What is it that deniers deny?

Discussions
Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:10 am

David, ther holocaust denier wrote:I DENY that there was a gassing of a single Dutch homosexual, The Story that caused the Monument to be built.
Willem Arondeus (22 August 1894 – 1 July 1943) was a homosexual Dutch artist and author, who joined the anti-Nazi resistance movement during World War II. To hinder the Nazis, on 27 March 1943, Arondeus led a group in bombing the Amsterdam Public Records Office. Thousands of files were destroyed, and the attempt to compare forged documents with the registry was hindered. Within a week, Arondeus and the other members of the group were arrested. Twelve, including Arondeus, were executed that July by firing squad.[3] In his last message before his execution, Arondeus, who had lived openly as a gay man before the war, said, "Let it be known that homosexuals are not cowards."

So he was shot rather than gassed. Good one David.

David where does the monument say gassing. Did you fabricate your evidence again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomonument

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:23 am

@ David

I currently have no opinion on that subject as I am not at all familiar with it, David.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: SM runs toward the Door

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:48 am

David wrote:. . . everyone is now a revisionist relative to the Nuremberg Tribunal
Well, if you believe that everyone has major disagreements with the IMT judgment, you've kind of muddied the waters - unless you're telling us that you agree with the basic thrust of the following works:

* Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews, Years of Extermination
* Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (3 volume)
* Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942
* Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews
* Silberklang, Gates of Tears: The Holocaust in the Lublin District
* Engelking & Leociak, Warsaw Ghetto: A Guide to the Perished City
* Bryant, Eyewitness to Genocide: The Operation Reinhard Death Camp Trials, 1955-1966
* Grabowski, Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland
* Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, Auschwitz 1940-1945. Central Issues in the History of the Camp (5 volumes)
* Epstein, Model Nazi: Arthur Greiser and the Occupation of Western Poland
* Montague, Chelmno and the Holocaust: The History of Hitler's First Death Camp
* Trunk, Lodz Ghetto: A History
* Blatman, The Death Marches: The Final Phase of Nazi Genocide
* Roseman, A Past in Hiding: Memory and Survival in Nazi Germany
* Wachsmann, KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps
* Mailänder, Female SS guards and workaday violence : the Majdanek Concentration Camp, 1942-1944
* Kranz, Extermination of Jews at the Majdanek Concentration Camp

And I'm fine with that. I think there's a lot of value in these studies. You've read them all, right?
David wrote:am trying to show that "current thinking by Believers" contains lots of "Denial."
So you're saying, if I understand, that you basically agree with "Believers'" work, like the work published in the books listed above? Is that what you're telling us?
David wrote:The trouble is that SM is clamming up on his actual "current thinking."
David, David, David - I have given you my thinking on so many topics, from Treblinka to Majdanek to France. Ask, Balsamo if I've clammed up on my thinking about Wannsee. Or on Konrad Morgen and what his work tells us about Nazi Jewish policies. Hell, I even highlighted one of your claims in here about Majdanek so we could compare your thinking and mine - and you ran from the discussion, the way you ran from Nessie's Treblinka thread and the Most Important Photograph. Of course, France too - you fled that discussion. Sheesh.

So, Wrongway, get your ass to the Majdanek thread and defend your claim.
David wrote:The Tale of Dutch Gays being sent to the Gas Chambers
To complete the discussion regarding the "Homomonument" (the official name of the monument)
What discussion? I am not part of a discussion of this.

Are you trying to blurt out something about what you deny?
David wrote:At the time it was dedicated to the Dutch Gays the evil Nazis threw into the gas chambers.
As part of a validating claims for "victim of the Nazis" status, some scholarly research was done.
Guess what? The whole story of Dutch Gays being killed was a myth.
In fact, the only people busted during the Occupation seemed to have been older guys with boys.

See- Nazis Left Dutch Gays Untouched, Says Historian
NRC Handelsblad (The Netherlands)
I truly have no idea what you are going on about. You seem to be talking to yourself. As I told you, I know nothing about a Nazi plan to exterminate Dutch gays. No discussion because this is not something I've ever heard of.
David wrote:Tijsseling calls this image "a persistent fiction, created by the gay-emancipation movement in the 1970s.
So your quarrel is not with scholars but with gay rights activists?

By the way, another thing I don't know about is what the IMT - you know, the "official story" - said about Dutch gays. Could you quote this for us? Because, if you are right, and this claim arose in the 1970s, you seem to have drifted off your main idea . . .
David wrote:From SM's dissembling and hissing, I think he would go along with me and DENY there having been a Dutch Gay Holocaust.
Yes?
No?
Again, I have never heard of such a thing. But, again, I've not studied it. Unlike you, I don't Google around for this that and the other - I actually study a topic somewhat before I start forming thoughts about it.

Your method: blurt out some ignorant comment about "wrongway gas chambers" - then run for cover under a deluge of tangents and diversions rather than explain and support your claim.

