Hey /pol/, I'm doing a presentation at uni next week on

Fuck off and never return, /pol/scum

>>2703859
>You cannot delete this post

Oh well.

File: kikes.jpg (101KB, 1120x823px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1120x823px

>>2703857
You can't deny that Schindler list is a piece of disgusting propaganda

>>2703853
>Presentation at uni
>on Shindler list

huh?

>>2703862
I can and I am.

>>2703862
I cant deny that you're underage and need to go back to your containment board

File: 1492936598694.png (453KB, 1804x2160px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 1804x2160px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GgRWuXcO8

>7 replies in less than 4 minutes

samefagging bait thread and probably a raid.

>I want to redpill normies
Please stop. You may see yourself as some sort of wise guy who is enlightened about the world but this is only going to get you ostracized from those around you. Im telling you this for your own good

File: 1492739047513.gif (3MB, 644x472px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 644x472px

>>2703872
>raid

What the fuck do you think this is, 2005?

>>2703871
>all this garbage
Jesus. No wonder you guys aren't historians. I'm not even sure if any of you are university students.

File: 1385780117975.gif (993KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 250x250px

>>2703960
>No refutation
>Appeal to authority

Make it harder eh shlomo?

File: StormfagsBTFO.png (1MB, 1500x2407px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x2407px

>>2703871
>Shitty sourceless garbage and a YouTube video are the best stormcucks have to offer
wew

File: StormfagsBTFO2.png (2MB, 1500x3444px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x3444px

>>2704341

File: StormfagsBTFO3.png (2MB, 1500x2702px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x2702px

>>2704345

File: StormfagsBTFO4.png (2MB, 1500x4091px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x4091px

>>2704347

>>2704317
It's obviously wrong to anyone with bit of healthy scepticism.

>No photo evidence
Allies took aerial photographs of the camps

>No documents alludging to a program of extermination
Wrong, Posen speech for example

>Human soaps were lies
incorrect

>If the gas chambers were real...
Retarded reasoning

>Babi Yar was a Soviet lie...
That's fucking retarded, Soviets didn't gave two fucks about Babi Yar. First monument erected there was from '76

>Ground penetrating radar...
lolno

I won't even cover the rest. It's plain bullshit to anyone with at least half a brain.

>>2704361
>human soaps existed
Full retard

File: 1492846931334.jpg (270KB, 542x1099px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 542x1099px

>>2704361
>aerial photographs of the camps

So?

Convenient how every 'death camp' was certified by our friends the Russians.

>>2704373
>The Russians got anywhere close to Risiera di San Sabba.

Eat shit.

>>2704364
>What is the Stutthoff concentration camp
>>2704373
Are you going to address any of the images I posted ?

File: hmm.jpg (315KB, 1811x925px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1811x925px

>>2704378
But here's a Russian liberating a factory in Czechoslovakia dear friend.

File: 1492853854574.jpg (219KB, 980x652px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 980x652px

Assuming that Hitler started gassing Jews since day sept 1 1939- sept2 1945, that makes for 3,153,600 minutes, i.e. 2190 days or 6 years.

Now total estimate of 6,000,000 Jews were killed during those 3,153,600 minutes which comes out to 1.9 Jews per minute. That means Hitler killed 1 Jew every 30 seconds. (roughly)

In Auschwitz, the most famous and biggest concentration camp, there are 15 crematoriums. According to Auschwitz survivors, Jews would go into the chamber, gassed for 15-20 minutes, then put into the oven.

It takes 1 hour to cremate a body using modern furnaces..., which operate at higher temperatures than the traditional hundred year old ovens at the camp. However, lets say that the ovens were operating at a level that we see today, that means it would take 1 hour, 20 minutes to gas and burn 15 Jews assuming they were all burned simultaneously. (Disregarding the time it would take for the gas to empty the chamber for the bodies to be transported from the chamber to the oven.) The elevators used to transport bodies were very slow and could only take up 7 bodies at a time with their weight capacity. However, for the sake of the point, we're going to assume that bodies were teleported instantly from chamber to oven.

That means 15 Jews were gassed and burned every 1.2 hours. That comes out to exactly 300 Jews every 24 hours (Assuming the gassing and burning of Jews was happening every hour straight for 6 years on an uninterrupted basis) the total number of jews killed would be 657,000 for those 6 years. The official Jewish story is that 4,000,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz alone. You're about 3.4million short there goy...

>>2704373
The same Russians that supresed knowledge about Jewish holocaust? Really makes you think, doesn't it?

>>2704364
Nazis developed the process and made a small amount of such soap (~80kg according to one worker). But apparently they had a bright moment and realized it's fucking retarded (or uneconomical) and abandoned the project.

>>2704386
You're still not responding to anything I posted, stormcuck.
>The official Jewish story is that 4,000,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz alone. You're about 3.4million short there goy...
I've already disproven that you stupid shit. Quit posting pasta.

File: 1492858476111.gif (543KB, 800x1146px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 800x1146px

>>2703853
>offer a distorted representation of the Holocaust?

There's a lot of written evidence that German soldiers would refuse to kill in cold blood. Indeed the reason gassing was supposedly adopted was the lesser impact upon the psyche of the German.

However, we see Germans laughing and joking about shooting Jews in cold blood throughout the film. Indeed the main protagonist Amon, cannot start his breakfast without shooting at least one Jew.

At the end of the film we see Neeson breaking down in tears that he could not save enough Jews. He throws off his material trappings, equating his possessions to lives. This man profited from the lives of these innocent angels. He begs their forgiveness, crying in their arms as they pitilessly look on as if to say "you, yes you, the viewer, what have you done to save a Jew? How do you remember the Holocaust?"

>>2704406
Suffered =/= killed, halfwit.

>>2703853
Please do, and don't forget to tell us how it went!

File: 1492041482594.jpg (140KB, 631x725px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 631x725px

>>2704386
>He thinks all the Jews were killed by gassing
Starvation
gassing
executions
intensive labour

>>2704406
>There's a lot of written evidence that German soldiers would refuse to kill in cold blood.
Some would. Others would not.
Who do you think Oskar Dirlewanger was?

>Indeed the main protagonist Amon, cannot start his breakfast without shooting at least one Jew.
Maybe you should look up who Amon Goethe actually was.

File: pol roach.png (34KB, 180x180px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 180x180px

>>2703853
>Hey /pol/
You've blown your cover /pol/yp
>>>/pol/

>>2704434
Gommie plz

>>2704387
>Nazis developed the process and made a small amount of such soap (~80kg according to one worker). But apparently they had a bright moment and realized it's fucking retarded (or uneconomical) and abandoned the project.
There are people who still unironically believe in this shit.

What the fuck.

>don't take your history from Hollywood
>except for the Shoah goy

>>2704345
Serious question, no hate. If Zyklon B is so incredibly deadly and better at killing mammals than lice, why the heck was it used as a delouser and described as being "readily available today"? Couldn't they find anything safer? According to Wikipedia that stuff is still used today, just not very often, under a different name. Aren't anti-terrorism organizations worried about it being used in chemical attacks?

Is it thanks to Shirer that people still spout this soap and lambshade business? He also wrote that the Reichstag fire was a 'obvious false flag', which it might been, but there is no clear evidence. I don't remember the primary source for the fact, but both Kershaw's biography (the second part, 'Nemesis') and Evans 'Third Reich in war' write's both of as nonsense.

