Reich, attacks on Jewish liars, and so on.

The implicit definition of the Holocaust in what Trollo recently wrote and Maryzilla's JREF musings - SGP - is not close to mine at all. Nor to that used by scholars. The implication of this is that their outrage, mockery, buffoonery, and all the doubt a person can muster don't touch the historical understanding of what happened. They're playing a PR game, no one more so than Trollo even as he tries to sound reasonable, not trying to understand the period.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Scott Mayers » Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:11 am

Although Statistical Mechanic here asserts he has me on "ignore", I find it ironic that he doesn't do the same with this whole subject. My significant arguments of the past dealt with the fact that this particular subject was given unusually heightened significance especially with disrespect to all the other world issues and their peoples regarding things like racism, genocide, and other political concerns. Notice how we don't see an emphasis on other Denial concerns with the same significance? He took it personal as I'm guessing he is likely Jewish as well as being a strong supporter of Israel when I make the points that the emphasis of this as severely unbalanced treatment FOR a particular group of people, adds fuel to the fire for which I believe is INTENTIONAL to keep the world disputes going in a selfish effort to presume a present country that lacks the same respect as was given to them by the German in WWII.

I am definitely NOT a denier of any of the historical events of the Holocaust and so do NOT fit into his preferential bias against my views. Nor have I a problem with Jewish people and actually have a personal high preference for most of these people over others. But this isn't the point here. I believe the actual issues of Israeli vs. Muslim concerns in the Middle East are clearly a function of the Zionist beliefs in the State of Israel and we all KNOW that that country is a product of both the culture of a subset of Jewish conservatism that has an identical distaste for ALL other peoples of the world. The non-Jew is considered, "Goyem", by these particular Jews, and its meaning is literally derived from the term for "cattle" and has more disrespectful and disingenuous meaning than most who have ever referenced them. The "Jews" is a non-derogatory reference as most use and understand whereas we cannot say the same of that of a term like, "goyem", as it purposely indicates their own hatred of outsiders.

I only speak to help the issue by trying to be honest and logical to the issues as if I were an alien observing our world from above. Thus I also have no preferential issue for any OTHER group except to my personal preference for people to be intellectually skeptical and accountable to others equally. In other words, I certainly do NOT favor Muslims, or Anti-Antisemitisms, Nazis, Neo-nazis, Christians, etc.

An underlying tactic of abusers that has most power are those who find the need to use ignorance and neglect in clever ways to hide their own hatreds. I see the State of Israel as opting to use this tactic most effectively against its own illusions of others, like the Palestinian Muslims. As such, to me their treatment of specific others (mostly the Muslim community) is more terroristic than they purport their enemies to be.

I also have nothing against the average citizen of Israel, even those I disagree with on issues, outside of their particular religious or cultural motives and beliefs that dictate their present politics. And, many also act to preserve a Nationalism beyond the borders of its country as a religious entity (even where some are of no religious affiliation per se.) Jews are NOT the only victims of large scale abuses yet many organizations supposedly intending to end the general problems focus on the addressing the issue as a cultural/race/religious of the Jews, as if they are disproportionately abused.

So, Statistical Mechanic, and others of similar views or preferences to "ignore", I ask again, why opt to ignore someone like myself who has both skill to argue and a universal compassion for everyone as I do, rather than stay in tuned with those you and us all KNOW are the real antagonists? It only tells me that I actually hit a cord of truth that you recognize but prefer NOT to deal with as it requires a potential change in your own discriminatory attitudes about others!
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21101
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:22 am

Scott, I don't think anyone even knows you well enough to pass any judgment on you or your person.

But you certainly seem to be posting Offtopic in this subforum which, as I understood it, was created for it not to interfere with other topics/issues you seem to care about. I might be wrong, but maybe that's the rub?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27500
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:47 am

Scott Mayers wrote:Although Statistical Mechanic here asserts he has me on "ignore".


Scott, after five years we have cleared the deniers from this thread so it can become educational. I am simply reading and trying to follow complex arguments from Statistic and other new educated members. Let them do the talking in the threads "on topic" or start a new topic. ( I'm still a month behind in Statistical's suggested reading list required to follow various "on topic" points. Don't make it harder for me.)

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4560
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Jeff_36 » Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:52 am

I think "program" is not the right word. "generally held policy/set of actions" is more accurate in my opinion. Too many deniers have false images of a master plan in their heads.

I mainly think of Poland and AR when talking about the Holocaust.

