-->
@fivesix
Hurry up and respond in the debate.
The description says no time wasters.
Yet you’re here in the forums.
Holocaust denial legislation is driven by a desire to stigmatize dissent(fivesix)
Posts
Total:
83
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
acting like a child again
here you go
have a free round.
please.
don't forfeit
use the space wisely because you will need it
-->
@fivesix
You might as well hash some stuff out here. My impression is you wanted good arguments against your position and for your position to be understood and oromagi seems to be trying to understand your argument and provide rebuttals and counter arguments.
-->
@fivesix
If Holocaust-denial legislation is made to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent, do you think that would be a stated intent by any party making it so?
In my personal opinion, no. Whether said opinion is sufficient in substantiating your position, that is another matter.
I am forced to focus on the desire, not any stated intent or extant proof, in this regard, becase it is simply not a rationale one would admit to. They would, however, state the intent as being to protect individual Jews.
Why not then focus on the consequences of the legislation and juxtapose toward which effect said consequences are geared?
And that is the visible status quo whose integrity I am objecting to with my proposition.
If you focus on the members of this status quo, i.e. what they think? how much integrity they have? What their desires are? etc. That will be an impossible task, unless there's an explicit mention of desires/intent. That is, if a person explicitly states that it's his/her desire to protect so-called Jews from harm more than X,Y, or Z, it would be near impossible to prove wrong that that is his/her desire.
As far as burden of proof is concerned. I think it falls equally on both sides here. Though overcoming the bias to see both sides as equal will be tough, particularly when there is a natural bias to assume popular laws are a result of altruistic intentions.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
After the debate is argued I will gladly talk freely about it, sure. But oromagi seems to want to argue about how I formed the debate without actually debating me on it. I don't know why. Unless trying to be helpful maybe.
-->
@Athias
Why not then focus on the consequences of the legislation and juxtapose toward which effect said consequences are geared?
I was planning to do just that as part of my arguments
If you focus on the members of this status quo, i.e. what they think? how much integrity they have? What their desires are? etc. That will be an impossible task, unless there's an explicit mention of desires/intent. That is, if a person explicitly states that it's his/her desire to protect so-called Jews from harm more than X,Y, or Z, it would be near impossible to prove wrong that that is his/her desire.
It is difficult. But I feel I can do it with the knowledge and stats I have. The issue I have is presenting it, something I am trying to improve on over time
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
your recent argument shows me your level of knowledge in this area. you should not have accepted the contender position IMO.
do you want to agree to cancel the rule of 'no new arguments in final round' so you can try again in round 4? then I will publish my JPG in round 5 and you can respond to it.
willing to give you another chance, despite that you have absolutely ignored my efforts and shown little consideration for my time invested in round 1.
that's because deep down I like to believe my ego does not control me. but I could be wrong.
-->
@fivesix
No. That won’t be necessary.
I want you to counter my argument with your best shot.
Not that it’ll make a difference.
I’m 100% willing to lose, as I’m unaffected by a victory or loss either way. Your fragile ego desperately needs this win.
But this is your last chance to show no mercy. So make this final round count.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I literally just gave you a free round and you tell me it's my last chance. I know it is and I knew it would be. Can't wait to see your response. I will post it within a few days when I have validated all my source material
-->
@fivesix
Very good.
Start praying that this source is the major breakthrough required to beat me.
Because if it isn’t, you just sabotaged your only opportunity at winning.
-->
@fivesix
... if the Holocaust were a lie, which I and most revisionists I have encountered argue is a ridiculous notion...
- I, too, think that denialism is ridiculous. The Holocaust is better documented than the Moon Landing or Pearl Harbor. The version of the Holocaust that most believe, the WIkipedia version is essentially Eichmann's version, Eichmann's testimony. I believe it. I read plenty of history and by any standard of evidence, the Holocaust is as much a historical certainty as Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima.
- What do the Holocaust revisionists claim? What do they say that you find compelling?
- Are you going to give us at least one example of somebody in jail somewhere for mere dissent and certainly not harm?
-->
@oromagi
What do the Holocaust revisionists claim? What do they say that you find compelling?
Contradictions and holes in the official narrative for me, even though you didn't ask me.
