Mengele dumps kids into fire (continuation)

[Scott Smith]

Of course you're willing to disagree, but so what? You were wrong.

I don't think I am wrong. However, I grant you the right to disagree with me that you always refuse to impart yourself.

[Erik]

Quote:
A miracle may be accurately defined, a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent. A miracle may either be discoverable by men or not. This alters not its nature and essence. The raising of a house or ship into the air is a visible miracle. The raising of a feather, when the wind wants ever so little of a force requisite for that purpose, is as real a miracle, though not so sensible with regard to us.

(Section X ”Of Miracles”, in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, the last note to Part I). (Hume’s own italics.)

And so the quote supplied by Mr Bunch:

Quote: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.

Two quotes from Hume concerning miracles.

The first quote above is actually contained in a footnote to the passage that Mr Bunch quoted from.

It contains the qualification “accurately defined”, while the quote given by Mr Bunch has a simple “is”.

“Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature”, says Hume later in the second(here) quote.

But in the quote from the footnote he says : “The raising of a feather, when the wind wants ever so little of a force requisite for that purpose, is as real a miracle”..as “The raising of a house or ship into the air is a visible miracle”.

Here he “esteems” as a “real a miracle”, “the raising of a feather”!!

Why, it seems that Hume is as stupid as a ….”revisionist”, doesn’t it? He is a long way from the stupendous “definer” that Mr Bunch takes for granted:

When a philosopher defines his terms it is a signal that he places significance in its precision. Hume does this and discusses the implications of it for many paragraphs in a two part section named "Miracles".

In my reply to Mr Bunch above I tried to provoke the scholar in him to tackle a passage from the quoted anthology.

Erik wrote:

I would have thought you would react to the following, for example:

Quote:
He sees that these commitments are typically maintained with a mind-numbing tenacy and a disruptive intolerance toward contrary views. To counter these objectionable commitments, he argues that the widely held view that miracles are violations of a law of nature is incoherent; that the evidence for even the most likely miracle will always be counter-balanced by the evidence establishing the law of nature which the miracle allegedly violates; and that the evidence supporting any given miracle is necessarily suspect.. His argument leaves open the possibility that violations of the laws of nature may have occurred, but shows that the logical and evidential grounds for a belief in any given miracle or set of miracles are much weaker than the religious suppose.

But Mr Bunch replied:

Why should I react to this? If confirms what I have said about Hume and his proferred method of evaluating testimonial evidence with respect to "miracles", a method which has been erroneously appropriated by a Holocaust denier on this board to justify denial of testimonial evidence. Beyond that the philosophical discussion gets us beyond the topic of this board. But I note _you_ had no comment on your own passage. Why?

Maybe Mr Bunch is right concerning the “topic of this board”.

But what is a miracle? What does David Fate Norton mean when he writes that Hume “argues that the widely held view that miracles are violations of a law of nature is incoherent.”

“Ask him”, you might reply. “You have the book. Read it”.

Well, Norton says “read Hume”(he writes an “Introduction”). So….

Indeed, I tremble before the wrath of Mr Bunch, but I have to resort the method of Mr Smith : look into a dictionary!!

Webster’s:

2. : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment.

This is ALSO a miracle, according to an authority on the English language. Maybe this explains Hume’s almost “revisionistic” stupidity above? He ALSO used the word “miracle” in THIS sense.

Conclusion : his Miracle-debunking arguments can be used all over the place!!

“Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature”.

“The common course of nature” does not exclude “human nature”, does it?

Now here is an other quote bound to confound the definer:

The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard to the most common and most credible events. For instance: There is no kind of report which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns, as those concerning marriages; insomuch that two young persons of equal condition never see each other twice, but the whole neighbourhood immediately join them together. The pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting, of propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, spreads the intelligence. And this is so well known, that no man of sense gives attention to these reports, till he find them confirmed by some greater evidence. Do not the same passions, and others still stronger, incline the generality of mankind to believe and report, with the greatest vehemence and assurance, all religious miracles?

Marriages!! How's that for miracles!!!

[michael mills]

Let's get back to the topic.

The issue at hand is the claim by Hans, Charles Bunch and Roberto (the latter after some flip-flopping) that at some stage in 1944, during the arrival of masses of Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz, the German authorities found themselves without sufficient supplies of Zyklon-B to gas all the incoming Jews, so they resorted to the expedient of throwing masses of people alive onto the cremation pyres, or into the crematory ovens.

