Saturday, May 06, 2017

Busted: Jürgen Graf caught lying. Again.

Author: Sergey Romanov
That Jürgen Graf is a discredited liar has been established long ago. See e.g. the articles "Jürgen Graf is a Liar", "He sure is".

As I mentioned in the postings "Deniers on Sonderkommando 1005" (published in 2006) and "Once More, With Feeling: Deniers And Aktion 1005, 10 Years Later" (2016 with several 2017 updates), Mattogno and Graf told an untruth about there being no documentary evidence for Aktion 1005.

Whether or not this untruth was deliberate or a result of the fraudulently ignorant pseudoscholarship is now less relevant, since in 2011 Graf published an article "The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of a Scholar" (about Christian Lindtner, a former denier who saw through the dishonesty of the denier dogma) in which he wrote about Jens Hoffmann's fine book about Aktion 1005:
It suffices to read Jens Hoffmann’s book about the "Aktion 1005”[15] to realize that the whole tale is exclusively based on "eyewitness evidence”, "confessions” and post-war trials where such "eyewitness evidence” and "confessions” formed the sole basis of the accusation.
This is however a blatant lie since Hoffmann cited two German wartime documents mentioning Aktion 1005, both cited by me here.

Fast forward to February 2017, when the fourth (!) revised edition of Jürgen Graf's books Der Holocaust. Die Argumente appeared (Graf wrote an introductory note on 03.02.2017). In it on pp. 104-5 he calls Aktion 1005 "mythical", refers to his and Mattogno's Treblinka book (whose treatment of this particular issue was debunked in 2006, not to mention the 2016 update, see links above), and repeats the above cited sentence about the history of the operation being based solely on witnesses and court acts, referring specifically to Hoffmann's book:
Dass die ganze Geschichte von der “Aktion 1005” ausschließlich auf “Augenzeugenberichten” und “Tätergeständnisse” sowie auf Gerichtsakten fußt, bei denen solche Zeugenaussagen und Geständnisse das einzige Beweismaterial bildeten, geht aus dem anno 2008 erschienenen Buch eines Jens Hoffmann eindeutig hervor.295
295 Jens Hoffmann, “Das kann man nicht erzählen.” ‘Aktion 1005.’ Wie die Nazis die Spuren ihrer Massenmorde in Osteuropa beseitigten, Hamburg 2008. 
Graf should know full well about our refutation of this claim and knows full well about the fact that Hoffman's book cited two German wartime documents mentioning Aktion 1005 and that Shmuel Spector's article quoted one such document.

Jürgen Graf is a proven liar.

231 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 231 of 231
Sergey Romanov said...

> Where is your evidence that it is legitimate backed by the evidence FOR the graves themselves?

The cumulative documentary and testimonial evidence is sufficient evidence.

> So the testimony is does not converge towards one conclusion (i.e. Holocaust happened).

It does. And it has nothing to do with general consensus.

> How many bodies were exhumed again? How many are claimed?

Irrelevant for the issue of historicity.

> "I'm not interested in the black death issue. Answer my *specific* questions:"

Answer my *specific* questions. I'm waiting.

"- the historicity of Julius Caesar and of his murder (we don't have the body to establish either);
- Stalin's mass killings (we don't have the absolute majority of bodies and have to rely on documents and other evidence);

Or do you reject them too?"

> Threats are not arguments

Nobody claimed otherwise. Strawman fallacy.

You've been warned.

> but at this point, intellectual honesty is a far shot.

True, you have none.

> Source does not decide truth, content does.

Actually source does decide truth along with content.

> That's on your shoulders to prove, you're the one claiming millions died.

Has been proven.

> Estimations are not accurate.

So you think Stalin didn't kill anyone? (Or, at most, the Katyn Poles?)

> Check the other thread

Nope. Shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim.

> he says you said it.

Proof?

> Great, so your testimony is invalid because there is not a consensus on what is accepted.

Testimony has nothing to do with consensus.

> So on what basis can we know the documents' claims are valid?

Due to the source of the documents.

> Where is the evidence for it?

The documents are the evidence.

> How many bodies are exhumed? How many are claimed?

The question is irrelevant to the issue of historicity if other sufficient evidence has been presented.

> Notice how I put effort into my posts

You don't.

> and describe your fallacious line of reasoning before arriving at the conclusion?