Here are some examples of the top of my head.
1. Every single prominent nazi woman is described as a sexual sadist with stories about them that almost look like they can appear out of a porn.
2. Holocaust survivors explaining weird things like one claiming a roller coaster of death that works like some sort of conveyer belt in the death camps. Another claimed that they survived 3 gas chamber attempts on their life because the maximum occupancy was 600 and they were the 601st there or some other non sense. I mean these people are slaughtering people but are going to respect the maximum occupancy sign on a building.
3. John Demjanjuk, was put on trial for being "Ivan the terrible" . Witness after witness who met John the terrible came forward and said it was definitely him. Maybe 200 Jews lied and said it was definitely the guy. It turns out he was a Nazi but he wasn't I am the terrible.
4. The laws mentioned by op. It seems that if it were true and there is zero room for doubt like the earth being round, than you wouldn't need to make laws against denialism.
5. There seems to be some altered photos of the Holocaust printed in newspapers. Not necessary if the events are as horrible as stated
6. At the end of the war German soldiers were literally starving and we are expected to believe that they starved prisoners out of malice and not because every country on the planet would prioritize feeding their troops over prisoners
7. There are reports of Nazis being tortured in a UK prison prior to the trials. Not sure why you would treat prisoners that way and expect confessions to be believed
There are a ton of things that need explained. There is a professor who I have talked to who noticed some of this stuff and thinks it somehow does not harm the official narrative but I am buying his upcoming book and reading it all the way through before I press him on the answers in case the book has the answers for me.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Here are some examples of the top of my head.
- That's some fucking weak as water evidence there. In the face of millions of pieces of documentary evidence, you take the position that a few minor details seem less than likely. Even if we were stupid enough to accept all of your speculations as granted, the entirety would have zero impact on the essential fact of the Holocaust. That is, Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe; around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. The murders were carried out in pogroms and mass shootings; by a policy of extermination through labor in concentration camps; and in gas chambers and gas vans in German extermination camps, chiefly Auschwitz-Birkenau, Bełżec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibór, and Treblinka in occupied Poland. Not one scrap of your passive voiced generalities call this fact into question.
1. Every single prominent nazi woman is described as a sexual sadist with stories about them that almost look like they can appear out of a porn.
- False and childish. Source?
2. Holocaust survivors explaining weird things like one claiming a roller coaster of death that works like some sort of conveyer belt in the death camps.
- Conveyor belts were an ordinary part of most industrial sites in the 1940s. It would be more surprising if the Germans weren't using conveyor belts.
Another claimed that they survived 3 gas chamber attempts on their life because the maximum occupancy was 600 and they were the 601st there or some other non sense. I mean these people are slaughtering people but are going to respect the maximum occupancy sign on a building.
- A very specific claim - source?
- We know of two chambers that had max occupancy of 600 so that part seems to be confirming prior testimony.
3. John Demjanjuk, was put on trial for being "Ivan the terrible" . Witness after witness who met John the terrible came forward and said it was definitely him. Maybe 200 Jews lied and said it was definitely the guy. It turns out he was a Nazi but he wasn't I am the terrible.
- As the court stated at the time of Demjanjuk's conviction, the testimony of the five Treblinka survivors who identified Demjanjuk as Ivan was so bad that it did not meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The Court was clear that it found the testimony of a former NAZI guard at Treblinka, and the documentaton supplied by the Soviets including the ID card the compelling evidence for convicition. Three years later, when the new Russian government advised that the KGB had been falsifying the evidence and the US Govt. admitted that none of the 15 Treblinka survivors they interviewed had actually id'd Demjanjuk but they went ahead and falsified two witnesses as a favor to Isreael and Israel admitted that only 8 of the 40 Treblinka survivors they interviewed had id'd Demjanjuk and Israel also admitted they had surpressed witnesses who said Demjanjuk was definitely not Ivan and had surpressed evidence of Ivan's real name.
- Readers should take a breath here and evaluate Perez Hilton's bias as is demonstrated in his distortion of the Demjanjuk trial.
- Notice that of 55 Treblinka survivors asked, only 8 actually identified Demjanjuk. Of those 8, only five testified in court and the defense gave good reasons to question the reliability of all five witnesses, some of these old men seemed fairly out of touch with reality.
