|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/14/2010 : 03:49:31 [Permalink]
|
Hmph. Whodafork is Greg Gerdes and why should I care? Internet trolls are a dime for a dozen -- a baker's dozen.
I wonder if he'll try and run a sock on us....
|
"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! 
|
 |
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2010 : 09:43:23 [Permalink]
|
Trolls usually should be ignored, but holocaust deniers are one of the few exceptions, since I agree with Santayana that "...Those who do cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". I would rather not have the Holocaust of WWII revisited in any form on anyone.
(Side note: Which is why I don't agree with Obama's insistence on only moving forward in regards to what the previous administration had done. Different thread for a different time. We now return you to our regularly scheduled post-eviction analysis, already in progress...)
If he does run a sock on us, will he be dumb enough to reuse this name?
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/09/gerdes-returns-to-codoh-as-sockpuppet.html
|
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2010 : 10:03:12 [Permalink]
|
Goodbye dantheman!......Goodbye dantheman!......Goodbye dantheman! (Please picture a small polish girl screaming that ) |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 03/15/2010 10:03:47 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 12:50:11 [Permalink]
|
Reading this thread for the last hour was like watching a train wreck. For a guy that believes in “a big sky daddy" without evidence, I even cannot imagine thinking that the Holocaust did not happen.
In the 6th grade (around 1979) we had a survivor come to our school and tell us about the experience (age appropriate of course). We saw the tattoo of her number on her hand. She brought pictures of her and her parents at the camp that were later murdered by the Nazi's.
Do these deniers believe that the Jews sent an actor into a school to talk to about 150 children 35 years later to keep perpetuating the lie? That’s one huge conspiracy.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 03/31/2010 : 18:37:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
. . . For a guy that believes in “a big sky daddy" without evidence, I even cannot imagine thinking that the Holocaust did not happen.
. . . |
Though I would insist that the burden of proof requires you to provide positive evidence to support your religious beliefs, Robb, at least your belief in “a big sky daddy" doesn't run counter to huge heaps of accumulated scientific and historical evidence, as Holocaust denial does.
Neither science nor history can (at least yet) evidence to disprove the existence of a deity. Archaeologists have not dug up Jesus' bones, and astronomers have not used the Hubble to snap images of a vacant Heaven. A negative is neigh impossible to prove.
Both science and history do provide overwhelming evidence that about six million Jews, plus millions of others, were deliberately and systematically slaughtered buy the Nazi regime.
As we see here, arguments from the deniers are fanciful, hateful, and/or filled with fallacious rhetoric. They have to be, because clearly, the Holocaust happened. They are trying to prove a negative about something that happened to millions within human memory. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 20:34:29 [Permalink]
|
Holocaust-deniers seem to hate themselves,eh?
They cannot fathom how crematon could have worked as well as it did and depend on nonsense like the picture made of a field that had hosed a crematorium.And no only would they thind that Jews were in a conspiracy but we other haters of Nazis and Holocaust-deniers.They, like creationists are like schizophreniacs with their cop-outs.
The jerk probably likes our attacks as some early Christian martyrs might have enjoyed their martyrdom as Yeshu the Jerk told his flock that persecution would happen.
So much for faith!
We can hope to influence the fence-sitters as these fools love stupidity!
Oh, and does he measure up to Aryan standards? Hitler and his entourage should have had themselves murdered as none of them looked Aryan according to their own standards.
And Aryan is now Indo-European, a langeage category rather than a racial one.
Lying fool,dan., see a counselor to get over your possible self-hate and weird ideas.  
Judeophobia is for jerks!
Goodwill and blessings, except to those jerks- despair to them!
Thanks for the advice HalfMooner. |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
| Edited by - skeptic griggsy on 03/31/2010 20:40:43 |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 08:02:27 [Permalink]
|
I wanted to see how my 'skeptics' rules of logic applied to this thread, as a sort of independent confirmation .. so I have reviewed the thread, and I see that the 3 logical rules account for most of the 'sketpics' posts with a few notable exceptions.
Rule 1 - ignore the OP - accounts for all 'skeptics' posts, or at least all I can recall, except for some posts of filthy and Dave W.
I at first wanted to chastise filthy for violating the rules, as he did post a link to a Treblinka page, and a photo of something shot at Treblinka, but on reflection I see that while violating Rule 1 he was implicitly following Rule 3 - appeal to authority. So, filthy was good.
Dave W. also violated Rule 1, but instead of appealing to authority he did present what was ostensibly a counter argument. Here, this is a violation of all the 'sketpics' rules, so ....
... so, well, the rules are incomplete. And, on reflection, I see that some of the 'skeptics' posts from the evidence thread also violated all the rules. So, one or more new rules are needed ...
First let's analyze Dave W.s posts that violated all the above rules - reviewing - the OP claimed that there were no mass graves at the Reinhard camps, at least no mass graves with bodies in them. He even produced a report from after the war of an investigation at Treblinka by Lukaszkiewicz who explicitly states that he found no mass graves. Dave seized on this report to claim that he had answered the OP's challenge to show there was a mass grave with bodies at a Reinhard camp. There is no counter to such stupidity, it's dishonest on its face. But, Dave W. went on to aggressively defend it. This type of 'argument', which happens over and over, is what prompts the new rule.