>>2704488
Read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide#As_a_poison_and_chemical_weapon
It can be used as a chemical weapon but it is a bitch to get your hands on and you have much better options out there.

File: BABI YAR REPORT.jpg (391KB, 1557x2091px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1557x2091px

>>2704317
One example.

>Babi Yar
>conjured up by Soviet jewish propaganda minister Ilya Ehrenburg
>with no eyewitness

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/einsatz/situationreport106.html
OSR 106 (Einsatzgruppen Operational Situation Report)

>At the same time, oral information was passed that all the Jews of Kiev would be moved to another place. In cooperation with the HQ of EGC and two Kommandos of the police regiment South, Sonderkommando 4a executed 33,771 Jews on September 29 and 30. (1) Gold and valuables, linen, and clothing were secured. Part of it was given to the NSV (National-Sozialistische Versorgung = Nazi Welfare) for the ethnic Germans, and part to the appointed city administration for distribution among the needy population. The action was carried out smoothly and no incidents occurred. The population agreed with the plan to move the Jews to another place.
>That they were actually liquidated has hardly been made known. However, according to the experience gained so far, this would not meet with any opposition. The army has also approved the measures taken. The Jews that have not yet been caught or who will return will be treated accordingly. At the same time, a number of NKVD men and commissars were arrested and finished off.

And Ilya Ehrenburg never was a Soviet propaganda minister.

File: 1490225790250.jpg (82KB, 783x590px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 783x590px

>>2703866
>>2703868
>Uses 4chan
>Can't handle the odd nazi
But why come?

>>2704521
That covers it pretty well. Thanks.

>As a substance listed under Schedule 3 of the Chemical Weapons Convention as a potential weapon which has large-scale industrial uses, manufacturing plants in signatory countries which produce more than 30 tonnes per year must be declared to, and can be inspected by, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Good to know.

>>2703877
>America voted for this man

>>2703853
What I don't understand is why Schlindler's List has funny scenes?

It's been a couple of years since I last saw it, but I can think of two off the top of my head ("Oh, an educated Jew, just like Karl Marx himself"), and the scene where the Nazis are looking one way and Jews are escaping behind them in a comical fashion in time with the music.

Does Speilberg understand nothing of tone?

>>2704455
It wasn't really a Nazi project, but it happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Spanner

>On his own initiative, he set up a process to produce soap from human fat in 1943-44 and a limited quantity of the soap was produced on his order to clean autopsy rooms.

>>2704406
>four million PEOPLE
That was the official Soviet propaganda. They actually downplayed the Jewish holocaust.

>>2704558
cui bono? They wanted to make Germans the worst goys to make right their subjugation.

>>2704535
Daily reminder that he uironically eats pizza with a fork.

Report, sage, hide and move on.

Daily reminder:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/10/index-of-published-evidence-on.html
http://4archive.org/board/his/thread/509405
http://imgur.com/gallery/725A7

>>2704406
Reminder that stormfags know perfectly well that the estimated death toll at auschwitz was never 4 million and use the figure anyway because they have an agenda and don't care about lying.
>Shortly following the camp's liberation, the Soviet government stated that four million people had been killed on the site, a figure now regarded as greatly exaggerated.[171] While under interrogation, Höss said that Adolf Eichmann told him that two and a half million Jews had been killed in gas chambers and about half a million more had died of other causes.[172] Later he wrote, "I regard the figure of two and a half million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities".[173] Gerald Reitlinger's 1953 book The Final Solution estimated the number killed to be 800,000 to 900,000,[174] and Raul Hilberg's 1961 work The Destruction of the European Jews estimated the number killed to be a maximum of 1,000,000 Jewish victims.[175] French chemist and author Jean-Claude Pressac estimates that between 631,000 and 711,000 killed at Auschwitz, of whom 470,000 to 550,000 were gassed.[176]
>In 1983, French scholar George Wellers was one of the first to use German data on deportations to estimate the number killed at Auschwitz, arriving at a figure of 1,471,595 deaths, including 1.35 million Jews and 86,675 Poles.[177] A larger study started by Franciszek Piper used timetables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate at least 960,000 Jewish deaths and at least 1.1 million total deaths,[178] a figure adopted as official by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in the 1990s.[179][e] Piper stated that a figure of as many as 1.5 million total deaths was possible.[179]

>>2704576
There was not really a need for that, Nazis managed it on themselves.

File: 1492787480386.jpg (138KB, 1005x1440px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1005x1440px

>>2703853
>Hey /pol/

The holocaust did happen.
It was totally justified.
The Einsatzgruppen was an anti-terrorist organisation.

people know that 6 000 000 Jews were killed in WW2
but they probably don't know how many died in their own country
Belarus and Poland were massacred in much greater numbers

Germany killed more Slavs than Jews
yet the Jews are the one group focused on

I wonder why
maybe they have connexions in the entertainment industry to overhype their own victimhood?
OOOO I MUST BE A NAZII!!

>>2704791
t. American

>>2703853
>Hey /pol/
Nigger

File: 1491687285797.jpg (40KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1024x576px

>People questioning how Hitler could have killed so many people so fast who don't question the validity of the shit happening in Cambodia where commie with farming tools and AK's put Hitler's civilian kills/minute ratio to shame
What do they mean by this?

>>2704839
They mean JIDF detected.

>>2704576
Yes, but they also wanted to portray Slavs as the biggest victims. Stalin wasn't exactly a friend of Jews, same with later Soviet rulers.

File: 1470260831073.jpg (104KB, 515x756px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 515x756px

HOLOHOAX
------
>Pastebins
http://pastebin.com/35E6BdQ4
http://pastebin.com/Uc1EkvGZ
>In 10 seconds
http://youtu.be/oUGKmCdAaN4
>In 20 seconds
http://youtu.be/zGwn5R1PC9Q
>Eric Hunt: Majdanek
http://youtu.be/CHqlf0D9nuQ
>Eric Hunt: Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor
http://youtu.be/7dxsVSzL4HE
>David Cole
http://youtu.be/Os0eldMv-wE
http://youtu.be/RHzWo79dCHs
http://youtu.be/QxAvpvz_4wQ
>David Irving
http://youtu.be/MLloM6ufVgk
>Gerd Shulze-Ronhoff
http://youtu.be/MejbBsSAP8I
>Steven Anderson
http://youtu.be/rhGMCYWqKI
>The Haavara Agreement
http://youtu.be/uE2hsaHAEX0
http://youtu.be/iIYswWXhkcA
http://youtu.be/j-1ts3VTeeI
>The 6 million
“You shall return minus 6 million"
http://youtu.be/LjRsoLqHGr4


http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/

>>2705499
Fun Fact: Eric Hunt doesn't deny holocaust anymore.

I was expecting this shit to be about how Schindler's List sugarcoats the Holocaust, not outright denial.

>>2705499
This.

>>2705820
is shit

The fact that mods don't outright ban Holocaust-denying threads is pretty strong evidence for them having an agenda.

>>2704531
The nazis here are rather recent. Some of us have been here over a decade and dont want those faggots here.

File: tmp_3711_565dehydratedwater1zn31663035502.jpg (26KB, 450x337px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 450x337px

>>2704341
>>2703960

Guys. No one needs to be a historian to figure out the killing millions of people in several different and creative ways is not tactically sound while fighting a war on two fronts.

