Motives of a Holocaust Revisionist

[Donovan]

Like it or not, the official version of the Holocaust is the accepted version. Your cute "space alien analogy" aside, one fact remains: in cases where there is a dispute of accepted truth the burden of proof lies with the accuser (that'd be the Saint, et al). The JFK assassination is a much more appropriate comparison. There are tons of conspiracy theorists out thare claiming extra gunmen, extra bullets, extra motives and extra players of all sorts. But until there is definitive proof to the contrary we have to accept the version set forth by the investigative commission.

History is written by the victors, Saint. There is nothing wrong with questioning accepted canon if you feel there is need to. We've been lied to before. But you'll have to provide more than sarcastic half-assed spaceman analogies and bullshit internet rhetoric to prove your case. Your logic is faulty and suspect, and many of the fallacious argument styles you use to find fault with pro-Holocaust theories actually closely resemble your own tactics.

So far, you've proven nothing, only continually attacked, muddied and re-interpreted the information against your position. Until you come with alternative proof, not just rhetoric, I'm unimpressed.

 

[Donovan]

Besides, when our brothers from the stars come your ass is fucked anyway. They're not gonna like you mocking them...

 

[jack]

You're saying the Warren Commission is the 'accepted' version?

That's impossible. No one believes that bullshit.

 

[jack]

You saw the autopsy photos?

 

[The Question]

Like it or not, the official version of the Holocaust is the accepted version.

HEY, STUPID.

Argumentum ad Populum. Look. It. Up.

Can we be done with that tired bullshit fallacy some-fucking-day?

Your cute "space alien analogy" aside, one fact remains: in cases where there is a dispute of accepted truth the burden of proof lies with the accuser (that'd be the Saint, et al). The JFK assassination is a much more appropriate comparison. There are tons of conspiracy theorists out thare claiming extra gunmen, extra bullets, extra motives and extra players of all sorts. But until there is definitive proof to the contrary we have to accept the version set forth by the investigative commission.

If the investigation commission's version is logically unsound or factually unfounded, no we fucking do not.

History is written by the victors, Saint. There is nothing wrong with questioning accepted canon if you feel there is need to. We've been lied to before. But you'll have to provide more than sarcastic half-assed spaceman analogies and bullshit internet rhetoric to prove your case.

My case is not proven; the point is, neither is yours. That is all my case is.

Your logic is faulty and suspect, and many of the fallacious argument styles you use to find fault with pro-Holocaust theories actually closely resemble your own tactics.

Demonstrate how this is so.

So far, you've proven nothing, only continually attacked, muddied and re-interpreted the information against your position. Until you come with alternative proof, not just rhetoric, I'm unimpressed.

Alternative proof is unnecessary, because I'm not proposing a positive claim, only refusing yours.

 

[The Question]

Shorter. Simpler. For the crowd riding the short bus.

No proof against x does not equal proof of x. No proof of y does not equal proof of x.

Only proof of x equals proof of x.

Do ya... fuckin'... get it?

 

[jack]

6,000,000 dead jews must be saying something.

 

[The Question]

Tell me this, Jack --

Pre-1990, the Auschwitz Memorial claimed 4 million Jews had died there. 6 million Jews, total, claimed victims of the camps. The text on the plaque, inscribed in 19 different languages, there read as follows:

"Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945".

6m - 4m (Auschwitz) leaves 2m allegedly murdered in the remaining camps.

But then in 1990, the plaque was replaced with another, which read:

"May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning."

So now:

1.5m (for Auschwitz) + 2m (for other areas) should equal 3.5m Jewish victims of the camps.

But does it? No. Still 6 million. The "six million" is a talisman, and nothing more. A magical number derived from arbitrary choice, or perhaps some mystical significance, but not from facts.

Unless you have some other explanation for why 6 - 2.5 should still = 6?

 

[jack]

Yes, the difference between sentiment (the first plaque) and fact (the second). When the first plaque was put up, Auschwitz stood for all the camps. (4 mil camps, 2 mil ghettos)

Fuck you moron, thats OUR sentiment. You have no right to cast your aspersions as a template over it. IT'S A FUCKING MEMORIAL, NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT.

