1. Comment #182322 by adamwilcox on May 19, 2008 at 5:12 pm

For those with browsers that can cope with it, the direct url for the flash video is:
http://www.21school.ox.ac.uk/video/flv/200805_sulston_0.flv

Other Comments by adamwilcox

2. Comment #182329 by sjsh on May 19, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Main Talk:
http://www.21school.ox.ac.uk/video/flv/200805_sulston_0.flv

Q&A:
http://www.21school.ox.ac.uk/video/flv/200805_sulston_1.flv

And no, I can't get the mp3 either.

Other Comments by sjsh

3. Comment #182350 by MIND_REBEL on May 19, 2008 at 8:00 pm

No workie.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

4. Comment #182360 by Neuro on May 19, 2008 at 8:56 pm

I just watched the video. I did not get the mp3 to work, either.

There was no audience Q&A, like I thought they were going to do. I think they ran out of time. I would have liked it to be longer.

Regardless, it was a good talk.

Other Comments by Neuro

5. Comment #182384 by mordacious1 on May 19, 2008 at 10:35 pm

I agree that science is best driven by curiosity, and should be publicly funded. Unfortunately, most cutting edge science is very expensive and the need to make a profit is becoming more of a reality. Not enough of the general population care or understand science to pay for it, sad. I don't know how many times I've heard that thanks to NASA we have teflon. Grrr.

Other Comments by mordacious1

6. Comment #182387 by mordacious1 on May 19, 2008 at 10:57 pm

No questions from the audience! I wonder if there is more to this clip with some of these. Interesting talk though, although if the press gets hold of it they might take it out of context. "scientists want to breed superior race"
"Hitler returns", People just don't understand what benefits they can receive, too many scifi movies I suppose.

Other Comments by mordacious1

7. Comment #182402 by sjsh on May 20, 2008 at 12:47 am

Hi 27513,

The links are so you can download the video to watch offline. I convert the downloaded Flash Video (.flv) to MPEG4 (.m4v) so I can put them on my iPod.

Use Google to find an .flv to to .m4v converter.

sjsh

Other Comments by sjsh

8. Comment #182405 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 1:33 am

I can't decide if Harris is stunningly and brilliantly prescient or simply completely off his rocker!

Richard's impressively astute questioning of him at the end did indicate in Harris a certain vagueness, I thought, if not flat-out contradiction, in his pursuing the ideas he had raised in his talk. His idea that human immortality - or at least hugely increased longevity - would render us no longer human doesn't seem to follow, I think. I'm probably being a bit dim, but Harris's overall message seemed finally a little confused, not least because by the end he was not emphasising nearly as much as he had at the start of his talk his assertion that science is for the general good rather more than for its own exploratory and curiosity-driven sake.

Sulston was more grounded, it seemed, and made his points in favour of science as exploration clearly and engagingly.

Nice to see Richard 'chairing' this - he is usually being 'chaired', it seems! - with real skill, cutting to the chase of the arguments in typically perspicacious manner.

I enjoyed this.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

9. Comment #182412 by Backslidden on May 20, 2008 at 3:11 am

The ideas and concepts discussed were very fascinating but they seemed to be encased in a plethora subjective philosophy--it struck me as rambling. It left me a bit dissatisfied. It felt as though not much meat and potatoes was delivered in these talks. If the purpose was just to get us to think I suppose it hit the mark, but I'm not sure if offered much else.

Other Comments by Backslidden

10. Comment #182419 by acgy21 on May 20, 2008 at 4:10 am

Interesting comments about the lecture.
There is a blog about this lecture with more discussion points at:
http://www.21school.ox.ac.uk/blog/index.cfm/2008/5/13/What-is-Science-for

Other Comments by acgy21

11. Comment #182421 by SilentMike on May 20, 2008 at 4:32 am

The talk is very interesting. It's so nice to be able to listen to people making sense of things without someone feeling the need to give equal time to the idiot voice.

Other Comments by SilentMike

12. Comment #182486 by sophia_mr on May 20, 2008 at 8:32 am

I rarely hear this being talked about so I'm very glad I got to see this. :D

Other Comments by sophia_mr

13. Comment #182513 by King of NH on May 20, 2008 at 9:58 am

Styrer:
"His idea that human immortality - or at least hugely increased longevity - would render us no longer human doesn't seem to follow..."

