-->
@Sidewalker
tell me one thing wrong with the logic in this flowchart.
I am desperate for error-checking on this.
What Hitler Promised...........
Posts
Total:
180
-->
@fivesix
people get so interested in me instead of what I say
Some things appear as blasphemy to the doctrines of some cultists.
-->
@fivesix
that kind of thinking is what would prevent somebody like him ever getting into power again.can you read between the lines on that
Based; Nazis don’t deserve power.
-->
@TheUnderdog
based on postwar opinions. makes sense
-->
@fivesix
You said that you reject everything presented in Mein Kampf, but you still whine that we have to read it because...why is that again?I said I reject everything presented in Mein Kampf, did I?er.do I claim it doesn't exist, or something? I don't get it.didn't say that though
You said you rejected all of the main points of Mein Kampf that I presented.
I also didn't whine that you had to read it. just don't like when people recite bull about Hitler without knowing anything about him from his perspective so I'll call it out
When you say that it still sounds like you fell out of the stupid tree and hit every single branch on the way down, you better repeat it some more Rainman.
Of course, the reason is you lied about rejecting it, we don't have to read your book to know everything we need to know about you. You are a white supremacist, you are a liar, and you are dumber than a fucking post.I'm actually not white, so... good job on that one
I didn'r say I think you are white, I said I think you are a white supremacist, pay attention.
liar how, exactly? tell me one of my lies, go onand you're smarter than Einstein, honey
I just don't like when people recite bull about me and Einstein without reading our books LOL.
-->
@fivesix
tell me one thing wrong with the logic in this flowchart.I am desperate for error-checking on this.
Besides being conspiracy theory based, it's innane, this link explicitly details the errors.
-->
@Sidewalker
haha, you got me on that to be fair, I was a bit worried when I saw 'Important Video' haha
but still, thanks, you're a good sport to acknowledge there are no logical fallacies in my flowchart.
even though you lack the stones to say it outright
please note: i rejected the 'supreme master race' bullshit that you believe Hitler believed in.
do you know what 'Untermenschen' means?
-->
@Elliott
Wind energy isn’t the total solution; one thing we are not short of in the UK is wind. I have no objection to nuclear even Greta Thunberg has no objection to that and if we ever develop fusion reactors, that will alleviate the energy problem, but we do need an alternative to fossil fuels.
I halfway agree. The amount of CO2 that we emit to the atmosphere doesn't really make an impact on our planet's ozone layer.
It does make an impact but won't have any dire consequences until about maybe a couple decades.
I also have no objection to nuclear either. I think nuclear energy should be pushed more, because of its potential.
That the climate has always changed is a fact but there is always a cause and the consensus of well over 90% of climate scientists accept that the main cause is human activity and the burning of fossil fuels.
I would disagree with that. I think it's just bad timing with our fossil fuels and the earth naturally heating up.
But even if that were to be true, if we were to stop all carbon emissions right now, it wouldn't help with the problem at all. It wouldn't make a difference, so having natural resources, that still require carbon emissions, wouldn't help either.
-->
@fivesix
haha, you got me on that to be fair, I was a bit worried when I saw 'Important Video' hahabut still, thanks, you're a good sport to acknowledge there are no logical fallacies in my flowchart.
Of course not, in conspiracy world there's no such thing as a logical fallacy, only coverups and conspiracies, flat earth is completely logical, any and all facts, contradictions, and inconsistencies are not facts, contradictions, and inconsistencies, they are only conspiracies and coverups. Hitler's life is one of the most scrutinized and documented lives in history, CONSPIRACY!
You need to understand that Hitler didn't even write Mein Kampf, it's a conspiracy...prove me wrong.
even though you lack the stones to say it outrightplease note: i rejected the 'supreme master race' bullshit that you believe Hitler believed in.do you know what 'Untermenschen' means?
Of course I do, so what?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I halfway agree. The amount of CO2 that we emit to the atmosphere doesn't really make an impact on our planet's ozone layer.It does make an impact but won't have any dire consequences until about maybe a couple decades.
Co2 isn’t like the CFC’s and has no direct impact on the ozone layer. Co2 is a greenhouse gas which prevents heat from escaping. This link explains it better:
A couple of decades isn’t a very long time and we are already seeing the effects of global warming on the climate.