Not my way, David.
David wrote:How about a Roma Holocaust, SM? Do you think that was an policy of the German Government to exterminate all Roma or do you DENY that too?
Hunh? Deny exactly what? Based on limited reading, done some time ago, I think that about 200-250,000 Roma were murdered during the war years including IIRC many who were gassed at Birkenau e.g., the family camp - smaller numbers at TII and Chelmno, many shot by EG units. Some 10s of 1000s were killed - again from memory - by the Ustaše and by the Romanians (IIRC in the Transnistria). I do not believe that there was a central, final decision to exterminate all the Roma, but I'd have to re-check all the details, as I've not read on this topic recently; in fact, my recollection is that divisions about how to treat the Roma - around "pure" and mixed blood Roma - persisted even as Roma were being deported to camps and ghettos.

But . . .

The question asked in this thread is what deniers think. Do you deny Roma were murdered, do you deny the destruction of the family camp at Birkenau? We do seem to have moved past six/gas/plan in trying to understand denial, despite the claims of Maryzilla and Rollo the ganger.

A thread on the Roma might be a good one as it appears to me to be a neglected topic . . .

Back to you, Wrongway, you've still not replied to my questions about Majdanek.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:46 am, edited 3 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:55 am

David wrote:What do I DENY-
I DENY that there was a gassing of a single Dutch homosexual, The Story that caused the Monument to be built.
Good for you, David. Scrmbldggs and I told you we know nothing about a policy of exterminating Dutch homosexuals, by gas or other means. But, again, would you be so kind as to point us to where this topic was this covered in the IMT judgment? Y'know, "the official story" as you call it. I'd like to read for myself how this was described in "the official story."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:13 am

David, to try to get this a bit more focused, do you agree or disagree with the following? There are three questions that define "Revisionism" - and any other questions are irrelevant to the discussion. Here are those three questions:

1. Did six million really die?

2. Were there homicidal gas chambers that were actually used to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?

3. Was there an official program by the "Nazis" to exterminate, i.e. "kill", "murder" the Jews of Europe and if possible, the world?

All the rest is nonsense.

Thank you in advance for actually making a relevant reply to what you've been asked. I know you agree that your rambling, your sidebars, your little chats with yourself, your attempts to lecture, and your diversions are a tedious waste of time. Is everything other than these three questions nonsense?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:09 am

David wrote:I DENY that there was a gassing of a single Dutch homosexual
Now, over 100,000 Dutch Jews were deported to Auschwitz and Sobibór, and most of them were gassed. So, what you're saying is simply that you have your hands over your eyes and your fingers plugging your ears and are going na-na-na-na-na about gas chambers, the way you always do. You needn't get on your high horse about Dutch gays to do this: you can simply reiterate your tired claims about gas chambers. Because, surely, David, among these nearly 100,000 Dutch Jews there was at least one gay person (according to Smithsonian magazine, "about 20 percent of the population is attracted to their own gender" - which makes the statistical probability that you're right about your denial of the gassing of a single Dutch homosexual practically equivalent to zero).

As to Tijsseling, I looked around for material you referred to and came across where she says that "Homosexuals in Germany were clearly victims of the Nazi regime" and were among those "sent to the death camps." She says that her research indicates that "this wasn’t true for the Netherlands."

You didn't mention that, what the author of the study you quote says about Germany: it's interesting, though.

Nuremberg judgment, the so-called official version: what does it say about the gassing of Dutch homosexuals by the Germans?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:16 am

nickterry wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote: Check out the wording of France's anti-Holocaust Denial legislation to see how irrelevant the findings of Nuremberg trial are today.
Clearly, you never checked out the wording, because the Gayssot law is based around the IMT charter, specifically article 6 definining 'crimes against humanity'. The only reference to the findings of the IMT is that the crimes against humanity under discussion must have been committed by a member of an organisation declared criminal by the IMT or perpetrated by an individual convicted in a French or international court.

Article 6 defines crimes against humanity as follows
(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

In effect, 'contesting the existence' of murder or extermination by the SS, whether in gas chambers or not, and whether of Jews or not, is what is criminalised. Revising conclusions about those murders is not, ergo the IMT judgement and its death tolls are not set in stone by the law.

Art. 24 bis. - Seront punis des peines prévues par le sixième alinéa de l'article 24 ceux qui auront contesté, par un des moyens énoncés à l'article 23, l'existence d'un ou plusieurs crimes contre l'humanité tels qu'ils sont définis par l'article 6 du statut du tribunal militaire international annexé à l'accord de Londres du 8 août 1945 et qui ont été commis soit par les membres d'une organisation déclarée criminelle en application de l'article 9 dudit statut, soit par une personne reconnue coupable de tels crimes par une juridiction française ou internationale.
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.d ... rieLien=id

