Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Motives of a Holocaust Revisionist

FLEA AND TICK BODY COUNTS ARE
SERIOUS BUSINESS WHEN
THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS.
iLL CONCEDE THE 100 MILLION BLACKS
WHO DIED IN SLAVERY IS
AN ESTIMATE BASED ON tARZAN MOVIES
AND BLACK PANTHER NEWSPAPERS.
 
El Machorro said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you autistic? Too many hard returns in that post, couldn't read.
 
The Saint said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh I think I'll be just fine, thanks. I have the love of jesus and a list of fallacies in my heart.

As for arguments and fallacies, aside from the ad hominem attacks (X rides the short bus so X is wrong), the argument by emotive language ( X doesn't FUCKEN get it) and arguing the consequent (by saying "only proof of x is proof of x", you imply that there is no proof of a holocaust: wrong, and therefore imply that there must have been no holocaust).

In the above post, you attempt to prove your case by using personal charm (gawsh, shucks), appeal by repetition, argument by changing the subject, argument by circular reasoning(I'm right because I'm right?) and scenario (kneel before Zod!)

And that's just a few I saw right away.
 
The Saint said:
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?
Click to expand...

Since I feel like it, let's do the math here:

X= "The Holocaust is a jewish myth"
Y= "The holocaust happened as described"

No proof against the Holocaust being a jewish myth does not equal proof of the Holocaust being a jewish myth.

No (or disputed) proof of the holocaust happening as described does not equal proof that the holocaust is a jewish myth.

ONLY proof that the Holocaust was a jewish myth equals proof that the Holocaust was a jewish myth.

Hmmm...I guess that WAS pretty helpful, Saint. Thanks for clearing that up for us! I think I ...fuckin...get it now.

Now about that proof you were planning to eventually provide...
 
El Machorro said:
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.
Click to expand...


Why do I feel like he was wearing a black beret and goatee while writing this? And snapping his fingers? Be cool, Daddy-o, it's all copacetic in here...
 
Donovan said:
Oh I think I'll be just fine, thanks. I have the love of jesus and a list of fallacies in my heart.

As for arguments and fallacies, aside from the ad hominem attacks (X rides the short bus so X is wrong), the argument by emotive language ( X doesn't FUCKEN get it) and arguing the consequent (by saying "only proof of x is proof of x", you imply that there is no proof of a holocaust: wrong, and therefore imply that there must have been no holocaust).

In the above post, you attempt to prove your case by using personal charm (gawsh, shucks), appeal by repetition, argument by changing the subject, argument by circular reasoning(I'm right because I'm right?) and scenario (kneel before Zod!)

And that's just a few I saw right away.
Click to expand...

*sigh* Fine, fine, we'll go on playing.

You've committed Argumentum ad Logicam here. Why? Because although I have, in fact, committed all of those fallacies but one, those fallacies are neither the substance of my position, nor do I use them to actively support my position. I mock you in my approach, yes -- but my mockery of you is the style of my approach, not the substance of it.

As for:

No proof against x != proof of x
Proof of y != proof of x
Proof of x = proof of x

That's not a fallacy in inductive reasoning. It would be in deductive reasoning, where all quantities are known and it is possible to prove x by proving not y. That can be done in mathematics, but not in historical or social subjects.

To clarify by example:

You can prove that a number is a negative integer by proving that it isn't positive and it isn't 0. See there? In deduction, your position is the right one.

However -- You can't prove I own a Ferrari by proving I don't own a Volkswagen.
 
Donovan said:
Since I feel like it, let's do the math here:

X= "The Holocaust is a jewish myth"
Y= "The holocaust happened as described"

No proof against the Holocaust being a jewish myth does not equal proof of the Holocaust being a jewish myth.

No (or disputed) proof of the holocaust happening as described does not equal proof that the holocaust is a jewish myth.

ONLY proof that the Holocaust was a jewish myth equals proof that the Holocaust was a jewish myth.

Hmmm...I guess that WAS pretty helpful, Saint. Thanks for clearing that up for us! I think I ...fuckin...get it now.

Now about that proof you were planning to eventually provide...
Click to expand...

Except that it's far more basic than that.

x=it happened.
y=it didn't.

Where x=Yes and y=No.

x requires proof. y requires nothing.
 
The Saint said:
*sigh* Fine, fine, we'll go on playing.

You've committed Argumentum ad Logicam here. Why? Because although I have, in fact, committed all of those fallacies but one, those fallacies are neither the substance of my position, nor do I use them to actively support my position. I mock you in my approach, yes -- but my mockery of you is the style of my approach, not the substance of it.

As for:

No proof against x != proof of x
Proof of y != proof of x
Proof of x = proof of x

That's not a fallacy in inductive reasoning. It would be in deductive reasoning, where all quantities are known and it is possible to prove x by proving not y. That can be done in mathematics, but not in historical or social subjects.

