arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
The words we use to describe something... describe more who we are than the thing we are trying to describe
So when you claim that Irvine is a genuine historian and not a convicted holocaust denier, racist and anti-semite what does that tell us about you?
at the beginning of the week i watched a documentary on the libel.
suit brought against penguin books and deborah lipstadt but lost by.
holocaust denier david irving?
David Irving is not a holocaust denier
Yes he is. Why are you lying about that?
He did 3 years in prison in Austria for it.
In 2000, he lost a £2m libel action against the US historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. The judge ruled that Irving “is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist”....
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
in another thread you attack a poster for his comments and not the comments.
Is that English?
What we say... says more of who we are than that of what we say of.
How about that? Is that in English? Serious question - are you sober?
I called you an idiot for being an apologist for holocaust deniers like David Irving.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Are you really comparing the intellectually dishonest tactics of evolution deniers with rational, well-informed people who dismiss the deluded ravings of holocaust deniers?
That is some seriously messed-up thinking.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Yes cyberjesus I called you a fucking idiot for promoting Holocaust denial.
So what's your point?
at the beginning of the week i watched a documentary on the libel.
suit brought against penguin books and deborah lipstadt but lost by.
holocaust denier david irving?
the problem is when you want to prevent that person from saying it.
I happen to think that cretins who want to argue holocaust denial should be allowed to do so. I disagree with the law in Germany that makes it a criminal offense. Let is be said in public and then let the imbeciles who argue for it be exposed with facts and evidence as the lying charlatans that they are.
Yes I have examined both sides of this debate. That is why I have no hesitation in saying you are an idiot.
By the way just because you should have right to say stupid things doesn't mean Simon has to let you say them here.
we like to think we are logical and have good reasons for for our beliefs.
no more so than when it comes to our reasons for rejecting the truth claims of jws.
we reject their version of history, such as the date of the fall of jerusalem, because it doesn't agree with the historical evidence.
I ask you to consider if there may have been influences you were not aware of
I have reflected many times on the most significant decision of my life. There were no other influences. It was about cold hard facts. It was not true therefore I left.
at the beginning of the week i watched a documentary on the libel.
suit brought against penguin books and deborah lipstadt but lost by.
holocaust denier david irving?
I never make personal attacks but on this one occasion I am going to make an exception.
You are a fucking idiot.
we like to think we are logical and have good reasons for for our beliefs.
no more so than when it comes to our reasons for rejecting the truth claims of jws.
we reject their version of history, such as the date of the fall of jerusalem, because it doesn't agree with the historical evidence.
One of the most important aspects of persuasion is social proof. We see other people leaving JWs and this persuades us that there are good reasons for leaving JWs.
That had nothing to do with why I left. I didn't know any ex-JWs.
It was 100% based on facts and evidence. I researched doctrines using only the bible and WT library including many of Russell's and Rutherford's books.
Logical arguments only work with people are are already convinced.
I was entirely convinced the WT was the Truth when I discovered a flaw in the doctrine. It was about facts and nothing else for me. I'm certain I'm not unique.
at the beginning of the week i watched a documentary on the libel.
suit brought against penguin books and deborah lipstadt but lost by.
holocaust denier david irving?
Reflect on the degree of the conspiracy that would be required to make Irving's ravings credible.
It would take thousands of people who were unknown to each other to relate the same experiences, containing countless verifiable details, consistently over seven decades.
What possible motive could anybody have for accusing all those victims of lying? CJ - DId it not occur to you to investigate the evidence before publicly promoting the lies of this fool?
