06-15-12, 06:48 PM #101
evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath
A hearsay account of an event is not the same thing as an eyewitness account of an event.
An eyewitness account of an even is someone who witnessed it themselves.
A hearsay account of an event is someones account of what an eyewitness observed.
QED your question is a nonsequitir based on a false premise.
06-15-12, 06:51 PM #102
There is a limit to stupidity, trolling...
I request as a minimum to close this thread and ban Steampunk's any attempt to discuss any kind of history, Holocaust, 9/11, flying saucers, flying fuck.
When I asked him about the 6 million dead Jews in Auswitz claim, he gave a link to a newspaper from 1919...
I mean seriously... It is obvious there is really no point in debating him, I am actually surprised why Trippy and James are trying...
It is just bad news for Sciforums, because guess what? Now we gonna come up on Google when someone searches for Holocaust denial...
Oh yes, fuckady fuck, anyone who posts after this post...
[very sad face]
06-15-12, 07:31 PM #103
First, person accounts are empirical. Though they are not always accounts of things that can be experimentally confirmed.
So hearsay, or repeating just what you have heard without supporting documentation, may not rise to the level of empirical evidence. While a first person account, unless proven to be inaccurate or false, would be equivalent to empirical evidence.
On a separate note, you earlier claimed to have been brainwashed by your American education. Based on what appears to be your opionions and position on the pending debate, that was a false statement. Were it true, you would not be questioning, that which you seem to be questioning....
Or perhaps you are right, and you have been brainwashed, into believing as you do, a line of reason that seems at odds with.., reason and well documented historical fact.
06-15-12, 07:38 PM #104
. . . . NOTE FROM A MODERATOR . . . .
Yes, we have received all of your complaints about this so-called "debate." No, we are not going to dump it in the Cesspool, and no, we are not going to permaban Steampunk. Surely you must all have figured that out by now.
Steampunk has not broken any rules (at least not seriously) so he is still welcome to post on SciForums.
About all we've done is loosen up the rules about personal insults so you can all tell this execrable moron what you think of him and his preposterous insistence that he truly believes what he says about Auschwitz. I know he's just pulling our chains, and you know he's just pulling our chains. But we can't prove it so it doesn't qualify as intellectual dishonesty or some other form of trolling. Therefore, we have no grounds to ban him.
Remember: the measure of a society's commitment to liberty is not how vigorously it defends what it loves. The measure of a society's commitment to liberty is how vigorously it defends what it hates.
We can all hate Steampunk. And by now I'm sure every member of SciForums, their entire families, everyone they work with, and the hapless strangers they meet on the subway, all in fact do hate Steampunk.
So let's show the world how strong our commitment to liberty is. Say what you want about Steampunk and to Steampunk. But please stop filling the Moderators' personal e-mail baskets with notes demanding that we take him out and shoot him. We're not going to do that.
Last edited by Fraggle Rocker; 06-15-12 at 08:22 PM.
06-15-12, 10:05 PM #105
Just to think that I was put in the same troll category when I was kicking anti-DP posters' asses and having a little fan WHILE I was still providing arguments (unlike SP) makes me shriver...
But since I am a good sport, I will bet you that he will be banned in less than 3 days and the debate will never take off...
If I win, I will get 3 "get out of jail, I mean ban" passes from the moderators....Deal???
06-17-12, 09:38 PM #106
You keep wanting to insert irrelevant topics into this debate.
The main point I want to argue is the empirical fact of the gassings at Auschwitz - i.e. your original claim. I know that you want to divert the argument onto the issue of orders from Hitler and so on, but that is a distraction. Nevertheless, if you want to waste words on that part of your topic, you're most welcome to do so.
I accept your topic, as stated above. I assume you accept the other terms I specified in my previous post.
When you get back from your latest ban, I expect you to post your argument in the Debate thread.
This Proposal is now closed. Related threads are here:
By katsung47 in forum PoliticsLast Post: 06-10-11, 04:58 PMReplies: 1
By Tiassa in forum World EventsLast Post: 01-29-11, 03:01 AMReplies: 368
By Brian Foley in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 12-12-10, 03:13 PMReplies: 28
By Brian Foley in forum World EventsLast Post: 12-21-09, 09:39 PMReplies: 110
By Brian Foley in forum World EventsLast Post: 12-21-09, 06:40 PMReplies: 42