The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
Post Reply

Turnagain
Posts: 5376
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

Post by Turnagain » Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:26 am

Gee, Rollo, I had no idea that I was so culturally aware. LOL.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26120
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

Post by Nessie » Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:58 pm

Turnagain wrote:.......

Au contraire mon Nessie, there are academics who do agree with me. Let's start with Matogno, Kues and Graf. Don't forget Professor Butz. He was the first academic to knock the biscuit wheels off your holyhoax gravy train. LOL. BTW, Nessie, why are you calling my facts lies? Are you saying that those 500,000 cadavers weren't buried? Are you saying that someone has found the 10 meter deep mass graves as described by Wiernik? Why are you calling me a liar, Nessie?
Please evidence the qualifications that Mattogno, Kues, Graf and Butz have. Please show how they are linked to the revisionist/denier work they have done.

The rest of your post is pure strawman.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26120
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

Post by Nessie » Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:05 pm

been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:
been-there wrote:....... The problems with the actual published revisionist arguments appears to be that they apparently can not be refuted.
Therefore the published works presented as refutations, such as by Zimmerman and Lipstadt, rely on 1. ad hominem attacks of the revisionists (and thereby ignore their arguments) or 2. replying to and ridiculing strawman misrepresentations of the actual points that revisionists have raised (again thereby ignoring their actual arguments).
That no academic (that we are aware of) has spent the time to write a book specifically dealing with all of the denier/revisionist arguments does not mean they cannot be refuted. That is a non sequitur.
Again deceit/and or stupidity. I did not claim they could not be. I used the words "appears to be" and "apparently". Plus it was intended tongue in cheek. Whatever, the fact remains that no such published refutation yet exists after so many decades. A curious omission if it were so easy to do, as is maintained.
Nice back peddle. So you now accept that academics have dealt with all denier/revisionist claims. You just think it should have been done by one person (or maybe different authors for each point) in one book and think it is odd that has not been done.
been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:Can you evidence ad hominems, ridicule and strawman by "....the published works presented as refutations, such as by Zimmerman and Lipstadt..."?
Are you asking me to do your research for you? :o
I have just provided Lipstadt's ad hominem in this thread which you have replied to.
Sorry, I did not see your evidence posted in another thread until after I had posted the above.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8204
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

Post by been-there » Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:19 pm

Nessie wrote:
been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:
been-there wrote:....... The problems with the actual published revisionist arguments appears to be that they apparently can not be refuted.
Therefore the published works presented as refutations, such as by Zimmerman and Lipstadt, rely on 1. ad hominem attacks of the revisionists (and thereby ignore their arguments) or 2. replying to and ridiculing strawman misrepresentations of the actual points that revisionists have raised (again thereby ignoring their actual arguments).
That no academic (that we are aware of) has spent the time to write a book specifically dealing with all of the denier/revisionist arguments does not mean they cannot be refuted. That is a non sequitur.
Again deceit/and or stupidity. I did not claim they could not be. I used the words "appears to be" and "apparently". Plus it was intended tongue in cheek. Whatever, the fact remains that no such published refutation yet exists after so many decades. A curious omission if it were so easy to do, as is maintained.
Nice back peddle. So you now accept that academics have dealt with all denier/revisionist claims. You just think it should have been done by one person (or maybe different authors for each point) in one book and think it is odd that has not been done.
Comprehension deficit. :roll:
No Nessie, I am not "accepting that academics have dealt with all denier/revisionist claims." The complete opposite is the case. I am saying that after fifty to sixty odd years of revisionist literature, there exists not a single book which refutes the revisionist arguments. And I am saying that those that make a pretence of doing that merely attack the revisionists themselves or attack strawman misrepresentations and distortions of the actual revisionist arguments.
As I understand it, mainstream historians intentionally ignore these arguments or if they do acknowledge them resort to the two fallacious arguments just mentioned. They argue that to attempt to refute them is to give them a credibility that they do not deserve, which I think is a completely intellectually, bogus response. One which I regard as indicative of the whole irrationality of approach to this period of history. No other event in history gets such ludicrously unreasonable reverence.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Turnagain
Posts: 5376
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

Post by Turnagain » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:54 pm

Nessie wrote:
Turnagain wrote:.......

Au contraire mon Nessie, there are academics who do agree with me. Let's start with Matogno, Kues and Graf. Don't forget Professor Butz. He was the first academic to knock the biscuit wheels off your holyhoax gravy train. LOL. BTW, Nessie, why are you calling my facts lies? Are you saying that those 500,000 cadavers weren't buried? Are you saying that someone has found the 10 meter deep mass graves as described by Wiernik? Why are you calling me a liar, Nessie?
Please evidence the qualifications that Mattogno, Kues, Graf and Butz have. Please show how they are linked to the revisionist/denier work they have done.

The rest of your post is pure strawman.
Gee, Nessie, do ya' mean that you've never heard of those guys? For all you know they could just be some street bums hitting on you for some spare change. You really didn't know that they are all multilingual, have attended universities and have published books? Suuuure, Nessie, I believe that. If you want "evidence" simply type their names one at a time into your search bar. Maybe you haven't heard of them but there are hundreds of thousands who have. Arthur Butz is a tenured professor at Northwestern University, school of Engineering. Butz was the guy who gave you hoaxers your first big kick in the goolies with his book, "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century."

Of course your claim that you don't know nothin' about those guys or what they've done is pure smoke and bullshit. There are plenty of academics who agree with me both publicly and in private opinion. Like most of your failures to answer even the most reasonable question or statement of fact, "strawman" is just another of your patented weasel dodges. Sorry, Nessie, you lose again.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26120
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

Post by Nessie » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:44 am

been-there wrote:......Comprehension deficit. :roll:
No Nessie, I am not "accepting that academics have dealt with all denier/revisionist claims." The complete opposite is the case. I am saying that after fifty to sixty odd years of revisionist literature, there exists not a single book which refutes the revisionist arguments. And I am saying that those that make a pretence of doing that merely attack the revisionists themselves or attack strawman misrepresentations and distortions of the actual revisionist arguments.
As I understand it, mainstream historians intentionally ignore these arguments or if they do acknowledge them resort to the two fallacious arguments just mentioned. They argue that to attempt to refute them is to give them a credibility that they do not deserve, which I think is a completely intellectually, bogus response. One which I regard as indicative of the whole irrationality of approach to this period of history. No other event in history gets such ludicrously unreasonable reverence.
The academics have their version of events and denier/revisionists have theirs. Sorry you guys have not been given the attention you feel you deserve. Instead you get Nick Terry, the one published academic who ventures on forums and now C S-C dealing with specific claims about Treblinka. Then you get Michael Shermer and last you get the likes me :D who will spend time dealing with your claims.

Bear in mind, no denier/revisionist has gone through the whole of the Holocaust and published a work that deals with the whole narrative.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26120
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

Post by Nessie » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:49 am

Turnagain wrote:.....
Gee, Nessie, do ya' mean that you've never heard of those guys? For all you know they could just be some street bums hitting on you for some spare change. You really didn't know that they are all multilingual, have attended universities and have published books? Suuuure, Nessie, I believe that. If you want "evidence" simply type their names one at a time into your search bar. Maybe you haven't heard of them but there are hundreds of thousands who have. Arthur Butz is a tenured professor at Northwestern University, school of Engineering. Butz was the guy who gave you hoaxers your first big kick in the goolies with his book, "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century."

Of course your claim that you don't know nothin' about those guys or what they've done is pure smoke and bullshit. There are plenty of academics who agree with me both publicly and in private opinion. Like most of your failures to answer even the most reasonable question or statement of fact, "strawman" is just another of your patented weasel dodges. Sorry, Nessie, you lose again.
So Butz is an electrical engineer who wrote a history of the Holocaust. It is outwith his field of expertise. The rest, I see you have no answers. So my point stands, there are no academics working in their field of expertise who have become denier/revisionists.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8204
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

Post by been-there » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:18 am

Nessie wrote:
Turnagain wrote:...There are plenty of academics who agree with me both publicly and in private opinion. Like most of your failures to answer even the most reasonable question or statement of fact, "strawman" is just another of your patented weasel dodges. Sorry, Nessie, you lose again.
So Butz is an electrical engineer who wrote a history of the Holocaust. It is outwith his field of expertise. The rest, I see you have no answers. So my point stands, there are no academics working in their field of expertise who have become denier/revisionists.
'Samuel Crowell' — a qualified academic and specialist in European and German Jewish history. Published revisionist historical analysis of the gassings mythology under a pseudonym to avoid years of death threats to him and his family plus character assassination, and to avoid career devastation. Hasn't been forced to recant in order to have a life free from harassment.
"I studied mostly history and languages as an undergraduate, with concentrations in Russian history and African American history and wrote my senior thesis on German-Jewish history with an emphasis on philosophy. At Columbia, I studied Russian and East European history and the history of ideas and got two masters degrees. Then I started raising a family. I did not finish my dissertation that focused on themes in late 19th Century Russian history of philosophy."
Professor Joel Hayward — qualified academic who wrote a prize winning thesis analysing the course of holocaust revisionism but didn't reach the "right' conclusions and was published without using a pseudonym. Received years of death threats to him and his young children by Jews and Jewish organisations, plus character assassination that still continues, and struggled for years to regain credibility after jewish contrived career devastation. Was forced to recant in order to have a life free from harassment.

Professor Robert Faurrison — professor of French literature at the University of Lyon II. He is a recognized specialist of text and document analysis. Used his expertise to demonstrate that the Diary of Anne Frank was NOT the sole work of Otto Frank's daughter, as it was and still is presented. He is another academic working in their field of expertise who become a denier/revisionist.

Professor 'Thomas Dalton', PhD — he/she is the author of 'Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides' (2009) which is considered a denier/revisionist work. He/she is a professor of humanities at an American university who published under a pseudonym to avoid years of death threats to him/her and his/her family plus character assassination, and to avoid career devastation. Hasn't been forced to recant in order to have a life free from harassment.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Turnagain
Posts: 5376
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The problems with denier/revisionist arguments.

Post by Turnagain » Sat Jul 19, 2014 1:47 pm

Nessie wrote:
Turnagain wrote:.....
Gee, Nessie, do ya' mean that you've never heard of those guys? For all you know they could just be some street bums hitting on you for some spare change. You really didn't know that they are all multilingual, have attended universities and have published books? Suuuure, Nessie, I believe that. If you want "evidence" simply type their names one at a time into your search bar. Maybe you haven't heard of them but there are hundreds of thousands who have. Arthur Butz is a tenured professor at Northwestern University, school of Engineering. Butz was the guy who gave you hoaxers your first big kick in the goolies with his book, "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century."

Of course your claim that you don't know nothin' about those guys or what they've done is pure smoke and bullshit. There are plenty of academics who agree with me both publicly and in private opinion. Like most of your failures to answer even the most reasonable question or statement of fact, "strawman" is just another of your patented weasel dodges. Sorry, Nessie, you lose again.
So Butz is an electrical engineer who wrote a history of the Holocaust. It is outwith his field of expertise. The rest, I see you have no answers. So my point stands, there are no academics working in their field of expertise who have become denier/revisionists.
So, it's verboten for Dr. Butz to write a book concerning the holocaust because he's an engineer but it's perfectly acceptable for Jean-Claude Pressac, a pharmacist, to write a history of the holyhoax. Uh-huh, I suppose that represents perfect logic to a hoaxer. Just curious but are you actually claiming that neither Mattogno, Kues or Graf are qualified to write about the holyhoax? I suppose that since Graf was forced to flee his native Switzerland due to Jew persecution that disqualifies him from being considered a academic. More hoaxer logic. You hoaxers persecute, harass and hound any revisionist from an academic position and then say, "See, he isn't an academic (anymore)." You people are truly despicable.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests