|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2010 : 06:50:48 [Permalink]
|
Your whole reply, Rudolfo, invokes Rule 1, of course. I assume that by running from all the substantive points, you're conceding them, as in all your other threads.Originally posted by Rudolfo
[Argumentum ad populum, therefore Rule 4.]
No, Rule 4 is ..... ahh, you had me worried a minute here  , and I thought the Rules would need a fix .... but ... they're good ... you just need to re-read them....
Rule 4 is aggressive stupidity. Rule 3 is the Grand Principle, argument by consensus. And, had you used the right rule, you would be bang on ! |
Rule 3 is a subset of Rule 4, so... Rule 4.Thanks for admitting that you're using them.And there is nothing wrong with argument by consensus, but it is used by 'skeptics', present company excepted, to the exclusion of all other arguments and as the final arbiter. Then, it becomes the formula for blind obedience, as we see with the 'skeptics' in spades. |
Rule 4.[Rule 4, still. As soon as you pluralize the noun "grenade," you've being aggressively stupid.]
You don't really understand the rules. Aggressive stupidity is really aggressive stupidity, not a debatable point, or even a mistake. The text refers to 'them' that threw the 'grenade'. So, there is a disconnect as a grenade is thrown by one person, and I chose to go with the 'them'. And, as this was being offered as an example, so, even if only one incident was being referred to, it was not indicated that it was unique, and therefore I think there is reason to believe similar instances occurred. Ok, it ain't the strongest argument, but it doesn't invoke Rule 4. |
Absolutely it invokes Rule 4, especially when you not only pluralized a single incident, but from that single incident you concluded that thrown grenades were "commonplace." And then there's this:| Hey, I'm sure it happened everyday |
Rule 4 with bells on. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 07:07:35 [Permalink]
|
[Hey, I'm sure it happened everyday
Rule 4 with bells on.]
Wait a minute, I've had a revelation, and I've become a 'skeptic'. Now I automatically believe anything I read from a Zionist source.
I believe Nikolai Malagon without reservation. And, hey, I just thought I'd google him up .....
Do you know what I found 
Wow, this is so good, I've got to see if you can discover it yourself. Hint: there has been a tragic miscarriage of justice |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/13/2010 07:08:24 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 07:26:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[What part of this sequence of events is impossible or even improbable?]
Hey, I'm sure it happened everyday. But you gotta admit, it's a new twist on the story.
|
It doesn't put a new twist on the story, it's what the testimony describes translated into baby-language for you. It only needed to happened once for him to describe it happening.
Again, what part of it is implausible? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 07:59:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[Hey, I'm sure it happened everyday
Rule 4 with bells on.]
Wait a minute, I've had a revelation, and I've become a 'skeptic'. Now I automatically believe anything I read from a Zionist source.
I believe Nikolai Malagon without reservation. And, hey, I just thought I'd google him up .....
Do you know what I found
Wow, this is so good, I've got to see if you can discover it yourself. Hint: there has been a tragic miscarriage of justice |
Rule 1 and 4.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 08:27:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Rule 1 and 4.
|
Hey, you're getting better at this. But, time to wake up !
The injustice that it's incumbent on us 'skeptics' to report .... Demjanjuk was guilty in '79, we have it on Nikolai Malagon's authority .... Demjanjuk was at Treblinka. The five eyewitnesses who identified him at the trial were telling the truth ! See for yourself ....
Nikolai Malagon places Marchenko and Demjanjuk at Treblinka
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/m/malagon-nikolai/malagon-002.html
As a 'skeptic', I know Malagon is telling the truth, and nothing but the truth. It's our duty to report this to the authorities in Israel who mistakenly freed him in '79. And to the Russians who forged the documents, they were right after all !
And to the authorities in Germany who are trying him as we type for being a guard at Sobibor.
See, with just a little more 'skepticism' I too can be a complete idiot |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/13/2010 08:42:12 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 08:49:17 [Permalink]
|
Rudolfo:
With just a little more 'skepticism' I too can be a complete idiot |
You are not a skeptic. And you have accomplished the idiot part in spades. I'm not going to play your rule game with you. Dave is doing a fine job of demonstrating your hypocrisy. All I see is a desperate guy trying to wave away any legitimate question by turning them into exaggerations (strawmen) capped off by a refusal to admit that you have embellished.
You're pathetic. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 09:33:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
Originally posted by Dave W.
Rule 1 and 4.
|
Hey, you're getting better at this. But, time to wake up !
The injustice that it's incumbent on us 'skeptics' to report .... Demjanjuk was guilty in '79, we have it on Nikolai Malagon's authority .... Demjanjuk was at Treblinka. The five eyewitnesses who identified him at the trial were telling the truth ! See for yourself ....
Nikolai Malagon places Marchenko and Demjanjuk at Treblinka
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/m/malagon-nikolai/malagon-002.html
As a 'skeptic', I know Malagon is telling the truth, and nothing but the truth. It's our duty to report this to the authorities in Israel who mistakenly freed him in '79. And to the Russians who forged the documents, they were right after all !
