Hans wrote: Scott Smith wrote:
Chuck, it is not too difficult to grasp here. Either Blaha was 1) telling the truth at Nuremberg, and the Nazis DID throw babies alive into the crematoria at Dachau, or 2), he was lying, or 3) he was telling untruths.
Which do you think? Don't hold out on me.
According to your post Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:51 am
(CLICK!) you have shown that Blaha is a liar, or you have not understand Charles's question.
In my opinion, you can either
1.) explain why you don`t want to answer Charles' question "Just what witnesses relied on by Holocaust historians have you shown to be liars?" , or
2.) name a different witness that you have shown to be a liar, or
3.) demonstrate that Blaha is a liar, or
4.) run away!
Asking him what he thinks about Blaha is no answer to his question and falls into category 4.)!
(CLICK!) to Charles implied that Blaha is a liar and so YOU have to demonstrate that he really is.
If you ask me, I don't know if Blaha is a liar. I would need to study other testimonies from Dachau as well as the testimony from Blaha. What is a fact in my opinion is that they threw living people into burning pits in summer 1944 in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Therefore I cannot preclude that what is reported by Blaha is more than just Gräulpropaganda (note the new spelling). But what I know for certain is that you have to demonstrate that Blaha is a liar in order to back up that Blabla in post Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:51 am
Well, Chuck certainly does need some help here. As I see it, he presents me with a false dilemma without wanting to admit it: Unless I can prove Blaha is a liar, then Blaha affirms the truth. This is the same old story with Big-H Ghoulpropaganda (note the new spelling).
Without wanting to wax himself in with his own mythology, Chuck wants to know if Blaha is lying and accuses me of running away. Well, I can't know if Blaha is lying anymore than I can experience God for myself. I can only deal in probabilities, and underscore the penchant for political trials to rely upon convenient lies/untruths, and/or liars.
Furthermore, far from running away, I think skepticism is a quite reasonable and logical position.
David Hume wrote:It is a general maxim worthy of our attention that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. (1758)
So, tell me Hans, is it more probable or more "miraculous" that your bonfired babies are truth or falsehood? Which story would be more miraculous--that the Nazis tossed babies into ovens and bonfires like in a Teutonophobic Eisenstein movie, or that they did not? Is there a different standard-of-proof for Auschwitz, long the Battleship of the Holocaust, than say, for Dachau or Buchenwald? Interesting questions...
Now, Hume categorized claims (Blaha made a claim at Nuremberg that babies were tossed alive into the crematoria ovens at Dachau) according to three branches or tines on a fork. Hume's Fork consists of:
1. Relations of Ideas, or Tautologies. These are conclusions that are always true or always false based on their own definitions or the assumptions of their premises: 2 + 2 = 4 or God is Good.
Much Holocaust™ propaganda is nothing more than tautological; therefore the Big-H tells us little or nothing about the world and history.
2. Matters of Fact or Contingencies. These facts are either true or false depending on how they are experienced. "Either Caesar DID cross the Rubicon or Caesar did NOT cross the Rubicon" is a true-dilemma or self-evident tautology that tells us nothing about history; but if we categorically claim one or the other circumstance based on empirical observation, then we convey something about the world by this assertion (depending on the quality of the source or impression, as Hume called it). So we learn WHETHER Caesar did or did-not cross the Rubicon, according to the source.
3. Simple Nonsense. Unicorns are friendly animals.
We may actually have Blaha in a nutshell here! Which only begs the question as to why Nuremberg put stock in him.
Untruths still repeated in the 21st century are still untruths!
(Or, in Babelfish: Die Lügen, die noch im 21. Jahrhundert wiederholt werden, sind noch Lügen!
Does Blaha tell us something new about the world?
I submit that he does not--despite his bogus atrocity-propaganda--and furthermore, I find that the Nuremberg Inquisition didn't care about the quality of their source. From an epistemological standpoint Nuremberg only cared about the modern equivalent of unicorns: Sweeping German Guilt, and thereby, unalloyed Allied Grace.
Unless he can show us that Blaha did NOT lie, i.e., that he told the truth, that Blaha's observation is indeed a true fact, then Chuck's point is moot.
Blaha and his babies can thus be thrown out with the bathwater, where all good Greuelpropagandists should go.
Or, as Hume would say, "commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." (1751)