How retarded do you think the German were? It's more tactical to use them as forced labor and If you don't need them anymore then simply stop feeding them.

The shit we learn about the holocaust is far to exravagant to make sense.

>>2704361
Why is it illegal for me to say that the holocaust didn't happen the way it is presented?

>maybe because Europe is cucked.

>>2705944
The fact that people like this can exist with LIVING HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS around baffles me.

>>2704364
We don't talk about fight club...

>>2705955
I love how among this group of self-hatred projecting highschool "weird kids", a cuck is anyone who has a soul or any compassion in them.

/his/ needs to see a therapist.

>>2705956
B-but how are they living?

JK LOL!

No one doubts that there were internment/labor camps. That's just a part of war. But were there giant death factories? Probably not.

>>2705955
Spreading lies on purpose, instigating hatred, being retarded, insulting the dead etc.

Not to mention legislative against genocide denial is not exclusive to Holocaust, you utter fucking retard.

>>2705968
Sooooo... why is it illegal then. Stop defecting my question.

>>2705978
> footage of farm equipment-level body disposable
> human claw marks inside Corpse-Maker-9000

>>2705982
To have an opposing opinion does none of those things.

God I love free speech. Sucks for Europeans, enjoy the refugees you truly virtuous people.

MODS.

PLEASE MAKE A HOLOCAUST DENIAL RULE

This shit wastes so much space.

File: b57.jpg (20KB, 292x326px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 292x326px

>>2705991
> on the side of Holocaust-denial
> makes refugee jab

Holy cow, are you actually a literal skinhead? Get a life.

>>2705993
>Someone thinks an alternative view of world history is inappropriate to discuss on a forum about world history!

MOOOOOOOOOODS!

>>2705991
>To have an opposing opinion does none of those things.
Except for the "being retarded part" in this case. Having an opinion is not illegal. Spreading lies can be illegal.

>>2706003
> proven incorrect view

>>2706003
>alternative view of world history
We have /x/ and /mlp/ for that

>>2706004
You'r grasping a straws.

>>2706007
Clearly not since this conversation is existing. RIGHT NOW!

>>2705993
>>>Reddit

File: vietnam.jpg (124KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 800x531px

>>2706008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3NMAfCnVrE

>>2706009
Said the men, whose only argument is that spreading materials supporting his theory is illegal in some countries/

Eurofags swallowing blue pills want us arrested for questioning jewish lies about the numbers killed and the techniques used. Good goys.

>>2706008
>because new historic evidence never emerges.

This guy believes that the legend of Troy was based on a real city. Lol, retard!

>>2706018
This is an anonymous board you retard. You have no clue what all I've been saying.

>>2706023
>because new historic evidence never emerges
It does sometimes, for theories that hold merit. But oops! Your one is on par with New Chronology, considering it would need a global conspiracy to make sense.

>>2706009
"You'r" ironically grasping at straws by saying that. Anon had a point.

>>2706040
This is like watching a fully armored Templar fighting a chimpanzee. Keep up the good work anon- he can only spam half-assed responses for so long.

>>2706003
>alternative view of world history
I like how /pol/tards cry about how the world should be REALS over FEELS and suddenly become postmodernists when it comes to history.

>>2703853
you posted in the wrong neighborhood

>>2706053
I actually stated typing a whole thing about 'deformation of character' laws but realized US and Europe probably have different laws. Either way in the US you need to prove that the lie has hurt someone in order for it to be illegal. Free Speech!

>>2706040
Like when the discovery of Altamira Cave happened which put man's history back past 6k years? Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola was labeled a conspiracy theorist, a lier, a forger, and publicly shamed.

Your just as ignorant as those people.

>>2706077
See
>>2706083

>>2705837
>the Nazis here are rather recent
Your grasp of the English language is almost as poor as your knowledge of 4chan history.

>>2706086
>I can claim any retarded shit to be true because some guy was deemed to be wrong in the past but was actually right (and contrary to me, had actual evidence), therefore anything I say is as valid as evidence-supported peer-reviewed academic consensus
Exactly as I said, you retards turn postmodernist real fast.

>>2706083
>b-but guys! Just because something looks retarded to you, it must be correct!

>Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola was labeled a conspiracy theorist
I'm sure you have solid evidence to back this up.

>>2706100
But he's right. You faggots appeared around 2011.

>>2706105
>the conspiracy that the bible was wrong

All I'm saying is being an absolutist is retarded. I'm sure you can agree on that.
>I absolutely without a doubt believe that that the earth is flat

>>2704585
So?

>>2706141
>I'm sure you can agree on that.
One of most important skills nowadays is recognizing bullshit and informations that hold merit. Holocaust denial would require a global conspiracy, therefore it's an obvious bullshit.

>the conspiracy that the bible was wrong
Please explain what were you trying to say. I asked you to provide an example where de Sautuola was called a cosnpiracy theorist.

>>2704645
>implying literally 2 out of every 3 Jews was a terrorist
>implying terrorism against a country that wants to send you to death camps isn't justified

>>2705983
Why shouldn't it be illegal?

>>2706013
Saying something is false doesn't mean it's not proven.

>>2706173
Not him but retards should be allowed to express themselves. And it's counterproductive anyway.

>>2706166
>strawmaning this hard

You know exactly the point I was making with that comparison. Go back to writing your freshman paper.

>>2703853
I would sincerely recommend not to do this. Normies can't deal with the truth and the appeal to emotion made in Schindler's List is certainly stronger than your words of reason.

>>2706193
Reason is useless in a vacuum.

>>2706191
>You know exactly the point I was making with that comparison

I know, that's why I attacked it at it's critical point, which was incorrect.

>>2706102
It's to prove that having an absolutist mentality is a stunted one. All I said was I disagree with the official story and all you PHD historians went ape shit. I'm sorry your world views are not the only ones.


You moron.

>>2706173
Because I want to think and say whatever I want without the European thought police arresting me.

>>2706203
>If you don't take us mentally handicapped seriously, you are a moron!!1!

This is getting better and better.

>>2706200
The point I'm making is an absolutist mentality is a stunted one as history, and science for that matter is not set in stone.

>>2706214
>Attacking a person's character and not even touching his argument.

Internet debate victorious!

>>2706209
Some people don't want to hear what you have to say. You have to balance your desires against theirs.

>>2706215

>>2706040

>>2706203
From the moment you accept that it is impossible to logically deduce the existence of an external world and that your senses connect you with that world no knowledge can be absolute. Ignoring this, because it's just mental masturbation, there's shit you can claim with almost complete certainty. You can claim the sun doesn't orbit around the earth, you can claim napoleon existed, and, yes, you can claim the holocaust happened. They all have evidence to such a degree that denying them would equate solipsism.
There is no "official story". There is history supported by massive amount of evidence and research, and there are brainwashed retards on an edgy board of a chinese cartoon forum spreading infopics while thinking they are enlightened.

>>2706227
But the people who come to a holocaust alternative opinion thread clearly want to hear what I have to say.

>>2706259
Most people would to discuss actual history on this board, not conspiracy theories.

>>2706253
>thinking my opinion only exists/has ever only existed on 4chan.

Get outside more.

>>2705944
Hitler did whole bunch of things, which weren't "tacticaly sound", he was insane and high on drugs like most of his inner circle.