I would disagree with that. I think it's just bad timing with our fossil fuels and the earth naturally heating up.But even if that were to be true, if we were to stop all carbon emissions right now, it wouldn't help with the problem at all. It wouldn't make a difference, so having natural resources, that still require carbon emissions, wouldn't help either.
I have come across the argument that it’s all part of a natural cycle by way of explanation many times, but natural cycles have a cause and unless you identify that cause it explains nothing. So what is causing the earth to naturally heat up, and as we are entering a period known as a “solar minimum”things should be cooling but they aren’t. Also, although we have had past periods of global warming, not regional ones, they occur over long periods of time, thousands of years but what is taking place now with global warming is happening very quickly.
As our use of fossil flues to provide energy has been identified as the main cause for the rise in Co2 and global warming, then reducing and eventually eliminating their use should most definitely help alleviate that problem.
-->
@Elliott
which prevents heat from escaping.
I saw a really cool video (no pun intended) explaining that rising CO2 concentrations do not technically prevent heat from escaping; it just forces heat to escape at a higher altitude which rebalances thermodynamic equations to cause surface temperatures to rise. So the actual physics are technically not like a greenhouse at all.
Fascinating stuff.
You can skip ahead to the 10 minute mark (the PhD breakdown) depending on your knowledge.
-->
@Greyparrot
I saw a really cool video (no pun intended) explaining that rising CO2 concentrations do not technically prevent heat from escaping; it just forces heat to escape at a higher altitude which rebalances thermodynamic equations to cause surface temperatures to rise. So the actual physics are technically not like a greenhouse at all.Fascinating stuff.You can skip ahead to the 10 minute mark (the PhD breakdown) depending on your knowledge.
Interesting stuff, I watched the whole thing, thanks. Possibly a bit heavy going in places but she is an excellent teacher.
I had one misgiving as I watched it and that is her research could probably be used by those people and organisations who deny or try to dismiss the importance of global warming, which is not what she was saying, she is not contesting that anthropogenic CO2 contributes to warming, she is simply explaining her theory on the mechanism involved.
-->
@Elliott
She also addressed those misgivings in her video.
But it does debunk the idea that the heating effect could have a "runaway" aspect as it is not the same process of a greenhouse at all.
In a sane world, both deniers, and doomsayers should be debunked in equal measure.
-->
@Greyparrot
She also addressed those misgivings in her video.But it does debunk the idea that the heating effect could have a "runaway" aspect as it is not the same process of a greenhouse at all.In a sane world, both deniers, and doomsayers should be debunked in equal measure.
I didn’t really get that she debunked runaway effect from watching the video.
I found this; it is worth watching where Sabine Hossenfelder addresses and acknowledges the prospect of tipping points which could cause such a runaway effect.
"Path Dependence and Tipping Points." A video with accompanying text.
-->
@Elliott
No she didn't address it, but she probably didn't need to since it's long been debunked as the PPM required to actually block the the escaping energy from sun is out of bounds for what the Earth could possibly sustain. The major greenhouse gas Earth can sustain at relevant ppm levels is water vapor, which also has mitigating solar reflective properties that make it a poor candidate for an insulating runaway effect.
The video is just nice as a tool to explain to the layman that we really don't live in a greenhouse effect from Co2.
As I said before, if the same energy was exerted to debunk deniers as it was to debunk the wild and unlikely doomsayer predictions, the world would have much saner policies.
Is global warming happening? Yeah. Is it on balance more bad than good? Somewhat. Will we live in an Al Gore dystopia? Absofuckinglutly and categorically NO.
You need to understand that Hitler didn't even write Mein Kampf, it's a conspiracy
Mein Kampf was written by a comedian named Shecky Goldstein, he meant t to be humorous social commentary and he wrote it under the pen name Adolf Hitler because he thought it would be funny, since Hitler was actually illiterate. And yes, after the war there was a conspiracy to make everyone think Hitler wrote it, but there is not a shred of evidence that Hitler actually wrote it. He claimed on many occasions that not only didn't he write it, but he didn't even read it.
So if you want to understand Shecky, sure, you should read Mein Kampf, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hitler. Shecky's last words on his deathbed were about Mein Kampf when he said, "Oy vey, these schmucky gentiles really can't take a joke".
