Pilpul Activities on the CODOH Forum

[ConfusedJew]

Precisely.
It’s evidence of a quite shocking level of arrogant self-delusion and denial. I have never yet come across an online holocaust believer who can discuss the topic rationally, intelligently and unemotionally. They can’t even concede simple word definitions if it refutes their quasi-religious belief system.

This is a projection. I am engaging you and you are not directly engaging me in response. The fact that you admit to being "shocked" reveals that you are very emotional about this.

I told you why I wrote that early on. I guess you weren't here for the back and forth. But please do answer for me why you think the Eichmann testimony is unreliable because he clearly spells it out in black and white terms and had a million reasons to lie about that.

[Stubble]

Anybody know if we have a wannsee thread or an eichmann thread? Might be time for those.

[ConfusedJew]

Precisely.
It’s evidence of a quite shocking level of arrogant self-delusion and denial. I have never yet come across an online holocaust believer who can discuss the topic rationally, intelligently and unemotionally. They can’t even concede simple word definitions if it refutes their quasi-religious belief system.

I will happily try to define words if that's the level you want to go to. It might take some rounds of iteration but I am happy to do that.

However, this thread is ironically about hurtling accusations of "pilpul activities" on here. I have asked for a precise definition of the Holocaust and what exactly about it was fake and nobody can give that to me.

Be consistent guys. I'm being accused of one thing and then when I take that into consideration I get accused of the opposite. If you stick to logic, that kind of thing doesn't happen but logic is hard for some people.

[Callafangers]

Claims of 'euphemisms' are almost the total opposite of 'black and white proof'. You're claiming (or implying) an inversion of truth, here.

Your suggestion that certain words or phrases are 'euphemisms' is motivated precisely by your total lack of proof.

It seems very straightforward to me what they meant. It also is very compelling to me that Eichmann explained what they meant during his post war trial. That I would consider to be smoking gun proof but you don't for whatever reason. Why do you think the Eichmann testimony was false? He participated in these events and had no motive to lie as it was strongly against his interests. He also was not tortured or anything like that.

On Eichmann, see here:

Eichmann and the Sassen Tapes
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=358

[Wahrheitssucher]

Claims of 'euphemisms' are almost the total opposite of 'black and white proof'. You're claiming (or implying) an inversion of truth, here.

Your suggestion that certain words or phrases are 'euphemisms' is motivated precisely by your total lack of proof.

It seems very straightforward to me what they meant.

Yeah, but that is “ straightforward” to someone who clearly hasn’t actually read or studied ANY of the primary source material, and who has admitted they do not read much of the evidence provided to them here that contradicts their conditioning and current understanding as they haven’t got time.

It also is very compelling to me that Eichmann explained what they meant during his post war trial. That I would consider to be smoking gun proof but you don't for whatever reason.

Why can’t you admit that:
1. you haven’t yet read the protocol so can’t make such a claim in good-faith?
2. you aren’t yet familiar with what Eichmann actually said at his trial, so can not yet make a fair and informed assessment?
3. You didn’t and still don’t know that some of the Wannsee attendants survived the war and they ALL denied there was ANY talk of extermination or killing and asserted that it WAS a meeting to discuss forced emigration /exile exactly as the protocol demonstrates.

He also was not tortured or anything like that.

We can’t know with certainty whether any type of psychological coercion was applied to Eichmann. Threats against the family of captives was common. E.g. such psychological coercion was applied to Auschwitz kommandant Rudolf Höß.

Why do you think the Eichmann testimony was false? He participated in these events and had no motive to lie as it was strongly against his interests.

But I haven’t written that I think ALL his testimony was false. Your question is based on yet another false assumption and incorrect projection.
I do KNOW with certainty that his testimony was self-contradictory and therefore is problematic, as does ANYONE who approaches this topic honestly and intelligently. E.g. Christopher Browning is one holocaust mass-gassing believer/promoter who has conceded that.

I also own and have read ‘The Struggle for a Soul’ by Pastor William Lovell Hull who together with his German wife was permitted to visit Eichmann in his captivity right up to and including his lynching. You by contrast presumably do not know that such evidence of what Eichmann actually thought and said exists, let alone have read it.

So can you finally concede that your constant arguing as if from a position of certainty is based upon ignorance and unwarranted quasi-religious‘faith’, not upon reason, logic and information/evidence?

[Nessie]

...
Yes, it’s peculiar behaviour and ironically a form of ‘denial’. Which is ironic, as it shows that the actual ones who routinely ‘deny’ the credible evidence regarding the jewish experience in Europe during WW2 are the ‘holocaust believers’, not the people they insist on falsely calling ‘holocaust deniers’.

...

