Defending HItler

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

This is a good point. Even Jason said the same thing:

A good lawyer is supposed to be able to argue either side of a case given the same set of facts.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is a good point. Even Jason said the same thing:

A good lawyer is supposed to be able to argue either side of a case given the same set of facts.

Alright, the two of you will not address any point unless I address this.

Humbleman himself described his action as that of a defense attorney early in this thread. That is why I concluded that he may be doing this. I'm sure you didn't even bother to read the post since you reacted the way I predicted you would react in the "insult post".

Now, Don2, you say humbleman did a bad job conducting this intellectual exercise. Show me how one would do a better job.

- - - Updated - - -

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

And I didn't even defend Hitler. Not even once.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Alright, the two of you will not address any point unless I address this.

Humbleman himself described his action as that of a defense attorney early in this thread. That is why I concluded that he may be doing this. I'm sure you didn't even bother to read the post since you reacted the way I predicted you would react in the "insult post".

Now, Don2, you say humbleman did a bad job conducting this intellectual exercise. Show me how one would do a better job.

Post#240.

- - - Updated - - -

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

And I didn't even defend Hitler. Not even once.

I came here and refuted the op argument. Then, I refuted some of humbleman's claims but largely not needed since others did so. Trying to respond to op, defend Hitler, or argue against that are valid reasons to be here. This discussion, however, has degraded into a conversation about people and I do not want to participate.

I let you win the thread. Now please stop writing to me. You win. Now, stop.

 

[laughing dog]

Alright, the two of you will not address any point unless I address this.

Humbleman himself described his action as that of a defense attorney early in this thread. That is why I concluded that he may be doing this.

Except a number of posters indicated that lawyers cannot simply deny reality in a defense - judges will not permit it. But at least now we know the source of your poor conclusion.

Now, Don2, you say humbleman dd a bad job conducting this intellectual exercise. Show me how one would do a better job.

Nice shifting of the goal posts. One can judge a job as badly done without being able to do a better job. Or are you implicitly saying humbleman did a good job?

 

[humbleman]

Oh come on. Bring you "witness" here the one who says he saw Germans using gas in rooms making holes in the ceiling of the building.

I'm just not going to engage you in this. But I'd really like to know why you are so obsessed with defending Hitler? What is your motivation? I'm curious. Religious people attack science because it conflicts with their religious books despite incredible evidence. What do you get out of by defending Hitler?

I think I must continue "defending Hitler" because this topic -I don't know how but thanks J- by the way is going, is calling for another topic called "defending humbleman".

Defending Hitler from my part is the response to the first message in this topic, where a court with a Jew or Jewish judge and juror might was implied to rule a case against Hitler.

Now well, I love Israel, however I am from the US and I have learned the judicial process in a different way, and I saw lots of things in the first posting that weren't correct.

My first message was to explain a more accurate process if Mr. Hitler was on trial.

The obsessive attacks against Mr. Hitler ignoring my first message caused me to write again my first posting but at this time acting as the attorney of Mr. Hitler.

It wasn't so hard setting a strategy, because I did it before in a game with others playing of being lawyers. My last and desperate resource to win the case allowed my "party" to win the game, well, we gave more drinks to the judge and his ears were tuned on our side. At three o'clock in the morning, we, the ones defending the insurance company won the game against the attorneys defending the victim of a car accident.

Here, in this topic, the case is also hypothetical.

However, facts can be used, and attorneys will pull from shelves everything valuable to win the case.

The funny thing is that between postings I did find out that there are some gaps in this issue of the Holocaust.

And is in the gaps where I concentrated the most.

For example, people dead by collateral damage is counted even today, when US pilots hit a building killing a terrorist leader "but also killing five children, one woman and injuring dozens of people".

This information is not given neither as estimate nor as statistics from WW2 records.

Like this example from above, any attorney will use it as an argument for defending the client, in this case Mr. Hitler.

The job of the attorney is playing with the evidence in a way to find any error or gap to successfully take it out of the table.

If we continue with the court case against Mr. Hitler, I think that I will be capable to prove that currently the US government is not "helping" Israel with millions and millions of dollars each year, but those millions and millions of dollars are just "compensation of war" payments. (Lol) (Considering the Jews deaths caused by allies bombings on German factories and more).

As an attorney the use of any probable source will be exploited at its maximum.

And, who knows? Even as a mental exercise, Mr. Hitler at the end might be found non guilty.

This won't be a denial of the Holocaust, but surely having Mr. Hitler non guilty, the cause of the Holocaust will be input to others outside the German forces.

____________________________________________________________

On the other hand, I study science, I do some work doing science experiments, and I'm not against science.

I'm against some so called "theories of science" which are just mere hypothesis without the correspondent base foundation built with scientific facts.

Evolution and relativity are two twin towers with magnificent good looking, with a craft-made finish in each floor, with the most advanced technology distributed in each office, but the base foundation of these buildings is not concrete and reinforcing bars but sand mixed with mud.

If an inspector reviews the base foundation of these two buildings, they will be closed with a red tag saying that they can't be occupied and must be turned down.

You don't need to be a religious dude to find out how good for nothing are those theories. Both of the theories were idealized with imaginary events and processes.

There is no existent time and species do not change from inferior to superior (meaning of word evolution when the theory was created)

Who cares about how wonderful the windows of the buildings look from outside or how great is the wood floor in the hallways, the foundation is sand mixed with mud, those buildings are good for nothing, they can't be occupied.

No matter how these theoretical dudes manage to "prove" their theories right, because if their theories are taken to court, over there they will "have" to prove that time exists and that species indeed "evolve".


One of them must demonstrate in court how time was detected before dilatation, what instrument was used, who was the first detecting the flowing of time, and more.

The another must demonstrate that facts corroborate their claims, this is to say, the bird lost the wings, that is the fact, now demonstrate the bird without wings as a favorable change, which is the main principle of "natural selection".

Of course these theories will fall on the first day in court, where they are obligated to present the required evidence, not so their doctrines but the explanation of the mechanisms and prove that other species of the same class corroborate their conclusions. Example, a bird lost the wings, but other similar birds which didn't lose their wings must show they will suffer when living in the same environment where the wingless birds live, and vice versa.

Birds with wings must be in disadvantage living in the same environment with wingless birds and won't survive having wings in such an environment. And, of course, current observations do not corroborate that doctrine of "speciation" by any means. Wingless and birds with wings live in the same environment without showing any problem, even more, birds with wings show a greater advantage over wingless birds, specially when danger is near.

Simple observations prove that evolution theory is as false as a $13.00 bill. Lol.

These two theories are saying lies after lies, so being against these two theories is OK.

Science must conserve dignity as a branch of knowledge with serious agenda, while these two theories have transformed part of science into a circus full of clowns.

 

[Ford]

What the actual fuck did I just read?

 

[bilby]

What the actual fuck did I just read?

In summary, the holocaust didn't happen, because the Theory of Evolution and the Theories of Special and General Relativity are wrong, because kiwis.

I knew there was something wrong with kiwis. (To be fair, all Australians know that there's something wrong with kiwis. Not many realise that they falsified the genocide of millions though).

 

[Hermit]

What the actual fuck did I just read?

Dunno. My index finger has developed an automatic reaction of late. No, it does not salivate at the sound of a bell. Instead, when I read "humbleman" as the author of a post, my finger starts operating the scrollwheel.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What the actual fuck did I just read?

It's called the incompetent lawyer appeal defense. Give him credit. He was the only one here to think of it.

 

[bilby]

What the actual fuck did I just read?

It's called the incompetent lawyer appeal defense. Give him credit. He was the only one here to think of it.

I think it's called the  Chewbacca Defense.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And I didn't even defend Hitler. Not even once.

I came here and refuted the op argument. Then, I refuted some of humbleman's claims but largely not needed since others did so. Trying to respond to op, defend Hitler, or argue against that are valid reasons to be here. This discussion, however, has degraded into a conversation about people and I do not want to participate.

I let you win the thread. Now please stop writing to me. You win. Now, stop.

How can I win if I didn't defend Hitler?

You say humbleman did a bad job. Show me how a better job would be done.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And I didn't even defend Hitler. Not even once.

I came here and refuted the op argument. Then, I refuted some of humbleman's claims but largely not needed since others did so. Trying to respond to op, defend Hitler, or argue against that are valid reasons to be here. This discussion, however, has degraded into a conversation about people and I do not want to participate.

I let you win the thread. Now please stop writing to me. You win. Now, stop.

How can I win if I didn't defend Hitler?

You say humbleman did a bad job. Show me how a better job would be done.

Already did and even gave you the post#. Already told you, you get to win. Please stop now.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think my "He was constantly on drugs" defense would be better in court.

To say that he killed fewer people than Stalin is no defense. Some people get hanged for killing just one person. Demonstrating that someone is not in control of their actions is the way to go.

For the record, I do not believe that Hitler was not in control of his actions. I am merely answering on topic to this thread, unlike the holocaust deniers and their defenders.

Also, it is a fact that Hitler was constantly on drugs. Just one of the many facts that I know that the people on the right don't want to draw attention to, for some reason.

if you have enough money, you can buy some experts who agree that the drugs and insanity played a role. this was analyzed independently by a psychiatrist who debunked those defenses, but money talks. both prosecution and defenses with money can hire experts to say anything.

So this is your defense of Hitler? You might need to elaborate.

I can't win this thread because I didn't give a defense of Hitler.

 

[laughing dog]

I think my "He was constantly on drugs" defense would be better in court.

To say that he killed fewer people than Stalin is no defense. Some people get hanged for killing just one person. Demonstrating that someone is not in control of their actions is the way to go.

For the record, I do not believe that Hitler was not in control of his actions. I am merely answering on topic to this thread, unlike the holocaust deniers and their defenders.

Also, it is a fact that Hitler was constantly on drugs. Just one of the many facts that I know that the people on the right don't want to draw attention to, for some reason.

if you have enough money, you can buy some experts who agree that the drugs and insanity played a role. this was analyzed independently by a psychiatrist who debunked those defenses, but money talks. both prosecution and defenses with money can hire experts to say anything.

So this is your defense of Hitler? You might need to elaborate.

I can't win this thread because I didn't give a defense of Hitler.

You successfully defended the right of humbleman to defend Hitler against a non-existent threat to deny him that right. You successfully showed that humbleman was a playing the devil's advocate despite the fact you had no idea what a devil's advocate was and admitting you had no rationale for the defense. And, unknowingly in another thread, you tacitly presented a better defense of Hitler.

Make no mistake, you won this thread outright.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And, unknowingly in another thread, you tacitly presented a better defense of Hitler.

You are so desperate to portray me as defending Hitler you will make up a defense out of nothing. Why is that?

Since you want me to defend Hitler, perhaps you should show me how one might do so.

 

[laughing dog]

......
Since you want me to defend Hitler, perhaps you should show me how one might do so.

You need to learn how to become a gracious winner instead of embarrassing yourself with such ridiculousness.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

...

 

[laughing dog]

...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

...

 

[laughing dog]

...