The Holocaust
- Thread starter KRASHED
- Start date
bobross
Member
First off let me say I believe the Holocaust happened, maybe not to the extreme of statistical numbers I don't know. It was a horrible genocide and sickens me to think people deny it and was I in no way defending what the deniers say. I was just pointing out some philosophy
Ok...I wouldn't say that i pulled the definition of "proven" to the absolute extreme. Proven means: established beyond doubt, or unfalsifiable. Meaning that evidence found in all universes, situations, environments, and variables in every possible account will show the hypothesis true. I don't think this is pulling the definition far from its intended meaning
Example: Newton's Third law - "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Now this may be true every time an experiment has been done before but what if one experiment falsifies this theory. Things can easily be proven wrong, but not true.
And saying that using the scientific method to describe this means that the experiment (proving the holocaust) means that the experiment has to be falsifiable. There is a line, maybe-it fine, between science and non-science
Ok...I wouldn't say that i pulled the definition of "proven" to the absolute extreme. Proven means: established beyond doubt, or unfalsifiable. Meaning that evidence found in all universes, situations, environments, and variables in every possible account will show the hypothesis true. I don't think this is pulling the definition far from its intended meaning
Example: Newton's Third law - "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Now this may be true every time an experiment has been done before but what if one experiment falsifies this theory. Things can easily be proven wrong, but not true.
And saying that using the scientific method to describe this means that the experiment (proving the holocaust) means that the experiment has to be falsifiable. There is a line, maybe-it fine, between science and non-science
almostaskier
Active member
I just ate a sandwich.
I know this because the sandwich was physically observed, it fit the definition of a sandwich, other people saw this same sandwich and can testify that it was indeed a sandwich, they also observed the act of me ingesting it, and as such I "ate" this sandwich. It is no longer here, if we were to record the event we would have proof that it happened, and there is going to be one messy clue as to whether or not that sandwich was ingested in a few hours time.
There is a difference between an event that has transpired and the proof of its occurrence as opposed to predicting if all events ever will fall under the roof of a "law".
The Holocaust happened, it is not a case of an experimental process that must be repeatable, it is a historical event that transpired with enough evidence to prove that it happened. There is no "law" that must be brought into any of it, no hypothesis, no nothing.
I know this because the sandwich was physically observed, it fit the definition of a sandwich, other people saw this same sandwich and can testify that it was indeed a sandwich, they also observed the act of me ingesting it, and as such I "ate" this sandwich. It is no longer here, if we were to record the event we would have proof that it happened, and there is going to be one messy clue as to whether or not that sandwich was ingested in a few hours time.
There is a difference between an event that has transpired and the proof of its occurrence as opposed to predicting if all events ever will fall under the roof of a "law".
The Holocaust happened, it is not a case of an experimental process that must be repeatable, it is a historical event that transpired with enough evidence to prove that it happened. There is no "law" that must be brought into any of it, no hypothesis, no nothing.
ISkiSwitch
Active member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
Doing that kind of stuff to unwilling prisoners isn't exactly genocide, but it is wrong. Maybe the Holocaust is exaggerated, but millions still died in those camps and many were pretty gruesome deaths. That's enough proof for anyone to admit it happened.
Doing that kind of stuff to unwilling prisoners isn't exactly genocide, but it is wrong. Maybe the Holocaust is exaggerated, but millions still died in those camps and many were pretty gruesome deaths. That's enough proof for anyone to admit it happened.
bobross
Member
Yes you did eat the sandwich, but it can't be proven indefinitely that you actually did.
On the topic of eyewitness and observations.:
Take Aristotle, well educated philosopher scientist, and take Einstein, another well educated philosopher scientist, both geniuses. Have them watch the same sun set, at the same time, next to each other. What does each one observe and witness.
Aristotle sees the sun setting as the sun revolves around the earth, he believed in a geocentric earth. Einstein sees the sun set as the earth revolves around the sun, had the now common belief of a heliocentric universe. Both believe they are correct and for their time both had indisputable proof that they were correct. They both saw the same thing but they did not process and observe the same thing.