- The Israeli Govt certainly gets the most blame for corrupt prosecution but the US and USSR were both in a position to correct the record and let the accusation stand.
- Perez complains: "Maybe 200 Jews lied and said it was definitely the guy. Witness after witness who met John the terrible came forward and said it was definitely him"
- So, not 200 Jews, more like five and we have 50 other Jews who not think Demjanjuk was Ivan.
- The credibility of the testimony was successfully challenged and the court weighed that absence of reliable witness data forty years later as unconvincing.
- Still, Perez can only see one villain here, this mob of lying Jews, when, in fact, many non-Jews and Nazis also lied and the overwhelming majority of Jews interviewed did not lie. Perez's propensity for blaming only lying Jews demonstates the distortion in the lens Perez uses to view Jews.
The laws mentioned by op. It seems that if it were true and there is zero room for doubt like the earth being round, than you wouldn't need to make laws against denialism.
- In a democracy, which civil right should be held in higher priority?
- My right to know the truth vs
- Your right to distort the truth?
There seems to be some altered photos of the Holocaust printed in newspapers. Not necessary if the events are as horrible as stated
- Source?
- can it be true that all we need is to alter some photos to cast doubt on the reality of any event"?
At the end of the war German soldiers were literally starving and we are expected to believe that they starved prisoners out of malice and not because every country on the planet would prioritize feeding their troops over prisoners
- You mean they didn't necessarily starve the prisoners out of malice they only kidnapped, enslaved, tortured, raped, worked the Jews to death our of malice but at the end they couldn't help but to starve their slaves, that part wasn't out of malice. ok.
There are reports of Nazis being tortured in a UK prison prior to the trials. Not sure why you would treat prisoners that way and expect confessions to be believed
- Yeah, torture never works.
There are a ton of things that need explained.
- LIke what?
There is a professor who I have talked to who noticed some of this stuff and thinks it somehow does not harm the official narrative
- I agree with your professor. None of what you claim seems to challenge the essential Eichmann narrative.
but I am buying his upcoming book and reading it all the way through before I press him on the answers in case the book has the answers for me.
- you do that
-->
@oromagi
False and childish. Source?
Literally look into the top google results for anybody. Choose one. Let's go with Ilse Koch. I was talking to a biographer of hers who pointed out this issue with a lot of female Nazis. Here is the professor I was talking too and a part of his book description. https://www.amazon.com/Ilse-Koch-Trial-Making-Buchenwald/dp/0674249186
And what a fellow historian has said that hints at this common portrayal of Nazi women
The definitive portrait of Ilse Koch, whose caricature as a sadistic nymphomaniac has for too long dominated representations of Nazi female perpetrators. In Jardim’s judicious hands, Koch’s story reveals much about the Nazi system, postwar justice, and the sexism that permeated both, while firmly establishing Koch’s guilt and paranoid antisemitism.”
In a democracy, which civil right should be held in higher priority?My right to know the truth vsYour right to distort the truth?
Freedom of speech allows lies or distortions to sit beside facts and for people to judge arguments on their merit. I think they are equally important.
can it be true that all we need is to alter some photos to cast doubt on the reality of any event"?
Come on oromagi. If an event happened and the media is claiming it happened. Why would they need to manipulate the evidence?
There are reports of Nazis being tortured in a UK prison prior to the trials. Not sure why you would treat prisoners that way and expect confessions to be believedYeah, torture never works.
I would never claim torture doesn't work. It is better used for gaining Intel than it is for trials.
You mean they didn't necessarily starve the prisoners out of malice they only kidnapped, enslaved, tortured, raped, worked the Jews to death our of malice but at the end they couldn't help but to starve their slaves, that part wasn't out of malice. ok.
The point is why are their lies about that portion of events. If everything they say is true why not make a nuanced claim like "they are certainly responsible for the mistreatment of prisoners prior to the end of the war but events at the end of the war were beyond their control"
If the truth is on your side, you never need bias distortion or lies.