I think, and would agree, that he means being human requires a mortality. The idea that we have only so long, the fear of death and desease, and the desire to use that time drives us. If I had even, say, 1000 more years, never mind 1000000, I wouldn't feel the need to experience "today." So to lose that shadow of mortality would be to lose an essential part of humanity. I know I would become the world's leading consumer of "I'll do it tomorrow"s.

Aside from that, there's the semantic aproach: a human is a *mortal* being belonging to the ape family of earth. I would say the problem here is how long something has to live to be immortal. Right now, 1Million years would seem to be immortal, but if we lived 1Million years, we might say 1Trillion years is the mark. If it is eternity, then that is imposible according to the currently known fate of the universe.

Other Comments by King of NH

14. Comment #182515 by huzonfurst on May 20, 2008 at 10:04 am

I don't get people who would pass up potential immortality (in a fulfilling environment) because they would "lose an essential part of humanity!"

What you lose is DEATH - sheesh!

Other Comments by huzonfurst

15. Comment #182550 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 20, 2008 at 12:27 pm

"Indeed, I believe there's no other person living or in the past that has done a bigger job than making science understandable to a broader audience."

*COUGHSAGANCAUGH*

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

16. Comment #182639 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 5:45 pm

ASMargues,
WOW!
Giving your sarcastic bullshit strawman definition, followed by your triumphant simple bullshit explanation makes you a total tool. Or to quote one of our greater sages on this site...
You sir have earned,
FUCKTARD

Other Comments by MaxD

17. Comment #182650 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Comment #182645 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Hello ASMarques

I've read with interest your posts over the last month, without making comment.

I must say that you really do seem to be on your last legs here, now dismissed by admin to an 'alternate thread' - the secular e-equivalent of hell.

You've brought it all on yourself, my poor deluded fellow.

It is true that neither the mountainous terrains of hard evidence gainsaying your position, nor the many, many erudite posts from individuals prepared initially to give you a chance to prove your points, nor the rightly harsh and critical analysis to which your views have been submitted have made the slightest difference to your negationist opining whatsoever.

But it is also true that you yourself, sir, have been spectacularly unconvincing in your attempts to make your most forlorn case.

I was quite excited by the stir you created at the outset; I have never considered myself fully up-to-speed about the Holocaust - but here you came, as a nay-sayer, along with an opportunity to follow a fascinating line of inquiry.

More fucking fool me. There was no inquiry here, from you. You'd made your mind up before you submitted your first post here. You have at no point granted the slightest weight to any idea in contradiction to your own dogma whatsoever.

Your constant 'linking' to external websites, quotes, texts, your constant invitations to read this or that text, not only shows huge discourtesy but also a lack of ability to read, digest and assimilate information of your own back and present it in your own voice.

Your favoured 'linking' seems to be to CODOH - that global bastion of critical historical thinking with a huge forum membership of just over, er, 400, including you - and I think that you have let that particularly warped site down, in your abject failure to present anything close to a reasonable case for your views, every bit as much as you have let down this site, in trying to portray your pre-conceived and immovable notions as open to honest and open criticism to which you would properly respond.

The poorest show I've yet seen here.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

18. Comment #182661 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Comment #182657 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Ah, I can see why not. What I can't see is why you feel like bragging about it...

Wrong again. Oh dear.

Here's a little test for you.

I've helped you out just a touch by bringing the two quotes together:

I've read with interest your posts over the last month, without making comment.

I have never considered myself fully up-to-speed about the Holocaust - but here you came, as a nay-sayer, along with an opportunity to follow a fascinating line of inquiry.

Can you edge slightly closer towards a reason for my silence?

I suspect that your self-imposed cut-and-paste policy of posting unoriginal thoughts here prevents you, on your own, from making such a connection as I've tried to spell out for you above.

It really is important to think for yourself.

Have a go. You might like it.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

19. Comment #182667 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Stryer,
I don't know if you saw but I posted a quote from a book called Tales from the Holohoax that he seems to parrot almost perfectly. I started suspecting tha the was doing exactly the kind of thing you accuse him of doing. Namely quoting, with out attribution, other "thinkers."

Other Comments by MaxD

20. Comment #182698 by Teratornis on May 20, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Comment #182513 by King of NH:

Styrer:

"His idea that human immortality - or at least hugely increased longevity - would render us no longer human doesn't seem to follow..."