And to the authorities in Germany who are trying him as we type for being a guard at Sobibor.
See, with just a little more 'skepticism' I too can be a complete idiot
|
You are getting more and more confused. I am guessing that you are talking about Demjanjuk (not Marchenko), given your reference to the trial in Germany. Demjanjuk was released in 1993 (not 1979) because it could not be established that he was Ivan the terrible. The court never stated that he had not been a guard at Treblinka. The court considered it proven that he had been a guard at Sobibor, Trawniki, Flossenberg, Regensburg and probably Treblinka.
So I'm left to wonder what your issue is here. Do you hold that it is impossible for someone to be a guard at multiple places over a period of time?
And I haven't had an answer yet on my previous question:
"For the reading impaired (ie, Rudolfo), one of the people there managed to smuggle a grenade with him. When he was unloaded he threw it. Subsequently, guards opened fire on the group that included the person throwing the grenade.
What part of this sequence of events is impossible or even improbable?" |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 04/13/2010 09:34:56 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 09:43:03 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, and I take it that now you have changed your position on Wisliceny, given that your "arguments" on why you wouldn't take him seriously have been answered and you subsequently mysteriously left the issue behind. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 10:32:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
You are getting more and more confused. I am guessing that you are talking about Demjanjuk (not Marchenko), given your reference to the trial in Germany. Demjanjuk was released in 1993 (not 1979) because it could not be established that he was Ivan the terrible. The court never stated that he had not been a guard at Treblinka. The court considered it proven that he had been a guard at Sobibor, Trawniki, Flossenberg, Regensburg and probably Treblinka.
So I'm left to wonder what your issue is here. Do you hold that it is impossible for someone to be a guard at multiple places over a period of time? |
Rudolfo is following his own Rule 4 by claiming that if Nikolai Malagon was telling the truth when he identified Demjanjuk by photograph as having been at Treblinka, then the Israeli Supreme court was wrong to say that Demjanjuk wasn't Ivan the Terrible, aggressively and stupidly ignoring the possibility (probability, according to the court) that Demjanjuk was just another Ukranian cook and later SS guard, and not Ivan the Terrible. It's really a transparent attempt to impeach Malagon's testimony (of seeing bodies buried and later dug up for burning) by saying that if the Israelis say that Demjanjuk isn't Ivan the Terrible, then Malagon must have lied about seeing Damjanjuk, which is mind-blowing in its illogic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2010 : 12:42:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by tomk80
You are getting more and more confused. I am guessing that you are talking about Demjanjuk (not Marchenko), given your reference to the trial in Germany. Demjanjuk was released in 1993 (not 1979) because it could not be established that he was Ivan the terrible. The court never stated that he had not been a guard at Treblinka. The court considered it proven that he had been a guard at Sobibor, Trawniki, Flossenberg, Regensburg and probably Treblinka.
So I'm left to wonder what your issue is here. Do you hold that it is impossible for someone to be a guard at multiple places over a period of time? |
Rudolfo is following his own Rule 4 by claiming that if Nikolai Malagon was telling the truth when he identified Demjanjuk by photograph as having been at Treblinka, then the Israeli Supreme court was wrong to say that Demjanjuk wasn't Ivan the Terrible, aggressively and stupidly ignoring the possibility (probability, according to the court) that Demjanjuk was just another Ukranian cook and later SS guard, and not Ivan the Terrible. It's really a transparent attempt to impeach Malagon's testimony (of seeing bodies buried and later dug up for burning) by saying that if the Israelis say that Demjanjuk isn't Ivan the Terrible, then Malagon must have lied about seeing Damjanjuk, which is mind-blowing in its illogic.
|
It's amusing when you think about it. Citing Nikolai Malagon shoots the Holocaust/Treblinka "hoax" nonsense down and Rudlofo & dantheman in the foot. Of course, they can and will, again, clam he's lying, but then they have to come up with evidence in support the claim, which they have yet to do. This will (I predict) result in more hand-waving, quoting silly "rules," an adundence of taunting smilies and other Red Herrings, a few straw men, and ennui for everyone else as they go 'round the circle yet again. Illogic is the name of their game because they've got nothing else.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 04/13/2010 12:44:22 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2010 : 21:09:35 [Permalink]
|
Rudolfo remains utterly unconvincing.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 05:21:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
It's amusing when you think about it. Citing Nikolai Malagon shoots the Holocaust/Treblinka "hoax" nonsense down and Rudlofo & dantheman in the foot. Of course, they can and will, again, clam he's lying, but then they have to come up with evidence in support the claim, which they have yet to do. This will (I predict) result in more hand-waving, quoting silly "rules," an adundence of taunting smilies and other Red Herrings, a few straw men, and ennui for everyone else as they go 'round the circle yet again. Illogic is the name of their game because they've got nothing else.
|
It always surprises me. Demjanjuk was in Treblinka, therefore he had to be Ivan the terrible? Was gaining the nickname Iwan the Terrible now somehow a job requirement for being a guard there? And guards in Treblinka were assigned there for life? They couldn't been assigned to subsequent different camps?