The later actions in Hungary and Greece can be likened to a serial killer deteriorating: he knows he's been caught and now he's gonna kill at will with no fear of the inevitable. Ted Bundy and the Rostov Ripper both went nuts when the noose closed around them. I think of that when I think of the Hungarian action.
By taht point you could easily argue for a set agenda.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Scott Mayers » Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:31 am

I was on topic I believed since it asks what they are denying. Yes, I perhaps should begin a new thread as I was more responding to why I believe they are denying but this should help make sense of it since what they deny relates to a reason (a "why?") If I am correct on this, then it is actually a waste of time to bother debating contingent factors of the Holocaust event itself but focus on factors relating to ones particular philosophical and political views that lead to such events. It's more constructive and I believe I contributed significantly to how or why we'd have less controversy by raising points that even the 'antagonists' could agree to. The problem is also a two-way one.

But I'll leave it at that unless others are willing to participate without dismissing my relevance. I don't appreciate being ignored with undue prejudice.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4560
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Jeff_36 » Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:33 am

ummm, why were we talking about Israel?

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby David » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:40 pm

Nessie wrote:Denier/revisionists want to live in a place where there are no Jews and a world where there is no Jewish influence. The Nazis had a go at doing that and so they are attracted to Nazism. They deny the Nazis went about creating that place by means of a genocide because they cannot face their idols being so cruel and to try and attract others to their cause. They are trying to get the Holocaust revised so that Jews and Israel cannot use it to get compensation and sympathy.

I do not believe their claim that they are trying to right a wrong and correct history to show the truth because that in itself is the right thing to do.


Gawd, what a pack of drivel, not just Nessie but all the Believer posts.
"Denier" is a Believer-made-up word meant as a slur and a diversion. I couldn't give a rat's ass about it being a slur
but it is inaccurate.
Revisionist is an accurate term, just as Believer is an accurate term.

Flash back to 1946 Nuremberg- The prosecution presented a story, the Tribunal accepted the story.
For years teachers, writers, politicians all accepted the Story. I accepted the Story.
Then people started to notice things did not make sense in parts of the Story.
They did a little research and revised parts of the Story. The Story was "Intentionalist. Now it is pretty
much Functionalist.
Every Believer in this thread probably Believes in a revised Story....all you Intentionalists go sit over with
Lucy Dawidowicz.

I still believe parts of the Story but I believe that large parts should be revised.
The parts that should be revised are the parts were evidence requires that they be revised.

The conflict between those the Believe and those that would Revise comes because there is conflicting evidence.
Believers rely on "eye witnessing," and confessions. Revisionist rely on science, an physical evidence.

Believers desperately try to find real physical evidence (20,000 bodies in a pit) This shows
in Sturdy-Colls absurd claim to have found a "Star of David" tile at Treblinka.

To address other of Nessie's points-
1. Yes some Revisionists are anti-Jewish but some are Jewish, like David Cole
2. I do not know a single Revisionist who thinks that the National Socialists did not practice
extremely anti-Semitic measures including throwing huge numbers of women and children into
camps, where lots of people died.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:42 pm

You never studied any history at any point in your tedious life, did you, David?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4560
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:57 pm

Believers rely on "eye witnessing," and confessions.


No we rely on documentary evidence and carefully analyzed reports from contemporaries.

Re Nuremburg: The intentionalist view was never presented at Nuremberg. At the time no one had a clear notion of the timeline, much akin to feeling around in the dark for a light-switch. With the benefit of years of research and access to archives, we now know much more.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jul 12, 2015 12:13 am

David,

I read a book a long time ago on the stance to defend a type of "historical revisionism" to which the philosopher was arguing that history should be "reconstructed" based upon our present capacity to interpret evidence AND our present-day experiences. It seems reasonable for certain interpretations because it acts locally to respect what we subjectively experience in simplest terms that can be applied to the past. For instance, since we experience gravity in our present lives as being uniform and sufficiently agreed to objectively (collective subjective concordance), then we can, say, reconstruct some history about an event described in contradiction to this, such as flying angels, to rationalize the actual intention of the recorded history referencing them.

Another example that I like to use is the reference in the first passages of the Bible that state the initial conditions of the world:


"Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Here, the default assumption was that water pre-existed everything on the assumptions back then that favored the idea that water was "chaotic" as in being fluid and not understood. It also seemed to provide life without their understanding of present science and would also likely be hinted at based on word-of-mouth stories of findings of fossilized fish in higher grounds.

Also, the "Spirit of God" could have been a transition through time that actually referred to the atmosphere or air itself. They did not make sense of how air itself could seem to exist yet evade sight as an entity and so from our present understanding, we might interpret the original intentional description in light of what we know today. Thus "Spirit of God" in our day represents the real gases of air, and is a 'good' thing since it also provides life. So this would translate as, "Good air" or "Breathable Air" (as opposed to similar spirits, like toxic smoke).