Three years later, when the new Russian government advised that the KGB had been falsifying the evidence and the US Govt. admitted that none of the 15 Treblinka survivors they interviewed had actually id'd Demjanjuk but they went ahead and falsified two witnesses as a favor to Isreael and Israel admitted that only 8 of the 40 Treblinka survivors they interviewed had id'd Demjanjuk and Israel also admitted they had surpressed witnesses who said Demjanjuk was definitely not Ivan and had surpressed evidence of Ivan's real name.
Have you changed your opinion of the America's ruling class being bad people?
This is fucked up information you are providing right here. Why are they manipulating evidence of the Holocaust like you admit?
The Israeli Govt certainly gets the most blame for corrupt prosecution but the US and USSR were both in a position to correct the record and let the accusation stand.
That's pretty fucked up by all 3 governments. It makes me wonder though how come they did this?
Still, Perez can only see one villain here, this mob of lying Jews, when, in fact, many non-Jews and Nazis also lied and the overwhelming majority of Jews interviewed did not lie.
That's not the impression I got from the Netflix documentary. It seemed like the majority of witnesses were lying and this was not a film made by Nazi sympathizers.
A very specific claim - source?
Yes 3 survivals. Very suspicious.
That's some fucking weak as water evidence there. In the face of millions of pieces of documentary evidence, you take the position that a few minor details seem less than likely
Yes, I am the type where I can't form a conclusion unless every piece of evidence can be explained.
Conveyor belts were an ordinary part of most industrial sites in the 1940s. It would be more surprising if the Germans weren't using conveyor belts.
You didn't hear the description. It was ridiculous. I am trying to find it but this stuff gets memory holed real fast.
Source?can it be true that all we need is to alter some photos to cast doubt on the reality of any event"
I am on a phone right now but it was a photo where you could tell the newspaper doubled the image. It was a stack of dead bodies and they kinda stretched it out to look like more bodies. The dead bodies on the left of the image was the same as on the right. As soon as I post this I will look but I wrote up a lot and don't want the phone to delete this all.
-->
@oromagi
I am sharing the photo in the discord and tagging you if you are there in the memes section so you can see just one of what I keep running int
-->
@oromagi
Somehow it hasn't been completely memory holed. Here is the photo I was talking about. I am looking to find an English article on it right now and will edit this post when I do . https://archive.org/details/buchenwaldblock56
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Every single prominent nazi woman is described as a sexual sadist with stories about them that almost look like they can appear out of a porn.
(That is, you are claiming that historians can't be trusted because they have distorted images of NAZIs. For proof of "every single prominent woman" you offer Ilse Koch.
Let's go with Ilse Koch. I was talking to a biographer of hers who pointed out this issue with a lot of female Nazis. Here is the professor I was talking too and a part of his book description. https://www.amazon.com/Ilse-Koch-Trial-Making-Buchenwald/dp/0674249186
- You should have paid closer attention to your professor friend. Koch is NOT an example of a prominent German woman who's good reputation was besmirched in retrospect by sensational media.
- Koch was the wife of a Kommandant at Buchenwald. She did not become famous until she was arrested along with her husband for murdering witnesses central to an investigation into the couple embezzling some of the wealth stripped from Jews rather than turning it all over to the state.
- "The Bitch of Buchenwald" and many sensational claims about Koch originate from NAZI media, not people documenting the Holocaust.
- German courts acquitted her in 1944 for lack of evidence. In 1947, she was given a life sentence for particpating in war crimes at Buchenwald but this was commuted to four years by a US Judge finding no evidence of the most sensational claims against her. The German people convicted her in 1951 for crimes against Germans
And what a fellow historian has said that hints at this common portrayal of Nazi women
- You claimed "every single prominent NAZI woman," failed to find even on prominent NAZI woman who matched your claim and now you're down to "common portrayal of NAZI women." OK, we're talking about the historical factuality of the Holocaust, not the depiction of enemies in wartime comic books.
- I would say that Magda Goebbels, Leni Riefenstahl, Hanna Reitsch, Eva Braun. None of these women match your false claim about every single prominent woman.
- This lie stands disproved.
The definitive portrait of Ilse Koch, whose caricature as a sadistic nymphomaniac has for too long dominated representations of Nazi female perpetrators. In Jardim’s judicious hands, Koch’s story reveals much about the Nazi system, postwar justice, and the sexism that permeated both, while firmly establishing Koch’s guilt and paranoid antisemitism.”
