|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 04/09/2010 : 06:45:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
Now, the subject of this thread is the existence/non existence of mass graves at the Reinhard camps. |
Suppose this is true. Justify the extrapolation of this statement to the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/09/2010 06:45:26 |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 07:26:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
Rule 1 - ignore the OP. |
Cherry picking (ignoring my response to the subject of the thread) and lying (ignoring my response to the subject of the thread while complaining that I haven't responded to the subject of the thread).| Apparently even the simplest things require explanation to the 'skeptics' here. |
Diversionary and insulting.| Let's make it real simple, if you write a sentence with the word 'you' in it, then Rule 1 is invoked, unless the 'you' in question is the subject of the OP. |
Same diversion.| Now, the subject of this thread is the existence/non existence of mass graves at the Reinhard camps. Therefor I am not the subject. So, your comment invokes Rule 1. |
My comment included discussion of the subject of the thread, therefore you are lying.| I note that the 'skeptics' like to use the word 'liar'. That is an application of Rule 1, unless the 'liar' in question is the topic of the OP. |
When the liar is lying in order to ridicule me, he is being hypocritical by not addressing the subject of the thread, and therefore makes himself a valid target of discussion and derision.| Using the word 'liar' is not a counterargument, it's an ad hominem attack. |
More hypocrisy.There is a difference |
Yes, and you've shown yourself to be incapable of differentiating between the two in practice, even though you understand the difference in theory.I'll also note that ALL of the skeptics' posts since the rules were introduced in this thread are applications of Rule 1. |
Liar.
I'll note that this post of yours, Rudolfo doesn't address my criticisms of the subject of the thread in any way, shape or form, and so you are applying Rule 1, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 04/09/2010 : 07:30:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
I'll also note that ALL of the skeptics' posts since the rules were introduced in this thread are applications of Rule 1. |
So you think you are in a position to set the rules on this board?
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 07:45:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[Wow. Saying that you're lying means I'm ignoring your argument?]
Rule 1 - ignore the OP.
Apparently even the simplest things require explanation to the 'skeptics' here. Let's make it real simple, if you write a sentence with the word 'you' in it, then Rule 1 is invoked, unless the 'you' in question is the subject of the OP.
Now, the subject of this thread is the existence/non existence of mass graves at the Reinhard camps. Therefor I am not the subject. So, your comment invokes Rule 1.
I note that the 'skeptics' like to use the word 'liar'. That is an application of Rule 1, unless the 'liar' in question is the topic of the OP. Using the word 'liar' is not a counterargument, it's an ad hominem attack. There is a difference
I'll also note that ALL of the skeptics' posts since the rules were introduced in this thread are applications of Rule 1.
|
Here's the thing: Neither you nor dantheman get to make up your own rules of thinking, not on a critical thinking site, anyway.
The whole "existence of mass graves" demand of the OP is a convenient strawman. As the Soviets were advancing late in the war your goose-stepping Nazi scum pals either 1) destroyed those mass graves by digging up the bodies of those they killed and then burning the remains with the intent of making evidence harder to find, or 2) had already thoroughly cremated them in the first place.
Sorry, but Nazis don't get to destroy mass graves and then get a pass to demand such mass graves be produced.
That you refuse to answer the questions you have been give simply show you are simply another in a long line of Nazi apologists. A pseudo-skeptic who twists logic to fit a despicable preconceived conclusion. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 07:46:29 [Permalink]
|
Tired, old trick: if you have nothing, cast about red herrings and straw men, pass along a few insults, then bitch about non adherence to the OP. Unfortunately, this particular OP was nicely dispensed with and tagged DOA in the first, few pages -- frantic denials from dantheman and our current anti-Zionist twit to the contrary. From there on, it's been little but repetition that continues to this very moment.
Romney children at Auschwitz.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 08:15:01 [Permalink]
|
[Sorry, but Nazis don't get to destroy mass graves and then get a pass to demand such mass graves be produced.]
I infer from this comment that you agree with the OP that there are essentially no mass graves at the Reinhard camps.
I agree, I also don't think there are any mass graves at the Reihnard camps, certainly none that have been excavated.
Now, if we could agree on that, I'd say we're in agreement on the OP, and that's that. 
Now, if someone doesn't agree, perhaps they could tell us why not. That would be 'on topic', and would not invoke any of the skeptics rules.
FURTHER ANALYSIS
Note - just to be very clear - the OP claim is that there are essentially no mass graves at the Reinhard camps, not that the holocaust did not occur because there are no mass graves at the Reihnard camps.
See, if you infer that the OP's intent is to disprove the holocaust, then you can use Rule 3, and attack the unwritten argument as counter to the general consensus and therefor invalid. In this way you can ignore what the OP stated, and attack his unstated 'intent', which is exactly what happens with most 'skeptic' posts. This is not rational debate as you automatically reject any information without even examining it, because of the OPs unstated 'intent'. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 08:27:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[Sorry, but Nazis don't get to destroy mass graves and then get a pass to demand such mass graves be produced.]
I infer from this comment that you agree with the OP that there are essentially no mass graves at the Reinhard camps.
I agree, I also don't think there are any mass graves at the Reihnard camps, certainly none that have been excavated.
Now, if we could agree on that, I'd say we're in agreement on the OP, and that's that.
Now, if someone doesn't agree, perhaps they could tell us why not. That would be 'on topic', and would not invoke any of the skeptics rules.
FURTHER ANALYSIS
Note - just to be very clear - the OP claim is that there are essentially no mass graves at the Reinhard camps, not that the holocaust did not occur because there are no mass graves at the Reihnard camps.
See, if you infer that the OP's intent is to disprove the holocaust, then you can use Rule 3, and attack the unwritten argument as counter to the general consensus and therefor invalid. In this way you can ignore what the OP stated, and attack his unstated 'intent', which is exactly what happens with most 'skeptic' posts. This is not rational debate as you automatically reject any information without even examining it, because of the OPs unstated 'intent'.
|
More tedious bullshit. From page two: Treblinka
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 08:59:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
See, if you infer that the OP's intent is to disprove the holocaust, then you can use Rule 3, and attack the unwritten argument as counter to the general consensus and therefor invalid. In this way you can ignore what the OP stated, and attack his unstated 'intent', which is exactly what happens with most 'skeptic' posts. This is not rational debate as you automatically reject any information without even examining it, because of the OPs unstated 'intent'. |
Unstated? There's another bold lie. Look at Greg Gerdes' Web site:| NO GRAVES / REMAINS = NO TREBLINKA HOLOCAUST |
His intent is clearly stated: lack of these particular kinds of evidence means the Holocaust didn't happen, it's all a Jewish lie so that they could illegally create the state of Israel. And that's why the challenges themselves are fraudulent.
If you really want to examine the subject of the thread independent of everything else, then who cares whether there are mass graves at any camp or not? Severing the OP from Gerdes' clearly stated intent means that he only posted here in order to expand his irrelevant (to anything!) pissing match against Michael Shermer. |
- 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 - 04/09/2010 : 09:01:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
From page two: Treblinka
|
Congratulation, you're sort of on topic. Now, if you would summarize what is in the link we could discuss it.
I checked it out, and the photos appear to be the same as those on the deathcamps.org site linked earlier, and on that site you can see that the excavators are operating in a quarry, not a mass grave. But, now I can't find the pics of the zoo or the excavators on the deathcamps.org site.
In any case you can see reference to the quarry at Treblinka here...
http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/treblinka.html
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 10:00:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
Congratulation, you're sort of on topic. Now, if you would summarize what is in the link we could discuss it. |
Rule 1.| I checked it out, and the photos appear to be the same as those on the deathcamps.org site linked earlier, and on that site you can see that the excavators are operating in a quarry, not a mass grave. |
Rule 4.| But, now I can't find the pics of the zoo or the excavators on the deathcamps.org site. |
Rule 4.Rule 4.
I knew you were just projecting your own rules onto us. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 10:29:09 [Permalink]
|
| Must be nice making up your own rules as you go along.... |
“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 |
| Edited by - podcat on 04/09/2010 10:30:24 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 11:24:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[Sorry, but Nazis don't get to destroy mass graves and then get a pass to demand such mass graves be produced.]
I infer from this comment that you agree with the OP that there are essentially no mass graves at the Reinhard camps. |
And I infer from your comment that you agree that the Nazis deliberately destroyed mass grave evidence, and that you and other Nazi symps are still doing their job of cover-up.
I'm glad that's settled. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 11:35:34 [Permalink]
|
[But eh, you're just going to ignore this anyways.]
OK, I missed that ... so he did state his intent. Wouldn't have made any difference if he hadn't, you would have correctly figure it out and responded the same way.
Allow me to refocus the thread - are there mass graves at any Reinhard camp?
And then, did the Nazis destroy mass graves at Reinhard camps?
These seem like straightforward rational questions. Hence, one can expect straightforward rational replies |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/09/2010 11:36:24 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A literal Jewish conspiracy