I think, and would agree, that he means being human requires a mortality. The idea that we have only so long, the fear of death and desease, and the desire to use that time drives us. If I had even, say, 1000 more years, never mind 1000000, I wouldn't feel the need to experience "today." So to lose that shadow of mortality would be to lose an essential part of humanity. I know I would become the world's leading consumer of "I'll do it tomorrow"s.

Becoming immortal would free more of us, for more of our waking moments, from one component of what has historically been the human condition.

But in practice, we aren't likely to become really immortal any time soon. Even if medical science cures every disease and eliminates deterioration with age, we'd still have accidents and war and famine and natural disasters knocking off a percentage of people each year. About the only way to work around accidents that completely destroy the brain would be to have some sort of brain backups - and if that happens, then I suppose we would have to re-think what it means to be "human," because until now our working definition has revolved around three pounds of nervous goo wrapped inside a skull. Smash the goo, no more human. But if humans can survive a goo-smash, maybe smashing someone's goo becomes a slightly less serious crime.

Of course there are questions of reliability. Not many machines work 100% of the time, particularly when the critical need detector kicks in. I probably wouldn't have enough faith in the backups to go BASE jumping.

I don't think that subjectively it would make much difference whether we think we are immortal. Virtually all people carry on as if they are immortal for much of their lives, especially when they are young. I didn't expect to die during the day which just transpired, and the day did not surprise me. What would have been different about that day if I could realistically expect billions more as opposed to merely thousands more? Nothing that comes to my mind immediately.

About the only time most of us think seriously about our mortality is when we have a close brush, we get some really bad news from the doctor, or we lose a loved one. When things are hunky-dory, we hardly give it a thought - at least those of us who aren't morose brooding types. Like those killjoys who carry on endlessly about peak oil.

Furthermore, religious people believe they are immortal. Does that make them non-human?

If billions of people believe they are immortal, what will change if science makes it official?

Other Comments by Teratornis

21. Comment #182699 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Teratornis,

If billions of people believe they are immortal, what will change if science makes it official

Only the area where they would spend that eternity, thus a greater concentration on our little spaceship earth would happen more immediately.

Other Comments by MaxD

22. Comment #182704 by Teratornis on May 20, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Comment #182699 by MaxD:

If billions of people believe they are immortal, what will change if science makes it official?

Only the area where they would spend that eternity, thus a greater concentration on our little spaceship earth would happen more immediately.

If you assume people think logically, and have the mental capacity to understand scientific predictions about the consequences of their actions. Most people appear perfectly willing to wreck the world for their children and grandchildren. What difference would it make if they expected to stick around?

Besides, the environmental problem is a giant Tragedy of the Commons. Not even the petroleum that Al Gore squanders in his corporate jet registers in the big picture. If Al Gore were to reduce his petroleum use to match, say, mine, the timetable for running out of petroleum probably would not shift one second. Thus an individual acting in his own rational self-interest has little incentive to live more efficiently, just so other people can have a good time squandering the resources.

I think most people would have to get several centuries into immortality so they could build up personal memories of scientists telling them "I told you so." Then they might start to think rationally about the future. But according to peak oil theorists and the climate change camp, we don't have several centuries to begin thinking rationally about the future.

The only way immortality would be in any way plausible would be for humans to achieve zero population growth, and fast. Which would mean zero birth rate, if the death rate is zero (or close to it).

That would require everyone to be at least smart enough to understand this:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=86564447E33EE0D4
Arithmetic, Population, and Energy by Albert Bartlett

which is certainly not the case now, by a wide margin.

Other Comments by Teratornis

23. Comment #182705 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Comment #182698 by Teratornis on May 20, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Teratornis

Did I just detect a...wait for it...sense of humour?

Without peak oil, you're becoming boring. Nothing with which I could possibly disagree in your last post.

Fuck me.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

24. Comment #182707 by Teratornis on May 20, 2008 at 10:22 pm

Comment #182705 by Styrer:

Teratornis

Did I just detect a...wait for it...sense of humour?

Dear nonexistent God, I hope not.

Without peak oil, you're becoming boring. Nothing with which I could possibly disagree in your last post.

My mistake then. I had you for a man who likes a challenge. Come on, I don't think I could write something which wasn't just a wee bit disagreeable somewhere, unless I'm really off my game. I must proofread more carefully. Or cease with this uncharacteristic brevity - like the billion monkeys which eventually type out the Shakespeare canon, with enough volume I can alienate everyone.

