Auschwitz Holocaust Claims Are Unsubstantiated

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by steampunk, Jun 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    I will argue the Auschwitz holocaust claims are unsubstantiated. I will prove the claims are impossible using engineering, chemistry and architectural concepts. I will provide video and periodical testimony of Jews who admitted to lying about Auschwitz. I will provide links and video of scientists who made these tests and their testimony of findings. I will provide interpretive arguments based on the existing evidence that are inductively stronger arguments than the Auschwitz Holocaust arguments.

    I'm open to the standard set of rules, but I demand the arguments be structured with discipline or I will not waste my time arguing. If you don't have the energy or the discipline it takes to be formal with me, don't bother even trying to challenge me. I propose that written arguments themselves must follow these rules:

    1. Each person must make an argument that declares the writer's position on the argument at hand.

    2. Each argument must have a set of clearly defined premises that illustrate the argument's line of reasoning.

    3. Each premise must be supported with evidence that validates the argument's premise.

    4. Each argument must end in a conclusion that can be deductively drawn from the premises or end in an inductively strong conclusion that can be drawn from the premises.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Discussion - Auschwitz Holocaust Claims Are Unsubstantiated

    steampunk can't hear you at the moment, he's hit the showers after a rough game.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    YouTube comments show where Steampunk gets his argument from:

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    You all place massive importance on the right to free speech.

    I am not, as is well known, such an absolute proponent of same. Seventy years ago the world fought a war, not completely about this issue and not completely not: but it was certainly not fought, from the perspective of a non-American, so that all forms of evil could be spoken aloud or propounded on the walks and byways. It was not fought to let cockroaches scurry in the light. It was fought out of historical coincidence and the necessity of destroying evil. It was fought to destroy such cockroaches. I would remind the posters here that such evil was, in the first place, begun via such free speech, and that that evil came in not through the back door but through the ballot box.

    Free speech is an absolute right - to those who go unharmed by it. When it strikes home with effect, philosophical duties change, by which point it may be too late.
  8. Epictetus here & now Registered Senior Member

    Steampunk is naught but a troll.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Can't recall the name of that one, but more broadly, Steampunk is indulging in the fallacious fallacy, or the fallacist's fallacy (or something like that):

    He keeps bringing up this "appeal to authority" nonsense, which I suggest is "nonsense" only insofar as the utmost gravity and determinancy he attributes to such "logical fallacies"--that is to say, the reasoning may not be the most formal or logically consistent, but that has absolutely NO bearing on the facticity of what is being argued or claimed.

    IOW there is not one single person who does not accept many things AS FACT every single freakin' day of their lives "ON AUTHORITY."

    I can easily conclude that the earth is not flat, but I cannot of my own means and devices determine that the earth IS roughly spherical--yet I accept it as fact, on the authority of others (and on the basis of "evidence" for which I do not have definitive verification of authenticity, i.e. photos of earth from space). Likewise for far too many things that I could possibly even name or identify...
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    I don't get it.

    Holocaust denial = an invitation to debate the head honcho.

    Calling someone an ass-kisser = ban.

    Color me confusicated.
  11. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Simple: Wanting to debate a controversial topic is not against the rules...insulting another member is.

    While Holocaust denial is associated with racism and anti-semitism....unless SP makes direct racist statements...then he's well within the rules of the board.
  12. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    I actually agree with JDog. I prefer a little abuse over being completely illogical and not being factual...

    And controversial is one thing, batshit crazy is another...
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    That's not the case at all. I've seen people banned for making jokes about certain religious figures. I've also seen people banned for associating Stalinist atrocities with atheism, so there's no merit to the idea that pimping disgusting ideas is "well within the rules of the board."
  14. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. So far, SP has made no pro-nazi or anti-Semitic statements. He has just questioned the historical record of the Holocaust. It could be he's a "anti-Historian", who believes main stream historians are in on a conspiracy to re-write history according to how they want it to read. Racism and Nazism MAY have nothing to do with it. We don't know until he says something racist.

    Personally, I would have no problem adding "Holocaust Denial" to the list of taboo subjects here on these type of threads attract the dregs from all over.. like flies on shit.
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2012
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    It is you who propound the fallacies. You and I were talking about admissibility of evidence. My statement, that court proceedings are admissible in subsequent proceedings, is generally true and widely practiced as a matter of rules of evidence. You can't overturn legal theory just by claiming this is an argument from authority. It's not, and to say so further paints you into a corner. In a minute you'll have yourself in deadlock, a trap of your own design and no one else's. By your own reasoning, every snippet of evidence you attempt to propound becomes automatically inadmissible under the banner of "argument from authority". Clearly you don't have a clue what admissibility means or else you're so wrapped up in fatal logic you don't know how to define it.