machine translation:
Art. 24a. - The penalties provided for in the sixth paragraph of Article 24 those who contested by one of the means set forth in article 23, the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as defined by Article 6 of the Charter of the International military Tribunal annexed to the London agreement of 8 August 1945 and that were committed either by the members of an organization declared criminal under Article 9 of the Statute, or by a person convicted of such crimes by a French or international court.
Yeah OK You are right. Nuremberg has nothing to do with anti-Holocaust Denial legislation in France.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:20 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
David, ther holocaust denier wrote:I DENY that there was a gassing of a single Dutch homosexual, The Story that caused the Monument to be built.
Willem Arondeus (22 August 1894 – 1 July 1943) was a homosexual Dutch artist and author, who joined the anti-Nazi resistance movement during World War II. To hinder the Nazis, on 27 March 1943, Arondeus led a group in bombing the Amsterdam Public Records Office. Thousands of files were destroyed, and the attempt to compare forged documents with the registry was hindered. Within a week, Arondeus and the other members of the group were arrested. Twelve, including Arondeus, were executed that July by firing squad.[3] In his last message before his execution, Arondeus, who had lived openly as a gay man before the war, said, "Let it be known that homosexuals are not cowards."

So he was shot rather than gassed. Good one David.

David where does the monument say gassing. Did you fabricate your evidence again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomonument
He was a member of the resistance and he bombed a government building but he was arrested, tried, convicted and executed because he was gay?

Of course, you've been busted making up Leonard Nimoy quotes so your credibility is pretty much shot.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:24 am

Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote: He was a member of the gay resistance and he bombed a government building but he was arrested, tried, convicted and executed because he was gay?
Yes Mary, you idiot. That's exactly what happened. Did you read why he bombed the registry?

Why are you so stupid?
:D

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:33 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:David, to try to get this a bit more focused, do you agree or disagree with the following? There are three questions that define "Revisionism" - and any other questions are irrelevant to the discussion. Here are those three questions:

1. Did six million really die?
Died? Possibly but probably not. Intentionally murdered? No.
2. Were there homicidal gas chambers that were actually used to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?
No. The only homicidal gas chambers in existence during WW2 were in the United States and they didn't kill even a thousand people.
3. Was there an official program by the "Nazis" to exterminate, i.e. "kill", "murder" the Jews of Europe and if possible, the world?
No.
All the rest is nonsense.
What?
Thank you in advance for actually making a relevant reply to what you've been asked. I know you agree that your rambling, your sidebars, your little chats with yourself, your attempts to lecture, and your diversions are a tedious waste of time. Is everything other than these three questions nonsense?
If you define the Holocaust as just those three things and we're talking about the Holocaust, yes.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:42 am

nickterry wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote: Check out the wording of France's anti-Holocaust Denial legislation to see how irrelevant the findings of Nuremberg trial are today.
Clearly, you never checked out the wording, because the Gayssot law is based around the IMT charter, specifically article 6 definining 'crimes against humanity'. The only reference to the findings of the IMT is that the crimes against humanity under discussion must have been committed by a member of an organisation declared criminal by the IMT or perpetrated by an individual convicted in a French or international court.
Hello Nick- The Gayssot Defense of Belief law sprang full-blown from the legal loins of the IMT based on both its
law and some of its Judgment.
To put it in a way you might understand, without the IMF, Gayssot would be impossible.

No one has claimed the Defense of Belief law forbids the questioning of the entirety of the Nuremberg judgment. It forbids only
the questioning of crimes supposedly committed against “humanity” by an organization declared criminal by
the IMT. Guess who that is? The law is tailored very closely to cover only German crimes, as opposed to crimes of Stalin
or Mao.

The "in effect" of the law has been to suppress discussion of the Holocaust.
As has been shown, denial of crimes against Gays and Roma have all been publicly made and NOT prosecuted.

Has the law ever been applied except against Holocaust Revisionists? Or is your "in effect" pure BullSh*t?
It is relevant to your claim that A similar law relating to the Armenian genocide Act of 2012 was declared unConstitutional
by the French Constitutional Court.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:55 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Arondeus led a group in bombing the Amsterdam Public Records Office. Thousands of files were destroyed, and the attempt to compare forged documents with the registry was hindered. Within a week, Arondeus and the other members of the group were arrested. Twelve, including Arondeus, were executed that July by firing squad.
Hello Matty- You are a pea brain- did you miss that bombing the Pubic records office had anything to do with his
being shot? Was anyone hurt or killed in the bombing? :roll: :roll:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:05 am

Mary Q Contrary, the really stupid holocaust denier wrote: No. The only homicidal gas chambers in existence during WW2 were in the United States and they didn't kill even a thousand people.
Mary? In the UFO threads, you said you accept the existence of German gas chambers in WWII? Are you lying in this thread or that thread?
:D

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:10 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:What do I DENY-
I DENY that there was a gassing of a single Dutch homosexual, The Story that caused the Monument to be built.
Good for you, David. Scrmbldggs and I told you we know nothing about a policy of exterminating Dutch homosexuals, by gas or other means. But, again, would you be so kind as to point us to where this topic was this covered in the IMT judgment? Y'know, "the official story" as you call it. I'd like to read for myself how this was described in "the official story."

