Pilpul Activities on the CODOH Forum

[borjastick]

If core believers like CJ and the Fish Fryer have no intention of shifting their beliefs or taking on another viewpoint and yet remain so fervent in their position why are they even coming here?

If we are a bunch of knuckle dragging flat earth types who would be laughed at in general media and discussion forums and have nothing whatsoever to back our claims up, then why are they coming here?

If every claim and question we have and raise is beneath contempt for these Dead Sea pedestrians and fake jews and their argument is that there is no argument, then why do they come here?

[borjastick]

The revisionist critique of the science (as a disqualifier of the rest of the history) fails precisely because we don't know the variables. Nobody knows. You can't model or explain what you don't know.

Really? Tell that to a climate change 'crisis' believer...

[bombsaway]

If core believers like CJ and the Fish Fryer have no intention of shifting their beliefs or taking on another viewpoint and yet remains so fervent in their position why are they even coming here?

If we are a bunch of knuckle dragging flat earth types who would be laughed at in general media and discussion forums and have nothing whatsoever to back our claims up, then why are they coming here?

If every claim and question we have and raise is beneath contempt for these Dead Sea pedestrians and fake jews and their argument is that there is no argument, then why do they come here?

I can't speak for the others but I think you guys are interesting psychologically, the debate itself is also fascinating and leads into other subjects like what evidence is, how historical events may be determined. Revisionists also ask questions about the history which are unorthodox and often worthwhile to look into.

A deeper question for me is how this relates to societally, misinformation spread thru internet is having a big influence on current events and likely will need to be addressed directly sometime in the future. AI can probably do this but there are big issues w it for now. Callafangerw and others will likely see this as deinite bs but idk it's my truth. I also forgot to.mentiom that this is entertaining to g for me,.maybe lole playing a video game

[Callafangers]

Actually orthodoxy can explain their hypothesis much better than you can yours. What happened to the Jews maintained in occupied USSR between them disappearing in terms of evidence trail and their eventual recapture by the Soviets?

The ability to 'explain' anything has nothing to do with the validity or quality of the methodology used. I can explain to the cops that my neighbor has buried 20 corpses in his backyard, my wife can even agree with me, but if the cop sees we have deep-seated hate and a long history of such against my neighbor (infiltrating his life, causing him problems), he might require that at the very least a proper excavation of my neighbor's yard take place before he takes me seriously. This would be a sound methodology.

As you struggle with this question, ultimately resorting to pure speculation, you can think about how well you're following established methodology in history, which bears a lot of similarities to scientific methods.

You don't even have speculation, bombsaway -- we have measured the iron-cyanide in your 'gas chambers', we have dug up the graves at AR camps, and nothing of a 'Holocaust' is there! What a shock.

You do rely on speculation as to the corpses you believe are scattered all across the rest of Eastern Europe. But what's certain is that your primary evidence for inflated figures (testimony) is terribly inconsistent, often absurd, and generally motivated by revenge (both ideological and personal).

The revisionist critique of the science (as a disqualifier of the rest of the history) fails precisely because we don't know the variables. Nobody knows. You can't model or explain what you don't know.

The science is part of the bigger picture. You must gather all the facts and then use proper logic to make valid inferences and come to sound conclusions. That's the essence of proper critical thinking. These models already exist, it's 'exterminationists' who do not apply them, because they cannot apply them.

[Nessie]

... Revisionism, after all, is not flat earthism or anything close to it. In fact, I'd argue a lot of revisionists consider antirevisionist nutjobs like Nessie and Terry to be closer to flat earthers than any serious revisionist.

Holocaust revisionism is unlike the standard investigation of history or criminal act. It does not gather contemporaneous evidence from witnesses, documents etc to establish and chronology of events to a logical conclusion. Nick Terry and I both use the standard method. When we make claims, they are based on the contemporaneous evidence of what took place.

So-called revisionists are in fact deniers. Their aim is to deny that mass murders, in particular gassings took place during the Holocaust. They produce a non-history, with no evidenced logical conclusion and their attempts at investigating produce multiple, often contradictory narratives, that require a lot of cherry-picking of the evidence. They rely heavily on arguments that are logically flawed and they will happily lie.