- Tomaz Jardim shows that, while Koch was guilty of heinous crimes, she also became a scapegoat for postwar Germans (not Jews) eager to distance themselves from the Nazi past. The popular condemnation of Koch―and the particularly perverse crimes attributed to her by prosecutors, the media, and the public at large―diverted attention from the far more consequential but less sensational complicity of millions of ordinary Germans in the Third Reich’s crimes.
- Koch was scapegoated by Germans, who participated by the millions in the Holocaust, as confirmed by your historian who you quote too selectively.
In a democracy, which civil right should be held in higher priority?My right to know the truth vsYour right to distort the truth?
I think they are equally important.
Let's agree that this postion establishes you as a morally crippled individual. Those who fail to uphold the truth as superior to the lie can never pretend to be a credible of data or analysis. Why would anybody care about the opinion of somebody who refuses to value the truth more than a lie?
Come on oromagi. If an event happened and the media is claiming it happened. Why would they need to manipulate the evidence?
- In the age of the internet, "the media" is the same as saying most humans- way too fucking general. You have presented ZERO evidence that historians have manipulated the evidence.
I would never claim torture doesn't work. It is better used for gaining Intel than it is for trials.
- Well, then you are a fool Read history, read US Intelligence analysis of the product of torture- negative value at best.
The point is why are their lies about that portion of events.
- You're the one spreading those lies. You should answer that question.
If everything they say is true why not make a nuanced claim like "they are certainly responsible for the mistreatment of prisoners prior to the end of the war but events at the end of the war were beyond their control"
- Well because that would be a totally evil fucking lie denying rock solid historical truths. Mistreatment is the least of it. The NAZIs were guilty of systematic cold-blooded, minutely planned and managed and documented murder on a scale far exceeding any other mass murder event in human history. It was the worst thing any one group of humans has ever done to another group of human and to say that the Holocaust was anything less than that is bearing false witness.
If the truth is on your side, you never need bias distortion or lies.
- You exagerated bad about NAZI women. I will show you flat out lied about Gena Turgel and the NY TImes photo. The bias and lies are all on your side therefore let's agree that the truth has ghosted you out of disgust.
Have you changed your opinion of the America's ruling class being bad people?
- I have no idea what the fuck you are lying about now.
That's pretty fucked up by all 3 governments. It makes me wonder though how come they did this?
- Notice that the two democratic governments challenged their own conclusions and corrected the error in spite of massive public outage and even Senatorial commitees demanding that they preserve the false. Waiting for govt to be flawless is the folly of extremists liek you. Governments that actually check and balance their errors and even do right at large political cost- those are the governments where the truth is prioritized. Trusting Russian intelligence for the truth is always a mistake and will always run contrary to Americans' best interest.
That's not the impression I got from the Netflix documentary. It seemed like the majority of witnesses were lying and this was not a film made by Nazi sympathizers.
- But you are extraordiarily biased and also dim-witted. he Netflix documentary states that she was a sadist who turned humans into lampshades. The history books, the US and German and Israeli governments all agree that no material evidence supports Netflix's claims. Who are you going to believe?
- Your feelings about some tv show are not evidence, thanks.
Yes 3 survivals. Very suspicious.
- Your credibility is trashed.
- You claimed: "[A Holocaust survivor] claimed that they survived 3 gas chamber attempts on their life because the maximum occupancy was 600 and they were the 601st there or some other non sense. I mean these people are slaughtering people but are going to respect the maximum occupancy sign on a building.
- When asked for a source, you provided nbcnews, who provided the truth and did not support your falsehoods.
- Gena Turgel does not claim to have survived 3 gas chamber attempts. She survived 3 different concentration camps, 2 forced marches, and once at Auschwitz, she was forced naked into a crowded room. Nothing happened but other prisoners told her that she had been in a gas chamber.
- So you lied about 3 gas chamber attempts and you lied about maximum occupancy in order to bismirch the reputation of woman who did nothing to you except be a Jew. All the details you used to discredit Turgel are evil fucking lies.