It is more accurate to call those who deny there were mass murders of Jews, deniers, than it is revisionists. Revisionists would revise the mass killing narrative, by evidencing what really happened to those people supposedly not killed. So, there would be evidence as to what happened to the Jews from Kiev, after they were sent to Babi Yar in 1941, the Dutch Jews sent to Sobibor in 1943 and the Hungarians to Birkenau in 1944. Instead, deniers claim they were not killed and then leave it at that. They do not revise the killings and produce "credible evidence" to show what did happen, they just deny them.

[Nessie]

...
I also own and have read ‘The Struggle for a Soul’ by Pastor William Lovell Hull who together with his German wife was permitted to visit Eichmann in his captivity right up to and including his lynching...

What evidence did Eichmann provide, to Hull and his wife, that revises the history of what took place inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas and that millions of Jews were still alive in 1944-5?

[Wahrheitssucher]

Precisely.
It’s evidence of a quite shocking level of arrogant self-delusion and denial. I have never yet come across an online holocaust believer who can discuss the topic rationally, intelligently and unemotionally. They can’t even concede simple word definitions if it refutes their quasi-religious belief system.

…I told you why I wrote that early on…

You made an excuse and gave a justification that doesn’t really excuse you.

What you wrote was WRONG. It was completely false and incorrect (and that is no exaggeration). Nothing in your self-assured statement was accurate. It was yet another argument from ignorance. One that stated the exact opposite of reality. That’s how wrong it was. Yet you still haven’t acknowledged that, nor how completely wrong you were. Instead you just moved on to other topics, EXACTLY as Wetzelrad observed and predicted [here: viewtopic.php?p=9430#p9430].

Here is what you wrote:

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 9:06 pm
The minutes from Wannsee, signed by Nazis, EXPLICITLY DISCUSS the planned extermination of Jews across Europe. It shows there was a centralized, coordinated plan for the mass murder of Jews, beyond just forced labor. The “Final Solution” was specifically about the systematic extermination of Jews.

Here is the reality (from memory as its been about a decade since I studied it):

The minutes from Wannsee, signed by Nazis, DO NOT ‘EXPLICITLY’ DISCUSS any planned extermination of Jews across Europe. It does NOT show there was any centralised, coordinated plan for the mass murder of Jews. It only shows a plan to remove Jews from Germany and countries occupied by them during the war, and to force jews into exile from Europe. It also refers to arrests and incarcerations of jews during the war and use of them for forced labor.
There is NO conclusive or credible evidence showing the “Final Solution” was specifically about the systematic extermination of Jews. ALL the NSDAP documentary evidence supports that view and it has ONLY been by insisting reference to mass-murder was concealed using words as secret code (i.e. euphemisms) that documents have been made to fit the ‘extermination-of-all-Jews’ narrative. Most people do not know this as they have not read the actual document. Finally, ALL attendees of the Wannsee Conference who survived the war refuted that assertion of using ‘euphemisms and of there being any discussions of mass-murder. And that is including Adolf Eichmann who gave conflicting and confusing testimony but admitted under cross-examination at his show-trial that they didn’t discuss either plans or methods of mass-murder.

[ConfusedJew]

It also is very compelling to me that Eichmann explained what they meant during his post war trial. That I would consider to be smoking gun proof but you don't for whatever reason.

Why can’t you admit that:
1. you haven’t yet read the protocol so can’t make such a claim in good-faith?
2. you aren’t yet familiar with what Eichmann actually said at his trial, so can not yet make a fair and informed assessment?
3. You didn’t and still don’t know that some of the Wannsee attendants survived the war and they ALL denied there was ANY talk of extermination or killing and asserted that it WAS a meeting to discuss forced emigration /exile exactly as the protocol demonstrates.

I don't speak German but I have researched translations, which will be imperfect, so I can in good faith make that claim. What I might consider explicit is clearly different than how you might define it.

I am familiar with what Eichmann said at his trial but I just started researching this 2 weeks ago so I am not fully informed but nobody is for that matter. It's a deflection to try to debase my arguments like that instead of using logic and facts. So if you disagree with something or if you think what I'm saying is wrong, just please be concise and direct. It saves everybody a lot of time and energy.

I can look into your point #3. Even if what you are saying is true, it doesn't disprove what I said, but it does offer evidence to further your argument.

He also was not tortured or anything like that.

We can’t know with certainty whether any type of psychological coercion was applied to Eichmann. Threats against the family of captives was common. E.g. such psychological coercion was applied to Auschwitz kommandant Rudolf Höß. [/quote]

We also can't know with certainty that Hitler didn't actually write an order for the Final Solution or really anything for that matter. Anything is possible. When you apply these kinds of arguments inconsistently, it reveals a lack of seriousness.