You cannot criticise the evidence gathering methodology Nick Terry and I use, so you have to resort to yet another logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

[Nessie]

...we have dug up the graves at AR camps, and nothing of a 'Holocaust' is there!

Please evidence that claim.

[curioussoul]

You cannot criticise the evidence gathering methodology Nick Terry and I use, so you have to resort to yet another logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

All you do is post on forums and make Google searches, so you're not relevant to anything relating to the Holocaust or revisionism. Terry, at least historically, pretended to carry out actual research, although it turned out almost everything he'd written came from plagiarized sources, which is a problem when attempting debunk researchers that actually went to the archives, looked at the primary sources and visited all of the camps.

[TlsMS93]

Flat Earthers say the same thing. The difference between me and the revisionists and flat earthers, is that my conspiracy is grounded in a large body evidence, which defines its parameters.

So, overwhelm me with this horde of evidence. I don't deal in faith or belief, but in reasoning. List the 5 or 10 biggest pieces of evidence in your case.

[Nessie]

You cannot criticise the evidence gathering methodology Nick Terry and I use, so you have to resort to yet another logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

All you do is post on forums and make Google searches, so you're not relevant to anything relating to the Holocaust or revisionism. Terry, at least historically, pretended to carry out actual research, although it turned out almost everything he'd written came from plagiarized sources, which is a problem when attempting debunk researchers that actually went to the archives, looked at the primary sources and visited all of the camps.

Any claim we make, can be backed by contemporaneous evidence from documents, witnesses etc. We are backed by archaeological and forensics. We can produce a chronology that leads to an agreed logical conclusion.

So-called revisionists cannot do that.

[bombsaway]

Flat Earthers say the same thing. The difference between me and the revisionists and flat earthers, is that my conspiracy is grounded in a large body evidence, which defines its parameters.

So, overwhelm me with this horde of evidence. I don't deal in faith or belief, but in reasoning. List the 5 or 10 biggest pieces of evidence in your case.

Nessie mentions it right above, but the idea I am getting at here is that the narrative is based on and derived from evidence.

There may be inaccuracies based on faulty witness testimony, but it's not speculative like what revisionists say about resettlement.

I think the strongest "individual" evidence is the Eichmann material from Argentina. Before his capture he recounted his involvement in the extermination program to Nazi sympathizers who were mostly horrified by what he had to say. This material exists in handwritten form as well as audio tapes, both of which can be used to verify (handwriting and voice ID)

There was a long thread about this on the old forum so the Argentina material has been "dealt" with - the revisionist response is Eichmann was telling his Nazi sympathizer friends "spooky" stories to impress and scare them.

[TlsMS93]

Nessie mentions it right above, but the idea I am getting at here is that the narrative is based on and derived from evidence.

There may be inaccuracies based on faulty witness testimony, but it's not speculative like what revisionists say about resettlement.

I think the strongest "individual" evidence is the Eichmann material from Argentina. Before his capture he recounted his involvement in the extermination program to Nazi sympathizers who were mostly horrified by what he had to say. This material exists in handwritten form as well as audio tapes, both of which can be used to verify (handwriting and voice ID)

There was a long thread about this on the old forum so the Argentina material has been "dealt" with - the revisionist response is Eichmann was telling his Nazi sympathizer friends "spooky" stories to impress and scare them.

Even the Israeli court did not accept the transcripts of this recording as evidence, except for the handwritten notes, because they had corrections in Eichmann's handwriting. Eichmann challenged the prosecution to show the original tapes, even in this case copies are presented, and said that they distorted his words because at no time did he claim to know the fate of the deportees.

Now it is in the possession of the German authorities, who allowed the publication of a few minutes “just to prove that they exist.”

Is this your evidence?

[HansHill]

You don't have evidence of a conspiracy to fabricate evidence and coerce witnesses or of mass events occurring that would contradict the orthodox narrative, eg Polish Jews being resettled in occupied USSR.

[Archie]

If core believers like CJ and the Fish Fryer have no intention of shifting their beliefs or taking on another viewpoint and yet remains so fervent in their position why are they even coming here?

If we are a bunch of knuckle dragging flat earth types who would be laughed at in general media and discussion forums and have nothing whatsoever to back our claims up, then why are they coming here?

