Misrepresentation (reply to Archie)

[Nessie]

You have just locked another thread for going off topic and now you want this thread to go off topic. I will stick to the topic and every time the level of evidence, or how historians investigate, is misrepresented, I will post it here and explain why it is a misrepresentation.

The topic was misrepresentation/straw-manning, so I think it's fair to consider this from both sides, not just one. And to look into whether you're being hypocritical here.

Btw, I asked Nessie this before and this was his laughable response.

There are various summaries of the denier/revisionist case, that I and many others use. In its most simple form;

- there were no mass gassings

The slightly more detailed version of that, and the one I use the most, is the transit camp theory;

- the people sent on mass transports to the AR camps, or A-B, were not gassed and left those places to go elsewhere.

There is a variation to that of, which leaves many unanswered questions as to what happened;

- it is not certain there were mass transports to the AR camps, or A-B.

There are some deniers who suggest they do know what happened, such as claims the Kremas were used as delousing centres or for mass showering and that the AR camps were used as transit camps, hygiene stops or for property seizure.

If you combined that, you end up with the denier argument being, there are theories as to what happened, but we do know is that there were no mass gassings at the AR camps and A-B Kremas.

Nessie thinks this is a good summary of revisionist arguments.

Please link to where you got that quote, thanks.

[Archie]

Please link to where you got that quote, thanks.

Are you implying that it's a fabricated quote and you didn't really say it? Or are you just wasting my time?

https://rodoh.info/thread/568/request-s ... e-strawman

[Nessie]

Please link to where you got that quote, thanks.

Are you implying that it's a fabricated quote and you didn't really say it? Or are you just wasting my time?

https://rodoh.info/thread/568/request-s ... e-strawman

I want to see the context. Please link directly to it, or describe clearly which thread and which page of that thread it comes from.

You have a history of misrepresentation, as this thread proves, and one way to misrepresent is to quote out of context.

[Stubble]

They are your own words fool, is that not enough?

You can't even remember what you yourself have said?

Nessie, come now, just think.

[Archie]

Please link to where you got that quote, thanks.

Are you implying that it's a fabricated quote and you didn't really say it? Or are you just wasting my time?

https://rodoh.info/thread/568/request-s ... e-strawman

I want to see the context. Please link directly to it, or describe clearly which thread and which page of that thread it comes from.

You have a history of misrepresentation, as this thread proves, and one way to misrepresent is to quote out of context.

I linked you to the exact thread. It's page one. It's your reply, which is the first reply in the thread. You should be able to find it easily. It's right there. If not, then you must not have access to that part of RODOH anymore. The context is that I asked you to give a summary of the revisionist case without strawmanning. And what I quoted (in full) was your response.

The plain fact is you couldn't give a good summary of revisionism then and you can't do it now. Hence why I say your complaints are hypocritical.

[Archie]

Ok, Nessie, I will screenshot it for you since are pretending the quote is fake/out-of-context and are too much of a retard to follow the link.

rodoh nessie post 1.jpg (182.42 KiB) Viewed 932 times

What's really funny is it took Nessie 12 days to come up with that bad of a response.

[Nessie]

Are you implying that it's a fabricated quote and you didn't really say it? Or are you just wasting my time?

https://rodoh.info/thread/568/request-s ... e-strawman

I want to see the context. Please link directly to it, or describe clearly which thread and which page of that thread it comes from.

You have a history of misrepresentation, as this thread proves, and one way to misrepresent is to quote out of context.

I linked you to the exact thread. It's page one. It's your reply, which is the first reply in the thread. You should be able to find it easily. It's right there. If not, then you must not have access to that part of RODOH anymore. The context is that I asked you to give a summary of the revisionist case without strawmanning. And what I quoted (in full) was your response.

The plain fact is you couldn't give a good summary of revisionism then and you can't do it now. Hence why I say your complaints are hypocritical.

The link you provide just takes me to the RODOH log in page and when I log in, it to the main forum page, not a specific post or thread.

Interesting that instead of defending your self, as I example your misrepresentations, you accuse me of hypocrisy, which is the tu quoque fallacy! Not being able to give "a good summary", is not the same as deliberate misrepresentation.

[Nessie]

HansHill this time, from the thread about T4 staff transferring to AR.

This whole point that Nessie is attempting to make is completely redundant and I'll explain why. Here he has let the cat out of the bag that all staff who worked at a concentration camp / camp network are inherently evil a priori. If I could somehow prove that they were all transferred in from an orphanage, that would not matter. Because they are murderers now, according to Nessie.