Fuck me.

There are a few individuals who could probably use that pickup line successfully on me, but none of them to my knowledge carry a Y chromosome, as your profile purports, so I must regretfully decline your request. Assuming it was directed at anyone in particular, namely me.

Other Comments by Teratornis

25. Comment #182711 by Mbee on May 20, 2008 at 10:29 pm

My parents went through WWII and after the event there was never any denial (apart from those involved trying to save their own necks) about the holocaust and what happened, or any doubt that it happened - there was plenty of evidence to support it. There were plenty of witnesses to the events and apart from those involved nobody, until recently, was trying to make a case that it didn't happen. From what I have seen there is no overwhelming evidence to contradict the evidence that the holocaust did happen. So unless some good reliable evidence to contradict history comes along the holocaust did happen!

Other Comments by Mbee

26. Comment #182712 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Comment #182707 by Teratornis on May 20, 2008 at 10:22 pm

I'll be shorter and terser still - I'm rather enjoying your peak oil-free posts...I fucking knew there was an ok guy under there somewhere...

For what it's worth.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

27. Comment #182715 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Teratornis,
I've long said that the environmental problems were the tragedy of the commons writ large.

I'm sure i heard it somewhere but it is really just begging to be used.

Other Comments by MaxD

28. Comment #182718 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Teratornis said:

If you assume people think logically, and have the mental capacity to understand scientific predictions about the consequences of their actions. Most people appear perfectly willing to wreck the world for their children and grandchildren. What difference would it make if they expected to stick around?

I am in total agreement with you. But i think people are actually starting to realize that we are handing our children an inordinate amount of bullshit with which to deal. I think most of the US public for instance does want more serious environmental protection, hence neo con morons like Bush have to pay lipservice to the notion while also trying hard not to do much about it.

Other Comments by MaxD

29. Comment #182730 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Comment #182701 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Said Styrer:

Can you edge slightly closer towards a reason for my silence?

Sure I can. You sound pissed off probably because you're smart enough to have noticed the dismal performance of the "erudite" faithful you mention (maybe you can quote one of those erudite bits, by the way).

And so the Holocaust denier dings his final ding.

You failed my little test.

The answer was: I wanted to listen and learn, not speak. I thought even an arsehole like you would get that.

I suspect that the above is a concept you really will never understand.

You really are the most despicable of denying cunts.

What the fuck is wrong with you, man?

Here you are. You have been here for a month. You have tried your dodgy ideas out on some of the most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web. You have been repeatedly and fixedly and robustly condemned for subscribing to beliefs which fly in the face of modern historical inquiry, and in the face of massive amounts of evidence showing that your ideas hold no water whatsoever.

And yet you cling, ever more desperately, to your pre-conceived notions of unevidenced negationism.

I, for one, do not trust the letter of any of your words. And you have no more to say.

Fuck off.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

30. Comment #182768 by Teratornis on May 21, 2008 at 12:39 am

Comment #182718 by MaxD:

I am in total agreement with you. But i think people are actually starting to realize that we are handing our children an inordinate amount of bullshit with which to deal. I think most of the US public for instance does want more serious environmental protection, hence neo con morons like Bush have to pay lipservice to the notion while also trying hard not to do much about it.

The tiny subset of the U.S. public that I know contains a disturbingly large percentage who believe global warming is either a complete hoax, or isn't caused by humans if it is real, or isn't anything to worry about even if humans cause it.

Ten years ago, none of these global warming deniers believed a peak in world production of petroleum was imminent either, but now they see fuel prices rising and it's hard to argue with that. Of course much of the global warming denial crowd tends to say our energy problems are due to the U.S. government restrictions on oil drilling in ANWR and the outer continental shelf.

I am able to infer a larger sample of opinions about the environment by noting the motor vehicle traffic levels when I go out on my bicycle. All the roads around here are choked with gargantuan SUVs often carrying just the drivers.

If "most of the US public for instance does want more serious environmental protection" I don't see evidence of it yet. People don't have to wait for George W. Bush to wave his magic wand before they can start car-pooling, for crying out loud. That's simple and low-tech and everybody who drives a car can do it. How tough is it to car-pool? Anybody who is competent enough to afford a car is competent enough to car-pool. People who make zero attempt to do such a simple measure do not want more serious environmental protection. People who drive cars with empty seats do not care about the environment. They might say they care, but neocon morons hardly have a monopoly on lip service.

