Evidence and Implementation

[Wahrheitssucher]

It irks me to listen to this clown make these authoritative (and usually garbled) pronouncements about sources that he has never read. And which he refuses to read.

I don't refuse to read sources but if you need me to read a source it should be relevant to the disagreement at hand. I will invest the time to do research on this subject, but I won't read very long books without much relevance.

If you have a problem with a specific statement, make the argument and point me to the source where I might be wrong. That is how dialectical argumentation works. But the debates need to stay on topic.

Ho-hum.
But CODOH readers have seen in numerous discussions how you pretend to ask questions as if genuinely open to revisionist explanations but then refuse to study the replies, claiming you don’t have time.

We’ve also seen your bizarre justification that you prefer to rely on Ai summarisations of books as it saves you time.

1. If you want to be taken seriously, then admit when you have been shown to be in error.

Start by admitting you have repeatedly been FALSELY implying that revisionists “deny the holocaust existed” or “never happened”.
That is such a basic and idiotic misrepresentation that unless you can acknowledge you were peddling an extremely ignorant ‘strawman’, then there seems little hope you will ever be able to understand when you are W R O N G on more complex controversies.

2. Then, if you can admit this, move on to answering my reasonable questions on the archeological E V I D E N C E at Treblinka II.
Here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10874#p10874
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10885#p10885

Failure to do either will demonstrate that despite your posture of genuine interest, you will have proved yourself to be an ignorant charlatan.
And will no longer be taken seriously.

Your choice.

[Nessie]

....

1. If you want to be taken seriously, then admit when you have been shown to be in error.

Start by admitting you have repeatedly been FALSELY implying that revisionists “deny the holocaust existed” or “never happened”.
That is such a basic and idiotic misrepresentation that unless you can acknowledge you were peddling an extremely ignorant ‘strawman’, then there seems little hope you will ever be able to understand when you are W R O N G on more complex controversies.

....

How about you admit to this strawman?

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=11011#p11011

"APPROACHING EVIDENCE DISHONESTLY IN DEBATE
This is why people dislike holocaust defenders and its deceitful promoters:
1. they lie!
2. They DENY the empirical evidence, but falsely call those presenting it ‘holocaust deniers’.
3. They DENY the often absurd statements and assertions of supposed eye-witness testimony of people claiming to be ‘holocaust survivors’ and they STILL promote their racist, anti-German lies.
4. they criminalise dissent,
5. they criminalise reasonable, logical, empirical research that exposes clear lies in the ‘holocaust’ narrative.
6. they use the flawed ‘holocaust’ narrative to justify an ongoing 7-decades long genocide in occupied Palestine,
7. they get all upset and indignant if you expose their dishonesty,
8a. they lie and accuse you of ‘anti-semitism’ if you present factual info that causes them to experience cognitive dissonance,
8b. if you turn out to be jewish they accuse you of being a self-hating jew and try to destroy your career, your livelihood, your reputation and on occassion may even try to harm or kill you.
9. They NEVER admit to being wrong on anything.
10. they never admit to using fallacious logic to debate the E V I D E N C E!!
11. they make false claims and when they are asked to provide supporting EVIDENCE, they try to change the subject of debate,"

You are tarring all Holocaust "defenders" with the same brush, in the same way you accuse CJ of tarring all so-called revisionists as deniers.

[ConfusedJew]

Start by admitting you have repeatedly been FALSELY implying that revisionists “deny the holocaust existed” or “never happened”.
That is such a basic and idiotic misrepresentation that unless you can acknowledge you were peddling an extremely ignorant ‘strawman’, then there seems little hope you will ever be able to understand when you are W R O N G on more complex controversies.

It depends how you decide to define the Holocaust. It means something pretty specific to people. As a revisionist, you reject or deny certain aspects of the Holocaust so what do you accept to be true? Maybe I'm wrong that you are a Holocaust denier but I'm trying to better understand what you deny.

2. Then, if you can admit this, move on to answering my reasonable questions on the archeological E V I D E N C E at Treblinka II.
Here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10874#p10874
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10885#p10885

Failure to do either will demonstrate that despite your posture of genuine interest, you will have proved yourself to be an ignorant charlatan.
And will no longer be taken seriously.

Your choice.

I'm being bombarded with like 18 different arguments at the same time. I can look at the archaeological evidence to see where we might disagree but I also am working through the arguments that I am most prepared to handle upfront. It's like drinking from a firehose. It's also very time consuming and confusing to read through many different threads when I don't know what's going on.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Start by admitting you have repeatedly been FALSELY implying that revisionists “deny the holocaust existed” or “never happened”.
That is such a basic and idiotic misrepresentation that unless you can acknowledge you were peddling an extremely ignorant ‘strawman’, then there seems little hope you will ever be able to understand when you are W R O N G on more complex controversies.

It depends how you decide to define the Holocaust. It means something pretty specific to people.

Fail!
Another epic fail.
Proving this person is a dishonest time-waster.

A refusal to ever admit error = someone arguing dishonestly.

As a revisionist, you reject or deny certain aspects of the Holocaust so what do you accept to be true?
Maybe I'm wrong that you are a Holocaust denier but I'm trying to better understand what you deny.

I hope all CODOH participants read this reply.
This is proof ConfusedJew is a time-wasting charlatan who is debating dishonestly. Someone who relies regularly on strawman misrepresentation: as again here.

This is yet another ‘strawman’ misrepresentation because I do not ‘DENY’ ANYTHING.
I doubt and question the scale of the mass-gassing mythology.
I doubt and question the allegation that there was ever a coordinated plan from the highest echelons of the Third Reich’s hierarchy to mass-murder ALL Jews.

Only a brain-washed dimwit would regard ‘doubt’ as ‘denial’.
I am totally open to being convinced of these core ‘holocaust’ beliefs. But no holocaust true-believer — no-one — has EVER engaged with me in an honest, reasonable, logical, calm, well-informed manner. No-one ever! And I have discussed with Roberto Muhlenkamp, Nick Terry, Sergey Romanov, Hans Metzner and numerous anonymous trolls.

2. Then, if you can admit this, move on to answering my reasonable questions on the archeological E V I D E N C E at Treblinka II.
Here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10874#p10874
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10885#p10885

Failure to do either will demonstrate that despite your posture of genuine interest, you will have proved yourself to be an ignorant charlatan.
And will no longer be taken seriously.

Your choice.

I'm being bombarded with like 18 different arguments at the same time. I can look at the archaeological evidence to see where we might disagree but I also am working through the arguments that I am most prepared to handle upfront. It's like drinking from a firehose. It's also very time consuming and confusing to read through many different threads when I don't know what's going on.

Same lame excuse as ever.
This dishonest dimwit is arguing on numerous topics, but then when they are asked four simple questions to ascertain their current knowledge on one specific topic (TII mass graves) they duck, dodge and dive for cover.
This is again proof that this is a dishonest person who is arguing from ignorance the whole time.

[ConfusedJew]

Fail!
Another epic fail.
Proving this person is a dishonest time-waster.

A refusal to ever admit error = someone arguing dishonestly.

As a revisionist, you reject or deny certain aspects of the Holocaust so what do you accept to be true?
Maybe I'm wrong that you are a Holocaust denier but I'm trying to better understand what you deny.

I hope all CODOH participants read this reply.
This is proof ConfusedJew is a time-wasting charlatan who is debating dishonestly. Someone who relies regularly on strawman misrepresentation: as again here.

This is yet another ‘strawman’ misrepresentation because I do not ‘DENY’ ANYTHING.
I doubt and question the scale of the mass-gassing mythology.
I doubt and question the allegation that there was ever a coordinated plan from the highest echelons of the Third Reich’s hierarchy to mass-murder ALL Jews.

Only a brain-washed dimwit would regard ‘doubt’ as ‘denial’.

Doubt is different from denial and is different from minimization.

So you would be considered a Holocaust skeptic rather than a Holocaust denier. There are definitely Holocaust deniers on this forum. Somebody recently told me that they were 100% certain that the Holocaust didn't exist.

This is why I ask to get very precise about where people disagree or are skeptical so that we can have reasonable and constructive disagreements.

[Archie]

Fail!
Another epic fail.
Proving this person is a dishonest time-waster.

A refusal to ever admit error = someone arguing dishonestly.

As a revisionist, you reject or deny certain aspects of the Holocaust so what do you accept to be true?
Maybe I'm wrong that you are a Holocaust denier but I'm trying to better understand what you deny.

I hope all CODOH participants read this reply.
This is proof ConfusedJew is a time-wasting charlatan who is debating dishonestly. Someone who relies regularly on strawman misrepresentation: as again here.

This is yet another ‘strawman’ misrepresentation because I do not ‘DENY’ ANYTHING.
I doubt and question the scale of the mass-gassing mythology.
I doubt and question the allegation that there was ever a coordinated plan from the highest echelons of the Third Reich’s hierarchy to mass-murder ALL Jews.