And to be a true observation the observer has to be completely objective. Observation is used to help falsify or validate a theory but can not be the sole evidence for "proving" it. There is a biased in all observation no matter how minuscule. You would have to eat that sandwich in every possible situation imaginable for it to be proven that you actually ate it.
On the topic of eyewitness and observations.:
Take Aristotle, well educated philosopher scientist, and take Einstein, another well educated philosopher scientist, both geniuses. Have them watch the same sun set, at the same time, next to each other. What does each one observe and witness.
Aristotle sees the sun setting as the sun revolves around the earth, he believed in a geocentric earth. Einstein sees the sun set as the earth revolves around the sun, had the now common belief of a heliocentric universe. Both believe they are correct and for their time both had indisputable proof that they were correct. They both saw the same thing but they did not process and observe the same thing.
And to be a true observation the observer has to be completely objective. Observation is used to help falsify or validate a theory but can not be the sole evidence for "proving" it. There is a biased in all observation no matter how minuscule. You would have to eat that sandwich in every possible situation imaginable for it to be proven that you actually ate it.
Quinny
Active member
Again, you are applying the scientific method to history with doesn't inherently work because, at Patty puts it, history is very commonly "not a case of an experimental process that must be repeatable."
Now there is something to be said about different accounts disagreeing on a single event. Written history is an interpretation of actual events that occurred. The holocaust happened, and there is a substantial amount of personal accounts, physical evidence, and documented evidence that supports it's size and scope. In a court of law, proof generally puts something beyond a reasonable doubt, not to an infallible conclusion.
Now there is something to be said about different accounts disagreeing on a single event. Written history is an interpretation of actual events that occurred. The holocaust happened, and there is a substantial amount of personal accounts, physical evidence, and documented evidence that supports it's size and scope. In a court of law, proof generally puts something beyond a reasonable doubt, not to an infallible conclusion.
my grandfather opened some camps at the liberation.
he said it was the worst thing he ever saw.
it makes me sick to hear some kid like icepointa talking shit when they blatently dont knwo what they are talking about.
ho old are you ? 13 y old ? go back to your high school debate club, but please dont talk shit on the internet.
100 000 death on the holocaust ???
that was the worst insult i ever heard toward the MILLIONS of people who died there.
if they weren t dead dont you think they would be here ? what did they do, they hide some jews and said "hey let s fake some more victims !!! "
maybe one day you ll learn about real history, and will stop believe every video you see on the internet.
stop talking shit icepointa.
bobross
Member
I agree with you about the definition of "proof" in the legal sense. I also agree with you that there is a huge amount of evidence "proving" (in the legal sense) that the holocaust happened. I also agree that anyone that denies the existence of the holocaust is looking at the evidence with complete bias. There is so much evidence that the holocaust happened, this is not what I'm discussing. There is easily enough evidence, pictures, videos, primary sources, and historical documents that puts into the category of true or "proven" even to the point of an almost infallible conclusion, way past the point of reasonable doubt. All I am saying is that, just like any other fact out there, one piece of concrete, solid, true evidence found can invalidate this claim, just like any other claim. There is no evidence of this now and probably never will be but there still is a possibility.
Just take it to heart that I am not trying to apply this to the Holocaust, this idea just came up in the topic of the Holocaust and it could be applied to pretty much any other aspect of life. Nothing is always true, always definite, always right. There is always the possibility that some where, on our planet, on another planet, anywhere that could change even the most accepted laws and facts, such as gravity, newton's laws, or anything for that matter
Finally, thank you for having an intellectual conversation with me and not resulting to an argument. I understand where you are coming from and I hope you can see my side of it too.