>>2706266
Then go to another thread faggot. Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through how this site works?

File: Image 56.gif (2MB, 492x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 492x360px

George Carlin: The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, decided all by itself that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the free speech provisions of the first amendment to the Constitution. I'd like to repeat that, because it sounds... *vaguely* important!
[laughter]
George Carlin: The FCC, an appointed body, not elected, answerable only to the president, decided on its own that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. Why did they decide that? Because they got a letter from a minister in Mississippi!
[laughter]
George Carlin: A Reverend Donald Wildman in Mississippi heard something on the radio that he didn't like. Well, Reverend, did anyone ever tell you there are two KNOBS on the radio?
[laughter]
George Carlin: Two. Knobs. On the radio. Of course, I'm sure the reverend isn't that comfortable with anything that has two knobs on it.
[laughter]
George Carlin: But hey, reverend, there are two knobs on the radio! One of them turns the radio OFF, and the other one
[slaps his head]
George Carlin: CHANGES THE STATION! Imagine that, reverend, you can actually change the station! It's called freedom of choice, and it's one of the principles this country was founded upon. Look it up in the library, reverend, if you have any of them left when you've finished burning all the books.

>>2706275
History is written through the eyes and words of the victors. Never forget this.

>>2706277
How'boat you return to the board, you came from, eh?

>>2706273
Sure, people as retarded as you exist elsewhere. There's just a high concentration in /pol/.

>>2706290
>>2706291

>leave my safe place! I can't handle your differing views!

Tough shit. Also i'm from /fit/.

>>2706347
>b-b-b-b-but muh opinion is as valid as evidence based facts
I don't care where you're from, you're retarded.

>>2706347
Oh so you're a either a lying /pol/tard or a cancerous cross boarding shitposter.

In the immortal words of all antimigrants everywhere, fuck off, we're full.

>>2706108
Try 2010
>7 years is recent

Sure thing J E W

File: 1413402424999.png (262KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 500x600px

>>2706347

>>2706374
>doesn't understand that 7 years is still newfag status

Kys.

>>2706374
>2010
>not a newfag cancer

>>2706347
>I can't handle your differing views!
We actually handled them, you just can handle the fact, your views get shattered when they are confronted with reality.

>Also i'm from /fit/.
Good to know you are trying to get rid of that gyno of yours.

>>2706368
>>2706371
>>2706375

All this butthurt from people who either refuse to keep an open mind or are kike shills. Either way all this butthurt for something that doesn't effect your lives.

>2017
>still feeding the trolls.

Why don't the mods move this post or delete it? Do we really need a post with over 100 posts of people arguing meta shit?

>>2706399
No clue.
Meanwhile, I got a 3 day ban a few weeks back for using the word nigger in typical 4chan fashion.
/his/ mods are some of the worse ones on this site.

>>2706388
Did you shatter my views?
What views and how did you shatter them?

Finding it hard to answer this question? That's probably because I didn't present any of my views on the thread subject besides one post. Now your just blowing yourself to feel some small victory in your pointless exsistance.

>>2706399
>he still hasn't realized our mods are /pol/tards

>>2706412
Racist

>>2706283
Absolute meme tier.

>>2706395
Keeping an open mind doesn't mean you have to agree with things that have already been conclusively disproven. Am I "close-minded" for believing a human can't fly by flapping their arms?

>>2706414
that's because you're in denial
you sad human being

>>2706417
Just because someone posts something you disagree with doesn't mean the mods should delete it. This post actually is addressed to /pol/ and was a mispost, therefore it should be deleted.

>>2706395
>someone spams astrology shit every day
>call him a retard
>I'm suddenly butthurt close minded person or a shill
Sure

>>2706414
Then what are you crying for, you fool?

Because we laugh at you, while you think you are special fucking snowflake that knows better than literally all professors of history?

>>2706421
What has been disproven? Besides
>>2704341
>>2704345
>>2704347
>>2704350
Which frankly could have been fabricated

What else about the holocaust being a farce has been disproven?

>>2706431
Keep it coming faggot. I'm getting close to cumming. Next tell me how you might history professor spent years in the field uncovering Jew bones.

>>2706437
You can google any revisionist claim and find a refutation in about 10 seconds. Or you could read about the subject and realize how retarded revisionist claims are in the first place.
So, everything.

>>2703960
Hey.

I took a class on the hsitory of the holocaust at a Uni level as an elective for my degree.

Even the Historian Prof who gets paid 120k+ and is a doctor in his field failed to prove that the holocaust was actually sanctioned by Hitler and used the word "probably" all too many times during the lecture. and this is about an even that happened 70 years ago. Not something that's ancient. Maybe only a generation away from my prof.

>>2706460
>the burden of proof is on Google not me!


Yeah but I'm not going to do that because I'm sound in my beliefs although I am always open to a counter point because I am actually capable of reforming my views.

>>2706467
Please give me a name.
Anecdotes are not facts.

>>2706462
/pol/ told me everything academic peer reviewed research says that disagrees with my views can be safely discarded based on imaginary stereotypes in favor of infopics, thank god for our anti intellectual stormfag overlords

>>2706473
The burden of proof of what? You didn't ask for a refutation on anything specific. And no, the burden of proof is on the person with claims contradicting the academic consensus.

>>2706490
>academic consensus.

You mean the same kikes that fabricated evidence of the Holocaust?
Hahaha no thanks.

>>2706467
That's because functionalism vs intentionalism is a legit historiographic debate, which has nothing to do with revisionism or negationism.

>>2706495
>every historian that has ever studied one of the most researched events in history is part of a jewish conspiracy
Complete retard.

>>2704347
>In fact, [Human Ash] makes a good fertilizer, and it is well-documented that farmer around auschwitz used human ash in their fields.

what the fuck?
I looked this up and I saw one line on a Wiki article about it and I followed the source and they are fucking useless.

any proof of this shit??

>>2706490
You claimed that Google will refute my holocaust revisionist ideas in 10 seconds. Well I'm waiting for a link. If you don't have one (won't surprise me) then I'm going to assume you've been parroting bullshit you've never actually looked into.

>>2706476
My profs name? What will that prove?

>Anecdotes are not facts.
I know.

>>2706437
>Which frankly could have been fabricated
If those "could have been fabricated", the same is true but even moreso of any of the supposed "evidence" of the "Holocaust being a farce".

>>2706499
I'm not sure wtf you're talking about but my Prof passed info that had no evidence as facts, pure and simple. Or, at least would stated before hand that there is no proof of "x" however "x" happened because of "y" etc..

>>2706522
correct.

>>2706480
You should really critically think for yourself instead of relying on infographs.
YouTube has really good documentaries. Many actually visit the concentration camps and review evidence. You can cross reference a lot of this by reading exerts from the Nuremburg hearing.

>>2706510
Are you mentally challenged or something? You haven't written anything specific, do you want my to magically guess what revisionist bullshit you believe and link a specific refutation?

>>2706525
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism

>>2706522
It's hard to fabricate discrepancies in alleged accounts of kill building when the buildings still exist.

>>2706530
Find anything. Fuck is it really that hard? Stop making excuses.

>>2706538
You're fucking retarded. Reply to me when you have any specific claim.

>>2706530
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism
>some commie made up a debate about the origin of the holocaust to shift attention form the fact there is no proof of Hitler's order for the holocaust

>>2706541
Your the one that said it was soooooo easy you could do it in 10 seconds.

