3 ms·

Excuse me for stating the obvious but [citation needed]. Apologies to good HNers for feeding the troll here, but I've always been curious about how holocaust d

Excuse me for stating the obvious but [citation needed]. Apologies to good HNers for feeding the troll here, but I've always been curious about how holocaust deniers could have the balls to carry through with their opinions despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

NuZZ 14y ago
One must also be open to the possibility that due to the Jews' disproportionately large influence on the media - in that they are more commonly know as to "control the media", that said Jews would propagate lies to forward their own agendas. I would argue that the holocaust has afforded the Jews enough to warrant motive. To say "it did not happen", though, I wouldn't take such a stance. I personally would dispute its scope, greatly, in regard to the specific slaughter of Jews, and more relevantly, the constant reminder (read: disproportionately, as mentioned by other commenters) to sympathize with them. Also, I'm with you on the [citation needed]. I've too little interest to contribute, myself.
boboblong 14y ago
The burden of proof does not lie on him. There is a stunning lack of hard evidence that the holocaust took place as we're told it did. Whenever you ask for hard evidence, you're given the same run-around. I'd be happy with any of the following: 1. The remains. When you ask about this, you're first told that the bodies were cremated. The extremely implausible logistics of this aside, cremation leaves behind a significant amount of remains that would not have decomposed yet. The next line of defense is that exhumation violates Jewish law. Well, you know what? Too bad. Religious law may be violated in the course of a murder investigation. 3. Millions of birth certificates with no corresponding death certificates. 2. Records of who was gassed that can be corroborated. I'm aware that the Nazis kept records, but the records that people come up with when I ask for this are, at best, lists of people who have died of typhus or starvation. If I press, the defense becomes, "Well, why would they incriminate themselves?" Well, I don't know, but as far as I'm concerned this is a murder trial, and it's innocent until proven guilty. I've had this discussion online half a dozen times and no one has ever provided any of these three things.

NuZZ 14y ago

One must also be open to the possibility that due to the Jews' disproportionately large influence on the media - in that they are more commonly know as to "control the media", that said Jews would propagate lies to forward their own agendas. I would argue that the holocaust has afforded the Jews enough to warrant motive. To say "it did not happen", though, I wouldn't take such a stance. I personally would dispute its scope, greatly, in regard to the specific slaughter of Jews, and more relevantly, the constant reminder (read: disproportionately, as mentioned by other commenters) to sympathize with them. Also, I'm with you on the [citation needed]. I've too little interest to contribute, myself.

boboblong 14y ago

The burden of proof does not lie on him. There is a stunning lack of hard evidence that the holocaust took place as we're told it did. Whenever you ask for hard evidence, you're given the same run-around. I'd be happy with any of the following: 1. The remains. When you ask about this, you're first told that the bodies were cremated. The extremely implausible logistics of this aside, cremation leaves behind a significant amount of remains that would not have decomposed yet. The next line of defense is that exhumation violates Jewish law. Well, you know what? Too bad. Religious law may be violated in the course of a murder investigation. 3. Millions of birth certificates with no corresponding death certificates. 2. Records of who was gassed that can be corroborated. I'm aware that the Nazis kept records, but the records that people come up with when I ask for this are, at best, lists of people who have died of typhus or starvation. If I press, the defense becomes, "Well, why would they incriminate themselves?" Well, I don't know, but as far as I'm concerned this is a murder trial, and it's innocent until proven guilty. I've had this discussion online half a dozen times and no one has ever provided any of these three things.