The Holocaust

This thread is absurd. I can't believe there is even any kind of debate here. People that don't believe the holocaust happened cannot be considered rational human beings. I mean, the blatant disregard for well documented historical evidence from multiple sources seems outlandish at best, just plain idiotic at worst.
 
exactly..... end of thread. there is nothing you can show us that can sway our views because we know that this actually happened.
 
anyone who even questions it is FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD

seriously what the fuck? these are the same kids who think Jewish kids are different than a Christian kid... its a fucking made up religion with bullshit made up days to celebrate something. I know mad jewish kids with blue eyes, blond hair and small ass noses... there is no difference they are all WHITE PEOPLE . its so fucking ignorant when some kid is like "oh that kids jewish" . chances are he isn't even religious at all and smokes weed and throws cab 9s just like that catholic kid or fucking Korean
 
I think you can live life without it. Some of the worlds more revered and respected leaders (Ghandi, Dali Lama) use non-violence and peace as their weapon for change. I think that in every conflict, every war, every situation, theres always the alternative for peaceful resolution. Whether humans always want peace in opposed to violence... well, thats harder to answer.
 
you know i use to think along the same lines, but then i read about a 'situation' that made me think otherwise.

non-violent tactics may be a good starting point, but in some situations you need to intervene with actioin.

Example i was given -- Sam Harris was walking down the street in a forgin country, where he came upon a girl being harrased by a couple of thugs, and it looked pretty innevitable that she was going to be abducted/raped -- what have you. Now Harris went about intervening in a non-violent method. He played a dumb tourist and asked the thugs a question (i forget, i think it was like where is the train station, or how do you get to the museum) the question caught the thugs off guard, and the girl managed to run away in the confusioin.

Now his point was that yes he managed to save this one girl, but he didn't do anything to change the thugs attitude. In otherwords, the thugs are still out there and some other unfortunate person has now had their fate exchanged with that of the girl that got away. Had he intervened with violence and action, while he probably would have the shit kicked out of him, it would have sent a message of disaproval of the thugs actions.

He goes on to say In a world of non-violence one deranged psychopath could take out a whole population with a pearing kife.. While a bit extreme, i think it gets the point out there. We aught not resort to violence for all of our problems, but there are justifiable moments for violence.
 
i love peace, but i will not shy away from violence when needed.

lets play a little game.

here is a scenario i will dream up. imagine someone is holding your sister(name anyone close to you) at gun point, now it is pretty obvious as too what could transpire from here. now given the opportunity to shoot(and possibly kill) would YOU take decisive action (violence) to save them from their captors??

again, it would be a great world if there never had to be violence, but sadly that will, and never can happen.
 
i just finished a holocaust essay and it was a comp for the county and i had to do like fucking 5 drafts. and one part of the question was why have people like Irans Gov't denied the holocaust. and in global we watched a denial movie and it was fucked up. the movie was called Mr. Death it is a seriously fucked up movie the way this guy thinks and acts. but if you think that the holocaust did not happen then you have some serious issues
 
Haha, I love how you're so sure of something that happened about 50 years before you existed. You, "know that alot of people were killed there". Merely because someone said so. You have no idea what happened except from 3rd hand sources. And eyewitnesses have been proven to be extraordinarily bad sources, especially when the witnesses have a grudge against the defendant for keeping them locked up for several years.
 
Its true, there are situations where to get the best outcome you'd have to use violence. I'm sure there are all sorts of special situations that even I would act violently. That doesnt mean there is a non-violent solution though. My main thing is that we so often jump to it as the first and only option, without even considering the other alternatives.
 
they dont claim that the nazis never mass killed jews, they claim that it has been exaggerated. in that sense they believe that there was no actual holocaust...

a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire

. the name "holocaust" is merely a label historians have given to the event, it had meaning before the holocaust ever happened an some historians believe that the exaggeration has led to historicaly inaccurate views, an the name the holocaust. people who deny the holocaust are not denying that there was death camps, attempted genocide etc they are for historical purposes arguing the labeling of this event as the "holocaust". more to it that that but yea im getting over typing.

now, personally speaking, i believe in the labeling of the event "the Holocaust" is completely accurate, an i think that what was done in those camps is one of the saddest examples of what we as humans can do to each other for what ever reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

theres a wiki article on it, pretty brief in terms of the debate but you get the general jist of it.
 
^^ yes i see that i just dont get it how people can say all that with all the pictures and everything i feel so bad for those people who had to live thru those conditions its awful that people can say they didn't suffer as much as they did
 
Do you believe that Caesar took over Gaul? Because we only have 13 letters to back that up. You nor I were there at the time.

Hell, I don't believe there ever was a D-Day invasion with tons of people getting massacred. That was forever ago.

You're beyond hope.
 
"Mengele occupied his time with other numerous acts of the most base

cruelty, including the dissection of live infants; the castration of

boys and men without the use of an anesthetic; and the administering of

high-voltage electric shocks to women inmates under the auspices of

testing their endurance. On one occasion Mengele even sterilized a

group of Polish nuns with an X-ray machine, leaving the celibate women

horribly burned."

Doktor Mengele was a sick man and was a coordinator in Auschwitz. Under his jurisdiction alone many people were killed, infected, or tested on. And no I don't have a number, but I really don't even care to know. Point blank, the holocaust happened, and on a large scale.

 
I'm talking about pictures you could see there. Quite good evidence, altough seeing something with your own eyes is the best way to bee certain about something.
 
Thats fucking retarded. By that lack of logic, absolutely nothing can be proven. You can't record anything if there is no one (an eyewitness) to actually see shit happen.

Example. John sees a car pull into a parking spot. So does Mary. Both of them believe the car pulled into the parking spot. They tell Jane, Chris, and Bob about it. Unfortunately, the three of them don't believe John or Mary when they say the car pulled into the parking spot. This is because they themselves didn't see the car pull into the spot and that they don't consider their friends credible because eyewitness accounts are supposedly "extraordinarily bad sources". This is despite the fact that the car is still there. Jane, Chris, and Bob think that there must be some other explanation. Jane, Chris, and Bob hypothesize the car was flown into the parking spot by US military helicopter. The three of them are sure this is correct. This is despite that both John and Mary clearly saw the car drive into the spot. Jane, Chris, and Bob ignore them and fashion tinfoil hats. The End.
 
Yes eye witnesses can be horrible sources of information but not when there are thousands upon thousands of them. At that point grudges exaggerations tend to fall into the background.
 
hes not a nazi, the holocost wasnt about jews, hitler just needed something to keep the people occupied with.
 
Well nothing can be defintely proven ever...theories, hypotheses, and ideas can be corroborated by evidence but they can't be "proven." This is called the problem of induction. Sure all the evidence might "prove" a theory but there still might be unrecognized or evidence no obtained out there that falsifies the theory or hypothesis.

Just something to think about
 
Excluding straight up deniers or people who believe that "The whole thing was exaggerated" My biggest pet peeve regarding the whole matter are those who restrict their vision of the holocaust strictly to the Jews. Approximately six million jews were murdered yes, but that's only half of the total eleven million Jews, Romani, homosexual, physically and mentally handicapped peoples, political prisoners and Russian POW's which where sent to the extermination camps and killed.

I've been to the museum in Berlin and the education there is absolutly incredible. I can't for a second begin to udnerstand the opinions of people who believe it either didn't happen or that it was exaggerated.

Even still, the misconception that the holocaust was limited merely to people of the Jewish faith is equally as dangerous. It risks marginalization and the historical ignorance of the many other groups who suffered.

10-12 million. approximately the real cost of the holocaust. Don't forget it.
 
Since we're apparently going to pull the definition of "proven" to an absolute extreme, you are correct. But at this point we are using the scientific method and applying it to history. If we decide to go off that basis of whether something is actually conclusive or not, it really doesn't matter in this instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top