- Turgel's testimony confirms the existence of three deathcamps and of two deathmarches. She testified that thousands unable to march were shot to death before the march began and that thousands more were killed by guards as they fell or failed to keep up. Turgel was one the last people to meet Anne Frank and her testimony confirms Anne Frank's death from typhus at Bergen-Belsen.
Yes, I am the type where I can't form a conclusion unless every piece of evidence can be explained.
- Well, then, you are a fool. All anyone has to do to keep you perpetually baffled is to keep feeding you an occaisional lie. Your absolutism makes you extremely easy to manipulate.
Somehow it hasn't been completely memory holed. Here is the photo I was talking about. I am looking to find an English article on it right now and will edit this post when I do . https://archive.org/details/buchenwaldblock56
- Here is how the actual article appeared in the NY Time on May 6, 1945.
- https://www.nytimes.com/1945/05/06/archives/the-world-must-not-forget-what-was-done-in-the-german-prison-camps.html
- The New York Times did run that article "The World must not forget" with that text but the picture from Buchenwald never appeared in that article and there was no "Crowded Bunks in the camp at Buchenwald" tag. The original photo is the clear one with the man leaning on the post. It was taken by a US Army photographer and the original is now archived at the National Holocaust Museum as an historical record. The faked photo never appeared in the New Times as claimed and most likely originated with the Russian authors of your website, designed to fool gullible people like you.
- The font for NY TImes headlines is wrong
- Shame you didn't wonder why there was web address stamped across the photo. There were no web addresses in 1945.
- The fuzzy version is always the fake.
English article https://tugulympu.ru/en/uzhasy-nemeckih-konclagerei-samoe-izvestnoe-holokostnoe-foto/
That is not an English article, that is some more Russian propoganda.
-->
@oromagi
Let's agree that this postion establishes you as a morally crippled individual. Those who fail to uphold the truth as superior to the lie can never pretend to be a credible of data or analysis. Why would anybody care about the opinion of somebody who refuses to value the truth more than a lie?
Retarded. You said which one should society hold in higher regard, not individuals. Society should value freedom of speech and make no laws infringing on it.
In the age of the internet, "the media" is the same as saying most humans- way too fucking general. You have presented ZERO evidence that historians have manipulated the evidence.
I posted an article about a manipulated image from the New York post and posted an image in the discord tagging your name of I think about 7 different manipulated photos
Well, then, you are a fool. All anyone has to do to keep you perpetually baffled is to keep feeding you an occaisional lie. Your absolutism makes you extremely easy to manipulate.
My "absolutism" makes it so that if there are any ever highly coordinated attempts to manipulate me into believing something it never succeeds.. being perpetually baffled is far superior to the risk of ever even once being incorrect in a conclusion.
That is not an English article, that is some more Russian propoganda.
Denying the Holocaust in Russia is a prison sentence. Plus it doesn't make any sense to make that sort of thing up.
That is, you are claiming that historians can't be trusted because they have distorted images of NAZIs. For proof of "every single prominent woman" you offer Ilse Koch.
She is the first one that came to mind due to a recent episode of a true crime show, my communication with the author etc.
I don't know who all your examples are but I know Eva Braun and I wouldn't consider her a NAZI.
Also clearly when I say every one I am being hyperbolic.
"The Bitch of Buchenwald" and many sensational claims about Koch originate from NAZI media, not people documenting the Holocaust.
So what was their plan? To make themselves look like good guys by claiming they were collectively responsible for even worse shit?
She survived 3 different concentration camps, 2 forced marches, and once at Auschwitz, she was forced naked into a crowded room. Nothing happened but other prisoners told her that she had been in a gas chamber.
I am basing this off of memory, so give me some leeway. I think what you stated still keeps the essence of what I said. Pretty crazy stuff. Surviving 3 camps when Hitler was systematically eliminating Jews.
Here is how the actual article appeared in the NY Time on May 6, 1945.
Even what I read from people trying to debunk that the manipulated photo meant anything were admitting it was posted in the NY times. This is the first time I am seeing an argument that it wasn't in the paper at all. Why out of the hundred rebuttals I saw, you are the only one that shows this?
Shame you didn't wonder why there was web address stamped across the photo. There were no web addresses in 1945.