    If you were standing on the right side of history you would thank Xotica for the thoughtful presentation of a compiled set of evidence neatly assembled and ready for you to dismantle. But you can't because you aren't.
    No. You don't get to define what the community is or what it thinks. You only get to confront evidence. And you never get to suppress it. You brought the exotic claim, so the onus is on you to produce the mountain of facts that will be needed to rewrite history.
    No, I don't have to do diddly-squat. The burden of proof is on you. But if you don't even bother to address the evidence already in the public domain, such as Xotica's compilation, you can't pretend to operating under a guise of testing.
    No, you have dismantle - corpse by corpse - the mountain of evidence that speaks for itself. "We" may need very little additional evidence to supplement our common understanding of the Holocaust. But you have a huge evidentiary burden, more than one person could marshal in a lifetime. In particular you would have to dismantle the proceedings Xotica referred to and/or any of the sources James R referred to, even to begin to support your claim.
    Again, the burden of evidence is on you and you alone. Your evidence has to overturn the totality of evidence proving the Holocaust, or any subset that James R propounds.
    No, you don't dictate anything. The onus is on you and you alone. Furthermore, you are in no position to declare the boundaries of science, since you've already demonstrated a contempt for the scientific method.

    Having said all of this, I recognize that my remarks are probably moot as far as debate proposal goes, since James R has now picked up the gauntlet. Nevertheless I would want to preserve "for the record" that your attempts to suppress genuine evidence are fundamentally illegal in any standard method of argument. As James R noted, this may form the basis of any subsequent debate issue.
  16. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    I hear ya. He saved his Nazi apologetics for the other thread.
  18. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    I think we have already established that the debate wont last any more than a page.

    James will present some documented transcripts of Nazi officer confessions...and then Steampunk will demand to see their death certificate, military record, dental records, x-rays, photographs of name tags, fingerprints, carbon dated hair samples matched with dna from their exhumed graves, handwriting analysis from three different non-jewish experts, etc, etc.
  19. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    I would say the topic itself and it's inflammitory nature would count as that but what do I know.
  20. recidivist Back behind bars Registered Senior Member

    Hitler's invasion of Poland had nothing to do with 'evil' - whatever that is - it was about acquiring land and resources, extending the lebensraum (living space) of the German people. Just like the British extended the lebensraum of their own people and in doing so created America, Australia and New Zealand. Other European countries did the same. It's a well known fact, for example, that Hitler admired the British Empire and modeled his concentration camps on those created by the British in South Africa.

    Am I right in thinking, then, that as an Anglo-Saxon your painting of the Nazis as 'evil' is really the result of competitive envy, rather than them being representative in some absurd way of some disembodied, demonic force known to us via religious scriptures?
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Yeah, he was just nation-building, and all that eugenics and genocide just sort equivocating Nazi expansionism with that of other European countries is totally fair.


    Competitive envy? Let's see, when the Allies were done with it, Germany was a smoldering ruin and its leader dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. What exactly would an Anglo-Saxon have to be envious of?
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    So not surprised that recidivist cannot recognize evil. Typical conservative.
  23. recidivist Back behind bars Registered Senior Member

    Well, there was the Native American genocide which according to some historians was larger and more protracted than 'the Holocaust' but for some reason doesn't get any where near as much air time? How about the African Holocaust? I know that one is on the back burner now that America has elected a black president, but just how long long can you go on fooling black people till they eventually wise up? Oh wait... I just checked their history... a long fucking time it seems. There's even the Aboriginal Holocaust (Tasmania) but they're so peripheral and distant and, quite frankly, irrelevant, that nobody gives a shit.

    Throwing mud at your enemies, however, is definitely more fun.

    So hell yeah... NAZIS ARE THE SPAWN OF SATAN!... just look at all those pictures of victimized, suffering Jews and EVIL Germans! (Thank fuck the camera wasn't around when when Anglo-Saxons were doing the same!).

    I don't know... the methodical, machine-like efficiency of the Nazi war machine? Its superior technology and firepower? The selfless, dedicated nature of its citizenry? The readiness to die for a common cause? That the Nazis choose to invade the nations of people with a similar level of economic power rather than half-naked tribal nations with only bows and arrows and shields made out of sticks to defend themselves with against rifles and cannons?

    Having read that last sentence, though, I now take back what I said. You're right. If anyone was going to be envious it would've been the Nazis. The Anglo-Saxons succeeded in a way the Germans could only dream of; America, as their most successful Reich, is 236 years old today.
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page