So my question to you, or others who may know better, does the "Revisionist" referred to here derive from the same idea of "historical reconstruction" as to what I've described?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Xcalibur » Sun Jul 12, 2015 12:34 am

David:

>"Believers rely on "eye witnessing," and confessions. Revisionist rely on science, an physical evidence."


Science, eh? Like Leuchter and Rudolf? :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:25 am

Xcalibur wrote:David:

>"Believers rely on "eye witnessing," and confessions. Revisionist rely on science, an physical evidence."


Science, eh? Like Leuchter and Rudolf? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I thought he meant FP Berg: hold your breath! Or Theo von Hohenheim:
Theo von Hohenheim wrote:Jay has 99 problems. I got one: the j*w :lol: :lol:
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4560
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Jeff_36 » Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:53 am

Jay has 99 problems. I got one: the j*w

:shock:

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Xcalibur » Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:52 am

Mr. Berg and I have had more than a few ecounters over the years. He's a fat,old douchebag. And a rank, stinking anti-semite.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby David » Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:53 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:You never studied any history at any point in your tedious life, did you, David?


And this from the Believer who didn't know where Alsace Lorraine is...pretty funny.

So, other than drooling inanities, are you proposing a new Believerish interpretation of
how much "Belief" has changed since the Show Trial?

Something to do with Intentionalism vs. Functionalism, or the real date Hoess was called to
Berlin to meet Himmler, or why the Believer claims of Steam Chambers of death have been
tossed into the Memory Hole?

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby David » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:07 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Believers rely on "eye witnessing," and confessions.


No we rely on documentary evidence and carefully analyzed reports from contemporaries.

Re Nuremburg: The intentionalist view was never presented at Nuremberg. At the time no one had a clear notion of the timeline, much akin to feeling around in the dark for a light-switch. With the benefit of years of research and access to archives, we now know much more.


"carefully analyzed reports"...my that sure sounds impressive.

So, how do you analyze a report that says the Germans steamed people to death?

As to Nuremberg...the Intentionalist view was THE view presented at Nuremberg...start with the
Ax-handle Confession of Hoess
"Was there a master plan on the part of Adolf Hitler to launch the Holocaust? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not."
and
" At the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of 1945–6, the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe" was represented by the prosecution as part of long-term plan on the part of the Nazi leadership going back to the foundations of the Nazi Party in 1919. Subsequently, most historians subscribed to what would be today considered to be the extreme intentionalist interpretation."

Excuse me but you are one dumb Fk...worse that SM.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:09 am

It's interesting to see how my questions don't seem to be willingly answered here to me by some. It kinda gives weight to my suggestion a while back that supposed 'deniers' seems potentially a 'staged' position to keep the controversy falsely appear alive. Can you at least let me know, David, if you've read my post? Thanks.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:16 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:You never studied any history at any point in your tedious life, did you, David?


And this from the Believer who didn't know where Alsace Lorraine is...pretty funny.

Stop making {!#%@} up.

David wrote:So, other than drooling inanities, are you proposing a new Believerish interpretation of how much "Belief" has changed since the Show Trial?

I asked you if you've ever studied history. Was the question too hard for you?

David wrote:Something to do with Intentionalism vs. Functionalism, or the real date Hoess was called to Berlin to meet Himmler, or why the Believer claims of Steam Chambers of death have been tossed into the Memory Hole?

Ok, the question is too hard for you. Fair enough. We'll keep them easier in the future.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:17 am

David wrote:So, how do you analyze a report that says the Germans steamed people to death?

Well, you've been shown how to analyze such reports, but you never did seem to comprehend, so excuse Jeff if he grows impatient with you.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21101
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:46 am

Scott Mayers wrote:It's interesting to see how my questions don't seem to be willingly answered here to me by some. It kinda gives weight to my suggestion a while back that supposed 'deniers' seems potentially a 'staged' position to keep the controversy falsely appear alive. Can you at least let me know, David, if you've read my post? Thanks.

Not sure if that is it. See, your post is a little wordier than "You never studied any history at any point in your tedious life, did you, David?" and might need more consideration.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:32 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:It's interesting to see how my questions don't seem to be willingly answered here to me by some. It kinda gives weight to my suggestion a while back that supposed 'deniers' seems potentially a 'staged' position to keep the controversy falsely appear alive. Can you at least let me know, David, if you've read my post? Thanks.