If every claim and question we have and raise is beneath contempt for these Dead Sea pedestrians and fake jews and their argument is that there is no argument, then why do they come here?

I can't speak for the others but I think you guys are interesting psychologically, the debate itself is also fascinating and leads into other subjects like what evidence is, how historical events may be determined. Revisionists also ask questions about the history which are unorthodox and often worthwhile to look into.

A deeper question for me is how this relates to societally, misinformation spread thru internet is having a big influence on current events and likely will need to be addressed directly sometime in the future. AI can probably do this but there are big issues w it for now. Callafangerw and others will likely see this as deinite bs but idk it's my truth. I also forgot to.mentiom that this is entertaining to g for me,.maybe lole playing a video game

If we were as dumb as you say, then the debate wouldn't be "fascinating." Even if there were interesting questions "around" revisionism, it would only be worth talking to revisionists themselves at length if our arguments were interesting and/or seductive in some way. (To be sure, there are many interesting but wrong intellectual ideas--it might even be that the wrong ones are on average more interesting--but these are not dumb.) If not, then there would be no need to discuss those historical issues with revisionists. You could just discuss them with mainstream historians and philosophers. Of course, if you went on, say, the reddit history pages and said you wanted to discuss the epistemology and historiography of the Holocaust, they would probably assume you were revisionist and ban you.

There is some interesting astronomy that's relevant to the flat earth "debate," but I have never felt even the slightest desire to debate a flat earth person. I would maybe consider reading a pamphlet of watching a video about it for fun and curiosity. As far as actually interacting with them, I suspect I would lose interest after a few days at most. Incidentally, the vast, vast majority of people would not be able to intelligently explain how we know the earth is round, so such a discussion is a potentially worthwhile exercise for those interested in astronomy, but flat earthers themselves would not add much to the discussion. You would be better off talking to science people. The only contribution flat earthers would be making to the "debate" would be to expose the fact most people don't actually have a good understanding of the topic.

[Archie]

You don't have evidence of a conspiracy to fabricate evidence and coerce witnesses or of mass events occurring that would contradict the orthodox narrative, eg Polish Jews being resettled in occupied USSR.

[...]

Arguing with bombs in a nutshell:

"There's zero evidence of any dishonesty or hoaxing or a conspiracy."

"What about [examples]?"

"Those don't count because [arbitrary criteria]"

I think what bombs is demanding is that we produce fully authenticated Protocols of the Elders of Israel style minutes describing a detailed plot to fake the Holocaust. Anything short of that is inadequate proof in his mind.

The reality is that even the mainstream more or less admits that the camp liberations and early reports were propagandistic and unreliable.

[Archie]

It's absolutely fair for someone (much less a Jew) to come onto this board with strong preconceived notions that you guys are completely, utterly wrong. The view of you from the outside is not much different than the perception flat earthers , who also are about as confident and diligent at research as you guys. CJ could of course feign neutrality, but this isn't so respectable. It seems his curiosity is more centered on this community than what happened historically (see pre-conceived notions) but he's clearly still engaging with the history, though he's unfamiliar with the field and processing a lot of new information.

It's possible he's here just to fuck with you, but this other explanation seems quite valid - he's interested in how people like you come to this belief which is something that has intrigued me as well. You just have to decide if you want a person like this on your forum (interested in this community, psychologically probably + new to the field).

One thing I will give CJ credit for and which I appreciate is that he was upfront about being Jewish. I found that honesty refreshing and for that reason I was initially pretty cordial to him. I don't even mind if he was hiding his power level somewhat. Where he lost me was that he kept saying he was so curious to hear what we had to say (you should recognize that game) but he wasn't listening to us to all, refused to read anything, and was just putting out low-effort rebuttals, mostly plagiarized from AI, as it seems he hasn't done enough homework to form his own responses. He seems more interested in hearing himself talk. I can't read people's minds and I don't try to. I go by the results. CJ's threads are just bad threads, and I judge him on that basis alone.

I actually quite like talking to intelligent people who are new to the topic. Most of us have been at it a while, we've already made up our minds. We can't ever go back and look at it with fresh eyes again. But talking to someone fresh is the next best thing. However, it is only interesting if they are really trying to digest the debate. Hearing a Jewish guy react defensively without doing much research is not particularly interesting.