If anyone is reciting vintage wartime propaganda, it's you. Straight out of Herr Goebbels handbook. Right down to the 'zig heil' and the SS insignia on the Nazi uniform.
"Zig" heil?
I'm just reciting facts, old man. If you don't care to disprove them, then there's no point in speaking at all.
I don't give a crap if you find it offensive or not. Your whole dissertation is offensive in the extreme; and to claim otherwise is contempt for humanity.
I'm just telling facts. If facts are offensive to you, that's not my problem. That just means you can't handle the facts.
It matters, fuckwit, because when you have been told hundreds of time that nobody cares about your shit, you keep on like a broken record. What are you, fucking deaf or insane?
The more you whine, the less you can convince me to stop speaking. There is little I loathe more than offensive hypocrites like yourself and I would continue this only to taunt you if for no other reason.
If you only told us your viewpoint, and didn't expect everyone to be converted to your side, then I wouldn't be worried.
Then you shouldn't be worried.
But you hold a metaphorical machine gun to our heads and try to drum it into us.
I don't. I just expect people to either shut up or use arguments when they speak out against my views, like mature people do.
What if IU did similar to you?
I would actually love that. In my experience, that's how the most interesting debates get started.
Hardly a comparison between someone who was proposing an astronomical system and the biggest mass murderer of his day.
Copernicus was someone who questioned the status quo with logically argumented statements that were in conflict with the sensitivities and prejudice of his days, yet all he did was speak the truth. My situation is exactly the same. The only difference is that my views deal with history and his views with physics.
quite true. however, see my point about informed opinion. your "argument" seems to consist of trying to give credibility to the credentials of the people whose opinions you spout.
My arguments consist largely about mentioning facts that contradict the status quo. For this, I quote both mainstream and non-mainstream sources depending on the nature of the fact. When possible, I try to refer to primary sources. That approach is as scientific as it gets.
really, from your own experience? then why, as i said above, does your "argument" consist of nothing else but other people's dribblings?
I'm merely applying scientific methods, which includes citing primary and secondary sources. Read any academic historic work and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of references to "other people's dribblings".
nope. far from it. the mainstream are, by and large, sheep. but then, so are certain idiotic splinter/out groups.
True. That's why I don't just a statement based on who made it but rather based on the arguments used for them. If you just a statement based on whether the person making that statement was a communist, a liberal, a conservative, a fascist, a racist or a Buddhist rather than on the actual arguments used, then you are judging by prejudice and you only limit yourself to certain preconceived points of views which just might be false. I know people who absolutely loathe communism, but still love to quote Gramsci on a regular basis. That's what I call objectivity
many things, one being the ability to realise when you're being sucked in by bigotted propaganda.
What makes you so sure it is I and not yourself who's being sucked in by bigotted propaganda?
however, copernicus and newton had original ideas, which necessitated a paradigm shift. fascist bollocks requires nothing of the sort.
First of all, I thought we were mostly talking about Holocaust revisionism. Holocaust revisionism are two entirely seperate things and although there is an overlapse, far from every Holocaust revisionist is a fascist and vice versa. Some popular Holocaust revisionists are even Jews (think of JG Burg or David Cole for example).
I'm not indoctrinated by anyone. My opinion is the result of a logical analysis of the available data by studying primary and secondary sources from all perspectives. The difference between you and me is probably that you ignore certain sources by default (because of prejudices) and therefore only look at information from a few perspectives rather than all perspectives.
You assume too much.
I only make assumptions when I see no other possible conclusion.
Actually you've chosen to ignore every point made proving you wrong
What points proving me wrong? All you did, was copy-paste a few statements from Nizkor debunked ages ago that addressed less than 10% of the arguments I made and you consistently ignored most of the counterarguments I provided for them. That's hardly what I call being proven wrong.
One of the Nizkor pages you linked to even addressed the Jewish soap myth as a fact, yet you say no problem with that at all. That's quite pathetic, you know?!?
Quite a few scientists then were known to agree with Copernicus, actually, and most of the points he made had been known since ancient Greece.
Quite a few scientists happened to agree with Holocaust Revisionism and Holocaust Revisionism would probably have become mainstream during the '80s or '90s if political groups hadn't put so much pressure against it using threats, social or financial ruining, physical attacks and prison sentences to silence the debate.
Back before the politically correct machine censored this part of history, Holocaust Revisionism was a position taken by prominent historians Harry Elmer Barnes, David L. Hoggan and James J. Martin. AJP Taylor may also be called a "denier" these days. Then, there are also folks like Stephen H Roberts, who visited the Third Reich in the '30s and was very critical of the regime. They don't count as Holocaust Revisionists, but they surely depicted the Third Reich completely different from the way the Third Reich regime of the '30s is describe today.
But Copernicus wasn't a Nazi, and he certainly wasn't deluded. You are. You should join the Flat Earth Society. There is one, you know.
I'm not the deluded one. You are. I stick to the scientific facts in spite of the prejudices of my environment, just like Copernicus.