Dantheman's response was to call Dave W. a dullard. Of course, that is only one possibility, and even though it is fully supported by the evidence, it is probably not the correct one. In any case, Dave W. used that as an excuse to ban dantheman. Mission accomplished. Opponent routed.
On a side issue, Kil never addressed the OP, yet had the chutzpah to 'warn' dantheman for not engaging in debate. In fact, dantheman explicitly answered the posts of filthy and Dave W. that contained anything relevant to his argument. So, the charge was absurd. Nonetheless, Kil was on the verge of banning dantheman on the basis of this 100% trumped up 'charge'. However, Kil's posts don't require a new rule as they were all covered by Rule 1.
It also occurs to me that in formulating the 'skeptics' rules, we should take into account their objectives. The 'skeptics' objectives are indistinguishable from the Zionists on questions relating to the holocaust, and that is to suppress discussion altogether. Thus, as the 'Handbook for Holocaust Education' linked in the evidence points out, rational discussion is to be avoided. So, there is the basis for the missing rule ....
Rule 4 - Sabotage Rational Debate with Aggressive Stupidity
The Handbook gives the rational for this rule, as does Chomsky, who writes that to debate the holocaust is to lose one's humanity. What better way to surreptitiously avoid rational debate than to make what are ostensibly rational statements that are absurd on their face, or profoundly stupid, and then to vociferously defend them. Beautiful ! Hats off !
This clears up another issue I had but didn't mention, with the Hitler quote. It didn't quite fit the situation, and now I see why .. Hitler claimed that Marxist Jews pretended to be stupid in debate, but he was talking about face to face debates, with no access to outside information, so Hitler could reference a current or historical event, and the Marxist Jew could claim to be unfamiliar with it, and hence invalidate Hitler's point. This is passive stupidity. But, passive stupidity doesn't fly on the internet, as a link can always be provided to counter it. So, what we see on this 'skeptics' forum is aggressive stupidity, which fits with the 'skeptics' general tone, and becomes not a defensive weapon to avoid losing a debate, but an offensive weapon not to win the debate but to end it, to trash it, it's like, sad to say, shitting on the living room floor, there is no counter for it. Thus the 'skeptic' accomplishes his objective, which is not to win the debate but to rout the opponent.
Wow. I'm onto something  |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/07/2010 09:27:04 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 08:15:01 [Permalink]
|
| Strange you are. Much sense you do not make. Your parents house move out of you should. |
"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?" |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 08:18:27 [Permalink]
|
| I'm shocked, shocked to find that rule breaking is going on in here! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 09:09:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
There is no counter to such stupidity, it's dishonest on its face. |
But you can't or won't say why it's stupid (I suspect the correct word is "can't"). You just declare it to be so and expect people to agree with you.| In any case, Dave W. used that as an excuse to ban dantheman. Mission accomplished. Opponent routed. |
Now that is some weapons-grade stupdity, right there. How can I possibly "rout" an opponent who has full access to the public through his own Web pages, blog and other forums that he inhabits? Whose links to those resources have not been deleted from this forum? If you think I have such power, you're simply deluded.| In fact, dantheman explicitly answered the posts of filthy and Dave W. that contained anything relevant to his argument. So, the charge was absurd. |
Explicit answers do not equate to engaging in debate. For example, instead of discussing why his challenge is a fraud, damntheman resorted to insulting me.| The 'skeptics' objectives are indistinguishable from the Zionists on questions relating to the holocaust, and that is to suppress discussion altogether. |
Of course, that is why we studiously avoid launching DOS attacks on revisionist Web sites. Speech, even the idiotic speech of the denialists, should be answered with more speech, not with suppression.| Rule 4 - Sabotage Rational Debate with Aggressive Stupidity |
Except that you've been unable to state why any particular claim is stupid, aggressively so or not. You just proclaim that it's stupid so that you can avoid debating the issues. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 09:11:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
I wanted to see how my 'skeptics' rules of logic applied to this thread, as a sort of independent confirmation .. so I have reviewed the thread, and I see that the 3 logical rules account for most of the posts with a few exceptions.
Rule 1 - accounts for all 'skeptics' posts, or at least all I can recall, except for some posts of filthy and Dave W.
I at first wanted to chastise filthy for violating the rules, as he did post a link to a Treblinka page, and a photo of something shot at Treblinka, but on reflection I see that while violating Rule 1 he was implicitly following Rule 3 - appeal to authority. So, filthy was good.
Dave W. also violated Rule 1, but instead of appealing to authority he did present what was ostensibly a counter argument. Here, this is a violation of all the 'sketpics' rules, so ....
... so, well, the rules are incomplete. And, on reflection, I see that some of the 'skeptics' posts from the evidence thread also violated all the rules. So, one or more new rules are needed ...
