Comments on other threads.

[Archie]

Callafangers makes a passionate and detailed defence of so-called revisionists use of the argument from incredulity;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21204#p21204

Kindly answer the question: why do you completely avoid the technical debate?

The answer is that the so-called technical debate is logically flawed.

Stop starting so many threads. Especially low-effort ones with little content.

[Archie]

Archie, who asked for essays to be submitted, providing the best case for the Holocaust, turns hypocrite;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21214#p21214

One could of course write an article summarizing many of the key arguments, but imo this is not usually the right approach.

He cannot produce a best case for Holocaust revisionism/denial.

If I were to write a "best evidence" for revisionism article, it would be fairly different from the above articles. But again I don't think blitzing people with tons of stuff is the best approach for an introduction.

There's no "hypocrisy." You don't understand that word.

I made you an offer to pin your essay on the Debate board. I even said I would reciprocate and write a similar pro-Holocaust essay as a rhetorical exercise and show of good faith (I should have that ready pretty soon). You agreed and submitted an essay, and it was posted, as promised. Bombsaway also found the terms agreeable and said he will write one. So what's your problem? You have no grounds for complaint here. Zero. You didn't have to submit an essay. It was voluntary. I gave you a reason to submit one.

You requested revisionist essays, but you had nothing to offer so there is little reason for anyone to bother. We could post revisionist essays on here, but the site is already full of revisionist material.

"He cannot produce a best case for Holocaust revisionism/denial. "

I think you know I can. I explained in the other post my philosophy with introductory materials.

[Nessie]

Callafangers makes a passionate and detailed defence of so-called revisionists use of the argument from incredulity;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21204#p21204

Kindly answer the question: why do you completely avoid the technical debate?

The answer is that the so-called technical debate is logically flawed.

Stop starting so many threads. Especially low-effort ones with little content.

You hate having the primary argument that so-called revisionists rely on, called out for being a logical fallacy. Rather than stopping using the flawed argument, you restrict me from calling it out.

You come across as being intelligent enough to understand the argument is logically flawed, but you still keep on using it. Why?

[Nessie]

Archie, who asked for essays to be submitted, providing the best case for the Holocaust, turns hypocrite;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21214#p21214

One could of course write an article summarizing many of the key arguments, but imo this is not usually the right approach.

He cannot produce a best case for Holocaust revisionism/denial.

If I were to write a "best evidence" for revisionism article, it would be fairly different from the above articles. But again I don't think blitzing people with tons of stuff is the best approach for an introduction.

There's no "hypocrisy." You don't understand that word.

There is hypocrisy when you asked for a best case and then came you with excuses as why you would do the same.

I made you an offer to pin your essay on the Debate board. I even said I would reciprocate and write a similar pro-Holocaust essay as a rhetorical exercise and show of good faith (I should have that ready pretty soon).

In that case, you are not being hypocritical.

You agreed and submitted an essay, and it was posted, as promised. Bombsaway also found the terms agreeable and said he will write one. So what's your problem? You have no grounds for complaint here. Zero. You didn't have to submit an essay. It was voluntary. I gave you a reason to submit one.

You requested revisionist essays, but you had nothing to offer so there is little reason for anyone to bother. We could post revisionist essays on here, but the site is already full of revisionist material.

"He cannot produce a best case for Holocaust revisionism/denial. "

I think you know I can. I explained in the other post my philosophy with introductory materials.

I know what is coming. An essay with no evidenced revised history of the Holocaust and arguments that are fundamentally logically flawed, as to why you think certain events from the Holocaust did not take place.

[Keen]

I know what is coming. An essay with no evidenced revised history of the Holocaust and arguments that are fundamentally logically flawed, as to why you think certain events from the Holocaust did not take place.

There is nothing fundamentally or logically flawed with this factual statement:

The "pure extermination center" story, which is a central pillar of the orthodox holohoax story, is not only a nonsensical big-lie, but a proven one at that.