Hello SM- Yes, it is good for me (thank you) as opposed to you slithery Believers who are too dishonest to admit that they
Deny the Dutch Homocaust.
As to the IMT Judgment, you need to catch up. The IMT Judgment is a subject of all those many revisions that you and I
both agree upon.

But your Denial the the Dutch Homocaust is a new subtopic designed to show that you too are a "Denier."
The trouble is you and scrm. are too slimy to tell us what you honestly believe. :(

My point is that Revisionists and the more educated and intelligent Believers have much in common.
I understand that your thread was designed to underscore differences but I tend to try and find common grounds to
start a discussion.

We are all Revisionists and we also Deny (or don't accept or think the story should be revised) many of the same Stories.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:14 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mary Q Contrary, the really stupid holocaust denier wrote: No. The only homicidal gas chambers in existence during WW2 were in the United States and they didn't kill even a thousand people.
Mary? In the UFO threads, you said you accept the existence of German gas chambers in WWII? Are you lying in this thread or that thread?
:D
Gawd, Matty- Have you ever made a post that is not a stupid insult or the claim that someone is "lying?"
We are talking about the Story of the Dutch Homocaust...you come up with the fact that a gay guy blew up
a building and was shot. :roll: :roll:
If you were as intelligent as you are nasty
or
as educated as you are off topic
you would be a....Revisionist.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:14 am

David, the holocaust denier wrote: Hello Matty- You are a pea brain- did you miss that bombing the Pubic records office had anything to do with his being shot?
You idiot. That's why he was shot. He was protecting innocent Dutch people including homosexuals, on false papers against your beloved occupying Nazis.

On March 17, 1943, Willem Arondeus and other members of his resistance unit set the Amsterdam General Registry Office on fire, trying to destroy all the original records so the false identity papers couldn’t be checked. They successfully destroyed about ten thousand records, but five days later the entire unit was arrested.

“The group of 12 were executed July 1, 1943. In his last message before his execution, Arondeus, who had lived openly as a gay man before the war, asked, "Let it be known that homosexuals are not cowards.”

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:19 am

In regard to your above claims, I honestly believe you're nuts, David.

Satisfied?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:19 am

David, the senile holocaust denier wrote: Gawd, Matty.....-
David, since nurse let back on the internet, you haven't answered one of Statistical Mechanic's questions. You are doing a fantastic job of showing all the new members here, what a complete joke holocaust deniers are. I don't have to lift a finger any more.

:D Keep up the good work.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:22 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:What do I DENY-
I DENY that there was a gassing of a single Dutch homosexual, The Story that caused the Monument to be built.
Good for you, David. Scrmbldggs and I told you we know nothing about a policy of exterminating Dutch homosexuals, by gas or other means. But, again, would you be so kind as to point us to where this topic was this covered in the IMT judgment? Y'know, "the official story" as you call it. I'd like to read for myself how this was described in "the official story."

Hello SM- Yes, it is good for me (thank you) as opposed to you slithery Believers who are too dishonest to admit that they
Deny the Dutch Homocaust.
As to the IMT Judgment, you need to catch up. The IMT Judgment is a subject of all those many revisions that you and I
both agree upon.

What about, "Tijsseling calls this image "a persistent fiction, created by the gay-emancipation movement in the 1970s don't you understand? It has nothing to do with the IMT except the idea of a "victim of Nazi persecution" status

Denial the the Dutch Homocaust is a new subtopic designed to show that you too are a "Denier."
The trouble is you and scrm. are too slimy to tell us what you honestly believe. :(

My point is that Revisionists and the more educated and intelligent Believers have much in common.
I understand that your thread was designed to underscore differences but I tend to try and find common grounds to
start a discussion.

We are all Revisionists and we also Deny (or don't accept or think the story should be revised) many of the same Stories.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:24 am

scrmbldggs wrote:In regard to your above claims, I honestly believe you're nuts, David.
I think David and Mary should move in with each other, and simply talk between themselves.

They can dress up in Nazi uniforms and have little "roll calls" in the afternoon. They can search each other's bedrooms for communist literature and proscribed books. They can ensure that neither one of them listens to foreign radio broadcasts or reads foreign newspapers.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:25 am

scrmbldggs wrote:In regard to your above claims, I honestly believe you're nuts, David.

Satisfied?
Nuts as in quoting an official study of persecution of Gays in Wartime Holland?
or
nuts as in expecting a Believer to give an honest answer?

Keep on slithering scrm.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:32 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I think David and Mary should move in with each other, and simply talk between themselves.
They can dress up in Nazi uniforms and have little "roll calls" in the afternoon. They can search each other's bedrooms for communist literature and proscribed books. They can ensure that neither one of them listens to foreign radio broadcasts or reads foreign newspapers.
Hello Matty-
You sure have spent a lot of time thinking about this.
Thanks for sharing your fantasies with us all.
Last edited by David on Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:34 am

tumblr_lw0hsla0ef1r7mmmyo1_500.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:42 am

David, the insane holocaust denier wrote:Nuts as in quoting an official study of persecution of Gays in Wartime Holland?
The major change during the German occupation was the introduction of the German anti-gay paragraph 175 in the Netherlands. The law forbade sexual intimacies between men of all ages.