I just assumed they were trying to get credit for discovering the fraud and stamped the photo as a way to get credit from whoever was sharing the story.
I don't understand why Holocaust deniers would manufacture evidence if they really believed. What they were saying. I can understand why they would misinterpret evidence but manufacturing evidence is an admission that you don't believe your own story.
However we have 2 issues here. Both sides seem to have some bullshit evidence. Either the Holocaust happened or it didn't and if your version is correct their is no need for anyone to sensationalize or lie or anything else. Just present the facts.
But you are extraordiarily biased and also dim-witted. he Netflix documentary states that she was a sadist who turned humans into lampshades. The history books, the US and German and Israeli governments all agree that no material evidence supports Netflix's claims. Who are you going to believe?
Why are Holocaust supporters lying if the evidence supports their ultimate argument?
Notice that the two democratic governments challenged their own conclusions and corrected the error in spite of massive public outage and even Senatorial commitees demanding that they preserve the false. Waiting for govt to be flawless is the folly of extremists liek you
I think it would be better if they didn't make those false conclusions to start with.
Well because that would be a totally evil fucking lie denying rock solid historical truths.
Their own troops were starving at the end though. So maybe they did a lot of stuff out of evil intent, but why claim the starvation at the end was due to this instead of concluding the obvious that even America would have had trouble feeding prisoners if they lacked resources to feed their troops.
exceeding any other mass murder event in human history
Didn't Mao kill like 60 million of his own people and Stalin like 40 million? That seems worse than 6 million.
You said which one should society hold in higher regard, not individuals. Society should value freedom of speech and make no laws infringing on it.
- False. I asked you which you held in higher priority- my right to the truth or your right to lie. What value is freedom of speech, after all, if no speech can be trusted.
My "absolutism" makes it so that if there are any ever highly coordinated attempts to manipulate me into believing something it never succeeds.. being perpetually baffled is far superior to the risk of ever even once being incorrect in a conclusion.
- We've proved right here that you are a gigantic sucker for even the most obvious falsehoods- just so long as they match your compusive hatreds.
Denying the Holocaust in Russia is a prison sentence. Plus it doesn't make any sense to make that sort of thing up.
- Read the domain name. .ru is russian. There is no denying that you are sourcing sketchy russian sources.
I don't know who all your examples are but I know Eva Braun and I wouldn't consider her a NAZI.
- You admit you don't know the most famous women of the NAZI era but you are nevertheless willing to make generalizations about all prominent women of the NAZI era. You admit that you make factual claims here even though you lack the basic research to make those claims. Let's fact the facts- you suck at the truth- at knowing the truth, at telling the truth. You just don't care enough about the truth to be a source of factual data for any purpose.
- You have conceded that your information is bad. That you got your facts wrong about who condemned Ilse Koch for what reason. Worse, you say you consulted a professor and came away with the wrong fact even as that professor demonstrates that he had his fact right. That is, we can see you are able to come away with completely wrong information even from reliable sources. Your hearing is selective.
I am basing this off of memory, so give me some leeway.
- Fuck that. You should raise your right hand and swear that you will never go off memory again, that you will always do your research before makiing up about lies about the Jews you so hate, because your memory is damaged and corrupt- it makes you lie over and over again.
I think what you stated still keeps the essence of what I said. Pretty crazy stuff. Surviving 3 camps when Hitler was systematically eliminating Jews.
- You LIED when you said 600 capacity. You LIED when you said some Jew had made that claim. You made up fake details to besmirch an admirable women. Admit your corrupt your bias and concede you have no business pretending to have insight about Jewish history. Read history about the many, many forced marches Hitler ordered as Germany retreated to the West. There was nothing unusual about Jews who relocated to 3 or more camps.
This is the first time I am seeing an argument that it wasn't in the paper at all. Why out of the hundred rebuttals I saw, you are the only one that shows this?
- Because I went straight to the NY Times archive. You went straight to Russian propaganda sources.
I just assumed they were trying to get credit for discovering the fraud and stamped the photo as a way to get credit from whoever was sharing the story.
- Over the photo they are trying to discredit? Another example of how easily fooled you are.
