How Can Such a Strong Consensus Be So Wrong for so Long?

[Callafangers]

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies )

I mean, can it get any clearer?

[ConfusedJew]

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies )

I mean, can it get any clearer?

You are trying to twist this to fit your narrative which is unsurprising. In this case, you are making the one making the claim that the long standing historical consensus is wrong. It's all relative.

I'm here in your community of 150 people so I'll use Holocaust denial as the reference point for "consensus" here, but I just wanted to put that into perspective since you didn't seem to understand or maybe you just pretended not to.

Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

[borjastick]

quote-genius-abhors-consensus-because-when-consensus-is-reached-thinking-stops-stop-nodding-albert-einstein-82-42-60.jpg

Are you saying that you and many other people on here are geniuses? I like Einstein btw, cool example of a Jewish genius.

Couldn't hold himself back could he? Has to roll out the nonsense of jews being cleverer than us whities. Misses the point entirely but that's jew arrogance for you.

[Nessie]

Just to get on the same page, here, Nessie: are you saying the Germans who were under arrest post-war had no reason to fear their families were in danger?

Please explain your rationale, if so.

Those arrested immediately after the war, by angry Allied and Soviet soldiers, had reason. By the 1960s, and arrests and re-arrests by the West German police, that reason was not there.

I'll have to get to the rest of your response later but I just had to stop for a moment to respond to the above... are you here conceding that all of the 'Nazi' testimony circa the Nuremberg trials and all other immediate postwar trials may be suspect?

No.

Because if so, that is a whole lot of 'ammunition' which could help solidify the false narrative at war's end... undoubtedly, this would have a reverberative effect on other statements, trials, and testimony which followed.

I hope you can see that.

The Nazis, tried by West German courts in the 1960s, often stated that they had been treated badly when they had been arrested by Allied soldiers. That is not an excuse for you to ditch their entire testimony, as you constantly seek to do.

There are two problems that you have. Firstly, even if testimony is obtained under torture, if it is corroborated, as Hoess was, then that evidence is proven. It may be inadmissible in a court, or not best practice to rely on it, but if it is corroborated, it is proven. Secondly, no matter what court Nazis appeared at, from Ukrainians in US extradition tribunals, to Germans on trial in West Germany, East Germany, unified Germany, Poland or Israel, through the decades, mostly with no evidence of coercion, from Fedorenko to Groening, they all admit mass murders took place. Every single person who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, admits they had gas chambers.

I hope you can see that your methodology of finding excuses to ditch 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked in those places, leaves you with 0% eyewitness evidence, which greatly weakens your claim something else happened took place.

[Nessie]

Burden of proof is a concept in logic, first and foremost, which is why it is also used in law.

Germans were necessarily subjected to (or at least, extremely vulnerable to) coercion, even if we consider nothing beyond the mere circumstances of the postwar dynamic.

Your enemies who just killed all your friends now have your family captive. Are you not going to do what they ask?

It's not complicated.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) ...

There is a burden of proof on a claim that is a denial. For example, if I denied that the British were gassing German and Italian internees on the Isle of Man, during WWII, it would be up to me to prove that there were no gassings. It would not be on anyone else to prove me wrong, by proving gassings had taken place.

[ConfusedJew]

Couldn't hold himself back could he? Has to roll out the nonsense of jews being cleverer than us whities. Misses the point entirely but that's jew arrogance for you.

I got the point that you were trying to make, but that meme didn't exactly suggest what you were trying to say. Most Jewish people are white.

The Einstein quote criticized the concept of consensus because genius is able to see past consensus. Denial of consensus isn't the same thing as transcendence, even if the skepticism is warranted. But to be completely honest, I haven't yet seen any evidence here yet that has made me rethink my priors.

Other than maybe the possibility that Rohm betrayed Hitler before Hitler killed him but I still need to look into that.

[borjastick]

Couldn't hold himself back could he? Has to roll out the nonsense of jews being cleverer than us whities. Misses the point entirely but that's jew arrogance for you.

I got the point that you were trying to make, but that meme didn't exactly suggest what you were trying to say. Most Jewish people are white.

The Einstein quote criticized the concept of consensus because genius is able to see past consensus. Denial of consensus isn't the same thing as transcendence, even if the skepticism is warranted. But to be completely honest, I haven't yet seen any evidence here yet that has made me rethink my priors.

Other than maybe the possibility that Rohm betrayed Hitler before Hitler killed him but I still need to look into that.

CJ talking random bollocks again. Beginning to think he has ADHD/Austism/lunatic tendencies and is only here to claim superiority or because his mother won't let him inside until tea time.