The following fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court:

It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

The cowards who cravenly refuse to accept the above fact do so by also cravenly running away from this simple, Foundational legal question:

Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Now let's watch Roberto run away from the question and prove what a lying coward he is.

[Keen]

critique alone doesn’t rewrite history; a coherent narrative supported by evidence does.

"Evidence" and "narative" alone do not rewrite history you retard.

Remember how "revisionists" (Dalton and Kues especially) tried to rewrite history with their nonsensical "holocaust by train" evidence / narative? How did that work out for them? At the same time that Greg Gerdes was destroying the "huge mass grave" lies, and thus the "pure extermination center" lie, retards like you were (and still are) espousing the holocaust by train drivel, supporting the "huge mass grave" lies and ignoring the obvious truth that was right before their eyes. That "holocaust by train" nonsense espoused by "revisionists" set the holocaust truth movement back by a couple decades.

History gets rewritten by substantiated facts stated as rebuttable presumptions that can withstand cross examinaiton under conditions that require truthful answers. Cowards like you and Roberto and Nick cravenly refuse to answer simple questions posed to you even on forums like this, where you cravenly hide behind your anonymity and ability to dodge with impunity. If this forum were a court, you and your ilk and the HC filth wouldn't have the guts to take the stand.

If tards like you and Roberto and Nick really did believe their own lies, you wouldn't be so afraid of cross examination.

[Keen]

And speaking of dodging, how long has Thomas Kues been running away from Mr. Gerdes?

[Nessie]

Stubble is vexed.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21274#p21274

I find it curiously vexing. I suppose that is the best way to describe my feeling with regard to unaccounted for jews, missing jews.

What would have put an end to the search would have been finding evidence that these missing jews were put in a hole, buried, dug up from the frost, set on bbq grilles made out of rail road tracks and erupted into corpse volcanoes fueled by 'Christmas Trees' and the fat from jewish witches, as witches obviously self immolate as described in the literature.

Sure, I can't find living jews, but, the other side of the coin can't find dead ones, which should be almost infinitely easier.

Regarding the 'no evidence of resentment' schtick, give it a rest. Yes there is evidence of resettlement, you just say it is euphemism because you don't see living jews, with your goggles, you can see dead ones in every grain of sand.

He just does not accept or believe the evidence of mass cremations and graves, because of the way they have been described, so he is fooled into thinking there are no mass graves of cremated remains. He is then vexed by the actual lack of evidence of survival and mass resettlement.

[Keen]

Stubble... does not accept or believe the evidence of mass cremations and graves

What Nessie alleges about Treblinka II:

Jankiel Wiernik testifies in the Eichmann trial in 1961 in Jerusalem.

Reality:





Treblinka II's "huge mass grave" F16:

[Nessie]

HansHill fawns over Rudolf;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p= ... 387#p21316

And Rudolf to the rescue yet again. Is there anything this man cannot do!

Yes, he cannot complete a basic investigation to prove what the Birkenau Kremas were used for, 1943-4.

[Archie]

Nessie, it seems you have some objection to this comment of mine:

As for the other side who is trying to prove the Holocaust, I think if the evidence for the Holocaust is as overwhelming as they say then it should be quite straightforward to present a compelling selection of that evidence in a few thousand words. It's really not symmetric at all (arguing for vs against the Holocaust) because there's no barrier to getting people believe in Holocaust. The default is that people believe it. That's a huge tailwind. Convincing people of revisionism in contrast I think will take more time because most people are going to want to do quite a bit of research before embracing a "crazy" position. It's actually not a great sign when people accept revisionism too readily (without really knowing anything about the topic) because it probably means they are just relying on strong priors and are adding revisionism to a large stable of hastily adopted contrarian positions.

I think for most people all you need is hey, hundreds of Nazis, from top leadership down to the people working at the camps, affirmed the gassings, without any recantations or contradictory testimonies surfacing. I think this is compelling enough because there isn't a similar historical case of so many alleged perpetrators (by an order of magnitude?) admitting to crimes they didn't do.