To clarify by example:

You can prove that a number is a negative integer by proving that it isn't positive and it isn't 0. See there? In deduction, your position is the right one.

However -- You can't prove I own a Ferrari by proving I don't own a Volkswagen.
Click to expand...

Since you don't actually provide anything other than your "style" and nothing of substance, one must assume that is the entire basis of your argument. You can't come back later and say "Oh I have more, I just didn't write it down because I was being charming."

Re: inductive vs. deductive reasoning. I was mocking you for oversimplifying a complex topic in the first place. Sorry if that got by you. I'll use a smiley icon next time.

As for what exactly requires proof: since reams of documentation exist supporting the official version of the holocaust, and you are asserting that the thing didn't happen that way, The burden of proof you haven't yet provided in your endless charming replies, is on you.

Still.

Bearing in mind the original post in this thread, by your revisionist guy: one of his claims is that since a "gas-oven" door on display can be proven to have been also advertised as a bomb shelter, therefore the holocaust didn't happen.

Do I even need to clarify why I originally called this evidence "cagey" at best?
 
So what do you think Chupa, about the 6 mil? You think those punchcards were really that effective at tracking and disposition?
 
Still want to play? Okay, then.

I'll make a positive claim, which I've substantiated numerous times here, and elsewhere and will substantiate here again (but not on a blackberry) -- everything which is presented as evidence fails to actually pass muster as evidence. Take as an evample the oft-referred to Wannsee Protocols: Yad Vashem maintains an online copy against which it makes several claims; the coopt available, said by them to be complete, does not support their claims about it. The door which was displayed as a gas chamber door at Auschwitz was simple wood and could never have afforded a gas-tight seal; other such instances of ridiculously false "evidence" abound.

So, frankly, at the basis of"it's not a fact" is "that's not evidence."


Donovan said:
Since you don't actually provide anything other than your "style" and nothing of substance, one must assume that is the entire basis of your argument. You can't come back later and say "Oh I have more, I just didn't write it down because I was being charming."

Re: inductive vs. deductive reasoning. I was mocking you for oversimplifying a complex topic in the first place. Sorry if that got by you. I'll use a smiley icon next time.

As for what exactly requires proof: since reams of documentation exist supporting the official version of the holocaust, and you are asserting that the thing didn't happen that way, The burden of proof you haven't yet provided in your endless charming replies, is on you.

Still.

Bearing in mind the original post in this thread, by your revisionist guy: one of his claims is that since a "gas-oven" door on display can be proven to have been also advertised as a bomb shelter, therefore the holocaust didn't happen.

Do I even need to clarify why I originally called this evidence "cagey" at best?
Click to expand...
 
Wansee and VASHEM especially can't be trusted. I see why you wave them as the proof banner.

Ed Gein had a real bead on that shit...especially the "dead energy" weird psycho voodoo shit, and the whole "watch the body die while masturbating" activity.

SALO wasnt made up. That filmmaker was killed for making that film. You know, where Hitler gets face shit on by little kids while fucking and killing one?

C'mon Danny, you KNOW it was a sickness. Get down with it.
 
For some reason your post made Fiona start spinnin' in my head, Daniel. Go figure.

Ive been a bad bad girl,
Ive been careless with millions of men.
And its a sad sad world,
When a girl can break a boy
Just because she can.

Dont you tell me to deny it,
Ive done wrong and I want to
Suffer for my sins.
Ive come to you cause I need
Guidance to be true
And I just dont know where I can begin.

What I need is a good defense
cause Im feelin like a criminal.
And I need to be redeemed
To the one I sinned against
Because he was all I ever knew of love.

Heaven help me for the way I am.
Save me from these evil deeds.
Before I get them done.
I know tomorrow brings the consequence
At hand.
But I keep livin this day like
The next will never come.

Oh, help me, but dont tell me
To deny it.
Ive got to cleanse myself.
Of all these lies till Im good
Enough for him.
Ive got a lot to lose and im
Bettin high
So Im beggin you before it ends
Just tell me where to begin.

What I need is a good defense
cause Im feelin like a criminal.
And I need to be redeemed
To the one I sinned against
Because he was all I ever knew of love.

Let me know the way
Before theres hell to pay.
Give me room to lay the law and let me go.

Ive got to make a play
To make my lover stay
So, what would an angel say?
cause the devil wants to know.

What I need is a good defense
cause Im feelin like a criminal.
And I need to be redeemed
To the one I sinned against
Because he was all I ever knew of love.

What I need is a good defense
cause Im feelin like a criminal.
And I need to be redeemed
To the one I sinned against
Because he was all I ever knew of love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top