But I haven’t written that I think ALL his testimony was false. Your question is based on yet another false assumption and incorrect projection.
I do KNOW with certainty that his testimony was self-contradictory and therefore is problematic, as does ANYONE who approaches this topic honestly and intelligently. E.g. Christopher Browning is one holocaust mass-gassing believer/promoter who has conceded that.

Which part of his testimonies do you agree was true? Like I said nearly all testimonies have some inaccuracies and contradictions. That certainly does not invalidate everything he has said. If you want to be serious about this, then you'll go through this is detail to evaluate the nuances.

I also own and have read ‘The Struggle for a Soul’ by Pastor William Lovell Hull who together with his German wife was permitted to visit Eichmann in his captivity right up to and including his lynching. You by contrast presumably do not know that such evidence of what Eichmann actually thought and said exists, let alone have read it.

So can you finally concede that your constant arguing as if from a position of certainty is based upon ignorance and unwarranted quasi-religious‘faith’, not upon reason, logic and information/evidence?

I'm arguing from a position of the facts as I understand them. I am not arguing from a position of quasi religious faith. If you present a good argument or a compelling piece of evidence, I am glad to take that into consideration. I have not seen the reverse on this forum yet though.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Why can’t you admit that:
1. you haven’t yet read the protocol so can’t make such a claim in good-faith?
2. you aren’t yet familiar with what Eichmann actually said at his trial, so can not yet make a fair and informed assessment?
3. You didn’t and still don’t know that some of the Wannsee attendants survived the war and they ALL denied there was ANY talk of extermination or killing and asserted that it WAS a meeting to discuss forced emigration /exile exactly as the protocol demonstrates.

…What I might consider explicit is clearly different than how you might define it…

…I am familiar with what Eichmann said at his trial…

…I am not fully informed but nobody is for that matter…

None of these sentences above from you are honest replies.
And the first two are clearly not very intelligent plus are self-delusional.
Plus you dodged the three simple questions, which demonstrates yet again that you aren’t interested in genuine dialogue.

Someone can fairly be described as “fully informed” if they have read in either the original German or in the translations into English of all of his testimony at his trial that are in the available show-trial transcripts. You haven’t done that. I have.

Wahrheitssucher wrote: But I haven’t written that I think ALL his testimony was false. Your question is based on yet another false assumption and incorrect projection.
I do KNOW with certainty that his testimony was self-contradictory and therefore is problematic, as does ANYONE who approaches this topic honestly and intelligently. E.g. Christopher Browning is one holocaust mass-gassing believer/promoter who has conceded that.

Which part of his testimonies do you agree was true? Like I said… [blah, blah, blah]

Wahrheitssucher wrote: I also own and have read ‘The Struggle for a Soul’ by Pastor William Lovell Hull who together with his German wife was permitted to visit Eichmann in his captivity right up to and including his lynching. You by contrast presumably do not know that such evidence of what Eichmann actually thought and said exists, let alone have read it.

So can you finally concede that your constant arguing as if from a position of certainty is based upon ignorance and unwarranted quasi-religious‘faith’, not upon reason, logic and information/evidence?

I'm arguing from a position of the facts as I understand them. I am not arguing from a position of quasi religious faith. If you present a good argument or a compelling piece of evidence, I am glad to take that into consideration. I have not seen the reverse on this forum yet though.

You are deceiving.
Plus you make false assumptions/accusations, then when called on them just shift to asking more questions-from-ignorance. I.e. no admission or apology for making false arguments.

And… What you call “arguing from a position of the facts as I understand them” has no credibility when it is from somebody who hasn’t read the primary sources plus doesn’t even read the evidence researched and then generously shared here. This shows you are quite proudly arguing from ignorance. That you will not concede this obvious point is further sign of unintelligence + dishonesty.

I start to suspect that there might be some form of collusion or that you are a sock-puppet of Nessie who is perhaps using chatGPT or some other Ai to formulate and so disguise these replies. I suspect that as I find it hard to believe there can be two people with such a similar and peculiar combination of: stubborn stupidity; wilful ignorance; dishonesty and yet such unwarranted confidence in the rectitude of their understanding.

[ConfusedJew]

None of these sentences above from you are honest replies.
And the first two are clearly not very intelligent plus are self-delusional.
Plus you dodged the three simple questions, which demonstrates yet again that you aren’t interested in genuine dialogue.

I'm not dodging, I'm giving you intellectually honest responses to your question. I am not an expert on this information, but I have mastered investigating things like this and analyzing them for truth. If I am lying, which I'm not, just prove to me that I'm lying. I'm assuming good faith on your part so you should do it to me too.

Someone can fairly be described as “fully informed” if they have read in either the original German or in the translations into English of all of his testimony at his trial that are in the available show-trial transcripts. You haven’t done that. I have.