Now this disgusting tangent of THIS discussion is over. You're just a desperate idiot.

Jewish custom says you get to meet them all on your way out :bigass:

 

[The Question]

IT'S A FUCKING MEMORIAL, NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT.

Mmmmmmm... let me bask in that for a moment. Ahhhhhhh. Let's relive it one more time:

NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT.

Thank you, jack. Concession accepted.

 

[Donovan]

HEY, STUPID.

Argumentum ad Populum. Look. It. Up.

Yeah, I took Logic 101 too. Good to see that community college thing is working out for you. Maybe later you could define "ad hominem" (attacking the man with comments like "hey stupid" thinking that will prove your argument); or "inflation of conflict" which is VERY apropos to the subject matter; "appeal to force or emotive language" (typing in all-caps really, really large doesn't really prove any pioints, does it?); "bad analogy" of which you have offered many shining examples; "misdirection" aka "red herring" argument in which deliberate emphasis is placed elsewhere to shore up the obvious weaknesses in your stance.

See, I got a whole list of these, and a pretty decent working knowledge of what they mean. And for the record, my argument would more correctly fall under Burden of Proof, not ad populum, which would apply more to faith-based arguments like the divinity of Jesus, where there can be no actual physical evidence to support one claim or the other.

Can we be done with that tired bullshit fallacy some-fucking-day?

Nope, because you keep trying to use such tactics to argue your points. Typing really large, inserting the word "fuck" for emphasis and your other attempts at misdirection do little to prove your point.

If the investigation commission's version is logically unsound or factually unfounded, no we fucking do not.

Actually, yes you do. Just saying something is bullshit does not make it bullshit. In a case like the Warren report, a highly debated public record that has been scrutinized by naysayers for decades, there is a certain amount of physical evidence including film record, autopsy reports, and reams of forensic evidence/documentation. All the conspiricists are free to hypothesize however they'd like about grassy knolls and extra players, but the BURDEN OF PROOF is on them in the face of the contrary evidence.

The same holds true for Holocaust revisers like yourself. If you want to debate sheer numbers, then the onus is on you to research the numbers through whatever means, make your assertion, and THEN BACK IT UP.

With fact, not with rhetoric or the various fallacious styles you've employed here.

My case is not proven; the point is, neither is yours. That is all my case is.

My point originally in this entire debate was that the difference between 3 million, 5 million, and 6 million dead people was a moot point and a matter of useless debate. The Holocaust: a systematic attack on the citizens of various European countries based SOLELY on ambiguous "tags" like religious affiliation or ethnicity, occured between 1933 and 1945. Millions died at the hands of their German captors. All of this is proven historical fact.

Arguing about discrepancies between actual death tolls, motives of the German war machine, or actual methods used in the dispatch of the prisoners is disengenuous and somewhat vile, strictly from an empathetic standpoint.

Demonstrate how this is so.

See above, and multiple other examples I could list but choose not to. I could point out your arguments by half-truth, arguments by question, arguments by division (if a few facts are wrong or in dispute, they must ALL be wrong) etc. But then that would be argument by ad nauseum, wouldn't it?

Alternative proof is unnecessary, because I'm not proposing a positive claim, only refusing yours.

Actually you're using yet another fallacious argument, the appeal to ignorance: you state that no one can prove a Holocaust with six million dead, therefore the opposite (no holocaust) must be true.

 

[Donovan]

Shorter. Simpler. For the crowd riding the short bus.

No proof against x does not equal proof of x. No proof of y does not equal proof of x.

Only proof of x equals proof of x.

Do ya... fuckin'... get it?

Did you want me to point out the three fallacies in this "argument" or are you finished?

 

[The Question]

There are no fallscues in that argument, Donovan, now you're going to toss something out that you think is wrong with it; you'll be wrong on all three counts, I'll explain why you're wrong in all three cases, on and on.

Here's the end result: you're going to concede point after punt until ice dismantled what is obviously an integral and substantial portion of the way you understand the world. I've already forced jack into a concession just that way.

Here's the thing, though; I don't want to do that to you or jack. I think you're just swell, fellas. So save us all some exasperation on the subject; don't argue with me. You can't win, and you'll only hurt yourselves trying.

