Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Discussions
Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:40 pm

Nessie wrote:Your ad hominems include calling me a liar
Here is definition of ad hominem from your source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are wrong, calling you liar with evidence proving it is not ad hominem at all. And I always backed up my statement with evidence.
Your most blatant logical fallicies are the claims you hav erepeatedly made that the absence of evidence is proof a crime and missing people are proof of a crime.
Here we go again, these are you fallacies and not mine, another dishonest attempt to atribute your fallacies to me.
You have also now failed with your logic over the argument about anti-semitic remarks by revisionists. I kept quoting anti-semitic remarks, but you kept saying they were not revisionists, but deniers, even to the point of embolding the word.
Again, you are wrong, they were deniers according to your definition of denial, not mine, you again atributted your fallacy to me.
Now you come out with "Nessie again wrong, they were never deniers, but revisionists, there is simply no reason why Holocaust can´t be revised, simple, so they were revisionists all the time." Your supposed logic fails since it is not logical to say they are not revisonist when I point out they are being anti-semitic and then later claim they are revisionists.
See above, you only repeated your fallacy and you agian atributted it to me.

You of course dodged my question in connection with the reason for revision of holocaust.
You state that "I never claimed that these two terms are separated", yet your argument was the anti-semitic remarks were not being made by revisionists but by deniers. That is another logical fail.


See above, the same logical fallacy of yours atributed to me, you were the one who thanks to own definition decided who is and who is not revisionist, I used it against you, now you want to attribute it to me, silly and absurd.
.
My supposed going off topic mentioning baby fires was me defining my position on the Holocaust for you, which was needed as I went from believer, to denier to confused and contradictory in your mind. Going off topic would involve a prolonged ebate about babay fires, not just mentioning it. Just to show I am not dodging I have started a thread about Action T4 and Hitler's order for that.
Again, you dodged my points proving your contradictions when you can use off topic to support your postion, but I cant adress your off topic because according to you - this would be off topic.
As for the Holocaust being state policy, this by you "and he wants to tell that some Nazis just comitted holocaust without knowledge of state and they financed it and ordered it in private way as their hobby or what." is a strawman and only quoting "no state policy" is out of context.
Again dodging without presenting any argument adressing your absurd claim that only some nazis comitted holocaust and not the state itself.
Your inability to understand that I am undecided about the numbers murdered is your problem. This is a classic example of either you being wilfully mischievous or Dunning Kruger.
Again ad hominem.
If you are unhappy about my sources and definitions, how about providing some of your own?
Again, false suggesting because I never suggested that i am not happy with your sources, quite opposite, I just love to use them to refute your own claims. Same for your definitions, ijust love to use them to refute your own claims, but in last weeks you are trying to attribute these fallacies to me, very desperate.

Definitions for what? For denial and revisionism? You are again ignorant, I already said that I do not sort out peoples to deniers and revisonists, what I see is only revising process of historical event, normal, no problem.

P.S. My last challenge to you, stop with your false accusations without evidence, with your false claims about that I am the author of absurd claims actually made by you as proven by quotes and the other dishonest claims in connection with me, otherwise you really waste my time.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:12 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:Your ad hominems include calling me a liar
Here is definition of ad hominem from your source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are wrong, calling you liar with evidence proving it is not ad hominem at all. And I always backed up my statement with evidence.

You missed out other things you have said, and calling me a liar based on your own twisting of what I have said is an attack on me and not what I have really said.

Your most blatant logical fallicies are the claims you hav erepeatedly made that the absence of evidence is proof a crime and missing people are proof of a crime.
Here we go again, these are you fallacies and not mine, another dishonest attempt to atribute your fallacies to me.

No they are your fallicies, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that neither is true and I did not originally claim they were true. You did that, once by making up a quote and attributing it to me.


You have also now failed with your logic over the argument about anti-semitic remarks by revisionists. I kept quoting anti-semitic remarks, but you kept saying they were not revisionists, but deniers, even to the point of embolding the word.
Again, you are wrong, they were deniers according to your definition of denial, not mine, you again atributted your fallacy to me.

That was your twist to try and get out of admitting they were revisonists. Fact is I have been proved right by you and you accept they are revisionists.