Not sure if that is it. See, your post is a little wordier than "You never studied any history at any point in your tedious life, did you, David?" and might need more consideration.

You're probably right; yet, how am I supposed to proceed. I speak with a wider and more specific vocabulary only by accident. Yet, I find the words I use normal enough for me even though I may have struggled with them by first discovering them through reading others. Am I supposed to speak 'down' to others in symbols or words that lack the concise meanings I intend? I'm not trying to be pompous by using what comes natural to me. And now when I read into others, I also can respect they come from a different background and so ask for clarity for things I might not understand. Since language varies greatly, I'm struggling to be heard if others don't at least try as I do to understand how they approach things.

But I have a feeling that I may be understood by some here but are simply being ignored if some of the apparent different people are actually the same person(s). I tried to represent potential fairness, for instance, for the supposed 'denier' side by offering potential fruit to give them some justification. Yet, if even these people are ignoring in light of understanding this, it raises the doubt in me that they represent actual different people then the ones I apparently insulted on the opposite side in an argument I made a while back.

Also, the style of similar concern to attend only to contingent history by many in this section only appear to differ only by the side they take. It's as if both sides think exactly the same but simply change their variables. Hopefully I'm wrong. We'll have to wait and see. Thank you scrmbldggs for your response at least. Other than Matthew, on this section, I don't get the expected feedback.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:42 am

David wrote:
Nessie wrote:Denier/revisionists want to live in a place where there are no Jews and a world where there is no Jewish influence. The Nazis had a go at doing that and so they are attracted to Nazism. They deny the Nazis went about creating that place by means of a genocide because they cannot face their idols being so cruel and to try and attract others to their cause. They are trying to get the Holocaust revised so that Jews and Israel cannot use it to get compensation and sympathy.

I do not believe their claim that they are trying to right a wrong and correct history to show the truth because that in itself is the right thing to do.


Gawd, what a pack of drivel, not just Nessie but all the Believer posts.
"Denier" is a Believer-made-up word meant as a slur and a diversion. I couldn't give a rat's ass about it being a slur
but it is inaccurate.
Revisionist is an accurate term, just as Believer is an accurate term.

Flash back to 1946 Nuremberg- The prosecution presented a story, the Tribunal accepted the story.
For years teachers, writers, politicians all accepted the Story. I accepted the Story.
Then people started to notice things did not make sense in parts of the Story.
They did a little research and revised parts of the Story. The Story was "Intentionalist. Now it is pretty
much Functionalist.
Every Believer in this thread probably Believes in a revised Story....all you Intentionalists go sit over with
Lucy Dawidowicz.

I still believe parts of the Story but I believe that large parts should be revised.
The parts that should be revised are the parts were evidence requires that they be revised.

The conflict between those the Believe and those that would Revise comes because there is conflicting evidence.
Believers rely on "eye witnessing," and confessions. Revisionist rely on science, an physical evidence.

Believers desperately try to find real physical evidence (20,000 bodies in a pit) This shows
in Sturdy-Colls absurd claim to have found a "Star of David" tile at Treblinka.

To address other of Nessie's points-
1. Yes some Revisionists are anti-Jewish but some are Jewish, like David Cole
2. I do not know a single Revisionist who thinks that the National Socialists did not practice
extremely anti-Semitic measures including throwing huge numbers of women and children into
camps, where lots of people died.

Why do you even bother trying to explain it to them? They've been told what it is that "deniers" "deny" and they are pretending they don't get it or they really are too stupid to understand the difference between 'it didn't happen' and 'some of it didn't happen'.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:49 am

Scott Mayers wrote:David,

I read a book a long time ago on the stance to defend a type of "historical revisionism" to which the philosopher was arguing that history should be "reconstructed" based upon our present capacity to interpret evidence AND our present-day experiences. It seems reasonable for certain interpretations because it acts locally to respect what we subjectively experience in simplest terms that can be applied to the past. For instance, since we experience gravity in our present lives as being uniform and sufficiently agreed to objectively (collective subjective concordance), then we can, say, reconstruct some history about an event described in contradiction to this, such as flying angels, to rationalize the actual intention of the recorded history referencing them.

Another example that I like to use is the reference in the first passages of the Bible that state the initial conditions of the world:


"Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Here, the default assumption was that water pre-existed everything on the assumptions back then that favored the idea that water was "chaotic" as in being fluid and not understood. It also seemed to provide life without their understanding of present science and would also likely be hinted at based on word-of-mouth stories of findings of fossilized fish in higher grounds.