I haven't read Nessie's essay yet to see if there is anything I can add.

Only a small subset of people will be curious enough to do any research. "Most people" know nothing about the topic, so their opinions are irrelevant. They will go whichever way the wind is blowing.

I would be surprised if Nessie's essay were the best your side could do. If I were you, I would absolutely not want Nessie to be the standard bearer for my side. Nessie's problem is that he has no theory of mind, i.e., he's unable to grasp that others might have beliefs that differ from his own. This is why 1) he always takes his position as a given and can't distinguish between assertions and actual support for those assertions, and 2) he's unable even to summarize accurately the views of others (claims it is impossible). But you can't persuade anybody if you are unable to anticipate alternative viewpoints.

My essay is almost done btw. I already had an outline for it. I wrote most of it up last weekend. It just needs a little polishing.

What is your disagreement?

In response to a request to "steel-man" the revisionist position, you stated the following:

I cannot think of any strong argument by so-called revisionists. Their position, as historical revisionists, is bogus.

"Theory of mind" description from Wikipedia:

In psychology and philosophy, theory of mind (often abbreviated to ToM) is the capacity to understand other individuals by ascribing mental states to them. A theory of mind includes the understanding that others' beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and thoughts may be different from one's own.[1] Possessing a functional theory of mind is crucial for success in everyday human social interactions. People utilize a theory of mind when analyzing, judging, and inferring other people's behaviors.

I think my comment was more than fair since you by your own admission are unable to understand revisionist/skeptic perspectives.

[Nessie]

Nessie, it seems you have some objection to this comment of mine:

I think for most people all you need is hey, hundreds of Nazis, from top leadership down to the people working at the camps, affirmed the gassings, without any recantations or contradictory testimonies surfacing. I think this is compelling enough because there isn't a similar historical case of so many alleged perpetrators (by an order of magnitude?) admitting to crimes they didn't do.

I haven't read Nessie's essay yet to see if there is anything I can add.

Only a small subset of people will be curious enough to do any research. "Most people" know nothing about the topic, so their opinions are irrelevant. They will go whichever way the wind is blowing.

I would be surprised if Nessie's essay were the best your side could do. If I were you, I would absolutely not want Nessie to be the standard bearer for my side. Nessie's problem is that he has no theory of mind, i.e., he's unable to grasp that others might have beliefs that differ from his own.

Please justify and evidence that. How can I spend so much time here, on other sceptic forums and X, and not grasp the fact that people have beliefs that differ from me? It is staring my in the face that people have multiple beliefs and many, if the majority, differ from mine.

You are using the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, by making a smear claim, at the start of your remarks about me.

This is why 1) he always takes his position as a given and can't distinguish between assertions and actual support for those assertions,

Again, you make a claim with no examples. Show me where I fail to distinguish between an assertion and actual support for an assertion. Then show I do that repeatedly.

and 2) he's unable even to summarize accurately the views of others (claims it is impossible). But you can't persuade anybody if you are unable to anticipate alternative viewpoints.

My essay is almost done btw. I already had an outline for it. I wrote most of it up last weekend. It just needs a little polishing.

What is your disagreement?

In response to a request to "steel-man" the revisionist position, you stated the following:

I cannot think of any strong argument by so-called revisionists. Their position, as historical revisionists, is bogus.

"Theory of mind" description from Wikipedia:

In psychology and philosophy, theory of mind (often abbreviated to ToM) is the capacity to understand other individuals by ascribing mental states to them. A theory of mind includes the understanding that others' beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and thoughts may be different from one's own.[1] Possessing a functional theory of mind is crucial for success in everyday human social interactions. People utilize a theory of mind when analyzing, judging, and inferring other people's behaviors.

I think my comment was more than fair since you by your own admission are unable to understand revisionist and skeptical perspectives.