Fine. Refute the claim that the cremation ovens could only fit 2-3 people at most and they needed about 1-2 hours per body.

>>2706549
I assumed you were well intentioned in your post but you now sound like a shitposter. There is a debate on whether hitler ordered the holocaust or not, mason just put a name to said debate. Obviously there is no definitive proof either way, otherwise the academic debate wouldn't exist.

>>2706561
But this isn't a social science, this is history.

If there is no proof of Hitler giving an order then shouldn't Historians just say "Hitler in all likeliness never gave an official order for the holocaust."

Instead, they say, "Hitler gave the order for the holocaust, most likely under the following circumstances and proof does not exist because of of the following reasons..."\


Historians always assume, without proof, that Hitler gave the order and then they debate over when, how, to who he actually gave it.

>>2706551
>Fine. Refute the claim that the cremation ovens could only fit 2-3 people at most and they needed about 1-2 hours per body.
Mattogno's claims are refuted here:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.ar/2016/03/mattognos-cremation-encyclopedia.html

On the other hand, there are XIX century books on cremation in under one hour, like:
https://ia802607.us.archive.org/11/items/cremationdead00eassgoog/cremationdead00eassgoog.pdf

>>2706573
>Historians always assume, without proof, that Hitler gave the order and then they debate over when, how, to who he actually gave it.
What? Did you even read the link? Historians debate whether hitler gave the order or not, not "when, how, to who he actually gave it".
>Did the initiative for the Holocaust come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy? Although neither side disputes the reality of the Holocaust, nor is there serious dispute over the premise that Hitler (as Führer) was personally responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism that allowed the Holocaust to take place, intentionalists argue the initiative came from above, while functionalists contend it came from lower ranks within the bureaucracy.

File: cigarette.jpg (501KB, 1400x1000px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1400x1000px

Hell, I'm not even white, jew, but I can't help to notice how aggressive and defensive people who defend the Holocaust get, to the point of siding with actually with punishing people legally for speaking against it, which I find bizarre for people whom use this web site to actually ask for forced censorship, it's like they don't understand why free speech came to be.

>>2706637
>but I can't help to notice how aggressive and defensive people who defend the Holocaust get, to the point of siding with actually with punishing people legally for speaking against it, which I find bizarre for people whom use this web site to actually ask for forced censorship,
I'm sure you can point to someone on this thread advocating restriction of freedom of speech, instead of just making general, vague statements.

>>2706637
Because we have this thread every fucking day and every fucking day /pol/ makes the same retarded claims over and over and over and it's so fucking mind numbing that I just want the pain to end.

>>2706637
Pretty sure the consensus in /his/ is that the holocaust happened but legislating denial is stupid. Although one position is (at least theoretically) unrelated to the other.

>>2706579
I don't think you bothered reading this because all the "evidence" is based on the first hand accounts of one man.

Many passages like

"The corpses of the victims killed after the camp resumed operation in October 1942 following a two-month interruption were taken directly from the gas chambers to places of cremation, while the corpses of the victims killed and buried until the end of July/early August 1942 were disinterred with a mechanical excavator for this purpose."

Seem awfully strange. Why exum the bodies already buried.

Also they use things like Himler ordering more gasoline to the camp as evidence of burning bodies.

>>2706684
"X seems strange" is not an argument, try again.

>>2706645
Here, and I see it every thread, people actually defending censorship

>>2705982
>>2706004

>>2706652
You can ignore them instead of bumping them?


>>2706674
>appealing to authority
People defending the Holocaust do this too, stop, please it actually hurts, as someone who actually debates for a living.

Here's what I don't get: The Holocaust is seen as "the worst thing ever" and is illegal to question. It's like canonized as a holy tragedy or some shit by Hollywood and other culture creators.
But in THE SAME WAR more people from other groups died. The homos and Roma died in equal number to the Jews but we never hear about them. The Soviets lost FOUR TIMES as many people but tons of Americans don't even realize they fought in the war.
Hell, more Germans died than Jews!
I don't know man, It's real hard for me to give a fuck about some jews when way more Slavs and other groups died.

>>2706695
How about the fact that in the court of low here in America eye witness testimony alone is not enough to convict a person of a crime. Therefore using it as proof of an entire genocide is also not a valid argument.

>>2706702
>appealing to authority
? I didn't.

>>2706702
>Here, and I see it every thread, people actually defending censorship
Really? I don't. I see people calling holocaust deniers idiots, but I can't remember the last time I saw a 4chan poster defending censorship.
>as someone who actually debates for a living.
Bullshit. I'm pretty sure that professional debaters don't do the "Make shit up and hope nobody calls you out on it" technique.

>>2706715
Good thing that there's a shit ton more to prove genocide then.

>>2706714
Funny when Trump didn't mention the Jews on holocaust remembrance day Jews around the country got butthurt mad and bitched to no end.

>Remember all the victims

>>2706726
Llllllllike?

>>2706728
see >>2704599

>>2706717
"The consensus" is the authority, is like saying "everyone agrees, Drs Says, Teachers say" etc.

Is basically delegating the validity of the argument to an abstract/superior, to stand a fact, instead of defending the claims with your own words

Do you understand?

>>2706715
>How about the fact that in the court of low here in America eye witness testimony alone is not enough to convict a person of a crime.
OBJECTIVELY WRONG!

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/qa/is-eyewitness-testimony-sufficient-for-conviction/

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1521417.html
>Moreover, the prejudice in this case is worsened because the only evidence of Rosario's guilt was the testimony of two stranger eyewitnesses. There is no question, in my opinion, that had the additional alibi witnesses who were presented in connection with Rosario's post-conviction motion testified at trial, there is a reasonable probability that the jury's verdict would have been different, satisfying the prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis

>>2706723
>What are lawyers

And if you are going to use your experience as evidence, I'll use mine and I say that I see a lot of people constantly calling for/ defending censorship one way or the other.

How about that?

>>2706730
Sounds like these people are all terrible at gathering data. What does this prove?

>>2706738
No, retard. I'm not saying "X is false because Y says so". I'm saying "claiming that Y says X is false because in my experience it claims the opposite". Of course, it's purely anecdotal. What Y claims is completely consequential to of an argument about what Y claims. You're pretty fucking dumb.

File: 1490439304277.png (2MB, 1833x2174px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1833x2174px

>>2705499
>The Greatest Story Never Told

>>2706754
>>What are lawyers
Lawyers do not formally debate for a living. Hell, most of their work is procedural. Furthermore, they do not in fact just make shit up, not without getting their licenses stripped away.
>And if you are going to use your experience as evidence, I'll use mine and I say that I see a lot of people constantly calling for/ defending censorship one way or the other.
I'm not using "my experience", I'm asking you to point to a post in this thread or other threads on the archive calling for censorship. https://desuarchive.org/his/

As an aside, were you the anon who wrote this?>>2706715 Because that's just hilarious if it's you and you're claiming to be an attorney.

>>2706758
>No argument.
It proves that evidence of genocide goes well beyond testimonies.

>>2706573
At the end of Der Ewige Jude he literally calls for the destruction of the Jewish race.

>>2706766
>Pretty sure the consensus in /his/ is that the holocaust happened


That's a text book definition of appealing to authority, a non Argument, and not only that but as you said you followed with anecdotal retoric, stop wasting my time.