 

[El Machorro]

"You make two mistakes in reasoning here: first, the burden of proof always rests upon the party or parties presenting a positive assertion, and not on the party or parties denying the positive assertion"

False. You are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. So far no one has PROVEN that the Holocaust as presented is a myth. There is overwhelming physical evidence to prove it wasn't however.

Wrongresumed innocence is a myth. Presumed guilt makes the process move forward.The accused MUST first DENY THE ALLEGATION is the truth or the fact of the matter at hand then the burden shifts to the accuser who must either prove they are telling the truth or the accused is not. If the accused remains silent after beng accused they are presumed guilty not innocent. If the accused admits guilt then its a slam dunk. As the accuser attempts to determine the truth , the burden of proof may shift with the accused punching holes thru the accusers contentions and evidence.
Innocent is a concept that is applied after a trial is over but even then a verdict of not guilty may only imply a lack of evidence proving otherwise was the case and not innocence. Innocence is never presumed its proven to be the fact when exculpatory information determines it.

 

[jack]

Wrongresumed innocence is a myth. Presumed guilt makes the process move forward.The accused MUST first DENY THE ALLEGATION is the truth or the fact of the matter at hand then the burden shifts to the accuser who must either prove they are telling the truth or the accused is not. If the accused remains silent after beng accused they are presumed guilty not innocent. If the accused admits guilt then its a slam dunk. As the accuser attempts to determine the truth , the burden of proof may shift with the accused punching holes thru the accusers contentions and evidence.
Innocent is a concept that is applied after a trial is over but even then a verdict of not guilty may only imply a lack of evidence proving otherwise was the case and not innocence. Innocence is never presumed its proven to be the fact when exculpatory information determines it.

You're an idiot. Next?

 

[El Machorro]

6,000,000 dead jews must be saying something.

what about the black holocaust=100 million dead from slavery?

 

[jack]

well, I'm just bantering with the Saint about his favorite fantasy.

We are probably the most genocidal nation in civilization

 

[The Question]

There are no fallacies in that argument, Donovan. Now you're going to toss something out that you think is wrong with it; you'll be wrong on all three counts, I'll explain why you're wrong in all three cases, on and on.

Here's the end result: you're going to concede point after point until I've dismantled what is obviously an integral and substantial portion of the way you understand the world. I've already forced jack into a concession just that way.

Here's the thing, though; I don't want to do that to you or jack. I think you're just swell, fellas. So save us all some exasperation on the subject; don't argue with me. You can't win, and you'll only hurt yourselves trying.

Remind me never to make another long post from the BlackBerry.

 

[The Question]

what about the black holocaust=100 million dead from slavery?

Ooh, I got that beat -- what about the flea & tick holocaust? 10.2 trillion dead from cat collars?

 

[El Machorro]

You're an idiot. Next?

Went right over your head ,huh?
I was citing the law which you did
not seem to recognize when I put it
in front of you.

The truth is when you open your mouth
to describe what you see, you in effect
describe yourself, your perceptions, and
your patterns of thinking which seem to be
defective , narrow, and limited.

The dead giveaway to
your defective system is exposed when somebody
disagrees with you and you immediately think
something is wrong with them.

Your ignorance
denies others the right to see things differently thru
their own unique lens of experience and self awareness.

You are unaware that your basic assumptions roadblock
a larger and far more objective view of reality.

Controlling people like yourself dont like surprises and
seldom incorporate imagination in their decision making
process.

Apparently you dont even think between being
stimulated and reacting to that stimulus verbally.

You are obviously afraid of testing your reality
against mine by examining your own patterns of thinking.

Well I think I have a purpose now.
Observing you as you describe the world as
you are conditioned to see it.

Ill wager you think you see things the way they are,
that you are objective

Truth is you see the world not as it is but as you are
or as you have been conditioned to see it.

As long as you stay the way you are Ill be just
outside the edge of your awareness looking at you
thru a unique lens of experience and self awareness
you lack.

Buy a legal dictionary and read it cover to cover.
Then get a psych dictionary and do the same
then look me up.
Then you wont be the idiot saying next to
defend his threatened ego.