Just take it to heart that I am not trying to apply this to the Holocaust, this idea just came up in the topic of the Holocaust and it could be applied to pretty much any other aspect of life. Nothing is always true, always definite, always right. There is always the possibility that some where, on our planet, on another planet, anywhere that could change even the most accepted laws and facts, such as gravity, newton's laws, or anything for that matter
Finally, thank you for having an intellectual conversation with me and not resulting to an argument. I understand where you are coming from and I hope you can see my side of it too.
first off let me say that i believe that it happened for sure. to the numbers that were recorded, i would say definately close at least. but i can also see how there would be skepticism, but it only holds water to a certain extent and is not strong enough to deny the event. but thats all icepointa was stating, was the skeptics of the event, so to say he is "talking shit" is very different then what he is doing.
pmills
Active member
what?
you're saying that there is solid true evidence for the holocaust and that there might be solid true evidnce to prove that it didn't happen.
no.
if you have solid true evidence proving something -- you know that there isn't something out there that isn't going to change the truth value of whatever thing. by the fact that you have P and you know P to be absolutely true, then you know beyond a doubt that -P does not exist.
you're saying that there is solid true evidence for the holocaust and that there might be solid true evidnce to prove that it didn't happen.
no.
if you have solid true evidence proving something -- you know that there isn't something out there that isn't going to change the truth value of whatever thing. by the fact that you have P and you know P to be absolutely true, then you know beyond a doubt that -P does not exist.
bobross
Member
So before you make a comment like that maybe you should read the whole conversation between me, Quinney, and almostaskier. I was just bringing up a discussion on the philosophy of proving anything. Read all of mine and their posts and you might actually understand what the excahnge was about.
almostaskier
Active member
Then why even agree?
The Einstein and Aristotle analogy is a false one, because it lends itself to their scientific interpretation of an event after it transpired, not the actuality of the event happening. They aren't arguing that the sun did in fact set, but how.
Your scientific line of reasoning for the incapability to prove something absolutely only works within a framework of someone trying to prove how or why something happens, and attempting to predict every single outcome via experiment.
In the case of the Holocaust, indeed any historical event, this reasoning does not apply, because the event transpired, and the absolute conclusion to the narrative has been reached, because this event occurred outside of any sort of experimental arena.
I do not have to eat the sandwich under all circumstances to prove I ate it, see here the single, unique occasion wherein this event occurred yields the fact that i ate the sandwich.
There is not any amount of evidence to ultimately disprove through experiment that the Holocaust did not happen, because the historical aspect of the story lies outside of repeatable form.
The Einstein and Aristotle analogy is a false one, because it lends itself to their scientific interpretation of an event after it transpired, not the actuality of the event happening. They aren't arguing that the sun did in fact set, but how.
Your scientific line of reasoning for the incapability to prove something absolutely only works within a framework of someone trying to prove how or why something happens, and attempting to predict every single outcome via experiment.
In the case of the Holocaust, indeed any historical event, this reasoning does not apply, because the event transpired, and the absolute conclusion to the narrative has been reached, because this event occurred outside of any sort of experimental arena.
I do not have to eat the sandwich under all circumstances to prove I ate it, see here the single, unique occasion wherein this event occurred yields the fact that i ate the sandwich.
There is not any amount of evidence to ultimately disprove through experiment that the Holocaust did not happen, because the historical aspect of the story lies outside of repeatable form.
IcePointa
Active member
Were Jews oppressed in Nazi Germany? Hell yes, along with most other non-arian Germans. But to think that the Holocaust story isn't played up and exagerated is to be ignorant to the nature of who was disseminating information at the end of the war.
Both sides had refined propaganda techniques throughout the war. The Allies won so the Allied propaganda machine moves in to characterize the war. The Axis would have done the same if they won.
Allies win: German treatment of Jews is played up.
Axis wins: Russian treatment of their own people and POWs is played up/American treatment of Japenese
Historically, especiialy in a total conflict of this nature in which the entire infastructure of the loser and its allies are incapacitated, the history is written by the victors and inherently skewed to demonize the losers while trumping up their own righteousness. What makes you think WWII is so different?
We hear about the Holocaust and hear that 6 million Jews died, even mostly ignoring the 6 million non-Jews that died as well for some reason. Then we don't even bother to come up with a realistic estimate of the total death toll from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks. People are still dieing today from the effects of the blast.
But you're labeled an antisemite if you come to the logical conclusion that the atrocities commited by the destroyed Axis are trumped up and exagerated while the atrocities of the victorious Allies are played down.
Nonetheless more actual bodies were recovered from the nuclear explosions than from the "death camps".
Basically any Jew who was living in Germany at the last census before the war, then not living in Germany after the war, is assumed to have died in a death camp. But why would the allies make an effort to account for those who might have been civilian casualties of allied bombs?
Did anyone think that many would have left the country and become refuges in another, without stopping to sign out at the border? Mexicans are pretty fucking good at it, and Jews had more incentive to get out of their country than the Mexicans do.
Both sides had refined propaganda techniques throughout the war. The Allies won so the Allied propaganda machine moves in to characterize the war. The Axis would have done the same if they won.
Allies win: German treatment of Jews is played up.
Axis wins: Russian treatment of their own people and POWs is played up/American treatment of Japenese
Historically, especiialy in a total conflict of this nature in which the entire infastructure of the loser and its allies are incapacitated, the history is written by the victors and inherently skewed to demonize the losers while trumping up their own righteousness. What makes you think WWII is so different?
We hear about the Holocaust and hear that 6 million Jews died, even mostly ignoring the 6 million non-Jews that died as well for some reason. Then we don't even bother to come up with a realistic estimate of the total death toll from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks. People are still dieing today from the effects of the blast.
But you're labeled an antisemite if you come to the logical conclusion that the atrocities commited by the destroyed Axis are trumped up and exagerated while the atrocities of the victorious Allies are played down.
Nonetheless more actual bodies were recovered from the nuclear explosions than from the "death camps".
Basically any Jew who was living in Germany at the last census before the war, then not living in Germany after the war, is assumed to have died in a death camp. But why would the allies make an effort to account for those who might have been civilian casualties of allied bombs?
Did anyone think that many would have left the country and become refuges in another, without stopping to sign out at the border? Mexicans are pretty fucking good at it, and Jews had more incentive to get out of their country than the Mexicans do.
alaskakid
Active member
^ Even IF what you say is true, the amount of people killed by allied bombs or who ran away or etc would only make a tiny fraction of 6 million. The number is not going to be drastically affected if what you said happened.
This thread is rediculous though, it leaves my mind how one could not believe in the numbers of the Holocaust. It seems as though you WANT to not believe in it. Your using every last excuse to try and negate the facts.
This thread is rediculous though, it leaves my mind how one could not believe in the numbers of the Holocaust. It seems as though you WANT to not believe in it. Your using every last excuse to try and negate the facts.
Skierguy1234
Active member
Skierguy1234
Active member
^
Skierguy1234
Active member
i quit.
jack.whelan
Active member
just read this whole thread, and it is by far the most interested i have ever been on NS. the arguments were thought out, and there was a surprisingly small amount of hate. anyone who told icepointa to fuck off, or an antisemite, is ignorant. although i am still not entirely sure of icepointa's own views, i think he played the part of the other side very well, his arguments were the most compelling, and the most objective.
there will always be conspiracy theorists, and i feel it essential that the theories are discussed and rebutted, otherwise there is always doubt, and doubt breeds more conspiracy. take 9/11 for example, watch loose change or something like that and it makes you think. then read the rebuttle, and all of a sudden, you realise that the film maker was an amateur without the necessary skills and knowledge to really PROVE that 9/11 was false.
there will always be conspiracy theorists, and i feel it essential that the theories are discussed and rebutted, otherwise there is always doubt, and doubt breeds more conspiracy. take 9/11 for example, watch loose change or something like that and it makes you think. then read the rebuttle, and all of a sudden, you realise that the film maker was an amateur without the necessary skills and knowledge to really PROVE that 9/11 was false.
blindside
Active member
As i have said before, my grandparents are all survivors. If you don't want to agree about how many Jews were killed, simply look at the percentage of Jews that were. Icepointa refuses to accept the figure of approximately six million, fine, but you cannot deny the fact that the semitic population of Europe after the holocaust was reduced to practically none. Even if the nazis didn't kill six million jews, they managed to remove the majority of them and that is what needs to be understood. For example, In Poland alone there were approximately 3 300 000 Jews accounted for before WWII. Afterwards, only 300 000 remained. That is 90% of the Jewish population exterminated in a single country. The numbers are irrelevant, what is relevant is that the entire Jewish population of Eurasia was nearly eliminated.