PsyHusky got itself pwnt.

These bronies, ponies, or whatever the hell they are, they don’t care about references! And hell, I be damned, there were concentration camps! You see, he says one can even visit them today. My, oh my. This one has me stumped.

I don’t think this is a troll; some people are genuinely this friggin’ stupid!

You just have to look at « The desperate face of a “Holocaust” Believer » in order to see how incredibly stupid these cretins are! ?

Evolutionists do not demand suppression of Creationism; they have enough confidence in the scientific evidence for their case. The reverse is true of Holocaust Believers, who do everything in their power to prevent the revisionist case being heard, because at some level they know that the science is not on their side. An informed Revisionist scholar can tear the Holocaust apart. The evolutionary biologist has no such fears from Creationists.
- Kingfisher

[in]tolerant ‘holocaust’ believer…

I had to beautify and translate this to make it comprehensible:

I mean, come on, how fucking retarded can you be to nauseate a person so much? You’ll be a fucking dad soon and you’re going on about “denying the holocaust”, and seriously question the whole package. Totally fucked up. I have nothing more to say. You do not have to answer this. I do NOT want you to answer this. And just because I said it, you do it. In short, I would not let my dog piss on you if you were on fire.



A real humdinger

Earlier today I was involved in some protracted discussions with ‘holocaust’ believers. Somebody (he appears to live in Poland) told me:

It’s pretty funny how someone can be so deep in their bullshit. I would argue with you but you seem to bring nothing up that goes against nazi death camps being a thing.


Whereas I responded:

Indeed, it sure is funny how somebody can be so deep in their bull shit. A real humdinger.
Most ‘holocaust’ believers are incapable of arguing; they resort to violence or other foul attacks — it just shows how devoid their so-called ‘arguments’ are.
However, when they do try to argue, this is how it can typically unfold:


He responds back with this:

did that word bullshit trigger something that made you think i was being violent? Do you want me to use a different word? I just have one question to ask you do you believe in chem trails?


I end the discussion with this comment:

No, of course it didn’t trigger any such things for me. I am just stating a (perhaps for you) inconvenient fact; that ‘holocaust’ believers very often engage in violent attacks against their opponents — fierce assaults, arson attacks, acid attacks (I particularly remember one case where they threw acid in the face of an elderly man. I think he was close to eighty years old or somesuch. I cannot be bothered to look it up right now). Also bomb attacks (e.g François Duprat who died due to a car bomb and his wife had to amputate both of her legs). And on & on, the list of ‘holocaust’ believer violence is a long, sordid one. I assume they use violence because they have no arguments.
It is also, as you probably know, illegal in some fourteen countries to question the extermination thesis. So you have everything on your side — even the judicial system. But in a traditional, even-handed debate the ‘holocaust’ believers will always fail because he does not have truth on his side. That is what matters and that is precisely what the ordinary logical-thinking human being will see when they stumble onto these attempts at debate.


Well…except it never really ended with my comment. The obligatory so-called “Mother Word” of the ‘holocaust’ believer was induced and let loose along with one other word — a cocktail of buzzwords to deter:


you’re an anti-semite and probably white supremacist.


…or so they thought! I am not a person easily deterred. I reply back:

The word ‘antisemite’ is a particularly useless buzzword these days as it has come to mean anybody and anything, and even used in situations where it is not even kosher to use it.


Now the ‘holocaust’ believers are somewhat quiet.


Somebody else jumps into the discussion and it is — to my surprise — not to attack me, but for semi-support of me:

Actually, the Palestinians are more Semitic than Israeli Jews. Supporting Israel over Palestine would be more suggestive of an anti-Semite. Of course, neither really proves anti-Semitism at all and it’s ridiculous to suggest so.

I see nowhere that k0nsl bad mouthed the Jewish people. He simply doesn’t support everything Israel does and does not accept their justifications. Anti-Semitism is a hatred of Semitic people, the polar opposite of a Semitist. Suggesting someone is an anti-Semitist because they aren’t a Semitist is like suggesting someone is anti-White because they aren’t a White supremacist.

I’m not going to make any claims on the holocaust or Israel at the moment, but I just wanted you to know that you are only making your side look worse. It would be best if you either asked questions and then came up with actual arguments, or simply moved on.


That’s it, for the moment.

Wiesel tells a story about a visit to a Rebbe…

Wiesel tells a story about a visit to a Rebbe, a Hasidic rabbi, he hadn’t seen for 20 years.
The Rebbe is upset to learn that Wiesel has become a writer, and wants to know what he writes.
“Stories,” Wiesel tells him, “… true stories”:
About people you knew?
“Yes, about people I might have known.”
About things that happened?
“Yes, about things that happened or could have happened.”
But they did not?
“No, not all of them did. In fact, some were invented from almost the beginning to almost the end.”
The Rebbe leaned forward as if to measure me up and said with more sorrow than anger:
That means you are writing lies!
I did not answer immediately. The scolded child within me had nothing to say in his defence. Yet, I had to justify myself:
“Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; others are – although they never occurred.