>>2706739
I acquiesce

>>2706775
>Transport records being calculated differently every time.

>Proof

>>2706788
Jesus christ, how stupid are you? I'm not saying the holocaust happened because /his/ says so, I'm stating the consensus in /his/ in response to a post about /his/'s attitude.

>>2706788
Not him, but let me explain this for your stupid ass.

>>2706637
Claims that "people who defend the holocaust get defensive, and side with the notion of actually punishing people for speaking against it"
>>2706674
Says that the consensus of /his/ is that the holocaust happened but legislating (against) denial is stupid.
>>2706702
Claims an appeal to authority
>>2706717
Denies the claim
>>2706738
>>2706766
repetition

And finally to this post. If you make a claim as to what a group of people believe, a counter-claim as to the state of that belief is not an appeal to authority you fucking moron. It's a fact in the scope of the debate.

>>2705830
Maybe they rightfully believe that the correct response to Holocaust denial is refutation and well thought out arguments with good sources, instead of covering your ears like a child.

>>2706769
In Mexico as 3 years ago we actually debate, in a court of law, HELL they record The public ones and sell them on DVDs outside the "Los juzgados" in Mexico city.

My first post is the IT picture.

And:
>>2706004
>>2705982

If you think this people aren't defending censorship, I don't know what to say to you, thanks for proving the getting aggressively defending part thought...

>Spreading lies on purpose, instigating hatred, being retarded, insulting the dead etc.
>Not to mention legislative against genocide denial is not exclusive to Holocaust, you utter fucking retard.

>>To have an opposing opinion does none of those things.
>Except for the "being retarded part" in this case. Having an opinion is not illegal. Spreading lies can be illegal.

>>2706814
You're really stupid. Do you even understand the difference between a positive and normative argument? Neither of them made any statements of values pertaining to the laws against holocaust denial, they made statements of fact as to what they are and that they do in fact exist. If you pulled your head out of your fat ass and tried to recontextualize a bit, you could easily parse this out.

>Driving over a certain speed can be illegal
>YOU MUST BE ADVOCATING FOR ELIMINATION OF SPEEDING LAWS!
Do you see how the second statement isn't actually based in the first? Do you see how neither of the posts you linked to, even in isolation, make any sort of value statement supporting censorship, and both of them are linked to OTHER posts, calling certain other groups retarded?

>>2706818
But as the guy who wrote >>2706801, I'm saying pretty much what >>2706799 said, just giving more of a context. When the subject under debate is what a body of people (/his/) believes, then statements as to the scope of that group's beliefs are positive statements of fact, not appeals to authority.

>>2706823
They are defending the fact that "lies" can be ilegal, it doesn't get clearer than that.


This comment is actually responding a question of why it is ilegal to deny

And
>>2705982

>Spreading lies on purpose, instigating hatred, being retarded, insulting the dead etc.
>Not to mention legislative against genocide denial is not exclusive to Holocaust, you utter fucking retard.


He is defending WHY censorship laws exist, it's so obvious I'm baffled you deny it.

What class is this? I took a POL 110 class and we didn't learn anything about Holocaust denial, Ben Garrison, or JIDF. It was pretty disappointing honestly.

>>2706850
>why is X illegal
>because of Y
Not him but I don't see how you don't see that the post is descriptive.

>>2706864

>Spreading lies on purpose, instigating hatred, being retarded, insulting the dead etc.

Really?

>>2706881
I don't understand. Do you object to those being the reasons?

File: CT5FUeIWsAIDKRX.jpg (40KB, 600x607px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x607px

>>2706894
>Spreading "lies" on '"purpose"
>Instigating "hatred"
>being RETARDED
>Insulting the death (wtf)


Do I need to spell it out to you why this aren't actually reasons for an argument, let alone for the existence of a law.

>>2706904
Do you understand that the validity of the law is inconsequential to this discussion? I think this anon >>2706823 was right and you need to learn the difference between a positive and normative argument.

>>2706864
Mental gemastics on a proffessional level.

Threadly reminder, if you live in a country where it is punishable by law to discuss the veracity of this historical event and are unironically defending it, you're cucked.

>>2706908
Do you understand that what I'm arguing is only that people here are defending censorship?

Like the one I just quoted who is obviously defending it, and not making a description as you claimed.

Are you capable of understanding that?

>>2705813
How does Schindler's List sugarcoat the Holocaust?

No skin lampshades?

File: 1492338166039.jpg (144KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 900x900px

>>2705830
Why are there so many people here who don't understand what 4chan is about? If the thread upsets you so much then just hide it, but the only way to overcome these ideas is through debate, censorship only fuels it.

>>2706930
I understand that you are claiming, you're just not doing a good job arguing in your favor. Your previous post exemplifies perfectly your inability to separate a discussion about the basis of a law from the validity of said basis.

>>2706943
Well I already proved that anons here are defending censorship, hell there are people here crying for the mods to delete the thread:

>>2705830

If you don't understand things so simple I won't waste more time with the likes of you.

File: 8483_ca25_500.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>2706467
>Hey Professor why is there no video evidence or films around this subject after WW2
>H-huh it was j-just t-too sensitive at the t-time
>No one c-could face it

File: 1335599192020.gif (174KB, 299x240px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 299x240px

>Schindler's List
>Look up the camp where the film is set
>Think of the scene where thousands of dead bodies are burnt
>Huh wouldn't that leave a lot of evidence
>'In early 1944, all corpses were exhumed and burnt in a heap to hide the evidence. Witnesses later attested that 17 truckloads of human ashes were removed from the burning site and scattered over the area.'
>Oh geez that was lucky, good thing we have those witnesses to tell us what happened
>Surely they would have kept at least some records
>'All documents pertaining to the mass killings and executions were entrusted by commandant Göth to a high ranking female member of the SS, Kommandoführerin Alice Orlowski'
>Ah good
>'She held these documents in her possession until the end of the war, then allegedly destroyed them.'
>Well at least she alledegly had them hey?
>So Allied troops saw this camp right?
>'When the Nazis realized the Soviets were already approaching Kraków, they completely dismantled the camp, leaving an empty field in its place. The bodies that were buried there earlier in various mass graves were all exhumed and burned on site. On 20 January 1945, the Red Army had reached only a tract of barren land.'
>Wow they dismantled an entire camp and completely removed all trace of anything, good thing the Soviets checked it over eh?

>>2706956
We were arguing about holocaust laws discussion in this thread. In fact, your discussion didn't start with me, I just responded because your interpretation of a post was kinda stupid.

File: dfd.jpg (61KB, 540x817px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 540x817px

stormfags in a nutshell

>give a talk entitled "Did Six Million Really Die?"
>get expelled

don't do it kid, it ruined my education.

This is my first reply>>2706637
And this started the chain in which you and I are currently discussing>>2706645


Do you see how the debate is exactly about how anons here are defending censorship, and not the legality of the law?

So you barge in the discussion and give me shit for things I'm not even arguing about.

Jesus Christ.

>>2706987
I assume you responded to >>2706967. You did argue whether the post we were discussing about was descriptive or not, and more generally about whether the validity of a law is relevant in a discussion of the reasons it exists. You're not a very smart person, my mexican friend.