Also, the "Spirit of God" could have been a transition through time that actually referred to the atmosphere or air itself. They did not make sense of how air itself could seem to exist yet evade sight as an entity and so from our present understanding, we might interpret the original intentional description in light of what we know today. Thus "Spirit of God" in our day represents the real gases of air, and is a 'good' thing since it also provides life. So this would translate as, "Good air" or "Breathable Air" (as opposed to similar spirits, like toxic smoke).

So my question to you, or others who may know better, does the "Revisionist" referred to here derive from the same idea of "historical reconstruction" as to what I've described?

WTF are you talking about?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:51 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:It's interesting to see how my questions don't seem to be willingly answered here to me by some. It kinda gives weight to my suggestion a while back that supposed 'deniers' seems potentially a 'staged' position to keep the controversy falsely appear alive. Can you at least let me know, David, if you've read my post? Thanks.

Not sure if that is it. See, your post is a little wordier than "You never studied any history at any point in your tedious life, did you, David?" and might need more consideration.

Perhaps you can explain WTF he was was talking about.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:04 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:David,

I read a book a long time ago on the stance to defend a type of "historical revisionism" to which the philosopher was arguing that history should be "reconstructed" based upon our present capacity to interpret evidence AND our present-day experiences. It seems reasonable for certain interpretations because it acts locally to respect what we subjectively experience in simplest terms that can be applied to the past. For instance, since we experience gravity in our present lives as being uniform and sufficiently agreed to objectively (collective subjective concordance), then we can, say, reconstruct some history about an event described in contradiction to this, such as flying angels, to rationalize the actual intention of the recorded history referencing them.

Another example that I like to use is the reference in the first passages of the Bible that state the initial conditions of the world:


"Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Here, the default assumption was that water pre-existed everything on the assumptions back then that favored the idea that water was "chaotic" as in being fluid and not understood. It also seemed to provide life without their understanding of present science and would also likely be hinted at based on word-of-mouth stories of findings of fossilized fish in higher grounds.

Also, the "Spirit of God" could have been a transition through time that actually referred to the atmosphere or air itself. They did not make sense of how air itself could seem to exist yet evade sight as an entity and so from our present understanding, we might interpret the original intentional description in light of what we know today. Thus "Spirit of God" in our day represents the real gases of air, and is a 'good' thing since it also provides life. So this would translate as, "Good air" or "Breathable Air" (as opposed to similar spirits, like toxic smoke).

So my question to you, or others who may know better, does the "Revisionist" referred to here derive from the same idea of "historical reconstruction" as to what I've described?

WTF are you talking about?

How do you define Revisionism? I gave the definition with example of a possibly similar term I've read called, "historical reconstructionism". It may also be referred to some as simple "historical constructionism" when no previous records are certain. What's so difficult to understand? Does the way you guys use your term fit the same meaning as the one I brought up?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:28 am

Maryzilla returned to the subforum to share that - two "WTFs" and one "why bother"? LOL

So, Maryzilla, David, you agree that "all the rest" is nonsense? What "parts of the story" do you jokers "still believe" - what is the part "of it" that "didn't happen," and what is the part that did? Are these questions too difficult?

To avoid answering, sure, the two of you can keep posting silly one-liners and trite musings on "Belief" and science. What you're doing is transparent, but what the hell.

By the way, did either of you ever study history at any point in your life?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21101
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:56 pm

Scott, I'm wondering if you have visited other sites - of both persuasions - before you came to your suspicions (I'm not calling them conclusions, since you still seem to be asking)?

Maybe you should do that (there are many links provided here you could follow). It might help you assess and, perhaps, rethink the issue. And perhaps realize how outlandish your idea is.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:47 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Maryzilla returned to the subforum to share that - two "WTFs" and one "why bother"? LOL

So, Maryzilla, David, you agree that "all the rest" is nonsense? What "parts of the story" do you jokers "still believe" - what is the part "of it" that "didn't happen," and what is the part that did? Are these questions too difficult?

It's not too difficult. Its just that its been answered before. You guys even discussed it upthread. Go back and you'll find it.

To avoid answering, sure, the two of you can keep posting silly one-liners and trite musings on "Belief" and science. What you're doing is transparent, but what the hell.

By the way, did either of you ever study history at any point in your life?

I don't know. What's history?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18916
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:07 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:It's not too difficult. Its just that its been answered before. You guys even discussed it upthread. Go back and you'll find it.

You must have missed the part about the rest being nonsense except deniers wail about it all the time. Try again.

Mary Q Contrary wrote:I don't know. What's history?

I do not doubt that you don't know what you've studied and not. You certainly bring a lot to this discussion.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TJrandom and 2 guests