Defending HItler

[Sarpedon]

Right, Hitler is indefensible. We are talking about 'best defense of anyone else in this thread.' And it is a damn sight better than 'Stalin killed more!'

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Interestingly, Jason Harvestdancer presented a better defense of Hitler than anyone else - Hitler was less worse than Stalin when one looks at the number of killed.

Actually, you are wrong on two points. Only two this time, you're slipping.

1. That was in the Defending the Soviet Union thread.
2. That was a defense of Stalin. A rather sarcastic tongue-in-cheek defense of Stalin, when I wrote that Stalin successfully killed more communists than Hitler did.

In this thread I only saw two people defending Hitler; humbleman by denying the holocaust, and underseer by accusing those who attack Hitler of advocating white genocide. I think humbleman was doing it as an intellectual exercise.

 

[laughing dog]

2. That was a defense of Stalin. A rather sarcastic tongue-in-cheek defense of Stalin, when I wrote that Stalin successfully killed more communists than Hitler did.

And if Stalin killed more communists than Hitler, than implicitly, Hitler is less worse than Stalin if one considers more communists worse than killing fewer of them. So, the only way your no. 2 rebuts my claim is that if you do not consider killing more communists to be worse than killing fewer of them.

In this thread I only saw two people defending Hitler; humbleman by denying the holocaust, and underseer by accusing those who attack Hitler of advocating white genocide.

Unsurprisingly, your claim about Underseer does not follow from what he wrote.

I think humbleman was doing it as an intellectual exercise.

As usual, you think wrong. You admitted you did not know humbleman was playing devil's advocate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think humbleman was doing it as an intellectual exercise.

You asserted it as a certainty before. Now you are backpedaling.

then you opined he was probably a previous user who changed his name so other users wouldnt berate him for his intellectual exercise. You did that to insult specific people in the thread.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And if Stalin killed more communists than Hitler, than implicitly, Hitler is less worse than Stalin if one considers more communists worse than killing fewer of them. So, the only way your no. 2 rebuts my claim is that if you do not consider killing more communists to be worse than killing fewer of them.

Ah, but that was the point of my tongue in cheek defense of Stalin. I claimed that Stalin successfully killed more communists as a defense of Stalin, so it cannot be said that I was defending Hitler with that statement.

Unsurprisingly, your claim about Underseer does not follow from what he wrote.

I'm not sure what insights people are hoping to come across in defending a mad person who is not obligated to make any sense at all to a rational human being.

You think that about Hitler?

Oh my gosh, you are committing white genocide! You are obviously prejudiced against white people! Stop persecuting us!!!!!!!!

There it is, black and white. LordKiran called Hitler "mad" and underseer thinks that is white genocide and that LordKiran is prejudiced against white people and underseer feels persecuted.

As usual, you think wrong. You admitted you did not know humbleman was playing devil's advocate.

So, first I admitted I did not have certainty of knowledge. Then you attack me for saying "I think" instead of "I know." If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, you might want to know what it is that I am saying that you are calling wrong.

You have effectively increased your error count and made up for only having two errors in your previous post.

I think humbleman was doing it as an intellectual exercise.

You asserted it as a certainty before. Now you are backpedaling.

then you opined he was probably a previous user who changed his name so other users wouldnt berate him for his intellectual exercise. You did that to insult specific people in the thread.

I did not claim certainty of knowledge, but that it did appear to me that was what he was doing. Even where I wrote an "insult to specific people in the thread" I did not claim certainty of knowledge.

There are only a few people whose positions I am certain of. I am certain that Sarpedon advocates censorship of hate speech, I am certain that laughing dog is so eager to tell me I'm wrong he doesn't even bother to read my post before telling me it is wrong, I am certain that underseer disguises his true opinion through using his offensive and TOS-violating tags and posted his defense of Hitler, and I am certain that I am an advocate of free speech.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So all out Holocaust denial is a 'good attempt?' I shudder to think what Jason would consider to be a bad attempt.

He stated several times that he is acting as if he is Hitler's defense attorney. For his effort, he has you calling him personally a Holocaust denier. This is reflected in the dialogue that Jolly Penguin and I had a few pages back. It's a good thing that the Catholic Church has a better understanding of the role of "Devil's Advocate" or they would wind up excommunicating the very people assigned to argue the counter side of any given case.

Right here you claimed he was playing devil's advocate and argued he is not a holocaust denier.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are you suggesting Humbleman was merely engaging in devil's advocacy?

I suspect that is the case, although having never conversed directly with him I cannot tell.

And here is where you first backpedaled from certainty to uncertainty.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think humbleman made a good attempt but was not up to the task.

Here is where you were wrong again. His attempt sucked.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So all out Holocaust denial is a 'good attempt?' I shudder to think what Jason would consider to be a bad attempt.

He stated several times that he is acting as if he is Hitler's defense attorney. For his effort, he has you calling him personally a Holocaust denier. This is reflected in the dialogue that Jolly Penguin and I had a few pages back. It's a good thing that the Catholic Church has a better understanding of the role of "Devil's Advocate" or they would wind up excommunicating the very people assigned to argue the counter side of any given case.

Right here you claimed he was playing devil's advocate and argued he is not a holocaust denier.

And in the very text you are quoting, I wrote "he stated several times". Gee, it's almost as if I didn't claim to be able to read his mind.

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, but that was the point of my tongue in cheek defense of Stalin. I claimed that Stalin successfully killed more communists as a defense of Stalin, so it cannot be said that I was defending Hitler with that statement.

As usual, you avoided addressing my comment. I will repeat it

And if Stalin killed more communists than Hitler, than implicitly, Hitler is less worse than Stalin if one considers more communists worse than killing fewer of them. So, the only way your no. 2 rebuts my claim is that if you do not consider killing more communists to be worse than killing fewer of them.

What part of that did you not understand?

I'm not sure what insights people are hoping to come across in defending a mad person who is not obligated to make any sense at all to a rational human being.

You think that about Hitler?

Oh my gosh, you are committing white genocide! You are obviously prejudiced against white people! Stop persecuting us!!!!!!!!

There it is, black and white. LordKiran called Hitler "mad" and underseer thinks that is white genocide and that LordKiran is prejudiced against white people and underseer feels persecuted.

Disregarding that it is obvious satire, what part of that do you feel is defending Hitler ?

So, first I admitted I did not have certainty of knowledge. Then you attack me for saying "I think" instead of "I know." If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, you might want to know what it is that I am saying that you are calling wrong.

I said you thought wrong - that is not an attack. You have not produced any reasons for why a rational person would think (instead of feel - a distinction you clearly cannot make) that humbleman is playing devil's advocate by denying reality. In addition, you continue to advocate for free speech even though no one is advocating to deny anyone's right to free speech.

I do hope that the therapeutic benefits to you from your responses are strong enough to outweigh the costs of the embarrassment from their divorcement from reason and reality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is ludicrous to claim that my tongue-in-cheek comment about Stalin killing more people than Hitler is actually a defense of either, but you have never shied away from the ludicrous. If you want to infer a defense of either Stalin or Hitler in that statement, I cannot stop you.

I can't disregard that it is "obvious satire" because it is not obvious satire. It is when underseer uses his TOS-violating tags that he posts his true opinions, and he gets away with posting it because you see the tag and conclude it is satire.

Thinking that humbleman is playing devil's advocate is not claiming certainty of knowledge. I never claimed certainty of knowledge. You want me to have claimed certainty of knowledge so badly you are imagining it, but that doesn't make it magically appear.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Thinking that humbleman is playing devil's advocate is not claiming certainty of knowledge. I never claimed certainty of knowledge. You want me to have claimed certainty of knowledge so badly you are imagining it, but that doesn't make it magically appear.

bullshit. you drew conclusions from your certainty that would only be conclusions if you perceived it as a valid premise. to wit, you claimed others were wrong in thinking he is a holocaust denier because you said he was playing devil's advocate. you backpedaled when challenged. as for me personally, I don't know if he's a holocaust denier or not. so, don't steal my position by backpedaling. he has many weird, extreme opinions and so it is equally likely he is a denier or not.

as for your claim that he did a good job at defending hitler but ultimately was not up to the task, bullshit. almost everything he wrote was wrong. some of it probably even comes from nazi propaganda as others mentioned.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to Jason Harvestdancer:

In addition, you continue to advocate for free speech even though no one is advocating to deny anyone's right to free speech.

I do hope that the therapeutic benefits to you from your responses are strong enough to outweigh the costs of the embarrassment from their divorcement from reason and reality.

Indeed.

 

[laughing dog]

It is ludicrous to claim that my tongue-in-cheek comment about Stalin killing more people than Hitler is actually a defense of either, but you have never shied away from the ludicrous.

If I shied away from the ludicrous, I would never read your posts.

I can't disregard that it is "obvious satire" because it is not obvious satire. It is when underseer uses his TOS-violating tags that he posts his true opinions, and he gets away with posting it because you see the tag and conclude it is satire.

Wow, you really will say anything to defend your nonsense. Your response depends entirely on infallible mind-reading.

Thinking that humbleman is playing devil's advocate is not claiming certainty of knowledge. I never claimed certainty of knowledge. You want me to have claimed certainty of knowledge so badly you are imagining it, but that doesn't make it magically appear.

You are simply blowing smoke. No one claimed you had certain knowledge. In order to think something is true, one should have reasons. You have presented none. Instead of either coming up with a reason or admitting you have no reason to think humbleman is playing advocate, you resort to dreaming up some straw man to deflect the discussion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thinking that humbleman is playing devil's advocate is not claiming certainty of knowledge. I never claimed certainty of knowledge. You want me to have claimed certainty of knowledge so badly you are imagining it, but that doesn't make it magically appear.

bullshit. you drew conclusions from your certainty that would only be conclusions if you perceived it as a valid premise. to wit, you claimed others were wrong in thinking he is a holocaust denier because you said he was playing devil's advocate. you backpedaled when challenged. as for me personally, I don't know if he's a holocaust denier or not. so, don't steal my position by backpedaling. he has many weird, extreme opinions and so it is equally likely he is a denier or not.

I never claimed certainty, but in a thread where one is supposed to try to find a way to defend Hitler and when he made posts presenting himself in the role of a defense attorney it seemed like he was trying to do the devil's advocate. He could have been lying about how he was doing devil's advocate role. I don't know if he was telling the truth or lying about him being a devil's advocate.

But you apparently wanted to see it as real, so you accused him of being one. When I pointed out the nature of the thread and the nature of the role, you backpedaled to saying you don't know for sure if he is a holocaust denier.

as for your claim that he did a good job at defending hitler but ultimately was not up to the task, bullshit. almost everything he wrote was wrong. some of it probably even comes from nazi propaganda as others mentioned.

Then show me how one would do it right.

If I shied away from the ludicrous,

You would not claim I defended Hitler.

Wow, you really will say anything to defend your nonsense. Your response depends entirely on infallible mind-reading.

Underseer's position as a hard-righter pretending to be a progressive is well known.

Instead of either coming up with a reason or admitting you have no reason to think humbleman is playing advocate, you resort to dreaming up some straw man to deflect the discussion.

So you admit I didn't claim certainty of knowledge, thank you for playing.

 

[laughing dog]

You would not claim I defended Hitler.

Whether you meant it or not, you presented an argument that can be used to defend Hitler.

Underseer's position as a hard-righter pretending to be a progressive is well known.

Projection is a form of narcissism, not analysis. Regardless of your beliefs, you cannot read minds. I realize you will say anything to defend your ludicrous illusions. But you really are only fooling yourself.

]

So you admit I didn't claim certainty of knowledge, thank you for playing.

. In order to think something is true, one needs a reason. You have yet to come up with a reason. So, you can play your boring pedantic games, but you are not fooling anyone but yourself with these evasions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I never claimed certainty, but in a thread where one is supposed to try to find a way to defend Hitler and when he made posts presenting himself in the role of a defense attorney it seemed like he was trying to do the devil's advocate. He could have been lying about how he was doing devil's advocate role. I don't know if he was telling the truth or lying about him being a devil's advocate.

But you apparently wanted to see it as real, so you accused him of being one. When I pointed out the nature of the thread and the nature of the role, you backpedaled to saying you don't know for sure if he is a holocaust denier.

as for your claim that he did a good job at defending hitler but ultimately was not up to the task, bullshit. almost everything he wrote was wrong. some of it probably even comes from nazi propaganda as others mentioned.

Then show me how one would do it right.

If I shied away from the ludicrous,

You would not claim I defended Hitler.

Wow, you really will say anything to defend your nonsense. Your response depends entirely on infallible mind-reading.

Underseer's position as a hard-righter pretending to be a progressive is well known.

Instead of either coming up with a reason or admitting you have no reason to think humbleman is playing advocate, you resort to dreaming up some straw man to deflect the discussion.

So you admit I didn't claim certainty of knowledge, thank you for playing.

Fantastical stories that anyone can tell are false based on the documented posts of yours. Goodbye.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I like how everyone is telling me I was certain when I couched my every statement with "based on his posts" and "it appears" and "I think". You guys are so desperate to have a villain you will gladly make one up.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Congratulations, Jason. You won the Defending Hitler thread. You were the only one with energy enough to continue with persistent fantasies. Buh bye.

 

[laughing dog]

I like how everyone is telling me I was certain when I couched my every statement with "based on his posts" and "it appears" and "I think".

Still waiting for you to produce a reason for why you would "think" humbleman was playing devil's advocate in defending Hitler because as many posters have shown, denying reality is not playing devil's advocate. You've had a number of days to come up with a reason, and still nothing. Which leads people to conclude that
1) you have no idea what a devil's advocate is, or
2) you are ashamed to admit your reason, or
3) you had no reason, or
4) you felt the need to back up your defense of humbleman's right to defend Hitler even though no one was contesting that right.

Why not try something different and actually address the content of a post to which you respond instead of either creating yet another straw man or repeating one of your boring straw men?