I don't understand why Holocaust deniers would manufacture evidence if they really believed. What they were saying. I can understand why they would misinterpret evidence but manufacturing evidence is an admission that you don't believe your own story.
- For exactly the same reason you manufactured evidence about Ilse Koch and Gena Turgel- irrational hatred of Jews.
if your version is correct their is no need for anyone to sensationalize or lie or anything else. Just present the facts.
- YOU lied about the holocaust. YOU sensationalized false information. We are asking you now- why did you feel the need to lie about the Holocaust?
Why are Holocaust supporters lying if the evidence supports their ultimate argument?
- Only anti-semites support the Holocaust.
I think it would be better if they didn't make those false conclusions to start with.
- But the sources to trust are the ones who correct their mistakes.
Their own troops were starving at the end though. So maybe they did a lot of stuff out of evil intent, but why claim the starvation at the end was due to this instead of concluding the obvious that even America would have had trouble feeding prisoners if they lacked resources to feed their troops.
- In early 1945, German soldiers still received the highest priority for rations but many troops were moving west fast and simply living off what they could steal from farmhouses and villages. German troops were still averaging 500 calories/day while denying at gunpoint innocent prisioners ever a single calorie. Big difference
- Obviously there is also an important moral difference between starving as a nation due to terrible foreign policy and planning and starving in a cage because creul won't unlock the door.
False. I asked you which you held in higher priority- my right to the truth or your right to lie. What value is freedom of speech, after all, if no speech can be trusted.
No speech can be trusted anyway. I learned this when I learned about solipsism.
We've proved right here that you are a gigantic sucker for even the most obvious falsehoods- just so long as they match your compusive hatreds.
I said I have doubt about the Holocaust, not that I believe it never happened. I haven't fell for a single falsehood because I don't believe anything. The exception may be if false hoods were intended to create doubt as opposed to convince.
Read the domain name. .ru is russian. There is no denying that you are sourcing sketchy russian sources.
A Russian citizen denying the Holocaust almost certainly believes what he is saying because it can get you thrown in the gulags to believe it.
Because I went straight to the NY Times archive. You went straight to Russian propaganda sources.
Bro, I went to leftwing sources trying to debunk the photo which includes reddit and Quora. Regardless of where the sources came from i went to legitimate opposers of the information.
For exactly the same reason you manufactured evidence about Ilse Koch and Gena Turgel- irrational hatred of Jews.
I in fact have not, there are movies about Ilse Koch from Hollywood (ran by Jews) who paint her that way. I have randomly googled other Nazi women and have came back with similar stories.
No speech can be trusted anyway. I learned this when I learned about solipsism.
- No Solipsist who understood the meaning of the word would bother with debate.
I haven't fell for a single falsehood because I don't believe anything.
- Rather, your belief de jour is a manifestiation of your compulsion to troll, to hurt strangers for no reason. You'll believe anything, no matter how outrageous if it will open up an opportunity to hurt someone anonnymously.
A Russian citizen denying the Holocaust almost certainly believes what he is saying because it can get you thrown in the gulags to believe it.
- False. Denying the Holocaust to a Russian audience is a crime. Tricking dumb Americans into disbelieving basic facts about history is part of Putin's attack on American integrity.
Bro, I went to leftwing sources trying to debunk the photo which includes reddit and Quora.
- Nothing that the GRU permits on *.ru is leftwing by definition. If you claim, here is what the NY Times wrote in 1945, you should know that the NY Times keeps a digital copy of every newspaper it has ever printed. It was very easy to disprove your claim.
Regardless of where the sources came from i went to legitimate opposers of the information.
- I agree that you went to legitimate opposers of information. Americans and Free thinkers everywhere love true information and never want to see information opposed .
I in fact have not, there are movies about Ilse Koch from Hollywood (ran by Jews) who paint her that way. I have randomly googled other Nazi women and have came back with similar stories.
- Sorry if my researched facts made you look lazy and trollish for relying on Hollywood and random googles for your facts. No wonder you can't tell the truth from lies.
-->
@oromagi
Sorry if my researched facts made you look lazy and trollish for relying on Hollywood and random googles for your facts. No wonder you can't tell the truth from lies.
Hollywood claims the Holocaust happened.