Now you come out with "Nessie again wrong, they were never deniers, but revisionists, there is simply no reason why Holocaust can´t be revised, simple, so they were revisionists all the time." Your supposed logic fails since it is not logical to say they are not revisonist when I point out they are being anti-semitic and then later claim they are revisionists.
See above, you only repeated your fallacy and you agian atributted it to me.

But Bob, you have admitted I am correct, they are revisionists and they have made anti-semitic remarks. Stop dodging that.

You of course dodged my question in connection with the reason for revision of holocaust.

I did not see it as being a question. I understand why there are reasons for revision of the Holocaust as there are commonly held beliefs that either are or may not be true.
You state that "I never claimed that these two terms are separated", yet your argument was the anti-semitic remarks were not being made by revisionists but by deniers. That is another logical fail.


See above, the same logical fallacy of yours atributed to me, you were the one who thanks to own definition decided who is and who is not revisionist, I used it against you, now you want to attribute it to me, silly and absurd.

You are dodging the anti-semitic remarks made by revisionists again.
.

My supposed going off topic mentioning baby fires was me defining my position on the Holocaust for you, which was needed as I went from believer, to denier to confused and contradictory in your mind. Going off topic would involve a prolonged ebate about babay fires, not just mentioning it. Just to show I am not dodging I have started a thread about Action T4 and Hitler's order for that.
Again, you dodged my points proving your contradictions when you can use off topic to support your postion, but I cant adress your off topic because according to you - this would be off topic.

My definition of going off topic is for a thread to go completely off topic and be hijacked, de-railed, not just mentions of something. In any case it was relevant as you were jumping about calling me a believer and then a denier.
As for the Holocaust being state policy, this by you "and he wants to tell that some Nazis just comitted holocaust without knowledge of state and they financed it and ordered it in private way as their hobby or what." is a strawman and only quoting "no state policy" is out of context.
Again dodging without presenting any argument adressing your absurd claim that only some nazis comitted holocaust and not the state itself.

The Nazis or National Socialist German Workers' Party were the state. Not every Nazi was involved in the Final Solution. Simple to understand surely?
Your inability to understand that I am undecided about the numbers murdered is your problem. This is a classic example of either you being wilfully mischievous or Dunning Kruger.
Again ad hominem.

Pot, kettle, black
If you are unhappy about my sources and definitions, how about providing some of your own?
Again, false suggesting because I never suggested that i am not happy with your sources, quite opposite, I just love to use them to refute your own claims. Same for your definitions, ijust love to use them to refute your own claims, but in last weeks you are trying to attribute these fallacies to me, very desperate.

Yet you criticise my defintions and sources.

Definitions for what? For denial and revisionism? You are again ignorant, I already said that I do not sort out peoples to deniers and revisonists, what I see is only revising process of historical event, normal, no problem.

Then it looks like you will just have to accept how I view denial and revisionsim


P.S. My last challenge to you, stop with your false accusations without evidence, with your false claims about that I am the author of absurd claims actually made by you as proven by quotes and the other dishonest claims in connection with me, otherwise you really waste my time.

Fine, then stop twisting what I have really been saying, making up quotes, come up with your own defintions and try to understand what I have been saying better.


Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:10 pm

Nessie wrote:You missed out other things you have said, and calling me a liar based on your own twisting of what I have said is an attack on me and not what I have really said.
You did not present any counter argument refuting my evidence for your lies, simple, you failed, thus my point is still valid
No they are your fallicies, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that neither is true and I did not originally claim they were true. You did that, once by making up a quote and attributing it to me.
Lie, and easily exposed by this:

Nessie - the Nazis destroyed evidence when the Action Reinhard camps were destroyed

Yep, according to him, evidence of crime dont exist because has been destroyed by Nazis. Now he is trying to attribute this nonsense to me, unbelieveable, quotes are here. He only confirmed my correct previous statements and proved his false accusation from misrepresentation and invention of his comment.
That was your twist to try and get out of admitting they were revisonists.
My twist? Again, he is lying as usual, here is his quote:

Bob - is Nessie able to tell me what is difference between denier and revisionist?
Nessie - Yes, simply revisionism accepts there was a Holocaust, but questions some of the details such as use of gas chambers and the overall numbers killed. Denial claims no Holocaust happened at all.