I'm also thinking Rudolfo mixes up two other different events in Malagon's testimony, namely the uprising that led to the eventual dismantling of Treblinka, and the events where single prisoners managed to smuggle a weapon with them. But since he chose to ignore my questions on that, I have yet to find out. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 05:44:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Demjanjuk was released in 1993 (not 1979) because it could not be established that he was Ivan the terrible. The court never stated that he had not been a guard at Treblinka. The court considered it proven that he had been a guard at Sobibor, Trawniki, Flossenberg, Regensburg and probably Treblinka.
|
Let's see, Demjanjuk was tried in '87, (I got the date wrong), and released in '93(?). Hmmmm, 6 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. But, as a 'skeptic' like you I figure he 'probably' was a guard at Treblinka, based on absolutely no evidence, and a guard at Sobibor, etc. as well. But, at the trial, we did have 'evidence', five eyewitnesses identified him as 'Ivan the Terrible', when, in truth, Demjanuk had never set foot in Treblinka. Oh, wait a minute, I said 'truth', and that's a violation of Rule 2 againt false dichotomies. As a 'skeptic' I take that back.
New paragraph cause we're getting to the good part. One of the most respected holocaust eyewitnesses, Eliahu Rosenburg, was one of the eyewitnesses identifying Demjanjuk as Ivan. A little problem arose at the trial when it was revealed that Rosenburg had testifed in an earlier case that he was present when Ivan was killed in the camp uprising. But, of course, the Israeli court, true 'skeptics', recognized that obvious false dichotomy, dead vs. alive, and his testimony was not challenged.
Folks, you can't make this stuff up. Ain't 'skepticism' great
One little note - Demjanuk was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. When it was revealed that forged documents were used to extradite him from the US, two politicians, Pat Buchanan and James Traficant got involved, and finally pressure from the US caused the Israeli court to reverse the decision and release Demjanuk. |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/14/2010 06:00:14 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 06:01:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
Originally posted by tomk80
Demjanjuk was released in 1993 (not 1979) because it could not be established that he was Ivan the terrible. The court never stated that he had not been a guard at Treblinka. The court considered it proven that he had been a guard at Sobibor, Trawniki, Flossenberg, Regensburg and probably Treblinka.
|
Let's see, Demjanjuk was tried in '87, (I got the date wrong), and released in '93(?). Hmmmm, 6 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. |
And? Happens more often. In this case, the US held out vital evidence of other Treblinka guards testifying that Iwan the terrible was a different person. Demjanjuk was convicted by the lower courts, appealed, and released the higher court. In case you're really that stupid, this happens more often in court cases.
| But, as a 'skeptic' like you I figure he 'probably' was a guard at Treblinka, based on absolutely no evidence, and a guard at Sobibor, etc. as well. But, at the trial, we did have 'evidence', five eyewitnesses identified him as 'Ivan the Terrible', when, in truth, Demjanuk had never set foot in Treblinka. Oh, wait a minute, I said 'truth', and that's a violation of Rule 2 againt false dichotomies. As a 'skeptic' I take that back. |
You're employing rule 4 again.
I (and courts) are well aware of the problems that can arise with eye-witness testimony. Eye-witnesses identified Demjanjuk by photograph, since he looked quite like Iwan the Terrible. As testimony this is less strong than fellow guards identifying him as such (or not, in this case). The fact is that you have yet to give a good reason why the testimony of Malagon cannot be trusted. So far, all you've given is bluster and illogic. The reasons you have given not to trust his testimony have been shown to be illogical and downright stupid. Will you, at some point, come up with a good reason to doubt his testimony? I don't think so.
New paragraph cause we're getting to the good part. One of the most respected holocaust eyewitnesses, Elihu Rosenburg, was one of the eyewitnesses identifying Demjanjuk as Ivan. A little problem arose at the trial when it was revealed that Rosenburg had testifed in an earlier case that he was present when Ivan was killed in the camp uprising. But, of course, the Israeli court, true 'skeptics', recognized that obvious false dichotomy, dead vs. alive, and his testimony was not challenged.
Folks, you can't make this stuff up. Ain't 'skepticism' great
|
And a decision by the higher court corrected the mistake of the earlier court.
And I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions:
"For the reading impaired (ie, Rudolfo), one of the people there managed to smuggle a grenade with him. When he was unloaded he threw it. Subsequently, guards opened fire on the group that included the person throwing the grenade.
What part of this sequence of events is impossible or even improbable?" |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2010 : 06:06:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
And I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions:
"For the reading impaired (ie, Rudolfo), one of the people there managed to smuggle a grenade with him. When he was unloaded he threw it. Subsequently, guards opened fire on the group that included the person throwing the grenade.
What part of this sequence of events is impossible or even improbable?"
|
Good luck waiting for an answer. He won't man up and answer tough questions (like "what do you hope to accomplish here?" - brutal question, I know).
You should also continue to ask, "you have yet to give a good reason why the testimony of Malagon cannot be trusted." |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A literal Jewish conspiracy
