Why not denier ?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3336
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Why not denier ?

Postby Hektor » 2 years 1 month ago (Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:19 pm)

cold beer wrote:I'm not a denier, I'm a rational observer reaching logical conclusions based on physical evidence or lack thereof


Exactly. And then there is good evidence that interested groups were pushing an agenda with Holocaust claims, for example.
cold beer wrote:Or if you want to go by way of an example:
When james Comey is asked if Clinton turned over all work related emails, he doesn't say "I deny she turned over all state department emails".
He says "no, tens of thousands of emails were deleted"

Not sure, if that's a good example.
But I do for example don't believe that the earth is flat, based on evidences and lack of evidence for that thesis. Calling me a flat earth denier, would be rightfully perceived as odd.

cold beer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Why not denier ?

Postby cold beer » 2 years 1 month ago (Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:35 pm)

Hektor wrote:
cold beer wrote:I'm not a denier, I'm a rational observer reaching logical conclusions based on physical evidence or lack thereof


Exactly. And then there is good evidence that interested groups were pushing an agenda with Holocaust claims, for example.
cold beer wrote:Or if you want to go by way of an example:
When james Comey is asked if Clinton turned over all work related emails, he doesn't say "I deny she turned over all state department emails".
He says "no, tens of thousands of emails were deleted"

Not sure, if that's a good example.
But I do for example don't believe that the earth is flat, based on evidences and lack of evidence for that thesis. Calling me a flat earth denier, would be rightfully perceived as odd.


"Calling me a holocaust denier is like asking me if I deny the earth is flat"
That works.

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: Why not denier ?

Postby ginger » 2 years 1 month ago (Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:18 pm)

To kloker - you asked "I have a question to the revisionists, (I am a revisionist myself). Why are you so against being called holocaust-deniers. "

It is an unfair label - revisionists do not deny the Holocaust - and it is a term coined by Deborah Lipstadt who is a poor thinker and an agitator determined to repeat the atrocity stories of the Holocaust and remind the public of the atrocities.

There recently was a movie featuring Deborah Lipstadt - played by a great beauty, and David Irving, a "denier" - played by a plain-looking character actor - called Denial. The backdrop for the movie was the Mother of All Atrocities - exterminating people in gas chambers - with lots of emotion, bad science and lies, to ramp up the drama. Lipstadt is disgusting and the term "Holocaust Denial" is unfair and meant to chill debate about the technical problems with the Mother of All Atrocities.

CognitiveDestruction
Member
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Why not denier ?

Postby CognitiveDestruction » 2 years 1 month ago (Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:21 pm)

I'll divide it into 3 categories:

Revisionists are people who question and revise the official Holocaust narrative by examining the evidence and witnesses.
Skeptics are in the middle of the believer and revisionist categories.
Deniers are those who deny it all, dismissing certain documents and witnesses that revisionists believe to be legitimate as frauds.

Hopefully that helps. :)

cold beer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Why not denier ?

Postby cold beer » 2 years 1 month ago (Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:01 pm)

CognitiveDestruction wrote:I'll divide it into 3 categories:

Revisionists are people who question and revise the official Holocaust narrative by examining the evidence and witnesses.
Skeptics are in the middle of the believer and revisionist categories.
Deniers are those who deny it all, dismissing certain documents and witnesses that revisionists believe to be legitimate as frauds.

Hopefully that helps. :)


No I don't see anything "helpful" in this 3 category theory of yours.
There's no legitimate witnesses or documents to a 'holocaust', be it an original version or some kind of modified or scaled down version.
Either there was a policy to exterminate the jews or there wasn't.
Apart from individuals like Irving or Hunt who roll over, I'm not seeing non-believers split into two major factions (revisions & deniers) as you describe it.
Revisionists are the deniers insomuch as it's the label the left hangs on them.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9867
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Why not denier ?

Postby Hannover » 2 years 1 month ago (Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:42 pm)

CognitiveDestruction wrote:I'll divide it into 3 categories:

Revisionists are people who question and revise the official Holocaust narrative by examining the evidence and witnesses.
Skeptics are in the middle of the believer and revisionist categories.
Deniers are those who deny it all, dismissing certain documents and witnesses that revisionists believe to be legitimate as frauds.

Hopefully that helps.

CognitiveDestruction,

Per your 3rd point, why don't you start threads on each of your "certain documents and witnesses" that 'deniers deny'?

Assuming you think you can back that up.

- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 1 guest