Other Comments by Teratornis

31. Comment #182775 by Teratornis on May 21, 2008 at 12:48 am

Comment #182715 by MaxD:

I've long said that the environmental problems were the tragedy of the commons writ large.

I'm sure i heard it somewhere but it is really just begging to be used.

Garrett Hardin popularized the expression in 1968 specifically in the context of environmental degradation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

If only we were conversing on a wiki; then I could wikilink all my jargon terms, as I do on the talk pages on Wikipedia. I average more than one link per sentence there.

Adding links on this site is much more difficult, and the site allows a paltry five per comment posting. I need that many links to clarify just one paragraph.

Other Comments by Teratornis

32. Comment #182786 by Teratornis on May 21, 2008 at 1:15 am

Comment #182748 by ASMarques:

You should keep in mind that it is hardly surprising that the real big lies are always the ones least doubted.

Would we still need to keep that in mind if all doubts about your claims vanished? It is quite possible for the majority to change its mind on things. Once upon a time, for example, most people believed the Earth was the center of the Universe. There was very little doubt about that. Today there is very little doubt that the Earth moves.

There is a lot less doubt that the Earth moves than there is doubt that the Holocaust occurred. By your principle of doubt being inversely proportional to the size of a lie, what does that imply about the size of the lie that the Earth moves?

Interestingly, I cannot find the counterfallacy to argumentum ad populum which you invoke above, namely that a belief is wrong because lots of people believe it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I expected argumentum ad populum to have an opposite, because appeal to tradition has its opposite, the appeal to novelty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

The longstanding nature of a belief or practice can be an argument either for it, or against it, depending on which fallacy the speaker wishes to invoke.

To a conspiracist, of course, the less evidence there is for a conspiracy, the more insidiously effective the conspiracy must be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

A religious person who thinks this way might point to the failure of science to detect God as yet more evidence of God's greatness.

This type of thinking tends not to be orderly, once the orthodoxy of any position becomes evidence against it. It's hard to get through life without accepting most orthodoxies at face value.

If it was possible for the massive historical evidence for the Holocaust to be completely fabricated with such apparent authenticity, then there is no historical evidence which we can trust, including all the historical evidence you present as being somehow authoritative. If we can doubt all this other evidence, what makes yours better?

And if your evidence looks better, wouldn't that suggest by your reasoning that it had only been that much more skillfully faked?

Other Comments by Teratornis

33. Comment #182790 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:18 am

I don't think anybody has "taken on" AS Marques properly here, except to point out that his (you have to say well presented) posts contain links to sites of dubious authority.

This is likely because most here do not have much experience in dealing with Deniers. Its not because AS Marques is occupying the most reasonable position.

I wonder if there are any experienced historians here who could refute some of the details of his posts?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

34. Comment #182809 by AfraidToDie on May 21, 2008 at 2:05 am

To ASMarques : You seem to be driven by a single issue that consumes you, that the Holocaust did not really happen, that it is a conspiracy. As "whacky" as conspiracy theories can be, you still put together some very rational statements. My image of you is one of a potentially brilliant madman (sorry, but perhaps delusional too). Am I wrong? Since you seem so single issue minded, I have one last line of question I'd appreciate a response from: What is your race and how do you feel about Jewish people? I have a feeling you are very anti-semtic, which may be the source of your delusions. Oh yes, do you "buy in" to any of the other major conspiracy theories, such as the one claiming that we never landed anyone on the moon, or is Holocaust Denial the only one?

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

35. Comment #182810 by keith on May 21, 2008 at 2:07 am

Peace,

I wonder if there are any experienced historians here who could refute some of the details of his posts?

I suspect that if ASM were even remotely influenced by evidence then he wouldn't hold the position he now holds.

Offering up a refutal would be as much use as attempting to show a Christian why a belief in God makes no logical sense. This is because some people are simply not swayed by such things as logic or evidence.