Don't be a sap, stop swallowing the lies you are being told by fake history.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Hitler promised his people that if they let him rule, that he would:Save the forests.Save the trees.Fix the climate.Make life better for everyone.Bring world peace.Save the world
Sounds like Trump. At CPAC he said he would end the war in Ukraine in one day and it would be very easy.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
and restoration of German glory to those in despair.
Sounds like MAGA
-->
@Sidewalker
You need to understand that Hitler didn't even write Mein Kampf, it's a conspiracy...prove me wrong.
the author name is 'Adolf Hitler'
gotcha...!
do you know what 'Untermenschen' means?Of course I do, so what?
I just heard something about it. quite surprising tbh. from the exiled Jurgen Graf, around minute 30.
according to his research, "Untermenschen" has been, surprise surprise, taken out of context... and was used in Germany, in actual physical literature that he has studied, to apply to paedophiles and other degenerate criminals of German society.
but we were told it meant the Slavs! well! that sure angered the Slavs!!
-->
@fivesix
You need to understand that Hitler didn't even write Mein Kampf, it's a conspiracy...prove me wrong.the author name is 'Adolf Hitler'gotcha...!
There is about a hundred times more direct evidence that millions died in the concentration camps than there is that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, your conspiracy theory approach to evaluating the Holocaust can be applied to anything to achieve any outcome, it's OK to do it, you clearly have an agenda and that agenda isn't about the truth, but most of the members here are whack job conspiracy theorists trying to sell thier own whack job conspiracy theory, good luck trying to gaslight the gaslighting crowd here (most of them are better at it than you BTW). Everyone here everyone here knows conspiracy logic is not logic, the only ones swallowing it are the ones that already want to swallow it.
If you want us to read Mein Kampf to understand Hitler you need to show us that Hitler wrote it, if you can't do that then we only need to read it if we are interested in Shecky Goldstein. The question you have to ask, is why they want us to believe Hitler wrote it, how does that let them control us and take us away from the truth of Shecky Goldstein.
That, or admit your approach is agenda based BS and kindly stop trying to associate the words "logic" and "truth" with it, it's offensive that you think we are that stupid.
-->
@Sidewalker
There is about a hundred times more direct evidence that millions died in the concentration camps than there is that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, your conspiracy theory approach to evaluating the Holocaust can be applied to anything to achieve any outcome, it's OK to do it, you clearly have an agenda and that agenda isn't about the truth, but most of the members here are whack job conspiracy theorists trying to sell thier own whack job conspiracy theory, good luck trying to gaslight the gaslighting crowd here (most of them are better at it than you BTW). Everyone here everyone here knows conspiracy logic is not logic, the only ones swallowing it are the ones that already want to swallow it.If you want us to read Mein Kampf to understand Hitler you need to show us that Hitler wrote it, if you can't do that then we only need to read it if we are interested in Shecky Goldstein. The question you have to ask, is why they want us to believe Hitler wrote it, how does that let them control us and take us away from the truth of Shecky Goldstein.That, or admit your approach is agenda based BS and kindly stop trying to associate the words "logic" and "truth" with it, it's offensive that you think we are that stupid.
logic, huh?
you serious?
Mein Kampf was published in 1925/1926. It was serialised in multiple newspapers globally and is available in tens of languages, still available today, and the man we know as Adolf Hitler never said he didn't write it - and - guess what - he started a second book, which is now available as an unfinished manuscript - "Hitler's Second Book" - try arguing what the first one was if not Mein Kampf?
as for your attacks on my logic.
you haven't pointed out a logical fallacy in the flowchart I created that shows how evidence presented at Nuremberg for homicidal gas chambers helps to prove there were none. you've just continued to insult my person and generally talk shit about me.
point out a logical fallacy in the flowchart.
here, try your best
p.s. I actually don't care if people read Mein Kampf. for the third or fourth time, I only care when people state lies about him that they have heard from sources other than him, which they would not state if they had read Mein Kampf. simple.
and no, it's not "he said, she said" - it's things like saying he was a racist. when there really is no evidence he was... you could just give me one example and I'll show you how you believe in BS without researching it first.
-->
@fivesix
you're trying to make my understanding of Hitler invalid based on what you have learned in history about Hitler. And I've just shown you how that history is massively flawed. you can convince me that it possibly isn't, if you can find a logical fallacy in my flowchart.
Actions speak louder than words.