I quoted the conclusions of a German court that the amount of Zyklon-B supplied by Gerhard Peters to Gerstein "under the counter" between the middle of 1943 and the end of the Hungarian deportation was sufficient to kill all the Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz. That amount was in addition to the quantities of Zyklon-B supplied through the normal channels by Testa.

Accordingly, in late 1943 and 1944, the Auschwitz camp authorities had a regular supply of Zyklon-B that was easily enough to kill all the Hungarian Jews who arrived, plus all other arrivals.

Furthermore, the calculation by the German court was based on statements by Hoess about the quantity of Zyklon-B, measured in terms of containers, used to kill 2,000 persons in a single gas-chamber. Those quantities were many times greater than the minimum lethal dose of HCN required to kill 100% of humans exposed to it. Accordingly, any shortage in terms of number of cans could have been obviated by reducing the quantity used for each gassing.

Yet again, the claim that masses of people were thrown alive into the ovens or onto cremation pyres because deportees were arriving at too fast a rate to be processed through the gas-chambers runs counter to the claim by Charles Bunch, made on the thread concerning Imre Kertesz, that whole transports, including children, were admitted to the transit camp without selection for precisely that reason. If whole transports were being admitted to the camp, pending later selection for labour, what need was there to throw whole masses of people alive into the flames?

It is for Charles Bunch to tell us why the 14-year-old Imre Kertesz was thrown alive onto the flaming pyres with all the other children who were supposedly burned alive.

[michael mills]

Let's get back to the topic.

The issue at hand is the claim by Hans, Charles Bunch and Roberto (the latter after some flip-flopping) that at some stage in 1944, during the arrival of masses of Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz, the German authorities found themselves without sufficient supplies of Zyklon-B to gas all the incoming Jews, so they resorted to the expedient of throwing masses of people alive onto the cremation pyres, or into the crematory ovens.

I quoted the conclusions of a German court that the amount of Zyklon-B supplied by Gerhard Peters to Gerstein "under the counter" between the middle of 1943 and the end of the Hungarian deportation was sufficient to kill all the Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz. That amount was in addition to the quantities of Zyklon-B supplied through the normal channels by Testa.

Accordingly, in late 1943 and 1944, the Auschwitz camp authorities had a regular supply of Zyklon-B that was easily enough to kill all the Hungarian Jews who arrived, plus all other arrivals.

Furthermore, the calculation by the German court was based on statements by Hoess about the quantity of Zyklon-B, measured in terms of containers, used to kill 2,000 persons in a single gas-chamber. Those quantities were many times greater than the minimum lethal dose of HCN required to kill 100% of humans exposed to it. Accordingly, any shortage in terms of number of cans could have been obviated by reducing the quantity used for each gassing.

Yet again, the claim that masses of people were thrown alive into the ovens or onto cremation pyres because deportees were arriving at too fast a rate to be processed through the gas-chambers runs counter to the claim by Charles Bunch, made on the thread concerning Imre Kertesz, that whole transports, including children, were admitted to the transit camp without selection for precisely that reason. If whole transports were being admitted to the camp, pending later selection for labour, what need was there to throw whole masses of people alive into the flames?

It is for Charles Bunch to tell us why the 14-year-old Imre Kertesz was not thrown alive onto the flaming pyres with all the other children who were supposedly burned alive.

[Roberto]

Furthermore, it cannot be corroborated in a more objective manner than by the testimonial of fantasy-prone personalities like Dr. Blaha.

Blaha was considered unreliable by criminal justice authorities and historians because he changed his accounts too often, IIRC.

Blaha's depositions referred to Dachau, by the way, not to Auschwitz.

That's what I said. The original discussion was about Blaha's claims.

I must have missed something.

Where on this thread or its locked predecessor did Charles "originally" bring up Mr. Blaha?

And what does Blaha's lack of reliability tell us about the reliability of the witnesses to the Auschwitz live burnings quoted by Hans - Müller, Tauber, Jankowski, Chasan and others?

Nothing at all, I would say.

It tells us a lot about the genre, I would say.

What that supposed to mean?

"One filthy Jew lied = all filthy Jews are liars" (= falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, as understood by the true believers) perhaps?

Every eyewitness is a case in itself, and the credibility of each must be assessed individually.

Yes but I have little confidence in Allied authorities to do that where Nazis are concerned. I would like to cross-examine all of these guys myself if I could.

Who a true believer like Smith has confidence in or not is of no relevance. He must demonstrate inconsistencies in the testimonials in question if he wants to make a point.

Are there any indications against the credibility of the above mentioned witnesses that Smith can show us?