Notice he does not quote or link to anything I have apparently said. I had argued that since the vast majority of German staff from the Action T4 euthanasia project had gone on to be selected to work on Action Reinhard, that is circumstantial evidence that the work required for AR was similar to T4. I also argued that it does not matter if someone was a cook or a driver, they are accomplices to murder. An accomplice is not directly involved and I recognise many junior staff did not have much choice in their roles. Indeed, I have often written about the acquittals of the Belzec staff, as their acting under orders argument worked. I have also often written about the matter of fact, unemotive Nazi testimony to what happened inside the AR camps, as at the time, they believed they were doing good, killing an enemy and their actions were lawful.

HansHill misrepresents my argument by making it anyone who worked in any camp, not just T4 and claiming I think they are all evil and murderers, where I had said accomplices.

[HansHill]

HansHill misrepresents my argument by making it anyone who worked in any camp, not just T4 and claiming I think they are all evil and murderers, where I had said accomplices.

How embarrassing for you:

They were clearly selected to work on AR, because they had shown themselves to be morally and mentally fine with mass killing of people considered to be unworthy of living, useless eaters, enemies of the state.

The obvious universal link, is that people who could cope with the killing of disabled people including children, would also cope with the gassing of Jews including children. They could be trusted to follow orders and keep quiet.

That is a positive selection, based on past performance and suitability.

[Nessie]

HansHill misrepresents my argument by making it anyone who worked in any camp, not just T4 and claiming I think they are all evil and murderers, where I had said accomplices.

How embarrassing for you:

They were clearly selected to work on AR, because they had shown themselves to be morally and mentally fine with mass killing of people considered to be unworthy of living, useless eaters, enemies of the state.

The obvious universal link, is that people who could cope with the killing of disabled people including children, would also cope with the gassing of Jews including children. They could be trusted to follow orders and keep quiet.

That is a positive selection, based on past performance and suitability.

A reminder that your claimed I had said that "all staff who worked at a concentration camp / camp network are inherently evil a priori".

You then quote me talking about T4 and AR, which were specific hospitals and only 3 camps, not the entire "network". I then explain that they were suitable to work on both because they were fine and could cope with killing certain groups of people, following orders in a secret operation.

If there is one thing that Hitler and the Nazis proved, it was that good people can be persuaded to do what is obviously wrong, when they are taught to hate certain people and regard them no longer as human, worthy of life. I have never described those involved as evil, let alone every Nazi who worked in any role in every camp.

[HansHill]

A reminder that your claimed I had said that "all staff who worked at a concentration camp / camp network are inherently evil a priori".

You then quote me talking about T4 and AR, which were specific hospitals and only 3 camps, not the entire "network". I then explain that they were suitable to work on both because they were fine and could cope with killing certain groups of people, following orders in a secret operation.

If there is one thing that Hitler and the Nazis proved, it was that good people can be persuaded to do what is obviously wrong, when they are taught to hate certain people and regard them no longer as human, worthy of life. I have never described those involved as evil, let alone every Nazi who worked in any role in every camp.

Olympic levels of backtracking here!

>Any person, accomplice or otherwise, who worked where jews were alleged to have been killed, was "obviously and universally" selected for traits that predisposes them to be "morally and mentally fine" for killing, and not only that, but this was "positive selection based on past performance and suitability"



Give it over, you look ridiculous.

[Nessie]

A reminder that your claimed I had said that "all staff who worked at a concentration camp / camp network are inherently evil a priori".

You then quote me talking about T4 and AR, which were specific hospitals and only 3 camps, not the entire "network". I then explain that they were suitable to work on both because they were fine and could cope with killing certain groups of people, following orders in a secret operation.

If there is one thing that Hitler and the Nazis proved, it was that good people can be persuaded to do what is obviously wrong, when they are taught to hate certain people and regard them no longer as human, worthy of life. I have never described those involved as evil, let alone every Nazi who worked in any role in every camp.

Olympic levels of backtracking here!

>Any person, accomplice or otherwise, who worked where jews were alleged to have been killed, was "obviously and universally" selected for traits that predisposes them to be "morally and mentally fine" for killing, and not only that, but this was "positive selection based on past performance and suitability"



Give it over, you look ridiculous.

The reasons why staff from T4 were then utilised on AR, is not all staff at every camp is evil, as you stated!

[Nessie]

Another from Archie;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=5765#p5765

Nessie: "There is overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust"
Revisionists: "Here's why that evidence is weak"
Nessie: "You aren't allowed to doubt or question the evidence. Incredulity fallacy."

You ARE allowed to doubt and question the evidence, so long as your methodology is correct and not logically flawed.

[Nessie]

Archie again;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=5811#p5811

He doesn't think in terms of probability. Things are either "evidenced" or "not evidenced." It's a binary thing in his mind.

In fact, the standard of evidence varies, and so does the probability. A well evidenced event is more probable to have happened than a poorly evidenced event.