Can you speak German? I don't claim to be "fully informed". It's not possible to be fully informed but if there's some insight that you have that is unavailable to me because I don't speak German, then please go ahead and share it.

You are deceiving.
Plus you make false assumptions/accusations, then when called on them just shift to asking more questions-from-ignorance. I.e. no admission or apology for making false arguments.

Please no more unsubstantiated accusations of lying. If you disagree, explain what you disagree with and why. It's a waste of everybody's time. If you feel I am evading an important point that you made, bring it up again and ask me about it. I don't see any false statements that I have made, some things might have been partially inaccurate. I am happy to update those if you feel that I was off point, as I have done. The way you are approaching this disagreement seems to center around trying to undermine my credibility and spoil the perception of my intentions. It's not acting in good faith when you do that, and it isn't constructive in moving the conversation forward.

Are you actually interested in understanding this topic more deeply or are you just pushing the narrative that the Holocaust was a hoax? I'm asking you that sincerely. Are you here to discuss and learn more or are you here to push a narrative and try to overpower anything or anybody that doesn't agree with your point of view?

And… What you call “arguing from a position of the facts as I understand them” has no credibility when it is from somebody who hasn’t read the primary sources plus doesn’t even read the evidence researched and then generously shared here. This shows you are quite proudly arguing from ignorance. That you will not concede this obvious point is further sign of unintelligence + dishonesty.

I am not arguing from completely ignorance and I am not arguing from complete knowledge and neither are you. That is the case for any human. Do you disagree with that statement?

I start to suspect that you are a sock-puppet of Nessie who is perhaps using chatGPT or some other Ai to formulate and so disguise your replies. I suspect that as I find it hard to believe there can be two people with such a similar and peculiar combination of: stubborn stupidity; wilful ignorance; dishonesty and yet such unwarranted confidence in the rectitude of their understanding.

I am not Nessie. I have barely interacted with Nessie on this forum. I use AI to do research and craft arguments occasionally but I do not hide that. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as it is used in an intellectually honest way. I am confidence in the overall existence of the Holocaust and Hitler's Final Solution but I do not have 100% confidence. Do you have 100% confidence that the Holocaust was a hoax or did not exist?

Honestly 99.999% of people in the world disagree with the views on this forum very strongly. Do you think that they are all intellectually dishonest? I'm not here to defend any belief. I'm here to understand and challenge specific arguments and facts that are presented here. They are not 100% wrong! I just haven't seen any hint of a reason to believe that the Holocaust was not real yet though.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I start to suspect that you are acting in collusion with or are a sock-puppet* of Nessie who is perhaps using chatGPT or some other Ai to formulate and so disguise these replies. I suspect that as I find it hard to believe there can be two people with such a similar and peculiar way of debating: a combination of stubborn stupidity, wilful ignorance, dishonesty and yet such unwarranted confidence in the rectitude of their understanding.

I am not Nessie. I have barely interacted with Nessie on this forum.

What a staggeringly stupid and illogical argument to use to deny being a sock-puppet of someone!
Really? You seriously imagine anyone would believe you couldn’t be a sock-puppet because you haven’t interacted with your own self?
Wow!
This rather confirms you are what you here deny.

[*Moderators please take note]

[Stubble]

I start to suspect that you are acting in collusion with or are a sock-puppet* of Nessie who is perhaps using chatGPT or some other Ai to formulate and so disguise these replies. I suspect that as I find it hard to believe there can be two people with such a similar and peculiar way of debating: a combination of stubborn stupidity, wilful ignorance, dishonesty and yet such unwarranted confidence in the rectitude of their understanding.

I am not Nessie. I have barely interacted with Nessie on this forum.

What a staggeringly stupid and illogical argument to use to deny being a sock-puppet of someone!
Really? You seriously imagine anyone would believe you couldn’t be a sock-puppet because you haven’t interacted with your own self?
Wow!
This rather confirms you are what you here deny.

[*Moderators please take note]

You aren't the first to accuse that user of being a sock.

Another user accused him of being Bombsaway.

[Wetzelrad]

If I may butt in, the internet has no shortage of people eager to uphold the Holocaust Narrative. I don't think he's a sockpuppet. Or if he is, I don't regard him any differently from any other anonymous user on the internet. You already defeated him when you demonstrated he was wrong and dishonest, and he defeated himself with his repeated admissions of confusion and ignorance. Further analysis of his character is a waste of time.

[HansHill]

Honestly 99.999% of people in the world disagree with the views on this forum very strongly. Do you think that they are all intellectually dishonest?

Irrelevant. What fraction of them think all 6 million were gassed via shower heads at Auschwitz? Half? Two Thirds?

Those people would be shocked to learn the Orthodox narrative, and some would probably become deniers.