See above.

What's that supposed to mean?

A statement that goes "but I have little confidence in Allied authorities to do that where Nazis are concerned", the foundations of which Smith is unable to demonstrate, is hardly an argument against the credibility of the witnesses in question.

What Smith considers "preposterous" or not is irrelevant in the face of existing evidence.

And Roberto determines what is credible evidence in an objective fashion?

Of course. He lets himself be guided by the consistency and corroboration of the evidence, whereas Smith pronounces what doesn't fit into his bubble to be "preposterous" whether or not it is indeed implausible and without regard for the evidence.

It may not have been typical for the Nazis to "bonfire babies alive" (Müller's deposition clearly points out that Moll was acting against orders), but it's neither as if Smith's beloved Nazis had been alien to such atrocities on other occasions.

Isn't that a variation of the Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus argument that scares you so much?

Again I feel sorry for this poor soul.

Why on earth should an argument as imbecile as Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus (the "Revisionist" reading of which is "if one witness lied, then all witnesses were liars) "scare" me, Mr. Smith ?

Or, in other words, the Nazis did bad things so we can expect stories about mad scientists and burning babies alive in bonfires and crematoria to be true, right?

No. The fact that the Nazis did similar things on other occasions merely eliminates one indication against the accuracy of the eyewitness testimonials in question, which would exist if burning people alive had in fact been alien to Nazi practices, as their apologists contend.

And this is not a "religious" response?

Of course not. Such responses (however conclusive, eyewitness testimonials are "preposterous" because Smith's Faith requires them to be) I leave to true believers like Smith.

Neither a Moloch myth nor a Soviet propaganda film, but the complaint of a high-ranking Nazi official:

So locking people into a barn and then torching it (assuming that claim is true)

Can Smith offer an indication that Lahousen sucked the subject of his complaint out of his thumb?

is the same as throwing babies alive into the crematorium or onto bonfires?

It is somewhat different in fact, given that it served a practical purpose in "anti-partisan" operations that is explained on the thread where I first posted the quote.

But it shows that callousness and indifference to inflicting a great deal of suffering on their victims was not alien to Nazi killing practices, thus eliminating or at least weakening the "preposterous" argument against the accuracy of the testimonials of Müller, Tauber, Jankowski and Chasan.

So much for the few statements in Smith's post that relate to the topic. The beaten rhetorical bullshit decorating them I don't care to address.

Ah, Damage Control, the Sacrament of Victimology in action...

That belongs in the same category.

Pissed because I'm now ignoring the rhetorical decoration, Mr. Smith?

I said I was willing to agree to disagree. That is a problem for you [Chuck] as it is with most dogmatists.

The only dogmatists in this place are Smith and his ilk, who desperately cling to their articles of faith notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary.

Agreement to disagree requires arguments warranting respect on both sides of the debate.

As long as one side does nothing other than incessantly repeat its "Revisionist" BS, the other cannot reasonably see anything worth an agreement to disagree.

Thanks. You demonstrate my very point.

Why, are you now telling us that your opponents' arguments are not worth an agreement to disagree?

Considering how often and how thoroughly your nonsense has been taken apart, I would call that one of the silliest statements from Smith I have so far come across.

Which is saying something.

[Roberto]

Let's get back to the topic.

The issue at hand is the claim by Hans, Charles Bunch and Roberto (the latter after some flip-flopping) that at some stage in 1944, during the arrival of masses of Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz, the German authorities found themselves without sufficient supplies of Zyklon-B to gas all the incoming Jews, so they resorted to the expedient of throwing masses of people alive onto the cremation pyres, or into the crematory ovens.

Can Mills transcribe the statements of mine showing that I ever considered the practical purpose adduced to have been at the root of the occasional atrocities described by the witnesses quoted, or is he only eager to make a fool out of himself?

His ensuing considerations are rendered moot by the fact that the statements of all quoted eyewitnesses other than the unreliable Pet'ko refer to occasional rather than regular, random rather than systematic occurrences.

The respective testimonies of Müller, Tauber and Jankowski describe acts of individual sadism against orders and/or acts of cruelty obviously meant to discourage resistance against executions by shooting.

The deposition of Chasan, on the other hand:

Sonderkommando Saul Chasan:

Einmal sah ich eine Frau, die mit einem kleinem Kind, einem Säugling, draußen geblieben war. Die Gaskammer füllte sich, die Türen wurden verriegelt, und die Frau und das Kind blieben draußen; wer weiß, vielleicht blieben auch noch andere, aber ich sah nur die Frau mit dem Kind. Ich sehe das noch, als sei es gestern gewesen - ein SS-Mann, ein Junge von achtzehn oder zwanzigf Jahren, riß der Mutter das Kind aus den Armen und brachte es um, dann tötete er auch die Mutter. Beide hat er kaltblütig erschossen.