You haven't found a single fallacy in any of my comments, your comments are full of fallacies.

> It doesn't matter if the documents were plagiarized (forgeries) or if they came from source y instead of x: what matters is if there is evidence for the assertions made.

The documents are the evidence.

> How many bodies are exhumed? How many are claimed?

The question is irrelevant to the issue of historicity if other sufficient evidence has been presented.

> This blogpost because Graf lied about Soviet intervention, as if the source matters.

Graf lying obviously matters.

> Then the absence of evidence does not equate to the presence of evidence to make outlandish claims that aren't corroborated by fact.

So you think Stalin didn't kill anyone? (Or, at most, the Katyn Poles?)

Sergey Romanov said...

> How many were exhumed, then?

The question is irrelevant to the issue of historicity if other sufficient evidence has been presented.

> We're doing lazy one sentences, so I'll follow suit.

I'm responding in this way because you are actually not responsive to what I write. You simply repeat same things again and again.

At some point your comments will be deleted as spam though, if you don't stop this routine.

> So a non-zero figure exists to be analyzed.

Sure. But just because nobody is in hurry to analyze it doesn't mean that the bodies don't exist.

> So where are the bodies? Documents referencing mass graves, testimony referencing mass graves=meh, graves aren't important anymore.

Bodies are where they are supposed to be.

> You first have to find the corpses to substantiate the death toll, then work to "refute" it.

That's your claim, but you haven't substantiated it. You don't have to find corpses to substantiate the death toll.

And nice that you admitted that the Holocaust is falsifiable.

>> "In the second case you simply have absence of evidence which is not evidence of absence. Since there is *other* evidence, which is sufficient, we can still make truth-claims."
> How many bodies were exhumed, how many are claimed?

See, this is a good example. As usual, I make a coherent logical argument. You repeat by copy-pasting stuff.

> Yeah, trying to avoid genetic fallacies. Common sense is not as common as you think it is...

You obviously don't know what a genetic fallacy is. And obviously the sources matter.

Sergey Romanov said...

>> "Replication has nothing to do with truth. You can't replicate Julius Caesar or Stalin's mass murders."
> Anti-intellectualism at its finest.

See, I make a good point and instead of trying to tackle it you engage in insults.

> Burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Has been met.

> Quantity is not over quality, so the volume is irrelevant.

The evidence has great quality too, that you reject the evidence of such quantity and quality shows your aversion to it.

> Conflicting testimony sure is compelling.

Not sure what this has to do with anything written in this thread.

> It is precisely leaving it up to "wow, they aren't here anymore (indicating surprise), ergo they were 'x'" that is fallacious.

Strawman fallacy. Sudden disappearance of 800000 people who were last documented in a single camp requires explanation. The only explanation that is possible given everything we know is that they were murdered in Treblinka, since had they not been murdered there their fate would have been documented further. As anyone can see, this argument has nothing to do with your caricature.

> When one million people were living before a starvation, it would logically follow that they died in the starvation.

It wouldn't because they could have died a thousand different ways. Not something that can be said about the 800000 Jews transported to Treblinka, since their life record ends in that specific small spot on the map.

> Not an argument as you have no proof that I am a substance abuser,

I don't, beyond your posts looking like having been written by one, but then you have no proof that my reading comprehension skills are poor (esp. given they're pretty good), yet you made the claim, an what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

> like assuming my black death analogy was only exclusively about black death

I want you to explicitly say what you think about the existence and murder of Julius Caesar as well as about Stalin's megamurders.

What you will say will either refute the methodology you espouse vis a vis the Holocaust or will make you look ridiculous. Hence the avoidance.

> It really does seem that you don't know what a rhetorical statement is.

Desperate backpedaling is desperate.

> Deliberate obfuscation to make a point only illustrates your own aversion to actual evidence.

So far you are the only person in this thread to have rejected voluminous evidence of great quality, thus showing your aversion to evidence.

Sergey Romanov said...

Since Joseph simply repeats the same answered questions again and again, further comments will be deemed as spam UNLESS he addresses this specific issue:

"- the historicity of Julius Caesar and of his murder (we don't have the body to establish either);
- Stalin's mass killings (we don't have the absolute majority of bodies and have to rely on documents and other evidence);

Or do you reject them too?"

Sergey Romanov said...

Joseph throws the fallacy names around obviously not understanding what they mean:

The genetic fallacy:

"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context."

Example: "You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice."

In simple words, if the source, history or origin is irrelevant to the current meaning, there is a fallacy.

Since the source of the documents is obviously relevant to evaluating the documents (incl. the veracity of their contents), the suggestion that mentioning a source of a document constitutes a genetic fallacy is incorrect and betrays the lack of understanding of the term.

Argumentum ad populum, argument from consensus:

"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

"This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought. In the argumentum ad populum, the population's experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author"

Example: "Nine out of ten people in the United States claim this bill is a bad idea; therefore, this bill is bad for the people."

In simple words, if the relevant experience, expertise or authority of the group of people believing in something is not taken into account, then the size of the group does not matter and there is a fallacy.

Since when evaluating witness testimony we obviously do take the relevant experience of the people into account, the suggestion that the number of witnesses doesn't matter and constitutes an ad populum fallacy is incorrect and betrays the lack of understanding of the term.

Clearly Joseph doesn't have the first idea of what constitutes a logical fallacy and misuses these terms at every turn.

Nathan said...

200 posts in, mostly consisting of Joseph's gibberish and repitions of his same old same old bullshit. Yawn.

Joseph said...

"Nope, that wasn't your purpose at all as the reading of your statement shows."
Didn't know you can speak on behalf of people. If that's what your point has reached to, then you are really running out of material.
"Nobody claims that it is. Strawman fallacy."
So your testimony is thrown out because it doesn't converge on one accepted truth (i.e. not a consensus). Good that you admit that.
"A non sequitur fallacy - your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You can't show that it does."
Burden of proof is on you to prove the documents are truthful by actually finding what they reference. If you can't, then the documents are not truthful. If you never find God just because there are millions of documents referencing some deity, then he doesn't exist.
"Already answered."
Absence of evidence is not presence of evidence.
"No, just a statement of fact."
Working backwards from conclusion to evidence is not factual.
"You know nothing about the scientific method."
Alright, then replicate your results and stop making unfalsifiable statements (documents are true because documents are true, but there is no blood trail to actually prove them... but these people claim it happened, so...). Not an argument.

Joseph said...

"Non sequitur fallacy: your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Also this has nothing to do with argumentum ad populum."
So lots of people claiming something happened is not truth because they don't claim the same thing happened and there are not many of them claiming it to begin with.
"Not true."
Improve your reading comprehension, you used the same phrases. You said there were lots of "types of evidence". It's just documents referencing graves and people saying it happened. You can't even find the graves in question, let alone anybody who died as you described by the tolls.
"Strawman fallacy."
How many bodies were exhumed, how many are claimed?
"A non sequitur fallacy - your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You can't show that it does."
Shifting the burden of proof and presupposing documents prove themselves/are truthful from the get-go.
"Your aversion, I might add, towards sufficient voluminous evidence."
Again, valuing quantity over quality. Not an argument.
"No version of history is science."
Because your history cannot be replicated, only hearsay and estimations that are inflated.
"True, which means you haven't made a single argument in this thread."
Yet you can't find graves showing millions died. Burden of proof is not fulfilled by documents referencing 'x', but by proving the existence of 'x'. Just talking of it is not enough to prove it exists.

Joseph said...

"That's a preposterous claim."
I never asserted that it was British, improve your reading comprehension. Also, even if it was British, it wouldn't matter if the graves cannot be found.
"The documents are the evidence."
Referencing 'x' is not equivalent to proving 'x'. If you cannot find graves of millions, then a massive book speaking 'of' them is not enough to prove they exist in the physical world when they haven't even been verified in reality.
"Is what you do."
Intellectual dishonesty by quote-mining and taking quotes out of context. Include the full quote. Yet you claim to be rational, lol!
"The evidence has been presented."
Just because there are documents talking about mass Soviet graves doesn't mean they have been investigated and verified.
Evidence applies to all claims; you have presented evidence for reasonable suspicion, not proof of guilt by verifying the claims.
"Claims in documents are followed up all the time. E.g. sometimes a typo or a mistaken claim is found"
Lol, you refute yourself. If a type was found at it was actually one million dead, you would still need to have a standard of reference to operate from. How can you verify that it was one million if you can't even find the mass graves?
"No, since there is no sufficient evidence for Russel's teapot."
Analogies are not equivalences. Documents exist speaking of the teapot and people have verified that it exists by their testimony describing its features.

Joseph said...

"The cumulative documentary and testimonial evidence is sufficient evidence."
Exists for other claims that are not taken to be truthful.
"It does. And it has nothing to do with general consensus."
Admitting to conflicting testimony not reaching a consensus.
"Irrelevant for the issue of historicity."
Then the documents referencing the graves cannot be proven or disproven as there is no standard of reference to operate off of if any mistakes appear (worse yet, assuming everything is truthful without any investigation).
"Answer my *specific* questions. I'm waiting."
Already answered, improve your reading comprehension. Different time frames/eras, natural shortcomings, it's all estimations and not hard science, there have been investigative reports into the corpses of the dead to find disease confirmations.
"Or do you reject them too?""
It is a non-zero number, but the toll is estimated and not replicated, so it is contested.
"Nobody claimed otherwise. Strawman fallacy.

You've been warned."
Threats are not arguments, irrelevant to the issue at hand. Keep on acting emotional and not fulfilling the burden of proof, though.
"True, you have none."
"No, you!" Lol! Replicate your conclusions, then get back to me.
"Actually source does decide truth along with content."
Genetic fallacy.
Just because 'x' said it does not validate/invalidate the claim.
"Has been proven."
Estimations=/=proof.
"The question is irrelevant to the issue of historicity if other sufficient evidence has been presented."
See above.
"So you think Stalin didn't kill anyone? (Or, at most, the Katyn Poles?)"
How many bodies are claimed, how many exhumed?
"Nope. Shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim."
The other thread is the proof. Link so you can read: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24597325&postID=4609105784276546136&page=1&token=1494394498979

Joseph said...

"Proof?"
Link posted.
"Testimony has nothing to do with consensus."
Admitting no general consensus is reached with the testimony, so the testimony is thrown out.
"You haven't found a single fallacy in any of my comments, your comments are full of fallacies."
Proof?
"The documents are the evidence."
Documents are not self-evident. Unfalsifiable claim.
"Due to the source of the documents."
Genetic fallacy.
"The question is irrelevant to the issue of historicity if other sufficient evidence has been presented."
Documents and testimony referencing mass graves are not taken as truth if no mass graves proving millions are ever found.
"You don't."
You don't isn't effort. I'm matching your pace, in case you haven't noticed.
"The documents are the evidence."
Documents are not self-evident.
"Graf lying obviously matters."
Kind of like your genetic fallacies.

Joseph said...

"The question is irrelevant to the issue of historicity if other sufficient evidence has been presented."
Documents and testimony referencing mass graves are not taken as truth if no mass graves proving millions are ever found.
"I'm responding in this way because you are actually not responsive to what I write. You simply repeat same things again and again."
Pot calling the kettle black.
"At some point your comments will be deleted as spam though, if you don't stop this routine."
Then answer the question: how many mass graves proving that millions died have been uncovered? Documents talking of mass graves and people claiming they saw them do not make it truthful, by default. If no investigations have been launched to find what they are talking about, then your claim has no evidence to back it up and is dismissed.
"Sure. But just because nobody is in hurry to analyze it doesn't mean that the bodies don't exist."
True, but we cannot assume that they do exist to be disproven if no investigation confirms their existence to begin with.
"Bodies are where they are supposed to be."
Which is?
"That's your claim, but you haven't substantiated it. You don't have to find corpses to substantiate the death toll."
Yes you do. Bodies are the evidence, if you can't find ten million but only one million, you can't claim what you haven't found.
"See, this is a good example. As usual, I make a coherent logical argument. You repeat by copy-pasting stuff."
Other evidence that references what? Find the 'x' in question; documents talking of it are not enough to prove it actually exists, otherwise God exists because there are more documents speaking about him than there are for mass graves.
"You obviously don't know what a genetic fallacy is. And obviously the sources matter."
Genetic fallacy. Doesn't matter if 'x' or 'y' claims something, but only of the content of the claim.

Joseph said...

"See, I make a good point and instead of trying to tackle it you engage in insults."
You misinterpreted my point, I wasn't asking to replicate the bodies being killed, but the results. Replicate the investigation by launching it again. Also, deliberately obfuscating different eras with one another and assuming natural shortcomings don't exist isn't an argument. Stalin's mass graves, if not found, cannot be said to exist just because people claim to have seen it or just because Stalin discussed them. Anytime anybody speaks of something to another person, it is not proven to be truthful unless you can find what they are referencing.
"Has been met."
Yet you can't find any of the mass graves you mention.
"The evidence has great quality too, that you reject the evidence of such quantity and quality shows your aversion to it."
Earlier you mentioned there was no general consensus. Your testimony is already rendered untenable.
"Not sure what this has to do with anything written in this thread."
See above.
"Strawman fallacy. Sudden disappearance of 800000 people who were last documented in a single camp requires explanation. The only explanation that is possible given everything we know is that they were murdered in Treblinka, since had they not been murdered there their fate would have been documented further. As anyone can see, this argument has nothing to do with your caricature."
The only explanation that is needed is unfounded claims automatically assuming it was "my specific brand of execution". Disappearance=/=mass murder unless you can prove the mass graves you are talking about exist. Argument from silence fallacy.
"It wouldn't because they could have died a thousand different ways. Not something that can be said about the 800000 Jews transported to Treblinka, since their life record ends in that specific small spot on the map."
That was an example of the argument from silence fallacy.
"I don't, beyond your posts looking like having been written by one, but then you have no proof that my reading comprehension skills are poor (esp. given they're pretty good), yet you made the claim, an what's good for the gander is good for the goose."
Yet you deliberately misrepresent my black death point as being exclusive to that one topic.
"I want you to explicitly say what you think about the existence and murder of Julius Caesar as well as about Stalin's megamurders."
Sure. For Caesar, it's all estimations. The natural shortcomings of human civilization thousands of years ago explain the natural limitations of record-keeping and gathering information. Lots of people claiming Caesar did 'x' isn't enough proof for his guilt, but at the time, there is nothing better. The bodies are long gone. Most of the evidence is hearsay as worldwide communication wasn't exactly mastered at that point, so discussing information is not always accurate. For Stalin, we did have that capability. So it is held to the highest level of evidence required. If millions are said to have perished, where are their bodies. If you can find thousands, the claim is true for thousands. But not millions.

Joseph said...

"Desperate backpedaling is desperate."
Rhetorical statements are not overt assertions. They are rhetorical. If I say "assume a court follows 'x'", that does not mean I am espousing for a court to be 'x', but putting forward a rhetorical statement. But keep obfuscating the point, it won't make your lack of evidence any less apparent.
"So far you are the only person in this thread to have rejected voluminous evidence of great quality, thus showing your aversion to evidence."
Quality over quantity.
The genetic fallacy:
This document is German? Well, the Germans claimed it so it must be truth.
"Argumentum ad populum, argument from consensus:"
Most people believe that they saw this thing happen, it must be truth.
"Since when evaluating witness testimony we obviously do take the relevant experience of the people into account, the suggestion that the number of witnesses doesn't matter and constitutes an ad populum fallacy is incorrect and betrays the lack of understanding of the term."
What matters is the content of the claim put forth. If a witness says they have witnessed a murder, or many people say that they did, we don't take the fact that there are lots of them or just because they claim it (as a witness) to mean truth: we investigate the murder and compare what we find with what we saw to corroborate their claims.

Joseph said...

"200 posts in, mostly consisting of Joseph's gibberish and repitions of his same old same old bullshit. Yawn."
Come back when you can construct an argument. Your input is not really appreciated if you just complain with no proof and attack the tone over the point. It would help if you learned how to spell, too. It's "repetitions".

Nathan said...

-"No, since there is no sufficient evidence for Russel's teapot."
Analogies are not equivalences. Documents exist speaking of the teapot and people have verified that it exists by their testimony describing its features.-
We should add Russel's teapot to the list of concepts/theories the dick knows nothing about. I.e. It's a theory/analogy put forward by Bertrand Russel, and not a literal claim about a teapot floating in space. Thus, there are no "documents" that spoke about the teapot's existence, and no testimonies about it's existence.
And again, it's inane to compare mass murder and body cremation to Russel's teapot. The former occurs in the natural world, while the latter is intended to be an example of an unnatural claim. The evidence for the former (mass murder and cremation) is sufficient to prove them. In this case, what the Dick falsely equates to "Russel's teapot" has indeed been proven by various, different methods. The Dick missed Sergey's point.

Nathan said...

-Come back when you can construct an argument.-
Lol, Dick. You're not the boss of me, nor do you own the blog and dictate who can and can't comment. And it's obviously not intended to be an "argument"; it's an observation and a summary of the depth of your "contributions" to this "discussion": zero. It's nt addressed to you, and not everything has to be.

Nathan said...

-The genetic fallacy:

"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context."

Example: "You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice."

In simple words, if the source, history or origin is irrelevant to the current meaning, there is a fallacy.

Since the source of the documents is obviously relevant to evaluating the documents (incl. the veracity of their contents), the suggestion that mentioning a source of a document constitutes a genetic fallacy is incorrect and betrays the lack of understanding of the term.-

To add to Sergey's excellent illustration:

The so called "genetic fallacy" most often occurs in language, wherein people ignore the current or intended meaning of a word or words by citing a different or "original meaning". An easy example that's relevant is how Antisemites dodge accusations of "antisemitism": they mention that the term "semite" originally refers to either "Arabs" or semitic languages like Hebrew or Arabic, and since they don't hate Arabs, they can't be "antisemitic". This naturally ignores the fact that the modern and intended usage of the term "antisemitism" is "hatred of Jews", and moreover that the modern usage of the term was coined by an antisemite, Wilhelm Friedrich Marr, in the 1870s and was specifically intended by him to describe Jew hatred. This is the real meaning of the Genetic fallacy.

Obviously, people carrying out tasks recording their tasks cannot and does not compare to the examples Sergey and I have cited. Dick fails.

Sergey Romanov said...

Here is what I wanted to hear:

"Sure. For Caesar, it's all estimations. The natural shortcomings of human civilization thousands of years ago explain the natural limitations of record-keeping and gathering information. Lots of people claiming Caesar did 'x' isn't enough proof for his guilt, but at the time, there is nothing better. The bodies are long gone. Most of the evidence is hearsay as worldwide communication wasn't exactly mastered at that point, so discussing information is not always accurate. For Stalin, we did have that capability. So it is held to the highest level of evidence required. If millions are said to have perished, where are their bodies. If you can find thousands, the claim is true for thousands. But not millions."

So basically Joseph admits that he doesn't believe that Caesar existed, that he doesn't believe that Caesar was murdered and he doesn't believe that Stalin is responsible for thousands or millions deaths.

This is what Joseph's Holocaust-denying methodology leads to.

Since it leads to absurd conclusions, it can be discarded without further discussion.

Also, no sane and/or honest person espouses these positions. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Nathan said...

-So basically Joseph admits that he doesn't believe that Caesar existed, that he doesn't believe that Caesar was murdered and he doesn't believe that Stalin is responsible for thousands or millions deaths-
Not only that, it looks like he missed the point about Caesar, too. You asked him about Caesar's existence, and yet he babbles about "Lots of people claiming Caesar did 'x' isn't enough proof for his guilt, ". He didn't even bother to respond to the question, just like the original blog post. Lmao

Sergey Romanov said...

> You asked him about Caesar's existence


Exactly, so if he will claim now that he didn't address Caesar's existence in that comment that will mean he did not fulfill the clear condition I have set for his comments to be posted and they will have to be deleted as spam. We'll see.

Negroid said...

"So basically Joseph admits that he doesn't believe that Caesar existed, that he doesn't believe that Caesar was murdered and he doesn't believe that Stalin is responsible for thousands or millions deaths.

This is what Joseph's Holocaust-denying methodology leads to.

Since it leads to absurd conclusions, it can be discarded without further discussion.

Also, no sane and/or honest person espouses these positions. Quod erat demonstrandum."
Improve your reading comprehension. Caesar existing is taken on the sole authority of the documents as there is no standard frame of reference. I clearly state the dichotomy between the deliberate obfuscation between eras (wherein their natural shortcomings of record-keeping and the sciences become apparent) and modern-era civilizations who are capable of launching full-scale investigations and have access to recording devices. We don't take the fact that the Earth is flat by the mere authority of a space agency being a space agency: we take it as truth because there is evidence they directly observed the Earth and mathematically proved its shape, and continue to do so. Assertions of "we claim 'x'" means nothing. Just passing around documents of NASA claiming the Earth is round (assuming NASA has not actually even gone to space, or anybody for that matter; this is equivalent to no mass exhumations to show what the documents and testimony is referencing) means nothing: it is only proven true by, say, physical evidence brought back from the Moon.
On what basis do you determine Stalin's guilt? What is your assertion: how many died, how, and when? Just acting upset when somebody asks for your evidence is not an argument, you should be able to defend your position when people ask for evidence.

Negroid said...

"Exactly, so if he will claim now that he didn't address Caesar's existence in that comment that will mean he did not fulfill the clear condition I have set for his comments to be posted and they will have to be deleted as spam. We'll see."
We can talk about existing of Caesar, too. What evidence is there that Caesar exists, given the natural shortcomings of the era in question (as you would be smart enough to not explicitly compare thousands of years ago to today). All we have to go off of are documents speaking about him, people stating he says things/existed, paintings of him (some after the fact, some at the time), and busts/other art. That's about all that comes to mind. We also have the fact that his grave exists. Excavating the site and analyzing the evidence (which we have located and examined, presumably) would yield many results. If, for example, we find evidence proving he was, say, Mongolian, then the hypothesis is refuted. We have no choice but to presume the documents and other references are proof of themselves, which is fallacious: something that I talked about in the black death example which you decided to ignore. They are all, like I said, estimations. Nothing actually provable. Documents talking about Caesar that are cited as proof of what they assert are circular arguments, but it is all we had at the time. But that is not the case now. Do you know how large a pile of one million bodies is? Given an area the size of Poland, six million people would yield a population density of around 19 people per square kilometer, and that's not counting the fact that, by your admission, the bodies were collectively killed. Should be easy to find what the documents are talking about.

Negroid said...

"Since it leads to absurd conclusions, it can be discarded without further discussion."
Refusing to engage is not an argument, you are willingly ceding your point by refusing to defend it. You ask me to prove Caesar's existence/Stalin's actions, I ask for your evidence to begin with. You drill down and I provide the burden of proof for you, describing the nature of the different eras and the shortcomings faced; concluding that we are limited to estimations and unfalsifiable assertions on one hand, and a willful, self-imposed limitation on the other.
Earlier I cited an archaeological investigation into Black Death victims wherein the scientists found evidence to support their claim regarding the nature of the disease. It was previously believed to be something else because of the leading opinion shifted that way and the available evidence documented it as such, but in the face of new evidence, the hypotheses are tested and summarily refuted. There is no concept above and beyond the necessity for evidence. Not the Holocaust, not Caesar, the Earth, God, or anything else.
When all you have for the Holocaust is testimony and documents talking about something that cannot be proven, then your hypothesis is curbed by the limitations of the available evidence and the shortcomings of the post-war period (the citation for the Soviet investigations has yet to be provided indicating the result of their examination of the mass graves; wonder if you will even read this and provide a source for your claims knowing you will refute the death toll) so it must be taken as such: limited evidence and assertions not grounded in physical evidence of what is being claimed (i.e. no blood trail).

Nathan said...

Lol! I take it back! "Joseph" was actually just another sockpuppet for "Negroid" the moron!

-An easy example that's relevant is how Antisemites dodge accusations of "antisemitism": they mention that the term "semite" originally refers to either "Arabs" or semitic languages like Hebrew or Arabic, and since they don't hate Arabs, they can't be "antisemitic". This naturally ignores the fact that the modern and intended usage of the term "antisemitism" is "hatred of Jews", and moreover that the modern usage of the term was coined by an antisemite, Wilhelm Friedrich Marr, in the 1870s and was specifically intended by him to describe Jew hatred. This is the real meaning of the Genetic fallacy."
Anti-semite isn't an argument. Racism is equal to power and prejudice. Jews cannot be racist against themselves. You have no basis to determine my ancestral heritage. Define semite, by the way. Or are we to just warp our definitions around your ad-homs?-
I wasn't calling you or anyone an antisemite, moron. I was using the example of how Jew hating idiots practice the Genetic fallacy (the actual genetic fallacy) by ignoring the intended, modern meaning of Antisemitism (as coined by Willhelm Friedrich Marr in 1878) by insisting on the "original", different meaning. You honestly have no right to whine about "reading comprehension", moron.

Nathan said...

Before Sergey probably bans your ass for sockpuppetry.

- Since it leads to absurd conclusions, it can be discarded without further discussion."
Refusing to engage is not an argument-

Actually, it is. This is a common, valid form of reasoning called Reducto ad Absurdum. Sergey demonstrated that your ridiculous assertions, assumptions and demands lead to an absurd, irrational and contradictory conclusion, therefore, they are false and invalid. This reasoning is a lot more accurate than your false assertions and labelling of "fallacies".

Negroid said...

"Lol! I take it back! "Joseph" was actually just another sockpuppet for "Negroid" the moron!"
Do you have any proof for your claims? Unless you dox me, which would be telling of your intellectual honesty and respect for opposition, then you have no evidence for your claims. Postulation is just the same as what you are claiming for the Holocaust. Estimations based on documentation not actually rooted in hard evidence, just circumstantial claims.
"Actually, it is. This is a common, valid form of reasoning called Reducto ad Absurdum."
Reducing the claim to something that is being misrepresented. The evidence can be uncovered to prove the existence of one man if we investigate the grave of Caesar. If we find information counter-intuitive/not aligned with the hypothesis to what is being claimed, then we discard the evidence. There are documents, busts, testimony (from speeches and whatnot) of Caesar's existence, but this relies on one single presumption: that the man was there in the flesh for it to happen. I've already discussed the limitations for recording evidence in that day and age, but deliberately obfuscating eras with one another is the only claim to a point you have. If the same technology existed, we would have video footage of him speaking, which would be enough. Just like all the video footage of the dead during the Holocaust is legitimate because the burden of proof would be on the person who says they are fake: the video is plenty of absolute direct evidence of... dead bodies (duh). The claims are proven directly. Not by "we claim to have recorded video" but the video itself (evidence, not assertions).
"I was using the example of how Jew hating idiots practice the Genetic fallacy (the actual genetic fallacy) by ignoring the intended, modern meaning of Antisemitism (as coined by Willhelm Friedrich Marr in 1878) by insisting on the "original", different meaning."
The original meaning, by definition, cannot be a different meaning. You are referencing a new word, then. Another off-shoot. Semite derives from the Semitic language family; if your phrase 'anti-semite' specifically references Jews, then it is an off-shoot of the phrase denoting the Semitic language. You have changed the definition to exclude the Semitic language and only include, say, people who speak Hebrew but not Arabic. Somebody who is anti-Germanic (from the linguistic sense) is not only against Germans (linguistically), but of the entire language tree.

Sergey Romanov said...

I cleaned up a couple of spam comments from "Negroid" (who has been banned here before) but left intact the comments dealing with:

- the existence of Caesar, his murder and Stalin's murders;
- Negroid's denial of Joseph being his sockpuppet even though in the comments above he clearly refers to Joseph's comments as his own.

Joseph-Negroid's disbelief in Caesar, his murder and Stalin's crimes shows what his methodology leads to. No further discussion is necessary.

Joseph-Negroid's denial that he is Joseph even though he is stating that he is both in the comments above ("I clearly state the dichotomy..." "You ask me to prove Caesar's existence/Stalin's actions...") shows that he is a sociopathic liar willing to say absolutely anything.

Since Joseph-Negroid has been permanently banned here before, and since he is reduced to repeating his assertions over and over again after being debunked on every single point (including his brazen misuse of terms like "genetic fallacy" and "argumentum ad populum", which he doesn't understand), these shall be his last comments here.

If you see more after this message, don't reply. The replies will be deleted along with the spam comments.

Sergey Romanov said...

I love how Negroid-Joseph continues to deny that he is one and the same individual in the comments now deleted as spam despite himself admitting to it. He should get psychiatric help asap.

Nathan said...

I also love how Joseph/Negroid now insists that Stalin didn't commit any crimes because of his insane standards....despite how in the last thread he derailed, he promoted the "Judeo Bolshevism" lie..which rests on the assumption that Stalin committed crimes and that Jews had a (exaggerated) role in them. The moron can't even keep his own stories straight.

Eric Danielski said...

„Günter Deckert: Jürgen Graf ist wieder in der Schweiz, da die SACHE verjährt ist.“

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1707583832868083&id=100008494470049&comment_id=1707618472864619&reply_comment_id=1707986432827823

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 231 of 231   Newer› Newest»