And what he presented as revisionist? For example Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to his own definition, pure denier :roll: As damage control he marked him as revisonist/denier.

No twist, his own definition, simple, proven by quotes. Is also good to note his confusion and contradiction in this definition. According to his own source, wiki, questioning (denial) of gas chambers and number of killed Jews is holocaust denial. His definition is thus completely flawed by his own source wiki, which clearly sort out deniers and revisionists in totally different way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Fact is I have been proved right by you and you accept they are revisionists.

But Bob, you have admitted I am correct, they are revisionists and they have made anti-semitic remarks. Stop dodging that.
Simple utter lie, I did not proven you right, I did the opposite! For me, they are all revisionists, no problem, but this is irrelevant because according to your definition, they are deniers, so you presented something what is false from the beginning even according to your own definition, that was the point.

And finally, you never proved even one single anti semitic remark :roll:
I did not see it as being a question. I understand why there are reasons for revision of the Holocaust as there are commonly held beliefs that either are or may not be true.
Nessie is not even able to recognize question? Here again:

Bob - Nessie again wrong, they were never deniers, but revisionists, there is simply no reason why Holocaust can´t be revised, simple, so they were revisionists all the time.. Or do you know some reason?

Read some basic literature, this is question, clear visible question.
My definition of going off topic is for a thread to go completely off topic and be hijacked, de-railed, not just mentions of something. In any case it was relevant as you were jumping about calling me a believer and then a denier.
Again dodged and dancing around :roll:
The Nazis or National Socialist German Workers' Party were the state. Not every Nazi was involved in the Final Solution. Simple to understand surely?
Do you know what word "state" means? Germany is the state :roll:

Jeez, this is really absurd.
Yet you criticise my defintions and sources.
This means that I am unhappy, fantastic logic. Quite contrary, I am very happy with your definitions and sources as they are great to show how wrong you are whole the time.
Then it looks like you will just have to accept how I view denial and revisionsim
I dont have to anything.

I have no problem to accept it if you are able to back it up by arguments, but you failed, simple.
Fine, then stop twisting what I have really been saying, making up quotes, come up with your own defintions and try to understand what I have been saying better.
You described your behavior.

I see you completely ignored my challenge, let see if you confirm it in your next response.

-edited

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:10 pm

Bob, why are dodging your ad hominems of "not very bright, confused and contradictory."?

With regards to lies, here is something that is not a lie. Yes I said "the Nazis destroyed evidence when the Action Reinhard camps were destroyed" and from that you now say "evidence of crime dont exist because has been destroyed by Nazis" but orignially you were saying "that destroyed evidence proves crime" (post #105 of Can you show me homicidal gas chamber?) and repeated else where. But that is nonsense and I never said that, you did. How can I be lying about denying saying something that in fact I have never said?

Again, destruction of evidence does not prove a crime. You made that up. How many times do you need to be told the same thing? No where will you find me saying that destruction of evidence proves a crime.

To say that I cannot show you an anti-semitic revisionist because of my definition is a neat twist, but it is not a proper argument to use if you want to be taken seriously. Fact is you now admit they are revisionists, so I was right all along. Are you now saying that what they said is not anti-semitic?

If you think I am dodging and dancing around going off topic, then you define going off topic.

State's definition includes

"9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe."

so my use of the word was correct.

Your challenge to me will be impossible to do if you continue to misrepresent what I say and do not accept my corrections when you do misrepresent me. Can you manage my challenge of stopping such misrepresentation?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:35 pm

Nessie wrote:Bob, why are dodging your ad hominems of "not very bright, confused and contradictory."?
Becuase these are not ad homines but again backed up by evidence as proven by my quotes when I presented evidence to back it up? :roll:
With regards to lies, here is something that is not a lie. Yes I said "the Nazis destroyed evidence when the Action Reinhard camps were destroyed" and from that you now say "evidence of crime dont exist because has been destroyed by Nazis" but orignially you were saying "that destroyed evidence proves crime" (post #105 of Can you show me homicidal gas chamber?) and repeated else where. But that is nonsense and I never said that, you did. How can I be lying about denying saying something that in fact I have never said?

Again, destruction of evidence does not prove a crime. You made that up. How many times do you need to be told the same thing? No where will you find me saying that destruction of evidence proves a crime.
Of course you did, why you lie again? Quotes are here.

Nessie - the Nazis destroyed evidence when the Action Reinhard camps were destroyed

Can you finally explain for what purpose they destroyed evidence of their crime if not for purpose of covering the crime? Because now the only logical explanation of your nonsense is that they destroyed it to cover crime, and I was completely correct with statement, that according to you, destroyed evidence proves crime.

Clarify your positio finally.
To say that I cannot show you an anti-semitic revisionist because of my definition is a neat twist, but it is not a proper argument to use if you want to be taken seriously. Fact is you now admit they are revisionists, so I was right all along. Are you now saying that what they said is not anti-semitic?
You are just not able to explain your nonsenses again, no argument, but I presented quotes, genuine quotes from you to prove how false your claims are, simple.
If you think I am dodging and dancing around going off topic, then you define going off topic.
Again, confused statement, you yourself stated that:

Nessie - Whist there is no 'Hitler Order' for the Final Solution, there is one for Action T4 and Hitler knew about what was happening regarding the murder of Jews and others at the various camps etc.

Bob - Show it here please, everything you said, show it.

Nessie - I am just going to dodge that as it is not part of this thread.

Logically, you yourself defined that Hitler T4 order and etc. is off topic when you complained about it. :roll:
State's definition includes

"9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe."

so my use of the word was correct.
speechless :roll:
Your challenge to me will be impossible to do if you continue to misrepresent what I say and do not accept my corrections when you do misrepresent me. Can you manage my challenge of stopping such misrepresentation?
Try it one more time as you did again, and I end this pointless discussion with you finally, because this leads to nowhere.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:44 pm

Another attempt to explain this

"Can you finally explain for what purpose they destroyed evidence of their crime if not for purpose of covering the crime? Because now the only logical explanation of your nonsense is that they destroyed it to cover crime, and I was completely correct with statement, that according to you, destroyed evidence proves crime.

Clarify your positio finally."

If you destroy evidence in Scotland that is a crime and it is called attempting to prevert the course of justice. It is a different crime from the original one (in this case murder). Proving attempt to prevert is not proof of the original crime. E.g. proving bodies were hidden does not prove that they were murdered or proving that someone gave a false statement to the police about a theft does not prove the theft.

Do you understand that Bob?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:57 pm

No dodging, you dodged most of it as usual, answer at least this.

Can you finally explain for what purpose they destroyed evidence of their crime if not for purpose of covering the crime?

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:48 pm

I want to concentrate on your wholly incorrect idea that destruction of evidence proves a crime. It is your inability to understand that is wrong, that is one of the reasons why I say you have Durning Kruger syndrome.

Here is my answer to your question "Can you finally explain for what purpose they destroyed evidence of their crime if not for purpose of covering the crime?" The Nazis could have destroyed, for example, the camp at Treblinka II to stop it from falling into enemy hands were it may be of use to them, or to return the land to another use after the camp had finished its purpose. I think that the answer though, is that they destroyed Treblinka II in an attempt to pervert the course of justice and hide their original crime of murder there.

Now please answer my question about do you understand what I wrote about attempting to pervert the course of justice and how it differs from the original crime.

Please also answer this, do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:48 pm

Now I am just skipping your repetitive and absurd ad hominems, thanks for understanding.
Nessie wrote:Here is my answer to your question.The Nazis could have destroyed, for example, the camp at Treblinka II to stop it from falling into enemy hands were it may be of use to them
Simply wrong, they did not destroy far more valuable camps with all these expensive equipment, so is nonsense to destroy such small ridiculous camp like Treblinka because of your alleged reason.
, or to return the land to another use after the camp had finished its purpose.
Don´t know what you mean, clarify. If you mean, that hey simply dismantled it because it was no longer needed, yep, this is correct.
I think that the answer though, is that they destroyed Treblinka II in an attempt to pervert the course of justice and hide their original crime of murder there.
Hooray, finally you confirmed it, here is summary.