[ConfusedJew]

CJ talking random bollocks again. Beginning to think he has ADHD/Austism/lunatic tendencies and is only here to claim superiority or because his mother won't let him inside until tea time.

Last warning. If you fail to offer an actual counterargument or try to use insults instead of attacking the arguments or evidence then I will not respond to you anymore.

[Stubble]

How's this, jews are not now, have never been and will never be White.

Your ethnic kin do like to mimic when it suits you, but, will proudly denounce any 'Whiteness' when it suits them.

Case in point, the 'fellow White people' trope trotted out by so many jews on twitter/x only later to be retracted with the statement 'I'm not White, I'm jewish'.

[Archie]

There is no disagreement between historians about T4, 13f14, AR, Chelmno, the Einsatzgruppen and A-B, which cover the vast majority of murdering by the Nazis.

There is no consensus between so-called revisionists about those operations and places. Indeed, it is comical as to how split revisionism is, from whether the EG were responsible for mass shootings, to how connected T4 and AR were, to what happened inside Krema II at Birkenau.

That failure by revisionism is because so few revisionists know or understand the basics of historical, or criminal investigations. The inexperienced and untrained are far more likely to make mistakes.

All these sweeping absolute claims of yours that you can't back up.

People like David Hoggan and Harry Elmer Barnes were historians by any definition. David Irving was a historian, just not an academic one. Many others like Joel Hayward, Mark Weber, and Samuel Crowell had academic training in history. Hayward's thesis which endorsed revisionism was deemed by the faculty at his university to be of excellent quality.

Hellmut Diwald was a highly credentialed German historian. It seems he did not believe in "the consensus" on the "Holocaust," but when he hinted at this in print we see precisely the mechanisms by which this grand fraud is enforced.

Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. None of the people you have listed and completed that basic task of any historian, and produced an evidenced history of what happened to the Jews arrested by the Nazis during WWII. IIRC, only Crowell came up with a theory as to what took place, and that was only for the Kremas, which he believed were where transports went to shower.

You are an imbecile. And that is not an ad hominem fallacy. Just an observation.

I did not say "These people say X, so X has to be true." My point is rather that CJ's premise, that there is universal agreement on this topic, is obviously not true.

[Archie]

The Nazis, tried by West German courts in the 1960s, often stated that they had been treated badly when they had been arrested by Allied soldiers. That is not an excuse for you to ditch their entire testimony, as you constantly seek to do.

There are two problems that you have. Firstly, even if testimony is obtained under torture, if it is corroborated, as Hoess was, then that evidence is proven. It may be inadmissible in a court, or not best practice to rely on it, but if it is corroborated, it is proven. Secondly, no matter what court Nazis appeared at, from Ukrainians in US extradition tribunals, to Germans on trial in West Germany, East Germany, unified Germany, Poland or Israel, through the decades, mostly with no evidence of coercion, from Fedorenko to Groening, they all admit mass murders took place. Every single person who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, admits they had gas chambers.

I hope you can see that your methodology of finding excuses to ditch 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked in those places, leaves you with 0% eyewitness evidence, which greatly weakens your claim something else happened took place.

I don't reject Hoess as a witness because he was tortured by Jews for three days. I reject it because his story is false and fails corroboration. It is internally self-contradictory in a way that is not reconcilable.

[Callafangers]

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

I notice you don't directly accuse revisionists of committing this fallacy, though, likely because you know we have not. We have not said "we know the 'Holocaust' narrative is false simply because you have not proven it"; all we say, for the most part, is that you have not proven it -- and that is not fallacy.

[AreYouSirius]

If you are going to make an argument, at least provide the evidence so that I can take a look.

Extend to us the same courtesy.

[TlsMS93]

What did Hoss say that was corroborated? It's like saying that communist Poland had nothing to do with the USSR.

[ConfusedJew]

I notice you don't directly accuse revisionists of committing this fallacy, though, likely because you know we have not. We have not said "we know the 'Holocaust' narrative is false simply because you have not proven it"; all we say, for the most part, is that you have not proven it -- and that is not fallacy.

The burden of proof is somewhat arbitrary. As I said before, there is nothing that you can definitively "prove" except for something that is based on logical axioms like math or symbolic logic. We can never be 100% sure about anything that happened in history or the external world.

Therefore, it would be dishonest for me to say there is absolute proof that the Holocaust happened. Even if I were there and saw it with my own two eyes, I couldn't say that with complete certainty as I may have been hallucinating or it might have been staged.

That said, I think the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it did happen. I also believe that you can't be 100% certain about your position either.