Nach diesen Verbrennungen, so erinnere ich mich, kam eines Abends ein Lastwagen voll mit alten Leuten, Kranken, Gelähmten, und mit Kleidern und allem schüttete man sie von der Ladefläche des Lastwagens, wie man Kies ausschüttet, direkt in die Grube - lebend! Das habe ich zweimal gesehen - einmal am ersten Tag meiner Arbeit Sonderkommando und später, als weitere Transporte eintrafen, noch einmal - man warf die Menschen lebend in den Bunker - und verbrannte sie bei lebendigem Leibe.

(Gideon Greif, "Wir weinten tränelos...", page 303.)

My translation:

Once I saw a woman who had stayed outside with a little infant child. The gas chamber filled up, the doors were locked, and the women and child stayed outside; who knows, maybe others stayed as well, but I only saw the woman with the child. I still see it as if it had been yesterday – an SS man, a boy of eighteen or twenty years, tore the child out of the mother’s arms and killed it, then also killed the mother. Both he shot in cold blood.

After these burnings, as I remember, there arrived in the evening a truck full of old people, sick and lame, and with clothes and all they were paid from the truck’s loading platform, as one would pay gravel, directly into the pit – alive! This I saw twice – once on the first day of my work as Sonderkommando and later, when other transports arrived, once again – people were thrown alive into the bunker – and burned alive.

suggests that

i) the reason for throwing "old people, sick and lame" directly into the fire was to avoid the difficulties and loss of time related to moving these slow or immobile victims into the gas chambers, and

ii) such procedure was adopted only on a few occasions. This in turn suggests that the decision to adopt it came from a low-ranking member of the camp staff, that this method was contrary to higher orders and that the camp commandant eventually intervened against its application.

[Charles Bunch]

Let's get back to the topic.

The issue at hand is the claim by Hans, Charles Bunch and Roberto (the latter after some flip-flopping) that at some stage in 1944, during the arrival of masses of Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz, the German authorities found themselves without sufficient supplies of Zyklon-B to gas all the incoming Jews, so they resorted to the expedient of throwing masses of people alive onto the cremation pyres, or into the crematory ovens.

Mr. Mills, apparently desperate to salvage something from at least one of his dialogues on this board, resorts to putting conclusions in the mouths of others.

What I have said about this topic is that the testimonial evidence for burning children alive is quite strong, a statement only disputed by the most dogmatic of deniers like Smith.

I've also said that there is evidence of a Zyklon B shortage as one potential reason for employing this procedure, and that such a possibility warrants inquiry.

Finally, I've said that Mr. Mills' attempts to dismiss this possibility solely based on a record of Zyklon B shipments beginning 10 months prior to the Hungarian deportations is weak and unconvincing. But I see he repeats himself below!

I quoted the conclusions of a German court that the amount of Zyklon-B supplied by Gerhard Peters to Gerstein "under the counter" between the middle of 1943 and the end of the Hungarian deportation was sufficient to kill all the Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz.

No, you quoted conclusions based on Zyklon B shipments which ended just as the Hungarian deportations began arriving, at least in the post I read.

I find it odd that Mr. Mills, who in other instances disparages the conclusions of the court, relies so heavily on this conclusion.

Accordingly, in late 1943 and 1944, the Auschwitz camp authorities had a regular supply of Zyklon-B that was easily enough to kill all the Hungarian Jews who arrived, plus all other arrivals.

We know nothing about the supply of Zyklon B at Auschwitz from May through September from this court decision. What we know is how much was shipped during a period beginning a full 10 months prior to the arrival of Hungarian Jews. Is it reasonable to assume ten months of shipments were stockpiled? That none was used during that period? The DIRECTIVES FOR THE USE OF PRUSSIC ACID (ZYKLON) FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF VERMIN (DISINFESTATION) indicates that Zyklon B is good for three months. All of these factors make the conclusions drawn from these shipments and the mathematical calculation applied to them by the court inconclusive.

Yet again, the claim that masses of people were thrown alive into the ovens or onto cremation pyres because deportees were arriving at too fast a rate to be processed through the gas-chambers runs counter to the claim by Charles Bunch, made on the thread concerning Imre Kertesz, that whole transports, including children, were admitted to the transit camp without selection for precisely that reason. If whole transports were being admitted to the camp, pending later selection for labour, what need was there to throw whole masses of people alive into the flames?