First let's analyze Dave W.s posts that violated all the above rules - reviewing - the OP claimed that there were no mass graves at the Reinhard camps, at least no mass graves with bodies in them. He even produced a report from after the war of an investigation at Treblinka by Lukaszkiewicz who explicitly states that he found no mass graves. Dave seized on this report to claim that he had answered the OP's challenge to show there was a mass grave with bodies at a Reinhard camp. There is no counter to such stupidity, it's dishonest on its face. But, Dave W. went on to aggressively defend it. This type of 'argument', which happens over and over, is what prompts the new rule.
Dantheman's response was to call Dave W. a dullard. Of course, that is only one possibility, and not likely the correct one. In any case, Dave W. used that as an excuse to ban dantheman. Mission accomplished. Opponent routed.
On a side issue, Kil never addressed the OP, yet had the chutzpah to 'warn' dantheman for not engaging in debate. In fact, dantheman explicitly answered the posts of filthy and Dave W. that contained anything relevant to his argument. So, the charge was absurd. Nonetheless, Kil was on the verge of banning dantheman on the basis of this 100% trumped up 'charge'. However, Kil's posts don't require a new rule as they were all covered by Rule 1.
It also occurs to me that in formulating the 'skeptics' rules, we should take into account their objectives. The 'skeptics' objectives are indistinguishable from the Zionists on questions relating to the holocaust, and that is to suppress discussion altogether. Thus, as the 'Handbook for Holocaust Education' linked in the evidence points out, rational discussion is to be avoided. So, there is the basis for the missing rule ....
Rule 4 - Sabotage Rational Debate with Aggressive Stupidity
The Handbook gives the rational for this rule, as does Chomsky, who writes that to debate the holocaust is to lose one's humanity. What better way to surreptitiously sabotage avoid rational debate that to make what are ostensibly rational statements that are absurd on their face, or profoundly stupid, and then to vociferously defend them. Beautiful ! Hats off !
This clears up another issue I had but didn't mention, with the Hitler quote. It didn't quite fit the situation, and now I see why .. Hitler claimed that Marxist Jews pretended to be stupid in debate, but he was talking about face to face debates, with no access to outside information, so Hitler could reference a current or historical event, and the Marxist Jew could claim to be unfamiliar with it, and hence invalidate Hitler's point. This is passive stupidity. But, passive stupidity doesn't fly on the internet, as a link can always be provided to counter it. So, what we see on this 'skeptics' forum is aggressive stupidity, which fits with the 'skeptics' general tone, and becomes not a defensive weapon to avoid losing a debate, but an offensive weapon not to win the debate but to end it, to trash it, it's like, sad to say, shitting on the living room floor, there is no counter for it. Thus the 'skeptic' accomplishes his objective, which is not to win the debate but to rout the opponent.
Wow. I'm onto something
|
My hope is that this and your original list of rules took you a long time. It might have been spent more productively answering some of our questions, and responding to actual posts, and evidences delivered to you that were counter to your claim without calling us stupid. But no matter. You will leave here with the confidence that skeptics cheat and so a rational debate with skeptics is not possible. Thanks for exposing our evil intent.
That will be your victory. Forget about yours and Dan's false premises and waving away evidence that is counter to your claim. If you can't get us to agree with your hypothesis, call us cheaters. You will not be alone, because just about everyone who has come here with evidence as strong as yours is does the same thing. One thing I will agree with you on is the use of name calling. But then, you started it. Just where did you think that would go?
But I really don't care what you think. You are more typical than you know. It's a shame really, because, unlike Dave, based on our emails before you signed on, I had higher hopes for you. As it turned out, Dave was right.
Oh well...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 10:33:52 [Permalink]
|
| He's (Rudolfo) still funny; in an ironic/sad sort of way. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 10:44:33 [Permalink]
|
| Aaahh, wise you are, Kil. |
"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?" |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 10:48:09 [Permalink]
|
[Except that you've been unable to state why any particular claim is stupid, ]
I quit after the first two or three instances, e.g. the 'evidence' idiocy, and the photo idiocy. I realized your intent even then, how could one not? To claim that a link that explicitly states that no mass graves were found refutes the claim that there are mass graves with bodies is prima facie stupid, or, more accurately, idiotic, as it does not rise to the level of stupidity. You probably should look prima facie up. That's why dantheman called you a dullard. How else to respond to such idiocy, as there is no rational response. Of course, he probably understood your real intent, that is, to use aggressive stupidity to avoid rational discussion, as is recommended by the Handbook for Holocaust Education, and the last century's 'greatest intellectual', Noam Chomsky. And, of course, you succeeded in your goal.
I'll summarize the thread with respect to the OP - there has not been a single rational response to the OP, much less a counter-argument.
|
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/07/2010 10:56:54 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 11:11:55 [Permalink]
|
Many questions asked, I have.
No answers have you given.
Do, or do not. There is no try.
Interesting you are not.
Bored I am. |
"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?" |
| Edited by - Fripp on 04/07/2010 11:13:28 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A literal Jewish conspiracy