David? Do you think the Nazis should have persecuted Dutch homosexuals or that was wrong? You haven't actually said it was wrong yet.
:D

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27345
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:51 am

You don't want to accept my answer, therefore you declare it dishonest.


Your game is old, and stale, and boring. I'm not going to jump on that tired ride, David.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:47 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:David, to try to get this a bit more focused, do you agree or disagree with the following? There are three questions that define "Revisionism" - and any other questions are irrelevant to the discussion. Here are those three questions:

1. Did six million really die?
Died? Possibly but probably not. Intentionally murdered? No.
2. Were there homicidal gas chambers that were actually used to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?
No. The only homicidal gas chambers in existence during WW2 were in the United States and they didn't kill even a thousand people.
3. Was there an official program by the "Nazis" to exterminate, i.e. "kill", "murder" the Jews of Europe and if possible, the world?
No.
Good for you, Maryzilla. In a post asking David if he agrees with the definition of the Holocaust you and Rollo the ganger use, you answer that you agree with yourself.

At least you're consistent.

I will agree that the way Rollo the ganger stated this, you too over in AHF, is not very precise. Even so, your answer to question 1 sidesteps the real issue: Do you think the Nazis and their allies intentionally murdered Jews - and, if so, how many and under what circumstances?
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
All the rest is nonsense.
What?
No {!#%@}. You revisionists do come up with some stupid stuff. Those words are Rollo the ganger's, quoted in the OP, as were the three questions. I think Rollo the ganger was trying here to distance himself from parts of HD he finds embarrassing. David, e.g., thinks HD is tied up with whether the Nazis planned the extermination of Dutch homosexuals; FP Berg thinks it includes paeans to Hitler; Theo H thinks it's about being annoyed by Jews; and so on.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Thank you in advance for actually making a relevant reply to what you've been asked. I know you agree that your rambling, your sidebars, your little chats with yourself, your attempts to lecture, and your diversions are a tedious waste of time. Is everything other than these three questions nonsense?
If you define the Holocaust as just those three things and we're talking about the Holocaust, yes.
I don't, Rollo the ganger does. The question I asked was, to put it a slightly different way, how do deniers believe the Holocaust is defined and what do they deny?

Unlike David, you've at least replied, I will grant you that, even if only to tell us what we started out knowing.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:57 am

David wrote:Hello Nick- The Gayssot Defense of Belief law sprang full-blown from the legal loins of the IMT based on both its
law and some of its Judgment.
To put it in a way you might understand, without the IMF, Gayssot would be impossible. . . .
David, you claim that the Nuremberg trial is the "official story." Why do so few countries with anti-HD laws, then, even mention the trial and its findings in their legislation?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:11 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:What do I DENY-
I DENY that there was a gassing of a single Dutch homosexual, The Story that caused the Monument to be built.
Good for you, David. Scrmbldggs and I told you we know nothing about a policy of exterminating Dutch homosexuals, by gas or other means. But, again, would you be so kind as to point us to where this topic was this covered in the IMT judgment? Y'know, "the official story" as you call it. I'd like to read for myself how this was described in "the official story."
Hello SM- Yes, it is good for me (thank you) as opposed to you slithery Believers who are too dishonest to admit that they
Deny the Dutch Homocaust.
As to the IMT Judgment, you need to catch up. The IMT Judgment is a subject of all those many revisions that you and I
both agree upon.
David, you failed to answer my question. I boldfaced it to help you spot it.

Let me help understand it: You have told us over and over that the official version of the Holocaust is what is in the IMT judgment. I am simply asking you how extermination of Dutch homosexuals figured in the official story. You should be able to show us that.

PS - when I tell you I haven't heard of something, it is not dishonesty about it. It is lack of knowledge. Perhaps, for example, Tijsseling is correct and there was no intentional murder of Dutch homosexuals during the Holocaust. This could, er, explain why neither scrmbldggs nor I have ever heard of such a thing. Or perhaps scrmbldggs and I were unable to find any mention of the extermination of Dutch homosexuals in the "official story" . . . or perhaps we just didn't read about this topic . . . and so on. OTOH I heartily approve your referring to us as dishonest as your doing so exposes your tactics.
David wrote:But your Denial the the Dutch Homocaust is a new subtopic designed to show that you too are a "Denier."
By your definition, the extermination of Dutch homosexuals would have been in the IMT judgment if it was part of the official story, as you call it. Are you going to keep dodging the request that you show us where that is the case?
David wrote:The trouble is you and scrm. are too slimy to tell us what you honestly believe.
We both told you directly and at once what we believe: we have never heard of this. And I told you that I don't form thoughts about things I'm unfamiliar with. So you can put 2 and 2 together on this I hope.
David wrote:My point is that Revisionists and the more educated and intelligent Believers have much in common.
I understand that your thread was designed to underscore differences but I tend to try and find common grounds to start a discussion
Ok, big boy, using the list of books I posted - because the authors are highly educated and very intelligent - tell us what you have in common with their conclusions. Or, these authors having so much in common with you, do you simply say you generally agree with their conclusions? You dodged my earlier question about this, too, when I asked you.