No one has said anything about masses of people. And as the thread to which Mills refers made clear, entire transports were admitted because of operational and administrative overload, not just a problem gassing people.

It is for Charles Bunch to tell us why the 14-year-old Imre Kertesz was thrown alive onto the flaming pyres with all the other children who were supposedly burned alive.

Why would a serious student of history ask such a ridiculous question?

[Charles Bunch]

Scott - a very brief reply as I am severely pressed for time today.

1. There is IMO little reason to assume that Hume was in reality addressing broader issues than those of empirical reason versus religious faith. This issue was a mainstay of 18th century discussion, and he was going far beyond the spirit of the age in questioning miracles in this fashion. To extend his reasoning to include all orthodoxy is simply not a legitimate reading of him. You can of course make the point, but you cannot invoke it as Humes point.

Well, I can't change the nouns in Hume's treatise and make him write about Dachau, but I didn't use him to do that. I originally used Hume to make MY point about whether we should believe in "miracles," barring specific proof;

No, that was not how you used him. You originally used Hume as a reason to dismiss a piece of Blaha's testimony, erroneously equating burning people alive with Hume's "miracles".

and my subsequent additional readings of Hume's commentators regarding Chuck's points do not dissuade me at all.

So you say, but are unable to show. Which makes sense because none of the commentators would support the notion of you offered that unusual events for Hume were the same as "miracles". So your readings of commentators is no better than your reading of Hume.

I had originally intended to find an academic article supporting my interpretation here but then the matter dropped and I don't think Chuck would be convinced anyway, since he has all the answers, and can tell us everything we need to know about Hume and Hobbes--when he can keep them straight.

There is no academic article which supports using a dictionary to determine what Hume meant by "miracles". The best source for what Hume meant is Hume. You've avoided discussing what he wrote.

The bottom line is that for anyone who can understand it, I think I made my point.

Your point is to ignore the evidence of Hume's own words and pretend that any old opinion you wish to hold is valid, even though a number of statements you've made about Hume have been shown to be wrong.

[Charles Bunch]

Of course you're willing to disagree, but so what? You were wrong.

I don't think I am wrong.

You don't have to think you're wrong to be wrong.
That you are has been demonstrated.

[Hans]

Another Sonderkommando testimony about the burning of "old people, sick and lame" alive, Shlomo and Abraham Dragon, Sonderkommandos since December 1942, interviewed by historian Gideon Greif:

"Shlomo: Die Arbeit beim Krematorium wurde von Moll geleitet. Die Auszuführenden waren die SS-Kommandoführer "Moishe Borek" und Schmekel Dondak". In der Schicht waren u.a. "Kurzschluß" und "Guts". Der Verantwortliche für die Krematorien III und IV and für den "Bunker 2" war Oberscharführer Moll. Moll war ein mittelgroßer Mann, gut genährt, blondes, zur Seite gekämmtes Haar. Er hatte links ein Glasauge. Er war ungefähr 37 Jahre alt. Seine Frau wohnte mit dem zehnjähirgen Sohn und der siebenjährigen Tochter in dre Stadt Oswiecim.

Abraham: Schon während wir bei den Gruben arbeiteten, war Moll unser Vorgesetzter. Er ging nicht jedesmal mit den Gruppen mit, wenn sie zur Arbeit auszogen. Neben ihm stand Oberscharführer Hössler, der auch im Sonderkommando eingesetzt war.

Greif: Können Sie die Quälereien, denen die Menschen durch Moll ausgesezt waren, detailliert beschreiben?

[...]

Abraham: Moll schlug ständig irgend jemanden. Er stand richtig unter Zwang, fortwährend um sich zu schlagen.

Shlomo: Niemand wagte auch nur den geringsten Widerstand zu leisten, denn wir wußten ja auch, daß wir letzlich nicht am Leben bleiben würden. Der Name Moll alleine ließ zittern. Er hatte noch eine weitere Aufgabe: er mußte alle Alten und Kranken auf Lastwagen hinter das Krematorium IV bringen. Dort brannte in einer Grube ein Feuer. Er ließ die lebenden Menschen hineinwerfen und bei lebendigem Leibe verbrennen. Der war einfach ein Sadist.

Greif: Wie sprach Moll Sie an?

Abraham: "Dreiundachtzigtausenddreihundertundsechzig, antreten!"