Other Comments by keith

36. Comment #182815 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 2:25 am

I have not encountered ASMarques before, and my automatic response would be to take against his stance. But underneath all the juvenile name-calling - chiefly from the clearly angry but rather undignified Styrer - it is ASMarques who has the more interesting point to make. I followed his link to the IHR and found it very interesting; one does not have to be a 'Holocaust denier' to appreciate the impossibility of getting accurate figures for the number of Jews in Europe before and after the war, let alone determining how many died and by what cause. No sane person doubts the Nazi persecution of the Jews. However, readers of, and contributors to, this forum owe it to themselves as open-minded free-thinkers to at least consider the matter. ASMarques is right on this one I'm afraid; do some reading for yourselves and don't be afraid to question the orthodoxy. That is what RDF is all about. Isn't it?

Other Comments by uncle tungsten

37. Comment #182819 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 2:35 am

Comment #182790 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:18 am

I don't think anybody has "taken on" AS Marques properly here, except to point out that his (you have to say well presented) posts contain links to sites of dubious authority.

This is likely because most here do not have much experience in dealing with Deniers. Its not because AS Marques is occupying the most reasonable position.

For fuck's sake, Peace.

Is there a fucking course we should attend to give us greater 'experience in dealing with Deniers'?

Of course not, you dick.

Get a fucking grip, lad.

And why the fuck do you capitalise 'Deniers'?

So where the fuck have you been over the last few hours, you shit? What fucking right do you have to attempt to dictate how Gobshite ASMarques should be treated?

Whose fucking worldview do you support?

Twat.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

38. Comment #182822 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:42 am

Peacebeuponme-

AS Marques' claims have been tackled on the original thread (Richard Dawkins On The Big Questions). Offhand, Cartomancer had some things to say, so did others.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

39. Comment #182824 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #182815 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 2:25 am

I have not encountered ASMarques before, and my automatic response would be to take against his stance. But underneath all the juvenile name-calling - chiefly from the clearly angry but rather undignified Styrer - it is ASMarques who has the more interesting point to make.

If you have a problem with me, address me directly, you cunt.

I'm waiting.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

40. Comment #182853 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 3:45 am

Styrer,

I don't know anything about you, but since you're on this forum I'd guess you're an intelligent and clear-thinking person. If we met I'd probably like you. So no, I don't have a problem with you. Calling people names is a bit juvenile though, you must admit.

The Nazis were BAD PEOPLE. They persecuted the Jews (amongst others) and did sickening, indefensibly evil things to huge numbers of them. The commonly accepted figure for the number of extermination victims is 6 million.

Where does this figure come from?

I'n not a Nazi, I'm not a Jew, I'm not a denier, I have no axe to grind. I'm interested in examining the origin of this given number, which even the most cursory examination (and that's all I've made) shows to be hard to prove. It could be an UNDERestimate for all I know. I'm just curious aabout the actual evidence base for this piece of highly emotive modern folk-lore. Perhaps you could suggest some reliable sources.

Other Comments by uncle tungsten

41. Comment #182854 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 3:49 am

Quetz - Ok. Maybe I missed those. I'll look there to see if his points have been dealt with (I'm sure they have or can be, common sense dictates that a conspiracy on the scale he is suggesting is impossible).

Styer - You need to take some prolixin or something. I'm just giving my impression, not dictating anything. I haven't been here because I cannot properly answer him, and wondered who could. Calling AS Marques a cunt doesn't win the argument. If I missed some of your more substantial points then apologies.

Why did I capitalise? I thought that would be obvious. So that I wasn't calling him a plain old denier (perhaps of religion, Liverpool's ability to win the League, or pineapple on pizza.)

Keith - Oh, I agree. But since I did not previoiusly know much about the position of Deniers, then I was interested to see how they are dealt with. Nothing to do with AS Marques's intransigence.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

42. Comment #182927 by Styrer- on May 21, 2008 at 6:02 am

Comment #182853 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 3:45 am

Styrer,

I don't know anything about you, but since you're on this forum I'd guess you're an intelligent and clear-thinking person. If we met I'd probably like you. So no, I don't have a problem with you. Calling people names is a bit juvenile though, you must admit.

No. Wrong. Entirely up your own arse.

How'd you like that? Cunting twat.

Now I say to you, in your longed for perfect and carefully enunciated, expletive-free and rather endearing language:

You are going to burn and suffer and experience continuous pain in hell for all of time. There will be no end whatsoever.

I challenge you to state with sincerity that you would not prefer a good old 'fucking cunt' rebuke instead.