Oh, and by the way:
So, Wrongway, get your ass to the Majdanek thread and defend your claim.
Come on, Wrongway, get to it.

And:
Do you deny Roma were murdered, do you deny the destruction of the family camp at Birkenau?
You dodged this question too.
David wrote:We are all Revisionists and we also Deny (or don't accept or think the story should be revised) many of the same Stories.
Instead of writing out your assertions in Martian, and running them through Google Translate, please use English. I have no clue what you are trying to tell us, except give us a description of your intellectual impoverishment.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:14 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:In regard to your above claims, I honestly believe you're nuts, David.
I think David and Mary should move in with each other, and simply talk between themselves.
They do need to get their claims straight as they are making very different arguments, with David having launched a full-out assault on Rollo the ganger's three markers of denial. That said, it is a bit difficult to understand what David is trying to say.

And, yes, David is not able to answer what I ask him and so he tries obfuscating and diverting - and then, when those tactics fail, goes "silent."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5011
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:18 pm

1. Did six million really die?
Died? Possibly but probably not. Intentionally murdered? No.
[/quote]
Wrong. Six million? no, but many millions were murdered. My calculations come up at 4.9 million but I tend to be very conservative on these matters.
2. Were there homicidal gas chambers that were actually used to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?
No. The only homicidal gas chambers in existence during WW2 were in the United States and they didn't kill even a thousand people.
Wrong in every single possible way.
3. Was there an official program by the "Nazis" to exterminate, i.e. "kill", "murder" the Jews of Europe and if possible, the world?
No.
Not a "program" but a series of mesures and policies at the highest level. Again you are wrong.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:53 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote: He was a member of the gay resistance and he bombed a government building but he was arrested, tried, convicted and executed because he was gay?
Yes Mary, you idiot. That's exactly what happened. Did you read why he bombed the registry?

Why are you so stupid?
:D
Did he do it because he was gay? If he had happened to be Jewish, would he have been executed because he was Jewish and not because he was a violent terrorist? What if he were Jewish AND gay AND blew up government buildings? Would he be a victim of the Holocaust, the Homocaust, or a criminal justice system that punishes terrorists?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:10 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mary Q Contrary, the really stupid holocaust denier wrote: No. The only homicidal gas chambers in existence during WW2 were in the United States and they didn't kill even a thousand people.
Mary? In the UFO threads, you said you accept the existence of German gas chambers in WWII? Are you lying in this thread or that thread?
:D
Off topic, but I defend the value of eyewitness testimony in the UFO threads using the arguments that "skeptics" use to defend the value of eyewitness testimony in the Holocaust Denial threads. If that confuses you, I apologize.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:19 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
David, the insane holocaust denier wrote:Nuts as in quoting an official study of persecution of Gays in Wartime Holland?
The major change during the German occupation was the introduction of the German anti-gay paragraph 175 in the Netherlands. The law forbade sexual intimacies between men of all ages.

David? Do you think the Nazis should have persecuted Dutch homosexuals or that was wrong? You haven't actually said it was wrong yet.
:D
Do you believe Dutch homosexuals were targeted by the Nazis for extermination? Do you believe all homosexuals were targeted by the Nazis for extermination? Don't confuse persecution with extermination.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:38 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
David, the insane holocaust denier wrote:Nuts as in quoting an official study of persecution of Gays in Wartime Holland?
The major change during the German occupation was the introduction of the German anti-gay paragraph 175 in the Netherlands. The law forbade sexual intimacies between men of all ages.

David? Do you think the Nazis should have persecuted Dutch homosexuals or that was wrong? You haven't actually said it was wrong yet.
:D
. . . Don't confuse persecution with extermination.
Useless advice.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5011
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:41 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote: He was a member of the gay resistance and he bombed a government building but he was arrested, tried, convicted and executed because he was gay?
Yes Mary, you idiot. That's exactly what happened. Did you read why he bombed the registry?

Why are you so stupid?
:D
Did he do it because he was gay? If he had happened to be Jewish, would he have been executed because he was Jewish and not because he was a violent terrorist? What if he were Jewish AND gay AND blew up government buildings? Would he be a victim of the Holocaust, the Homocaust, or a criminal justice system that punishes terrorists?
He was a freedom fighter. He was rebelling against the violent and illegal occupation of his country by the racist, bigoted Germans. He was a patriot.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:09 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:David, to try to get this a bit more focused, do you agree or disagree with the following? There are three questions that define "Revisionism" - and any other questions are irrelevant to the discussion. Here are those three questions:

1. Did six million really die?
Died? Possibly but probably not. Intentionally murdered? No.
2. Were there homicidal gas chambers that were actually used to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people?
No. The only homicidal gas chambers in existence during WW2 were in the United States and they didn't kill even a thousand people.
3. Was there an official program by the "Nazis" to exterminate, i.e. "kill", "murder" the Jews of Europe and if possible, the world?
No.
Good for you, Maryzilla. In a post asking David if he agrees with the definition of the Holocaust you and Rollo the ganger use, you answer that you agree with yourself.