The request was to "steelman the revisionists position", to "Describe, in your opinion, the strongest revisionist argument in the most favorable way you can." I said that cannot be done, the issue being I cannot do it in a favourable way, because I cannot favourably support the illogical, flawed arguments revisionists use. Because you and others got so upset about my comment that revisionism cannot be presented favourably, I started a thread, to show where revisionists have got points to make;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=684

I started with the revisionist's strongest point, which is how so many witnesses lack credibility, using some things Yankel Wiernik said, as an example. It was ignored. I understand that you do not believe mass gassings happened, because you do not believe, for various reasons, the evidence that it did happen, such as Wiernik's description of gassings.

The theory of mind does not mean being able to steelman someone with a different belief. It means understanding it. I understand revisionist's various beliefs and the arguments they use to support those beliefs. Steelmanning and understanding are different things. I can understand your position whilst at the same time say I am unable to favourably steelman it. Your claims about me are wrong, which is why you have restricted my response to the quarantine section.

[Nessie]

Archie.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21351#p21351

No one is "shutting down discussion."

You shut it down by quarantining some posters.

A major advantage I have over BA and Nessie is that I understand revisionism and they evidently do not.

Yet another unevidenced assertion. You say,

BA also seems to have some theory of mind difficulties, for example, him thinking confessions at war-crimes trials are rock solid evidence (his view, okay) but then not being able to fathom why others might find these unconvincing.

But you fail to evidence bombsaway making any statement that he thinks all war crime trial confessions are rock solid. You also fail to evidence him failing to understand why others would not find such confessions convincing. Rather than bombsaway and I not understanding you, I say you do not understand us, as you misrepresent us so often making unevidenced assertions that can be refuted.

[Archie]

Nessie, for examples of you doing what I claim you do, see here:

search.php?author_id=73&sr=posts

[Nessie]

Nessie, for examples of you doing what I claim you do, see here:

search.php?author_id=73&sr=posts

Very good, a link to the list of my posts. That means you cannot evidence your claims, which is typical, as evidence does not drive your beliefs. It also means you are conceding to having misrepresented me.

Your version of revisionism, is not to revise history by presenting an evidenced alternative chronological narrative, as you cannot do that. Instead, you present reasons why you do not believe the existing evidence, as set out here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=443

1) the "final solution to the Jewish question" was not a plan to kill all the Jews, 2) the Germans did not execute millions of people in gas chambers, 3) the total number of Jewish dead during the war years was far less than six million.

You do not have evidence to prove 1, 2 or 3, so you have to argue.

Revisionists by and large have focused on fact-checking the Holocaust claims. If these claims can be shown to be factually incorrect of doubtful, then we have done most of our job.

To genuinely do that job, you would evidence millions did not die on gas chambers, by proving what the places supposedly used for gassings were used for, and millions of Jews still alive after they were supposed to have been killed. But you cannot do that.

Revisionists point out that the evidentiary basis for the Holocaust (to the extent there has even been any attempt to justify it in terms of evidence) largely consists testimonies collected after the war, a surprisingly weak and unreliable foundation for such extraordinary claims. These witnesses simply do not hold up under scrutiny as their stories are full of serious contradictions, errors, and absurdities.

The story falls apart even more when we consider physical evidence....

The documentary evidence is large and difficult to summarize. But at a very high level, revisionists argue that the German documents fail to support or even contradict the idea of a formal extermination program or mass gassing program.

The demographic evidence is more inconclusive due to uncertainties over Jewish population statistics.

All of the above is wrong. The eyewitnesses are consistent, they do hold up to scrutiny and they are not full of errors, that would prove they all lied. The physical evidence, which has been the subject of a lot of destruction by the Nazis, which in itself is evidence they committed a crime, is far stronger than you will admit. The demographic evidence, most of which comes from Nazi sources, proves huge drops in the Jewish population and Jews disappearing, by their millions, in only a few specific camps.

The claim is that almost all of these millions of bodies were burned which is highly implausible for technical reasons.

Your favourite, the argument from implausibility, which is a logical fallacy. But you still rely on it, heavily.