And refrain from assumptions which have not been permitted you. I am neither clear-thinking nor intelligent.

And remember to shove my earlier profanities up your genteel and delicate arse. Keep 'em safe.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

43. Comment #182930 by alan baylis on May 21, 2008 at 6:11 am

I'm with styrer on this.

Look up "David Irving, libel trial" to get a quick understanding of the characters and motives of these people. Their motives are plain and simple;- anti-Semitism and nazi apologetics.



Comment #182853 by uncle tungsten

I'm just curious aabout the actual evidence base for this piece of highly emotive modern folk-lore.

Strange phraseology for someone who professes neutrality.



For anyone genuinely interested in these questions, following ASS Marques bullshit links won't get you very far. Any attempt by people to debate him has led only to a barrage of quotes and reviews from denier websites.

Try starting here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll



ASS Marques has shot himself in the foot by posting here. Anyone with sense who wants to know more is going to search out reputable sources.

Other Comments by alan baylis

44. Comment #182944 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 6:30 am

alan baylis

For anyone genuinely interested in these questions, following ASS Marques bullshit links won't get you very far. Any attempt by people to debate him has led only to a barrage of quotes and reviews from denier websites.

Alan, my position is this: I have satisfied myself that the Holocaust was a real event, and did so along with virtually all thinking people when I was old enough to learn about WWII. However, Holocaust Denial is an interesting topic. Its interesting to learn about the mindset that gets somebody to such a position, their key claims and reasoning, and the refutations of these claims.

AS Marques and his unsettling links at least aids a deeper understanding of Holocaust Denial, but does not aid a better understandng of the events that actually took place in the 1940s.

None of that, by the way, comments on AS Marques's character. If he was like the majority of Deniers, i.e. a neo-Nazi, I would certainly reserve Styrer's lexicon for use when asked to describe his character.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

45. Comment #182967 by keith on May 21, 2008 at 6:57 am

ASM,

Because your posts are quite long, I can only claim to have read one or two without skipping bits. To do you justice perhaps I should really read all your posts but equally, is it really not possible to keep their size down a bit? After all, some of us have jobs to go to.

Anyway, despite having read only a couple of your posts in their entirety, I want to voice one or two things that occurred to me:

1. I get the impression you think that anyone who believes that the Holocaust happened is laughably gullible. Now, whether you are right or wrong, you must admit that your viewpoint is highly unusual and just as Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein didn't achieve a sea-change in public opinion by first claiming that anyone who disagreed with their ideas must be a complete idiot, I can't help thinking that it might make more sense to at least acknowledge that there might be another side to this argument. It would do your cause - and you really do seem to see it as a cause - no harm at all.

2. The fact that there might never have been a lampshade made out of human skin does not in itself prove that the Holocaust didn't happen. If this was a valid way of assessing evidence, all that would be needed to dismiss the Holocaust would be first for the Nazi's to murder 6 million Jews then to let it be known that they had in fact killed 60 million Jews. Since there weren't that many Jews in Europe to begin with then the claim could instantly be dismissed. And this in turn would weirdly suggest to a certain crazed kind of mind that in actual fact, maybe not even a single Jew had been murdered. Bizarrly, it would then be in the interest of the Nazi's, rather than the Jews, to exaggerate the number of dead.

3. Although you completely discard the claim that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust as ridiculous, you do seem willing to concede that some lower figure might be plausible. Would you be willing accept the lowest figure I saw you quote of 300,000 murdered Jews? This, of course, is twenty times less than the generally accepted figure and although it really does matter how many people actually died, I'm not sure that even the most callous person would call 300,000 dead 'a hoax'. There surely comes a point when the number of dead ceases to have an affect on how we view a crime. Is 300,000 really so much less serious than 6 million?

4.

Said Elli:

ASM: how did all those Jewish people die, then?


That's an easy one, o Elli of the beauteous avatar, daughter of Jewish Israelis, who has interviewed numerous "Holocaust" survivors: most of them didn't die, hosanna and hallelujah!

I don't know if Elli had been particularly nasty to you, but this kind of taunting is just vile. Could you not have just answered the question and left the spitefulness to one side?