At least you're consistent.

I will agree that the way Rollo the ganger stated this, you too over in AHF, is not very precise. Even so, your answer to question 1 sidesteps the real issue: Do you think the Nazis and their allies intentionally murdered Jews - and, if so, how many and under what circumstances?
I didn't answer that question because you didn't ask it. If that's the real issue you should have asked that question first. But, yes, Nazis and their allies intentionally murdered Jews. I don't know how many and the circumstances are too numerous to go into. But your poorly worded question sidesteps the real real issue. Do you believe that every Jew who was killed during the war was intentionally murdered? If so, do you believe that every Jew who was intentionally murdered was intentionally murdered because he was Jewish? If not, how many Jews were not killed because they were Jewish and under what circumstance?
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
All the rest is nonsense.
What?
No {!#%@}. You revisionists do come up with some stupid stuff. Those words are Rollo the ganger's, quoted in the OP, as were the three questions. I think Rollo the ganger was trying here to distance himself from parts of HD he finds embarrassing. David, e.g., thinks HD is tied up with whether the Nazis planned the extermination of Dutch homosexuals; FP Berg thinks it includes paeans to Hitler; Theo H thinks it's about being annoyed by Jews; and so on.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Thank you in advance for actually making a relevant reply to what you've been asked. I know you agree that your rambling, your sidebars, your little chats with yourself, your attempts to lecture, and your diversions are a tedious waste of time. Is everything other than these three questions nonsense?
If you define the Holocaust as just those three things and we're talking about the Holocaust, yes.
I don't, Rollo the ganger does. The question I asked was, to put it a slightly different way, how do deniers believe the Holocaust is defined and what do they deny?
To see how inane your question is, try answering my question: How do believers believe the Holocaust is defined and what is that that they believe?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:14 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote: He was a member of the gay resistance and he bombed a government building but he was arrested, tried, convicted and executed because he was gay?
Yes Mary, you idiot. That's exactly what happened. Did you read why he bombed the registry?

Why are you so stupid?
:D
Did he do it because he was gay? If he had happened to be Jewish, would he have been executed because he was Jewish and not because he was a violent terrorist? What if he were Jewish AND gay AND blew up government buildings? Would he be a victim of the Holocaust, the Homocaust, or a criminal justice system that punishes terrorists?
He was a freedom fighter. He was rebelling against the violent and illegal occupation of his country by the racist, bigoted Germans. He was a patriot.
So was Osama bin Laden. He was rebelling against the violent and illegal occupation of his host country by the racist, bigoted infidel Soviets. He was a patriot. Later he took his war abroad against the infidel Americans. So when the USA murdered him, did they do so as part of their plan to exterminate all the Arabs?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:24 pm

Mary Q Contrary,

I can see how people want to be interested in correcting history where one sees something problematic. I like the historical idea of "reconstruction" if and where it is used to get to the bottom of any such problems. What I was concerned about is why anyone would particularly find interest in any reconstruction/revision if they only attend to only one particular event without some motivational incentive relating to the event or peoples involved in some more intimate way.

I see that you recognize that others may have these, even if you assert you lack those with exception to the events of that time. But you suggest that such concern I have regarding motive is irrelevant and should belong to psychology. While I don't believe any argument should not normally depend on motive, because this involves history and peoples who are affected one way or the other politically in this day realistically, what does attending to this issue add as value by trying to demonstrate lies that may or may not have occurred? If people DID prove that history was falsely created, this would only act to potentially harm those today who are dependent upon the old interpretation. So, if you agree to the State of Israel, I'm confused how you believe 'fixing' history wouldn't only add fodder to those arguing against that state?

I disagree to the State of Israel, not for anything against Judaism or the Jewish people, but because I see the problem there as lending weight to the Middle East's conflicts where people living today have a potential to correct this. I have a better motive to question history than you do because of this. Yet, I don't see how proving or disproving minor historical grievances regarding numbers matters to history or reality unless you have some intrinsic motive to harm the Jewish community for some reason. Whether 6 million Jews or only 4 million is the 'correct' number, what the hell does this matter? I understand Revisionists on the Holocaust base their apparent concern with such an irrelevant appeal on the basis that the winners of wars create what becomes history. But we already know this occurs by anyone including you or I external to this issue, regardless.

Now, even if you had a universal potential interest in 'correcting' history, I could accept this with more sincerity if you extend this to all history involving all people. But this isn't happening here. Even you don't seem to think the pre-Hitler/pre-Nazi factors relate, such dismissal of it raises even more questions that suggest motive is relevant because by those arguing it without accepting motive appears to be unusually placing significance to an event suspiciously.