>>2706999
I didn't brought if the post was descriptive, you did, I just pointed how that DOESN'T qualify as a description, which should be obvious, since it just bs."beingretarded, l disturbing the death"

Just because you brought up the validity of the law, doesn't mean that's what I'm arguing about.

funny how people like you are so quick to call people stupid.

>>2706850
>They are defending the fact that "lies" can be ilegal, it doesn't get clearer than that.
No, they're explaining why the law was set up as it is.

If I say that
>Adolf Hitler believed in violent race struggle culminating with the domination of the Eurasian plain by one race who emerged at the top
How does that in any way endorse Hitlerian race theory?

>>2707054
>I didn't brought if the post was descriptive, you did
Actually, a third anon did, but I don't see how who brought it up is relevant. You seem to have a hard time telling what is and isn't relevant to an argument.

>I just pointed how that DOESN'T qualify as a description, which should be obvious, since it just bs."beingretarded, l disturbing the death"
How is that not a description of the causes of the law?

>Just because you brought up the validity of the law, doesn't mean that's what I'm arguing about.
But you are. For example in >>2706904 you are debating whether the causes of the law are valid instead of if they are, in fact, the reasons why the law exists, making your post completely irrelevant to the discussion.

>>2707071
Let me make you very simple:

My first post says that I don't like that anons are favoring censorship, then the other anon asked for proofs of that, and the chain started there.

I never made a claim about the validity of the law, now let me expain this "Descripton" is conceptualizing something that exists, something that "IS"
so when this anon says:

>Spreading "lies" on '"purpose"
>Instigating "hatred"
>being RETARDED
>Insulting the death (wtf)

Are a description of the LAW he is WONG, this are no descriptions, unless you can point out where instulting the death or Being retarded are redacted on the LAW. Sinde they fucking aren't is obvious they are no't description of the law, me pinting out he is retarded for thinking that is not me engaiging in the validity of the law at ALL.

God fucking damned, like talking to a brick wall.

>>2707137
Well, this is certainly your worst argument so far, which is quite the feat. Description of the causes of the law =/= descriptions of the law. His post is literally an answer to someone asking why the law exists. How retarded are you?

>>2707137
>My first post says that I don't like that anons are favoring censorship, then the other anon asked for proofs of that, and the chain started there.
Yes, and in that chain, you haven't provided any examples of anons favoring censorship. You've mentioned anons mentioning censorship that already exists and why it exists. You can describe such reasoning without buying into it yourself. How the fuck are you a lawyer and you don't know this distinction?

>The French legislature passed a law denying armenian genocide denial out of concerns for anti-armenian sentiment.
How does that statement show whether or not I agree with the French legislature's reasoning?

>Are a description of the LAW he is WONG, this are no descriptions, unless you can point out where instulting the death or Being retarded are redacted on the LAW.
They are not descriptions of the law. (And it's spelled "wrong"). They are descriptions of the reasoning behind the laws, not anons saying whether or not that justification, or even the laws themselves, are something they support.

>God fucking damned, like talking to a brick wall.
Pot, meet kettle. Are all Mexican lawyers this unable to follow a chain of reasoning, or is it just you?

>>2707158
can you qute parts of the law qhere they pertain to disturbing the death ad being retarded?
>>2707160
I even inked to anons right here asking for why mods don't band this threads, so yeah.

So you don't see difference between:
>The French legislature passed a law denying armenian genocide denial out of concerns for anti-armenian sentiment.
And :
>Spreading "lies" on '"purpose"
>Instigating "hatred"
>being RETARDED
>Insulting the death (wtf)

One is a fact other an opinion at best, and you can't deny he is defending the existence of the laws, whci is my pnt all along.

You two can play stupid all you want, I've proved what I claimed.

>>2707185
>can you qute parts of the law qhere they pertain to disturbing the death ad being retarded?
Try to reread my post until you understand it.

>>2707195
SO you can't? tought so.

>>2707185
>I even inked to anons right here asking for why mods don't band this threads, so yeah.
How does that in any an equivalent to supporting holocaust denial censorship laws? You have seen the sticky at the top of the board, yes? How one is not to treat this place as /pol/ with dates? How OP even addresses his post to /pol/? How you have people calling this thread out as shitposting?

>One is a fact other an opinion at best, and you can't deny he is defending the existence of the laws, whci is my pnt all along.
Yes, I can. Can you follow a simple post chain? >>2705955
>Why is it illegal for me to say that the holocaust didn't happen the way it is presented?
>>2705982
Says why it's illegal, posting the reasoning of local European legislatures. This is English proficiency 101 here.

>You two can play stupid all you want, I've proved what I claimed.
No you haven't. All you've proven is that you either have poor English or poor reasoning skills, and very likely both, which makes your claim of being an attorney laughable.

>>2707200
DO you understand that since my first post is only aout anons suporting censorship.

Now explain to be how "Being retarded" or "disturbing the death" are description in ANY WAY of the law, unless yu argue that any retarded description that fits your narrative is a real description of a law.

>>2707200
>which makes your claim of being an attorney laughable
In his favor, I've seen really stupid people with university degrees. He would definitely be an extreme case.

>>2707209
How are you unable to separate the description of the reason something exists and of the thing in itself? It's pretty mind boggling.

>>2707209
>DO you understand that since my first post is only aout anons suporting censorship.
Do you understand that you haven't proven anything about anons supporting censorship, and that the one post you've cited to is an explanation as to why laws are set up the way they are?

>Now explain to be how "Being retarded" or "disturbing the death" are description in ANY WAY of the law
See, this is where you fail at either English, reasoning, or both. Let's try this one more time.

>>2705955
>Why is it illegal for me to say that the holocaust didn't happen the way it is presented?

Answer: Insulting the memory of the dead, and trying to hold to a higher standard of public discourse, are why it's illegal to make those claims. Notice how not only was that not a description of any law, that said description was never asked for. What was asked for was a REASON as to why the law was made that way.

Let me again illustrate with a less emotionally charge example, so that you can process this.

>Why is the speed limit on most U.S. Highways 65 miles an hour?
>The two major reasons are to promote fuel efficiency, as higher speeds are less gas efficient, and to promote highway safety.
>WELL THAT DOESN'T DESCRIBE THE LAW, SO YOU'RE WRONG!
Do you see how statement #3 doesn't follow statements #1 and #2? In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the chain of discussion?

>>2707219
Because that is not a VALID description idiot, he is just littlerally defending why the laws exists by saying they things like "being retarded, etc", and that's why i quoted him

I'm shoked that you defend that as a valid arugent.

>>2707238
>Because that is not a VALID description idiot, he is just littlerally defending why the laws exists
YES! YES! YOU FINALLY GET IT! THE PREVIOUS ANON ASKED WHY THE LAWS EXIST AND THAT ANON PROVIDED THE REASONS WHY THE LAW EXISTS TA FUCKING DA!

>>2707247
But not with facts, but with opinions, he is DEFENDING why the law exists.

Whcih was my point all along anons defending censoprship.

File: 1491334120295.jpg (177KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1024x512px

>>2703853
>Be war profiteering fucking poor jewish women for shits n giggles
>Make money through slave labor via the Nazis
>Realize they are losing
>Free some of the Jews at he last moment
>This guy is somehow a hero and not just some industrialist saving his own ass

Why /his/

>>2707238
Are you having a stroke or something? Your writing is getting more incoherent.
Let's make a thought experiment. Suppose for a second that the reason that the law was made are the points that anon wrote. How would you answer to the questions "why does the law exist"?

>>2707227
again can you quote where the laws state what that anon argues? because until you do he is still making not aing any argument, only opinions DEFENDING censorship.

File: Karl-Urban-in-Dredd-2012-Movie-Image-21.jpg (186KB, 1600x1064px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1600x1064px

>>2707265
What if I am the law?

>>2707265
If I'm using the points the anon made, the law is obviously exists just to censor speach, becuase none of what he says "being retarded, disturbing the death" are really in favor or nothing more than that.

>>2707251
>But not with facts, but with opinions, he is DEFENDING why the law exists.
No, with facts; namely what the legislators of various European legislatures were thinking.
>John thinks that the stock market is too risky to invest in these days
Is a fact, a fact pertaining to the state of John's mind. Whether or not you agree with John, or whether John's opinions have any basis in reality, is irrelevant. A statement as to what he thinks and why he acts the way he does, is a factual statement.
>Whcih was my point all along anons defending censoprship.
And a damn fool point it was, since it's based on a rather large misapprehension and poor reading skills.
>>2707271
Anon is not arguing a law. Anon is arguing WHY the laws are the way they are. Do you not understand the distinction?

> because until you do he is still making not aing any argument, only opinions DEFENDING censorship.
Yes he is. He is making a statement of fact as to what a number of people in the recent past thought and why they acted the way they did.

>Hitler invaded Russia because he believed in Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracies with worldwide domination intents and that these conspiracies were inimical to Germany
is an argument, and it is based on a fact, the fact of what Hitler believed at a given moment.

>>2707290
>Yes he is. He is making a statement of fact
SO he can read the minds of the legislators who created the law, and his statements are FACTS?

Come on now, now stop with the tanguent examples, SHOW ME where in the law is pertains what the anon says, becaue scuse me but I don't think he can read minds...

> 248 posts
This is why Holocaust bait threads need to be banned by mods.

Goodnight everyone. You /his/ guys make me hate being human

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5WXIF67J2w

>>2707287
Well, you truly are one of the stupidest people I've read on 4chan. I never asked if you think those motivations would be considered valid, I asked what would you answer in a hypothetical scenario in which those were the real motivations. Of course, the logical answer is what the original anon posted. If you don't think those are, in fact, the motivations behind the law, you should be arguing that the original post was wrong, not that it was in favor of censorship.
I leave you with >>2707290, who has more patience for your incredible stupidity.

>>2707326
Why you play stupid?

Your question was if the reasons the anon gave namely these:

>Spreading "lies" on '"purpose"
>Instigating "hatred"
>being RETARDED
>Insulting the death

So my answer is Censorship, if you think that those are the REAL motivations of the law and you are defneding them, then the idiot are you.

>>2707308
>SO he can read the minds of the legislators who created the law, and his statements are FACTS?
You are aware of things like legislative records, right?
http://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/holocaust-antisemitism/articles/holocaust-denial-laws
For instance, you can read here about how German anti-holocaust-denial laws are predicated on fears of resurgence of nazism. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Here's the wikipedia article for the French example

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_Gayssot
And here is what Google translate has to say about it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=French+to+English&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

> Jacques Toubon, who was still a deputy, declared: "I am against the offense of revisionism, because I am for law and for history, and that the offense of revisionism makes the law shrink and weakens the history (NA, 3rd Sitting of 21 June 1991).
There, that is an example of a justification for holocaust denial. Fact, not opinion.

>Come on now, now stop with the tanguent examples, SHOW ME where in the law is pertains what the anon says,
The question is irrelevant, because you are not asking for a LAW, you are asking for a JUSTIFICATION OF A LAW. What you're asking for is like asking what color Beethoven's 7th symphony is.

>becaue scuse me but I don't think he can read minds...
How can you be an attorney and not understand legislative records? Furthermore, your objection here is a factual one, you're claiming that above anon is wrong about his claim as to why the various European legislatures did what they did. What do YOU think they made these laws for? Why have you been talking endlessly about supporting censorship when you're apparently denying a factual support of his argument, while repeatedly saying he was not making a factual argument?

>>2707340
>Your question was if the reasons the anon gave namely these:
Anon is giving the justification of what ANOTHER person used, and did not in any way attempt to justify the laws. Until you grasp this point, you're just going to go around and around in a big, stupid, Mexican circle.

>>2707340
>Your question was if the reasons the anon gave namely these:
My question was if the reasons that anon gave what? Please, learn to write english and come back, this is painful.

>So my answer is Censorship
Good for you, you disagree with that anon.

>if you think that those are the REAL motivations of the law and you are defneding them
Not really. I think that anon is pretty much right and I'm against the law. I'm >>2706179. I don't know why I keep responding to a retard that can't make this simple distinction.

>>2707348
Ok show me the legislative records that aling with wat this anon say:

>Spreading "lies" on '"purpose"
>Instigating "hatred"
>being RETARDED
>Insulting the death


But in all of what you qoted I don't see this descriptions justified. Can you proove what he ACTUALLY SAID (which I quoted aain so you cant play stupid) alings with the law? But that's obvious impossible because that was just an opinion the anon used to DEFEND censorship.

Which is my point all alng and you can't deny it.

>>2707361
I was answering the question the anon posted,
>Suppose for a second that the reason that the law was made are the points that anon wrote. How would you answer to the questions "why does the law exist"?

And my anser is censorship, is not about disagreeing, but what the quote actually is doing which is defending censorship...

>>2707377
Well, that's it. You're hopelessly stupid.

>>2707387
If you think those are valid descriptions of the law we are talking then then you are the idiot.

>>2705968
>secular humanist
>OMG U HAV NO SOUL OR COMPASSION
Fuck off.

>>2706197
Reason is useless, period. Reason is fueled by emotion. It's a glorified sense that has been given gravity due to a long history of Platonism.
Birds have fucking magnets in their heads and humans and other intelligent apes and mammals can abstract.

If one denies God, then the notion that reason has some sort of supremacy is self-defeating.

>>2706490
>academic consensus
Fuck off, statist.

>>2707313
>Dead people and piles of clothing are proof of a deliberate genocide
Wow, I guess the Brits were genociding the Afrikaners when they put them all in camps then

>>2703853
black comedy /10

File: schindlers-list-xxx-parody-.png (253KB, 631x323px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 631x323px

>>2703853
Just show them this version, and explain the KZ wasn't a giant house for orgies

I like when people list fallacies as if it absolves them of responding

Fuck I love these threads. Oh so many delightful stormfag and pro-jew tears.

Something happened in Germany during the 1940s and it wasn't gaint Lampshade factories. However to say that the Jews weren't targets is a little silly for all you "free thinking university students".

The elitist attitude of so many of you is appalling. Can't handle a conversation with a couple of Neo-Nazis? What are you 10? The jump from rational and investigative conversation to overreactive emotion fill dribble is utterly disgusting on you self-righteous jewaboos.

File: 1476559568693.jpg (108KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x600px

>>2706375
Use this one instead.

File: 1492188766653.jpg (95KB, 600x540px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x540px

>>2710118
It's a game /pol/ and /leftypol/ both play for hours trying to "win our hearts and minds" with dedicated shitposting, desperate for more ants to serve as more shitpost drones.

The Holocaust never happened

But by fuck I wish it did