Nessie - the Nazis destroyed evidence when the Action Reinhard camps were destroyed
Nessie - they destroyed Treblinka II in an attempt to pervert the course of justice and hide their original crime of murder there.

What these nonsenses means? Here is conclusion.

-according to Nessie, evidence don´t exist because has been destroyed by criminials, and they destroyed it to hide their crime, so for Nessie no problem that evidence don´t exist, for him is missing evidence of crime itself evidence that has been destroyed by criminals to hide alleged crime otherwise I only wonder how he know the correct reason why is evidence missing and then voila - missing evidence is proof/evidence of crime. Using this logic, everything can be proven without single evidence/proof with just saying "we have no evidence, because he destroyed it, this prove that he did the crime otherwise we would have this evidence" - but this is of course logical fallacy since with existing evidence of crime that crime would be easily proven of course. So absurd logic, no matter if evidence exists or not, crime is proven in both cases. :roll: Nessie is trying to use semantic in connection with meanings of words evidence-proof ignoring that missing evidence is neither evidence nor proof of crime. For meaning of these words in my language, see below last part.

-second problem for Nessie is general nonsense nature of his claim, plainly speaking, if they destroyed these camps to hide their crime, is logical that no crime happened in other camps not destroyed by criminals.
Now please answer my question about do you understand what I wrote about attempting to pervert the course of justice and how it differs from the original crime.
I don´t know what you wanted to say with your claim, what is your "idea" and I think this is irrelevant now, since you confirmed that evidence had been destroyed to hide crime.

"to pervert the course of justice"- means to complicate investigation, to hide as much evidence as possible to complicate investigation, and who do this? Of course criminals to hide their crime as you said too.

I really missed your "idea" here with your question, formulate it better or clarify what you actually want to know.
Please also answer this, do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
Oh yes, i see you want to try that evidence is not the same as proof and that it actually means something different or what or similar semantic claims, but sorry, in every dictionary I ever saw from my native language to english and from english to my native language, evidence is synonym to word proof, and proof is synonym to word evidence, they are translated in the same way, the first translation to my language is completely the same for both words.. I actually dont know what are you trying with this semantic strategy, is irrelevant if you want to use word "proof" or "evidence", because missing evidence is neither evidence nor proof of crime as you claim.

Or can you explain the difference between these two words and how this alleged difference somehow change something to your favor?

Finally, this silly problem of alleged "invention" from me, has ended.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:08 pm

OK, now I see where the problem lies

"Oh yes, i see you want to try that evidence is not the same as proof and that it actually means something different or what or similar semantic claims, but sorry, in every dictionary I ever saw from my native language to english and from english to my native language, evidence is synonym to word proof, and proof is synonym to word evidence, they are translated in the same way, the first translation to my language is completely the same for both words.. I actually dont know what are you trying with this semantic strategy, is irrelevant if you want to use word "proof" or "evidence", because missing evidence is neither evidence nor proof of crime as you claim."

In English evidence and proof are not synonyms and they have different meanings. I have had a look on line at various thesaurus and dictionaries and they confirm that. But I see what you mean about translation as if I use google translate and lets say German, for evidence and proof I get beweis. But in English they are different

evidence - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

proof - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

whereby evidence is what is gathered to then prove or disprove a point. Evidence in itself is not proof, proof is made up of evidence.

So for example, in the English language this makes sense; destroying Treblinka II can be used as evidence to prove that the Nazis were attempting to pervert the course of justice by covering up a crime, in this case murder. The destruction of evidence in itself does not prove murder. Another example would be a in a murder trial a gun would be evidence for but not proof of the murder.

Hopefully that clears up this confusion. I wonder how the Germans differentiate between evidence and proof?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:27 pm

In English evidence and proof are not synonyms and they have different meanings. I have had a look on line at various thesaurus and dictionaries and they confirm that. But I see what you mean about translation as if I use google translate and lets say German, for evidence and proof I get beweis. But in English they are different
Yes, I predicted it, and I already covered it too in my response see again: "is irrelevant if you want to use word "proof" or "evidence", because missing evidence is neither evidence nor proof of crime as you claim."

