Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Holocaust: The great taboo.

Stalinist show trials. (Nuremberg, by today's standards, was a show trial, as were the Israeli trials of Adolph Eichmann, John Demjanjuk and, most recently, the Canadian detainment of Ernst Zundel, carried out based on evidence which his defense team was forbidden to examine.)
 
Just a personal note, Wordin: You should realize by now that I know this subject far better than you do -- and, frankly, despite your very expensive schooling, I'm simply smarter than you are. No boast, it's just obvious from your lackluster efforts on this subject so far. You've been spoon-fed conclusions about this subject, but haven't built any of your own beyond broad generalizations based on the pablum you've been swallowing. You're not going to score any points here, because you don't pack the gear to stand and deliver in this discussion in any meaningful way.

You really should have stuck with your pathetic attempts at ridicule, because as impotent as they are, they're your only strength here.
 
Instead of asking why as a rhetorical question, try examining the root question. Don't start with "Why did they?" Start with "Did they?" and only after you answer that question should you move on to the next. And simply accepting an answer someone has handed you is not the same as answering the question yourself.
Click to expand...

No one has handed me anything. The acts, the fact that they occurred, and the "stage" it occurred all existed. Not a shred of evidence to the contrary has yet to be presented. Leuchter hypotheses (as an underpinning to the entire argument, for example) were more than fraudulent, as has already been evidenced. Most of what else you've presented are hopeful hypotheses from people who couldn't possibly have a clue. I equate it this way...answer me this question out of context....what's your version of the Kennedy assassination?
 
The prosecution of Galileo is an early and potent precedent.
Click to expand...

1st Premise: Galileo was censored for speaking the truth
2nd Premise: Holocaust deniers are censored
Conclusion: Holocaust deniers are speaking the truth

I'm sure you can see the fallacy. This is the only way the argument makes sense:

1st Premise: Governments only censor people who speak the truth
2nd Premise: Government censors holocaust deniers
Conclusion: Holocaust deniers speak the truth

The 1st premise is obviously false. Your argument is incoherent.
 
What's your opinion on the censoring in the form of imprisonment that some Holocaust deniers have suffered?
Click to expand...

I don't think they should be censored. Holocaust denial should be covered under free speech.
 
jack said:
No one has handed me anything. The acts, the fact that they occurred, and the "stage" it occurred all existed. Not a shred of evidence to the contrary has yet to be presented. Leuchter hypotheses (as an underpinning to the entire argument, for example) were more than fraudulent, as has already been evidenced. Most of what else you've presented are hopeful hypotheses from people who couldn't possibly have a clue. I equate it this way...answer me this question out of context....what's your version of the Kennedy assassination?
Click to expand...
I'm not getting involved in this, but TQ did address all of that in the other thread. Are you always this senile?
 
And no, I don't support one side or the other. I'm pointing out that jack is recycling his ankle-biting by ignoring TQ's responses, waiting for a period of time, and then asking them again.

The Jew should be forbidden from posting in Holocaust threads.
 
jack said:
I'm still waiting for Dan's answer to my out of context question.
Click to expand...
You already recieved it, Jew. He addressed both the Leuchter report as well as the punchcards I notice you like to go on about.
 
Sardonica said:
As usual, Wordin makes short work of TQ's hopeful speculation (which he loves to call logic). And, as usual, TQ will continue ad nauseum, like a broken record...
Click to expand...
There is very little going on here other than attempts to make the opposition look bad. This goes for everyone.
 
The Question said:
Because they didn't have to. There was an epidemic right there in their laps that would do it for them, with zero unnecessary expenditure of fuel or ammunition. There was no need for them to kill people when all they had to do (if that were their aim) was simply allow them to die.
Click to expand...
The disease was typhus. They weren't about to waste resources to treat it, but the disease was communicable. They merely elliminated the vector.
 
WordInterrupted said:
1st Premise: Galileo was censored for speaking the truth
2nd Premise: Holocaust deniers are censored
Conclusion: Holocaust deniers are speaking the truth

I'm sure you can see the fallacy. This is the only way the argument makes sense:

1st Premise: Governments only censor people who speak the truth
2nd Premise: Government censors holocaust deniers
Conclusion: Holocaust deniers speak the truth

The 1st premise is obviously false. Your argument is incoherent.
Click to expand...