I gave a parallel example to David above to show how, even without 'proof' of one's internal motives, if one attends to it exclusively, it appears 'creepy' as some person "coincidentally" might keep running into the same person unwelcoming of their advances everywhere they go. While you may feel motive here should not be relevant, it has to be addressed if only to demonstrate that you're not guilty of stalking those most affected by the history of the Holocaust.

This reminds me of another South Park episode. In one episode, an outbreak of the Chicken Pox began with one of the kids to which the parents got together and rationally decided to get all their kids together to hopefully get them infected for the sake of preventing them catching it later on. This immunity is obvious to the parents but Stan overheard his mother discussing this on the phone and was shocked as he interpreted this as the parents wanting to harm all the kids in some conspiracy. So Stan and his friends decided to get back by infecting them too. They heard that the Chicken Pox was a type of "herpes" (partial truth) to which they discovered a local hooker who had this and paid her to go to all the parent's homes and spread her infection by using their toothbrushes, licking or spitting on dishes and utensils, etc.! I won't say more on the story except to show that this in a different kind of analogy demonstrates a problem with Holocaust Revisionism.

Society at large is not as concerned about issues as most of us here. As such, the society at large is akin to the kids here in this episode of South Park who might overhear how Revisionists appear to suggest a conspiracy of some subset of people attempting to falsely create history. The society at large doesn't actually care to attend to the details but are like 'children' to how they'd respond by potentially targeting those who they lack complete understanding, which here, is the Jewish people. In other words, while you may not realize it, your focused intent to 'correct' history for merely the sake of history itself, you act with irreverence to how this affects others without clarifying motives and this will result in infecting us all when others act out with ignorance.

I propose you suggest motive, just as the kids in South Park could not make sense of why their parents would attentively appear to be harming their kids without understanding of their motives. And if your motive is simply to 'correct' history, to the rest of society, it reasonably should raise question just as the kids in the above analogy were not privileged to learn of their parent's motives [They do at the end to a big laugh by all, by the way.]

I too am like the kids here in that I 'hear' you say that you (revisionists, in general) assert a non-motivational and indiscriminate intent to harm anyone while this rationally suggests the opposite because the motive you do suggest to defend truth on this subject is trivial without. It is as if you were the parents in the South Park episode not providing the distinction between the term, Herpes, in their different definitions for the kids to appropriately interpret fairly of their parents actions. Without explaining the distinctions and provide motive, it isn't surprising that the kids would react unusually.

Motive by Holocaust Revisionists' is required here because you continue to argue this in the section here, "Holocaust Denial", as opposed to simply "Politics" or "History" in an apparent hostility towards those like Statistical Mechanic, who have the default motive to question those "denying" it. If you're not 'denying', then attend to the appropriate defense of "truth" by focusing on the philosophy regarding history IN GENERAL to defend your justification to your motive of historical accuracy. And it would help that you also demonstrate a non-hypocritical approach to other issues by showing how your philosophical concern for historical accuracy operates on multiple issues.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:44 pm

Note another point:

In court, when one has had a previous conviction(s) that relate to suggest a motive for the present charge against them, this is not permitted to be presented to the jury as it biases the defense for motives that can have distinct and separate causes that don't relate to the present situation. However, should the defendant provide a statement on the stand like, "I've never harmed anyone before," this slip allows the prosecution to re-introduce the defendant's past convictions because they opened the floor to denying something about their motives both for the present case AND earlier ones.

So to deny motive on one's part here to defense of particular Holocaust Revisionism opens the flood gates to question motive here with fairness.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26180
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:44 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
I didn't answer that question because you didn't ask it.[/quote]
Nor did I say I'd asked it. I said you sidestepped the real implication of Rollo the ganger's question. And then I asked my follow-up.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:If that's the real issue you should have asked that question first.
Actually, I was trying to find out what readers here make of Rollo the ganger's way of putting things. I couldn't help noticing that you left a lot unanswered when you made a response.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:But, yes,
Now, that wasn't all that hard, was it?
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Nazis and their allies intentionally murdered Jews. I don't know how many and the circumstances are too numerous to go into. But your poorly worded question sidesteps the real real issue.
It was Rollo the ganger's poor wording. Do you have any idea how many Jews were intentionally killed by the Germans during the war? Rough order of magnitude - there's a big difference between 5,000 and several million.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Do you believe that every Jew who was killed during the war was intentionally murdered?
No. We went over this same ground at AHF.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:To see how inane your question is, try answering my question: How do believers believe the Holocaust is defined and what is that that they believe?
I don't know what a Holocaust believer is, but I have of course thought about how the Holocaust has been defined. As you know, various people and groups have given definitions of the Holocaust. Some of them were shared with you over at AHF, which is how you know this. None is definitive but the attempts help frame discussions and provoke clarifying debate. E.g., some define the Holocaust broadly including the extermination of the Roma or T-4 killings; others focus their definition on the extermination of the Jews by Germany and allies during the war time. Unlike the responses you and David have given on this thread, such responses are useful.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .