Alex Jones...

[Bootstrap]

Of course it is not "heckling" to disagree with me. The whole point of having conversations is to get more than one point of view into the conversation. But you aren't even saying what you agree with or disagree with. Do you think the things I am saying about the Holocaust are true or false? If you disagree with my reasoning or my sources why?

Boot, I haven't disagreed with you on the Holocaust at all... are you confusing me with JohnHurt?

Josh, I think this is what I mean when I say I'm not even sure if you are following the conversation. I think you are instinctively going after other people instead. Here's where this particular discussion started:

using lazyman’s quick google copy+paste to criticize others’ dedicated physical search attempts is amusing.

This seems to be a regular contribution from some contributors in nearly every thread.

Now, I have actually done a fair amount of study of Nazis and the Holocaust since the 1970s, I have been to concentration camps, I have seen huge piles of teeth from which gold was extracted, I have looked at the accounting books saying how much profit could be earned per prisoner assuming they die within particular timeframes, I have read first-hand accounts, I have spent time in German libraries and talked to many, many people who lived through this time period in Germany. Including people who were Nazi soldiers. And I spent some time carefully putting together a response.

Temp was comparing John Hurt's effort to mine and Kens. You agreed with her. This was all about the Holocaust issue. I imagine you didn't even notice this, but jumped on a chance to promote something about me that I think is untrue.

[Bootstrap]

Boot, my biggest complaint with you in recent times has been that you'll often cut and paste GPT responses and then cite that as authoritative in a discussion. The rest of us have not agreed that ChatGPT is some kind of authority around here.

I always tell you when I am doing that. And it's not a large part of what I post. I don't think any of my responses in this thread are based on GPT, for instance.

[RZehr]

This is also relevant: The view of the Holocaust revisionists is, if you can prove something is wrong, then everything is wrong. It gives them an opportunity to cast doubt on the general historical veracity of the Holocaust.” We see this in conspiracy theories all the time. It doesn't matter how often the conspiracy theorist is wrong, they just change the subject and go off on something else. But if an authority is wrong about even one thing, my goodness, everything they have ever said is now wrong. Not just wrong, but an attempt to deceive. And "they" are doing it because they want to do something awful to "us".

Very well put.

[Josh]

Now, I have actually done a fair amount of study of Nazis and the Holocaust since the 1970s, I have been to concentration camps, I have seen huge piles of teeth from which gold was extracted, I have looked at the accounting books saying how much profit could be earned per prisoner assuming they die within particular timeframes, I have read first-hand accounts, I have spent time in German libraries and talked to many, many people who lived through this time period in Germany. Including people who were Nazi soldiers. And I spent some time carefully putting together a response.

That's nice that you consider yourself a bit of an expert there; how do you know JohnHurt doesn't also think he's put the same level of effort into these things? And why should we think you are more right than he is?

Whilst I disagree with John on a variety of topics, I have noticed that he actually has read primary sources, often at a deep level and a wide swathe of different origins, on a given topic. I personally am not interested in debating the Holocaust in a public forum, so I don't engage with him on that, but I do have a certain level of respect for his research into various topics, just like I do with yours.

[Bootstrap]

Josh, I think this is what I mean when I say I'm not even sure if you are following the conversation. I think you are instinctively going after other people instead. Here's where this particular discussion started:

using lazyman’s quick google copy+paste to criticize others’ dedicated physical search attempts is amusing.

This seems to be a regular contribution from some contributors in nearly every thread.

Now, I have actually done a fair amount of study of Nazis and the Holocaust since the 1970s, I have been to concentration camps, I have seen huge piles of teeth from which gold was extracted, I have looked at the accounting books saying how much profit could be earned per prisoner assuming they die within particular timeframes, I have read first-hand accounts, I have spent time in German libraries and talked to many, many people who lived through this time period in Germany. Including people who were Nazi soldiers. And I spent some time carefully putting together a response.

Temp was comparing John Hurt's effort to mine and Kens. You agreed with her. This was all about the Holocaust issue. I imagine you didn't even notice this, but jumped on a chance to promote something about me that I think is untrue.

I restored the bit you left out so people can see the context.

No, I'm not appealing to my expertise. I'm merely responding to the claim that I just did a quick Google and cut and paste. That was a false accusation. You notice I did not bring this up at all until that accusation was made, and even then, not immediately. When I respond to the accusation, you turn it into another personal jab, saying "that's nice that you consider yourself a bit of an expert here".

You should judge between our claims based on the evidence we give and on our reasoning. But to do that, you would have to focus on the claims, the evidence, and the reasoning. Follow the actual conversation and respond to what people are saying. And that's precisely what you are not doing. The heckling adds nothing to help people know what is true or false. It just keeps the fight going.

[Josh]

But no, I'm not appealing to my expertise. I'm merely responding to the claim that I just did a quick Google and cut and paste. That was a false accusation.

In that case, I believe you when you say it wasn't a lazy cut and paste. Unfortunately, having Google, etc. answers regurgitated here (and then cited as some kind of a formula) is so common it is understandable if myself and others assume you are doing that.

You should judge between our claims based on the evidence we give and on our reasoning. But to do that, you would have to focus on the claims, the evidence, and the reasoning. And that's precisely what you are not doing. The heckling adds nothing to help people know what is true or false. It just keeps the fight going.

I think discussing the epistemological chasm between us is important, because otherwise we can't really have any kind of "discussion"; any time we try to, my claims, evidence, and reasoning aren't good enough for you and attack those things, instead of debating with me on something's merits. I hope you can understand how completely frustrating that is.

[Ken]

Now, I have actually done a fair amount of study of Nazis and the Holocaust since the 1970s, I have been to concentration camps, I have seen huge piles of teeth from which gold was extracted, I have looked at the accounting books saying how much profit could be earned per prisoner assuming they die within particular timeframes, I have read first-hand accounts, I have spent time in German libraries and talked to many, many people who lived through this time period in Germany. Including people who were Nazi soldiers. And I spent some time carefully putting together a response.

That's nice that you consider yourself a bit of an expert there; how do you know JohnHurt doesn't also think he's put the same level of effort into these things? And why should we think you are more right than he is?

Whilst I disagree with John on a variety of topics, I have noticed that he actually has read primary sources, often at a deep level and a wide swathe of different origins, on a given topic. I personally am not interested in debating the Holocaust in a public forum, so I don't engage with him on that, but I do have a certain level of respect for his research into various topics, just like I do with yours.

I do not claim to be a Holocaust expert. But I am familiar with the general parameters of the event as described by the vast numbers of professional historians who have devoted their lives to studying and writing about the event. And who have subjected their findings to endless peer review and evaluation.

So when someone comes along with completely specious claims that minimize the whole event and attempt to erase from history the deaths and sufferings of millions, I have to ask why. What is the motivation here? If I were Jewish and had seen my whole extended family murdered through the deliberate attempt to erase my entire people from the face of the earth. Then I would be enraged and offended at such attempts to minimize or erase from history the suffering of my people. What is the point and motivation for people who attempt to do such things? To rehabilitate the Nazis and resurrect their ideology in modern form? And why do such attempts always land on the side of attempting to minimize Nazi atrocities. Why do we never hear amateur historians claiming. "Oh no, the professional historians got it wrong. It was really 10 million Jews that died in the Holocaust not 6 million." Curiously the amateur historians who criticize history always try to minimize the Holocaust and rehabilitate the Nazis. Why is that?

[Bootstrap]

To find the truth, you would also need to see the documents from the Construction of Auschwitz to verify if the numbers are correct on how many could be processed in the crematoria per day. I believe the numbers they have provided are wrong.

Here you go. Karl Bicshtoff was the chief of Auschwitz's construction, he sent this to Hans Kammler, a top ranking SS official in Berlin on June 28th. He says they can cremate 4,756 people in a 24 hour period. He lists the capacity of each oven in each cremation facility.

Incidentally, the Arolsen Archives are a good place to go for a lot of original sources on this topic.

[Josh]

So when someone comes along with completely specious claims that minimize the whole event and attempt to erase from history the deaths and sufferings of millions, I have to ask why. What is the motivation here? If I were Jewish and had seen my whole extended family murdered through the deliberate attempt to erase my entire people from the face of the earth. Then I would be enraged and offended at such attempts to minimize or erase from history the suffering of my people. What is the point and motivation for people who attempt to do such things? To rehabilitate the Nazis and resurrect their ideology in modern form? And why do such attempts always land on the side of attempting to minimize Nazi atrocities. Why do we never hear amateur historians claiming. "Oh no, the professional historians got it wrong. It was really 10 million Jews that died in the Holocaust not 6 million." Curiously the amateur historians who criticize history always try to minimize the Holocaust and rehabilitate the Nazis. Why is that?

No idea. You'd have to ask someone who doesn't think that. I am not a Holocaust denier and I doubt temporal1 is either, but I'll let her speak for herself.

[ohio jones]

using lazyman’s quick google copy+paste to criticize others’ dedicated physical search attempts is amusing.

This seems to be a regular contribution from some contributors in nearly every thread.

I restored the bit you left out so people can see the context.

No, I'm not appealing to my expertise. I'm merely responding to the claim that I just did a quick Google and cut and paste.

I thought it was obvious from the context that she was talking about Ken. But I guess you can yelp if you feel targeted.