And the first premise is not one I offered, making this yet another classic Strawman from you. More indication that you're really not intellectually equipped to take me on.
 
Sardonica said:
As usual, Wordin makes short work of TQ's hopeful speculation (which he loves to call logic). And, as usual, TQ will continue ad nauseum, like a broken record...
Click to expand...

And as usual, you jump to the accepted conclusion before analyzing that conclusion for flaws.
 
Sardonica said:
Untrue. You just keep insisting that everyone accept your "facts." Never mind that your premises are nothing more than unsupported conspiracy theories. Anyone who points out as much is a "strawman", or has "accepted the conclusion before analyzing that conclusion for flaws", is "illogical", etc.
Click to expand...

Bzzzt. Wrong. Wordin presented a Strawman because his analysis of my position (which analysis you applauded without really looking at it too closely) was based on a false premise that I didn't put forth. Had you read my actual premise and then compared it to his version, you would have seen that. Since you obviously didn't see that, it's reasonable to assume that you didn't actually read my premise.

You've been recyclying the same denial crap for quite some time now.
Click to expand...

Mainly because, while most people here have actually read and understand it, there are a handful of notable exceptions -- yourself apparently included -- who either don't get it or won't get it.

But the problem here isnt with the historical records of the Holocaust, it's with people who can be so easily and thoroughly duped.
Click to expand...

With this, I agree unequivocally. I just find it amusing that you've got the dynamics of it turned completely ass-backward.

You're braiwashed, you're in denial, but of course you will never admit it (to yourself)---it's much easier to play logic games and call everyone who disagrees with a strawman.
Click to expand...

Okay, first thing's first -- I wasn't calling WordInterrupted a Strawman. I pointed out that he used a Strawman, which is a form of deceptive argument in which he had to alter the terms of my position in order to refute it, hoping thereby to give the appearance that he had refuted my actual position.

Or then again, maybe we're ALL part of the Great Zionist Conspiracy...!
Click to expand...

Well, here's the interesting thing -- misinformation is viral. Someone lies to you and you believe it, you spread the lie. No conspiracy necessary. Religions work that way -- so, apparently, do Holocausts.

You win. By nature of sheer ad nauseum insistence, flawed logic and word games, you win:
Click to expand...

Nobody wins, Sardy. And considering the fact that you couldn't correctly identify Wordin's very basic logical fuckup, you're hardly in a position to declare my reasoning acumen suspect.

There was no Holocaust. The Jews are plotting to get you. And big changes are in the wind---one day all the Holocaust deniers will be respected---because they so deserve to be. ;) Heroes, every one. And anyone who doesn't think so?...Well, they're just blindly accepting the lie that only the Holocaust deniers are savvy enough to see through. Strawmen, every one, or worse: Evil Zionist Conspirators.
Click to expand...

I hope you wiped down your keyboard after that surge of digital diarrhea...

Thanks for the wackiness--this is the sort've entertainment that makes this forum so interesting!!!
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure.
 
What is everyone arguing about again?

I don't see how this Holocaust debate on TK thing could have lasted if people just compared the facts. It's probably impossible by now to do something like that.

Now, everyone is debating the logic behind their logic.
 
Sardonica said:
Despite saying I wouldn't delve into specifics of where TQ's theories have already been discredited, here are a few:

http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22468&highlight=Daniel
Click to expand...

Where, exactly, has my position been discredited there? The thread on alt.revisionism, by the way, died several months ago with mine as the last word, my opponents there having failed to dredge up any further bullshit to sling.

http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6545&highlight=Daniel[/quote]

And that one has nothing whatsoever to do with my position on this subject. as is typical of the "Evidence Y ought to prove Claim X" approach.

Interested readers should read the threads and all the links within them. Despite constant denial (well, that's his game, isn't it?) within the threads, and the constant cries of "Illogic! Strawman!" TQ is made short work of.
Click to expand...

Too bad the evidence fails to bear out that claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top