Only a brain-washed dimwit would regard ‘doubt’ as ‘denial’.

Doubt is different from denial and is different from minimization.

So you would be considered a Holocaust skeptic rather than a Holocaust denier. There are definitely Holocaust deniers on this forum. Somebody recently told me that they were 100% certain that the Holocaust didn't exist.

This is why I ask to get very precise about where people disagree or are skeptical so that we can have reasonable and constructive disagreements.

Surely if any side is to be criticized for overconfidence it should be the Holocaust side. Your side declares the Holocaust to be self-evident and says that no debate over its historicity is to be permitted under any circumstances. And they have actively prevented such debate from happening via force of law.

[ConfusedJew]

Surely if any side is to be criticized for overconfidence it should be the Holocaust side. Your side declares the Holocaust to be self-evident and says that no debate over its historicity is to be permitted under any circumstances. And they have actively prevented such debate from happening via force of law.

I personally don't accept anything to be "self evident" but there are certain claims and narratives that I find much more credible than others.

You are right that mainstream historians treat the Holocaust to be a deeply established historical fact and not a hypothesis to be perpetually re-litigated.

Do you think there are any historical interpretations that are established and shouldn't be perpetually re-litigated or is anything open to debate?

I think it can be distracting and harmful to constantly debate some established facts although I think that can be taken too far at times and become dangerous itself. It's a mixed bag. Considering the FDA to be beyond question is dangerous because it gives them a shield to cover up risks but it might be more dangerous to do that early on when it is a trusted and well functioning institution.

I personally think the Holocaust is an established fact although there might be small aspects of it that can and should be reconsidered. Overall, to doubt the Holocaust can do a lot of damage because it undermines the pain that survivors and their descendants have experienced.

Do you think we should really have to re-litigate the factual occurrence of the Sandy Hook massacre or is that horrible to even question? It's a matter of opinion but I am curious what you think about that.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Surely if any side is to be criticized for overconfidence it should be the Holocaust side. Your side declares the Holocaust to be self-evident and says that no debate over its historicity is to be permitted under any circumstances. And they have actively prevented such debate from happening via force of law.

…I personally think the Holocaust is an established fact…

You don’t know anything in detail about it. Your belief is based in ignorance.
You won’t even define what you think it (‘the holocaust’) is. So therefore without defining it you can’t say what exactly is “established fact” about it. That demonstrates you are constantly approaching these discussions from an illogical position. Consequently insisting some undefined occurrence is “established fact” must either be deceitful or self-delusional.
Which is it in your case, CJ?

…although there might be small aspects of it that can and should be reconsidered.

Saying “might be” demonstrates over-confidence from ignorance. Saying vaguely “might be small aspects” without stating what the implied certain ‘big aspects’ are is either deceitful or self-delusional.

Overall, to doubt the Holocaust can do a lot of damage because it undermines the pain that survivors and their descendants have experienced.

Translation:
‘to doubt our sacrosanct belief system alleging super-special jewish suffering is very damaging to our jewish self-perception of ‘eternal victim’ status. That hurts our feelings.
Plus then we can’t justify our mass-murder and ethnic-cleansing of all non-jews living on all the territory we are stealing in the Middle-East’.

[Nessie]

This thread is about evidence and implementation, not what the Holocaust is. A previous attempt to get back on topic has been removed to a derail thread!

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=11085#p11085

So, back on topic, from the OP;

There is a ton of different pieces of evidence, in my opinion, all pointing to the same narrative.

Unless you are a so-called revisionist. Then you come up with all sort of narratives and precious little evidence.

In general, how do you guys think about inconsistencies in evidence and how to interpret that? I just think these issues are blown out of proportion again and again....

So-called revisionists do nit pick over minor inconsistencies in details, ignoring the complete consistency over the main events. For example, eyewitnesses at the Kremas are consistent that they had gas chambers, but they are inconsistent as to how many people fitted inside them.

If this is just a hoax or postwar narrative, how is it possible for all these different fake sources to have come up with different people that were mostly disconnected during and after the war?

Why would the Dutch cooperate with a Soviet hoax, in 1945? Why would they claim do few Dutch Jews returned from the Sobibor transports, when that was a lie, to support a supposed hoax perpetrated by the Soviets? If the Soviets had imprisoned tens of thousands of Dutch Jews in 1945, do you not think the Dutch Government would eventually find out and blow what the Soviets had been up to?