5. The thing that made me decide that it perhaps wasn't necessary to read all your posts was one particular exchange you had with Styrer. It seemed to me that he made a couple of points that you simply didn't understand. I couldn't decide if you were being purposefully obtuse so as to annoy him or whether you simply couldn't understand a really easy point. Neither conclusion showed you in a very good light, but I finally came to the conclusion that you really were perhaps a bit slow. And then of course it's no wonder that Styrer lost it a bit. If I had found myself arguing with someone who was both none too quick on the uptake and rather supercilious to boot, and then to add insult to injury, several members appeared from nowhere to seemingly weigh in on your side, perhaps just in the name of being open-minded, I think I too might have given vent to a few choice words.

Other Comments by keith

46. Comment #182989 by alan baylis on May 21, 2008 at 7:37 am

Comment #182944 by Peacebeuponme

PBUM,

my point there was a general one and not aimed at anyone in particular,

regards,
alan.

Other Comments by alan baylis

47. Comment #183013 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 8:28 am

ASMarques,

Please just go ahead an say that nothing anyone can say, here or elsewhere, will convince you that Germany is culpable for atrocities against Jews.

You don't address anyone's reasonable points, you just link to IHR, and other sites of dubious crediblity and call out you familiar notes. You engage in sophistry over semantics. Does eradicat mean eradicate? Or exterminate mean exterminate? What does the word Holocaust even mean? These are your evasions.

Now were you a serious debator and historian I would find such a search for a definition deeply important and as it happens necessary. But for you, and the rest of the deniers it simply boils down to moving the goal posts around every time the other side is about to score a goal.
Shoddy pool. By that I mean intellectually dishonest.

You have yet to say anything like, "well that is a really interesting point, but here is why I think it is wrong." In fact you don't grant any one holding a view contrary to your understanding as reasonable at all. In fact it is entirely reasonable to believe the Holocaust happened. (The position isn't all that complex. Round up the Jews and any others that might be thought to taint the purity of German blood and kill them. But think about the massive conspiracy you want to propose for just a second and you will see which one has the most parsimonious framing.)

That you can't even grant that the other side is actually being reasonable, and that you resort to snideness, like what you have done with anyone you debate, from Elli, to me, to Al makes you a member of a "faith-based community." It is why people get fed up with you. I've seen it happen on two threads now and it sounds like it has happened on more. I suppose your style provides you an emotionally satisfying safety net. You can always walk away thinking "what idiots. They cannot defeat my arguments so they call me names, or other invective. Fools." In this internal analysis you must do everytime I doubt you ever reflect on the counter arguments.

EDIT: Left out of this post, but probably important. Your theory ASM seems to hinge largely on a powerful component of the conspiracy against Germany to be fomented by the Jews themselves. Does that really make any damn sense whatsoever? The general prejuidice against the Jews doesn't really abate until after the events of WWII come to light. Jews, my friend, were not popular anywhere in the west. So how, and where and why are the Jews able to generate the political capital to make such a move? This seems to be a gigantic hurdle for your argument.

Other Comments by MaxD

48. Comment #183046 by al-rawandi on May 21, 2008 at 9:19 am

ASMarques,






The sickest thing is you pretend to "care" for Jews.


Like Eisenhower said, while liberating a camp:


"Get a camera, take as many pictures as you can, because one day, someone equally evil, will try to say this never happened."


You are an instantiation of such a person.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

49. Comment #183050 by Tyler Durden on May 21, 2008 at 9:27 am

ASMarques,

Are you still here?

Don't you have a Moon Landing Conspiracy website, The Flat Earth Society, or a pack of rabid dogs you should be annoying?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

50. Comment #183051 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 9:34 am

Al-rawandi,
What a wonderful quote from Eisenhower.

ASM,
Keith needs no defenders but if you can't see how this

That's an easy one, o Elli of the beauteous avatar, daughter of Jewish Israelis, who has interviewed numerous "Holocaust" survivors: most of them didn't die, hosanna and hallelujah

. might come across as dickish then you may be the most obtuse person I've ever met online, no wait that honor is clearmind's.
Again note the lack of admitting that the other side has a point. What you say is, Oh I didn't mean anything by it, I was trying to be funny, sorry about the confusion.

Clearly though you were trying to impeach her creds by dragging her Israeli heritage into the matter.

About this powerful Jewish cabal that could clearly orchestrate a massive snatch and grab of wealth, land and power, or at least participate in it in a meaningful way. Care to give me any particulars about how such a reviled group, with little political power, managed such an impressive feat?

Other Comments by MaxD