Shlomo: "Dreiundachtzigtausenddreihundertundneunundfünfzig".
Manchmal rief er mich "Langer", denn ich war ziemlich groß.

Abraham: Manchmal nannte er uns die "zwei Brüder", weil wir immer zusammen arbeiteten. Niemals machten wir auch nur einen Schritt alleine. Das war unser Glück."

(Gideon Greif, "Wir weinten tränenlos...", 160 ff.)

[Roberto]

My translation of the excerpt from Gideon Greif "Wir weinten tränenlos...", pp. 160 f, posted by Hans:

Shlomo: The work at the crematorium was directed by Moll. Those executing it were the SS-detachment commanders "Moishe Borek" and “Schmekel Dondak". In the shift there were among others "Kurzschluß" (“short circuit”) and "Guts". The man responsible for the crematoria III and IV and for the "Bunker 2" was Oberscharführer Moll. Moll was a man of medium height, well fed, with blond hair combed to the side. He had a glass eye on the left. He was about 37 years old. His wife lived with their ten year old son and seven year old daughter in the city of Oswiecim.

Abraham: Already when we were working at the pits Moll was our superior. He didn’t always go with the groups when they went to work. Next to him stood Oberscharführer Hössler, who also worked at the Sonderkommando.

Greif: Can you describe in detail the tortures to which people were exposed by Moll ?

[...]

Abraham: Moll constantly hit someone. He really felt the urge to hit out around himself all the time.

Shlomo: None of us dared to oppose the slightest resistance, for we also knew that in the end we would not stay alive. The name Moll alone made us tremble. He had yet another task: he had to bring all the old and sick on trucks behind Crematorium IV. There a fire burned inside a pit. He had the living people thrown inside alive and burned alive. That guy was simply a sadist.

Greif: How did Moll address you ?

Abraham: "Three hundred eighty thousand three hundred and sixty, present!"

Shlomo: "Three hundred eighty thousand three hundred and fifty nine".
Sometimes he called me "long one", for I was quite tall.

Abraham: Sometimes he called us the "two brothers", because we were always working together. Never did we make even on step alone. That was our luck."

[Scott Smith]

Of course you're willing to disagree, but so what? You were wrong.

I don't think I am wrong.

You don't have to think you're wrong to be wrong.

That you are has been demonstrated.

Perhaps in the mind of one, Chuck, yours.

I didn't provide any other commentators because I reviewed it several months ago when the discussion came up and I have better things to do than quibble over what I meant, as I understand it quite well. The rest is just going around in circles with Chuckoo.

Yes, Blaha and his claims are bunk, AFAIC, and I used Hume to support this point, not to comment on Blaha. Philosophers are not very meaningful to most people if they cannot be applied elsewhere. I suppose Chuck prefers to keep them in the abstract so that he doesn't have to think outside of the box. Once one has learned the orthodoxy and gotten his satin mortarboard from an approved institution, then he need not fear any doubts--and Doubters. Isn't that right, Chuck?

[Charles Bunch]

Of course you're willing to disagree, but so what? You were wrong.

I don't think I am wrong.

You don't have to think you're wrong to be wrong.

That you are has been demonstrated.

Perhaps in the mind of one, Chuck, yours.

In the mind of anyone who read the evidence contained in Hume's own words. You had nothing to offer in rebuttal except your unsupported stubborness.

I didn't provide any other commentators because I reviewed it several months ago when the discussion came up and I have better things to do than quibble over what I meant, as I understand it quite well. The rest is just going around in circles with Chuckoo.

You didn't provide it because none exists.

Yes, Blaha and his claims are bunk, AFAIC, and I used Hume to support this point, not to comment on Blaha.

Which is exactly what I said, and the opposite of what you claimed in your response to others. Do you read what you write?

Philosophers are not very meaningful to most people if they cannot be applied elsewhere.

One has to understand them before even thinking of applying them. Hume's skepticism is not considered relevant in historiography, even when properly explained.

I suppose Chuck prefers to keep them in the abstract so that he doesn't have to think outside of the box.

And I suppose Smith believes "thinking outside the box" is a good excuse for not understanding what he's talking about.

But we've already shown that.

[Hans]

Scott,

whatever you think follows from Hume, you don't make the numerous evidence for burning of people alive disappear and you cannot avoid discussing the actual evidence.

And since you have exchanged all your arguments regarding Hume several times already, maybe we can now concentrate on the testimonies.

[Scott Smith]

Hume's skepticism is not considered relevant in historiography, even when properly explained.

Utter nonsense.
:roll: