First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Double standards regarding evidence
7086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
What it boils down to, I guess, as we here are not primary sources of either Pizzagate or the Holocaust, are the credibility and veracity of the sources that exist for either topic.

Obviously, in the US, trusted primary sources are quite fallible. For example, Obama's claim that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" was labeled as "True" by PolitiFact, and news organizations such as the NYT and WAPO. This support by trusted media outlets may have helped get Obamacare passed. Then as time went by, it went from true, to "Mostly True," to "False," and finally PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" for 2013.

There's other evidence of shoddy reporting by journalists that caused some 65 million people to wonder why her election wasn't a "slam dunk." Not that anyone should get their news from "The Daily Show" or "Rolling Stone" magazine, but they both have been implicated in fake news, with the Rolling Stone's "A Rape on Campus" story being the more egregious example of poor journalism costing it $3 million in a defamation suit. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC along with all the broadcast media have all been accused of playing partisan politics with facts.

Regardless of how you approach questions about horrific acts, most of us must rely on secondary sources like the news media, or citizen journalists running blogs for your information. It behooves us all to critically think about who is saying what, what their agenda is, what's the objective of the story, and are the sources used believable and primary sources of information. We must decided whether the information presented constitutes enough proof to make an informed judgement on whatever topic has been presented.
md4124 
50355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
It is bullshit that Crunchyroll and it moderators are giving a platform to Holocaust deniers. It's not about being uncomfortable it's about truth and lies and and moderator who thought that giving an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier a platform should be fired.
15748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

SupersunZeratul wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


SupersunZeratul wrote:

Here's an important question for most of you including myself, why do you believe the Holocaust is true? Because unless you have either experienced it yourself or have studied it in depth yourself then the only way you even know about it is that you heard it from somewhere else thus when someone presents a claim that the Holocaust didn't happen are you being hypocritical to so quickly deny the claim because it contradicts what you understand yet ultimately you are just choosing to elevate what you have heard from one person over someone else since you don't know the material yourself and what's even worse is that while you know who is making the claim that the Holocaust didn't happen do you even know who you heard the claim from that it did happen? For many people they are actually in a sense acting illogically when presented with a claim that the holocaust didn't happen because they have been presented with and know more evidence that it didn't happen than if it did because their only support that it did happen is their reliance on someone else of what they said.?


Established bodies of knowledge are not worthless. If all I know about, say, global warming is that 99% of the scientific community believes that it is a real phenomena (numbers not meant to be accurate), that is worth something. This is why we have experts in the first place. If in order to make a conclusion about anything, the totality of evidence must be analyzed by every person on the planet, we would never get anywhere. Experts are the ones who hold the largest body of knowledge and can make the strongest conclusions. When presented with a singular piece of evidence, unless it is new evidence, there is a good chance it has been considered by experts in the fields and either changed their mind or didn't.

Basically, "knowledge of expert opinion" counts as evidence, so when presented with a piece of evidence that global warming isn't real, that is not weighed against nothing, it is weighed against the knowledge of expert opinion. This is not illogical.


Actually that's a logical fallacy. " argumentum ad verecundiam" or argument from authority.

Something isn't true because experts say it is, but rather because of the data that the experts have and if that's the case then you should present the data that the experts have rather than claim something is true because the experts say it is.

This is actually a great point because it strikes especially true for Global Warming. People don't know the evidence themselves, but instead rely on the claim of someone else when trying to refute someone claiming that Global Warming isn't true when instead to refute them you should present the evidence that the experts use to make their opinion, and then debate over that.

You can debate over evidence. It's really hard to debate against a non-present expert, and even if the expert was there he would defend his point with the data that he has studied and not just his word so defending the claim with an argument that "the majority of scientists believe it" isn't actually defending the claim at all since that isn't actually an argument.


First of all, I just want to say that I dislike the "look at this logical fallacy" school of arguing. While sometimes people clearly cross the line, there is a lot of room for making valid arguments that may seem similar to a fallacy. Explaining why something isn't a valid argument tends to be a much stronger argument than saying the word "fallacy" and throwing it out (though luckily that isn't what you did here). Now lets look at this example in particular.

Okay, so, first of all, I never actually presented my point as an argument. I presented it as a conclusion. They are two very different things. It is one thing to say "you are wrong about global warming because the scientific community believes in it" and it is another thing entirely to say "I choose to believe in global warming because the scientific community believes in it". One is not a refutation of evidence, but instead acknowledgement that there are others who have made a more educated decision and in the absence of the complete picture, you will stick to that. Logical fallacies only really apply to arguments, so I don't believe it applies here.

Second, there is actually some debate about what this logical fallacy actually is. philosophy.lander.edu specifies that it is an argument from innapropriate authority. This is an important distinction and it highlights the grey area around this type of argument. In this case, it would have to come down to a more specific "This evidence is refuted by this individual for x reason" for it to be applicable in an argument in my opinion.

While it is entirely possible for the community to be wrong, it is usually the case that such a thing is brought to light by new evidence, not by old evidence. In my original post, I did specify that new evidence needs to be assessed in a different way because it is not factored into expert opinion.

The key here is that we are talking about two different things. I am speaking of personal conclusions. You are speaking of arguments. They are two different playing fields.
One Punch Mod
117917 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

md4124 wrote:

It is bullshit that Crunchyroll and it moderators are giving a platform to Holocaust deniers. It's not about being uncomfortable it's about truth and lies and and moderator who thought that giving an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier a platform should be fired.


Please see below from my post on the prior page:


lorreen wrote:
...Please don't make this thread about "Pizzagate" or about Holocaust denial. Those were presented merely as examples in a question that really boils down to: Why should we not believe Thing 1 that seems too horrible to believe and yet believe Thing 2 which is also exceedingly horrible. What kinds of evidence lead to believing in one event, yet not another?

...

Some have asked why mods allowed this topic to stay open

...

I believe that it was not, unlike some earlier threads, intended to propagate theories about either "Pizzagate" or the Holocaust specifically, but about concepts of evidence, information, belief, and how we can know or trust things that we don't experience personally. If future posts can focus on those bigger concepts then the thread can stay open. I've modified the thread title to emphasize this aspect of the discussion.


51656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/21/16
... My grandfather was in the 6th armored division and was part of the force that liberated Buchenwald. He had nightmares about what he saw there till the day he died. PS the main reason the holocaust "numbers" were modified a few times mainly due to how the numbers were compiled, number of persons of Jewish heritage killed, number of Roma/Gypsies, mentally disabled, political prisoners, POWs, people of all of these groups were savagely killed in concentration camps, and some people just combine them into one large number for the deaths that occurred in concentration camps.
152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16

LalaSatalin wrote:


SHACLUB wrote:

jesus fucking christ i have no words for you that wouldn't get me banned, Lala.

I'd just recommend reading this
http://archive.adl.org/holocaust/response.html
and just reading through the entirety of this
https://www.ushmm.org/
https://www.hdot.org/
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html

But besides that point, just because people are skeptical of your conspiracy theory (read: bullshit) doesn't mean that you get to peddle antisemitic talking points (read: BULLSHIT) , Lala.


The blog post on your first link addreses 5 points:


Responses to common Holocaust-denial claims

The following are summaries of five (5) major claims frequently made by Holocaust-denial propagandists. Click on each to read a brief factual response. The footnoted sources are listed at the bottom of the page.

1) The Holocaust Did Not Occur Because There Is No Single "Master Plan" for Jewish Annihilation
2) There Were No Gas Chambers Used for Mass Murder at Auschwitz and Other Camps
3) Holocaust Scholars Rely on the Testimony of Survivors Because There Is No Objective Documentation Proving the Nazi Genocide
4) There Was No Net Loss of Jewish Lives Between 1941 and 1945
5) The Nuremberg Trials Were a "Farce of Justice" Staged for the Benefit of the Jews


Lala has crossed out the points that don't relate to direct evidence, i.e. evidence that is about as strong as the evidence for Pizzagate. For some reason, the blog post completely ignored the two major points that the cremations were mathematically impossible to reach the digits of the original claims, or that the ashes or corpses have yet to be discovered, but Lala will let that slip for now.

#2 rejects the argument that there were no gas chambers by saying that the gas chambers were disguised as shower rooms. That's the same as arguing that the child-trafficking business is disguised as a pizza shop, and the pizza ovens are actually cremation ovens for babies. It's not a substantiated claim, and there certainly is no evidence to prove it.

#4... is a straw man fallacy.

The blog doesn't address the other problems either. How much manpower would this have required? Where did the corpses go? Why did they choose this method? Your source addresses none of the important questions, despite being a "debunk article". It appears to be a “debunk article” for the wrong audience, much like how Snopes writes garbage under the pretense of being objective. The blog is aimed at people like you, who want to believe that the Holocaust is real, and only want to read from sources that agree with them. Lala thinks you should look at more unbiased sources, considering the About Us page makes it more than clear that this is a biased blog.

Your second link.... it is a link to the Holocaust Museum. Lala can't think of a more biased source than that, considering the entity exists under the very assumption that this thread is questioning. Lala can only respond to you by giving you this link.

Your third link has a lot of circumstantial evidence. Lala asks you in return: where is the direct evidence on this website?

Your fourth link. Did you even read the pages you linked? It is titled, "How to Refute Holocaust Denial". It's telling you how to refute it, so why aren't you following its instructions and refuting Lala's claims?

Lala thinks that you really should reconsider your sources. All four links are clearly biased from the beginning, and they don't even hide it. The names "Jewish Virtual Library" and Holocaust Museum" make their purpose quite clear, and the other two links write on their "About Us" page that their sole purpose is to prove the Holocaust. It's dangerous to place all your faith on such biased sources. Sometimes it's important to take the Devil's Advocate, in order to understand why some people think differently to yourself.


I don't have the time to put in the effort to argue with a holocaust denier, and if you can't put in the effort to actually read that last link, then I'm gravely sorry. "Bias" doesn't exist in this context because there are no sides to debate: the holocaust happened, and if you're genuinely too hateful, blind, or stupid to realize that, then I fear there is no use, Lala.

Consider this a win, I guess, but of course I didn't go into this argument believing you'd actually recant your delusions.

(this is my last post to the thread, btw, please don't ban me, mods! didn't see the lock!)

7086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16
Sorry, not a fan of censorship. It's nice to see a mod that doesn't knee-jerk into shutting down threads with topics that are controversial or uncomfortable. Being offended is part of life. How you deal with it shows your character.
6636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
my opinion is

pizzagate is most likely just a conspiracy theory without truth behind it but the idea their elites who are part of a pedophile rings of some sort is not unrealistic so possible but in this case barking up the wrong tree most likely maybe some of the people suspected could be but probably otherwise unfounded least from what info im aware of.

my grandma and grandpa could both attest to conditions being as bad as most historical texts portray places conquered by the nazis (possibly worse) including things like concentration camps and I'm going to say they are a credible source.

nor do i think think things like this worthy of censorship just for believing in something like pizzagate or being skeptical of the holocaust
24136 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / So. Cal
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

MonoDreams wrote:

Can we just have a petition to get these mods removed? And have a petition to perma-ban the person who made this thread? It's getting to the point where you can't go on this forum without seeing crap like this. And blah blah blah "don't click it then" or some other crap like that. Point is crap like this should not be allowed on any site period. Oh yeah, and while you're at it banning everyone who is against Lala's racist and disgusting thread. Remove the Neo-Nazi supporting video in her profile title. Though I doubt you'd do it.


The thread isn't about denying the holocaust or affirming pizzagate, but trying to undertand the process which people use to determine what the do and/or do not believe. Calling for ultimate censorship of voices that question the status quo or speak upon uncomforable or unpopular topics seems worse than, nearly anything else in this forum. But I'm against censorship so...
qwueri 
22874 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 12/19/16

lorreen wrote:

Some folks are persisting in making this about holocaust denial, or about the thread's very existence. I am deleting those posts.

I expect I will be talking this out with other mods and staff in charge of mods, but for right now I'm leaving this open. Please stay out of the thread if you are unwilling to stay on the main topic -- which is not the holocaust or holocaust denial.


I'm not really sure what you're wanting from this thread. All I get from the OP is juxtaposing Pizzagate and the Holocaust. Any semblance of discussion on meta-debate gets lost in the weeds.
Posted 12/19/16
Xxanthar will give Lala the benefit of the doubt, and believe that she used the holocaust as a poor example when trying to explain her position.
Banned
371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
Yes, it's not the main topic, but obviously she knew what was coming by saying all of that, which is why she checked it out with the mods in the first place. Welcome to naziroll everyone. You're from boston too. Lots of white supremacist types there in boston. I know, because I visited Berklee college of music and experienced it firsthand, plus boston's notorious reputation for white supremacist types. And yes, she is a holocaust denier since, ya know, she denied the fucking holocaust when it has been proven to be true! If you know defending nazis and shit is controversial and people are gonna get pissed, uh, maybe you shouldn't be fucking defending nazis, even if it's not the main topic! Common fucking sense!
Good thing I never gave money to naziroll.


You will delete those posts insisting it's about holocaust denial because it is PARTLY about that. That was mentioned.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denial

So yes, either for some strange reason you can't see how it is denial, or you are a nazi sympathizer bigot like lala.

You are being intellectually dishonest, and you are evil for being that way.

The test to see if you have any integrity will be to see if you leave my comment up for the world to see. If you take it down, then I'll know you are an intellectually dishonest nazi sympathizing holocaust denier. I'll know the truth real soon.
152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

Xxanthar wrote:

Xxanthar will give Lala the benefit of the doubt, and believe that she used the holocaust as a poor example when trying to explain her position.


Literally the worst argument since it makes her sound like a holocaust denier.
One Punch Mod
117917 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
Some folks are persisting in making this about holocaust denial, or about the thread's very existence. I am deleting those posts.

I expect I will be talking this out with other mods and staff in charge of mods, but for right now I'm leaving this open. Please stay out of the thread if you are unwilling to stay on the main topic -- which is not the holocaust or holocaust denial.
14223 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
here's an idea, if you don't want people to talk about holocaust denial maybe remove the huge chunk of the first post that is explicitly about that? like, if you were fine with editing the topic title i don't see why that's out of the question

as it is, what you're doing here is giving a holocaust denier a thread to spew neo-nazi propaganda in, and then complaining when people address that completely relevant aspect of the subject being discussed. so if you want us to talk about "double standards" here, there's a fucking huge one. free speech goes both ways, and if you want this to be a forum where people can talk about anything up to and including holocaust denial, you kind of also kind of have to allow others to respond to that with the appropriate amount of confusion and disgust
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.