Only little deatil, in your link, I see: 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

But nevermind, so for you is this allegedly destroyed missing evidence of crime is evidence of crime and not proof of crime, correct?

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:41 pm

Bob wrote:
In English evidence and proof are not synonyms and they have different meanings. I have had a look on line at various thesaurus and dictionaries and they confirm that. But I see what you mean about translation as if I use google translate and lets say German, for evidence and proof I get beweis. But in English they are different
Yes, I predicted it, and I already covered it too in my response see again: "is irrelevant if you want to use word "proof" or "evidence", because missing evidence is neither evidence nor proof of crime as you claim."

Only little deatil, in your link, I see: 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

But nevermind, so for you is this allegedly destroyed missing evidence of crime is evidence of crime and not proof of crime, correct?
Do you accept that we have been working under different definitions for evidence and proof?

If you destroy evidence (noun) that can be used to evidence (verb) a case of attempting to pervert the course of justice. It is not proof of the crime that you are trying to cover up.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:50 pm

Nessie wrote:Do you accept that we have been working under different definitions for evidence and proof
I see that it is irrelevant if I am using word proof and you are using word evidence, both possibilities are wrong in your claims.
If you destroy evidence (noun) that can be used to evidence (verb) a case of attempting to pervert the course of justice. It is not proof of the crime that you are trying to cover up.
But point is how you can know that somebody destroyed evidence when you never saw this evidence? So how do you know that is destroyed to prevent the course of justice?

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:12 pm

That I have been using evidence with a different meaning to what you thought is very relevant and you cannot just dismiss that and claim neither work. I have been repeatedly telling you the use of proof in "missing evidence is proof of crime" is incorrect and makes no sense.

"But point is how you can know that somebody destroyed evidence when you never saw this evidence? So how do you know that is destroyed to prevent the course of justice?"

You do that with witness testimony, other physical evidence which points to something being missing and traces of the original evidence. For example, there are witnesses who say there was a camp at Treblinka II, there is other evidence there was a camp there, such as photos and there are traces of a camp there from archeology of the site. But there is nothing really to see there now. So we have evidence that it existed. We have claims that it existed for a criminal purpose, so in Scots law (and I presume other legal systems as well) the destruction of the camp, so preventing or hampering an investigation of what happened there is attempting to pervert the course of justice. Another example of trying to hide evidence and perverting the course of justice is the Katyn Massacre. The Nazis found the evidence and correctly put together a case it was a crime by the Soviets. That the Nazis failed and the Soviets got away with the crime (until it was accepted and appologised for, though those involved should have been punished) is another of the many tragedies of WWII.

This is why when witness testimony contradicts or does not match physical evidence you should not just dismiss the witnesses as lying. The physical evidence may have been tampered with or if you look closer there may be a legitimate reason why they don't match.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Bob » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:44 pm

This leads to nowhere, end.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Is Holocaust Denial a "faith" or "faith-based" system?

Post by Nessie » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:35 am

Oh well, I suppose what this means is that Holocaust denial is a faith based system as it is not grounded in properly evidenced proof.

Instead it involves word game twists such as arguing that revisionism is not anti-semitic by the use of one definition of revisonism and denial, whilst all along knowing that revisionism and denial are linked and there are lots of examples of revisionists being anti-semitic. Playing word games is never going to add credibility to any argument or the arguer.

It involves turning a blind eye to some evidence, such as the image of the KKK with Holohoax placards doing Nazi salutes and somehow not understanding what that image shows.

It involves not knowing the difference between evidence and proof.

It involves ignoring the evidence with does not fit into the case, primarily witness testimony.

If it really is true that the Nazis did not use homicidal gas chambers then they acted in a very strange way by telling people that they did gas people and destroying or tampering with the evidence. If they had left Treblinka II as it was they could have easily shown there was no gas chamber there. If they did not blow up Krema II they could have easily shown that there was not possible to use it as a gas chamber. The stupid Nazis made a rod for their own backs.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.