You're going to have to prove to me history is wrong using actual imperial evidence, and not what Hitler claimed to of happened.
If history is massively flawed, explain to me how it is flawed, and what sources we can use to tell what happened in history.
Why is WW1 history flawed? Do you have any evidence of it being flawed?
because people talk shit about him and I don't like it. simple
You don't like people saying that Hitler was a bad person.
Are you going to defend every single person in history that was called a bad person?
If not, then why specifically Hitler?
also, it's barely an autobiography, it's more like political theory mixed with anecdotes and historical issues that have resulted in problems in modern (then) Germany and Austria
No, it's definitely an autobiography, by definition. The rest of the things you just mentioned is something called context.
he did make Germany prosperous.
........you just love the idea of mass genocide, don't you?
all his actions, such as?what did he do.be specific.sound like a parrot after coming out of history classhe wasn't a horrible man. how was he?you could read what Ghandi said about him.
Alright:
Hitler was responsible for the start of WW2 where 55 million people were killed.
Over 20 million of those were Germans.
He is also responsible of the execution of 6 million Jews (Holocaust) where the population of Jews in Europe went from 9 million to 3.
Hitler used Propaganda techniques to achieve his selfish goal in building a German Empire in Europe.
He was a fascist, a strong nationalist... And also an imperialist.
He took over the Sudetenland which is a chunk of land in the Czech Republic where 3.5 million Germans lived, afterwards he took the entire Republic.
He took land back from France, Belgium, and Poland, which he was not allowed to do according to the Treaty of Versailles and its 14 points.
On September 1st WW2 began when Germany carpet bombed Poland off the map - they surrendered within a month.
So yea not a particularly nice dude.
i've already explained the genocide and racism - psycopath, though? really? why do you claim that? and the chosen/destined thing, so what? the greater purpose of saving Germany, which he failed to do?
Psychopath: a person affected by chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.
Hitler was mentally ill, and literally committed suicide.
He was also violent (55 million people killed).
Also, if you're going to argue that the greater purpose/outcome of Hitlers plan, was worth the genocide, then you should probably talk to a therapist.
1940, June, before the killings allegedly commenced, yes. By the Jewish World Congress. 6,000,000. there's the notion for ya
"The Allied Powers were aware of the scale of the Jewish Holocaust two-and-a-half years earlier than is generally assumed, and had even prepared war crimes indictments against Adolf Hitler and his top Nazi commanders.
Newly accessed material from the United Nations – not seen for around 70 years – shows that as early as December 1942, the US, UK and Soviet governments were aware that at least two million Jews had been murdered and a further five million were at risk of being killed, and were preparing charges. Despite this, the Allied Powers did very little to try and rescue or provide sanctuary to those in mortal danger.
Indeed, in March 1943, Viscount Cranborne, a minister in the war cabinet of Winston Churchill, said the Jews should not be considered a special case and that the British Empire was already too full of refugees to offer a safe haven to any more."
Maybe do your research before making your claims.
want to see eyewitness accounts from prisoners who lived in the camps for years and didn't see anything of the sort? why is counter-narrative evidence censored online?
You want to see eyewitness account from prisoners who survived the camps and saw the genocide and was tortured?
We have the pictures dude.
-->
@Elliott
Co2 isn’t like the CFC’s and has no direct impact on the ozone layer. Co2 is a greenhouse gas which prevents heat from escaping. This link explains it better:A couple of decades isn’t a very long time and we are already seeing the effects of global warming on the climate.
Another reason why I know this global warming crisis isn't really a crisis, is because take a look at our banks.
The "professionals" claim that in a couple of decades, Icecaps will melt and that will raise ocean levels, to about 5 ft higher or such.
If that really was a threat, you wouldn't be able to get a loan, because the banks would basically be throwing away money if they did.
The banks know this is BS, because otherwise they would be giving out loans.
I have come across the argument that it’s all part of a natural cycle by way of explanation many times, but natural cycles have a cause and unless you identify that cause it explains nothing. So what is causing the earth to naturally heat up, and as we are entering a period known as a “solar minimum”things should be cooling but they aren’t. Also, although we have had past periods of global warming, not regional ones, they occur over long periods of time, thousands of years but what is taking place now with global warming is happening very quickly.As our use of fossil flues to provide energy has been identified as the main cause for the rise in Co2 and global warming, then reducing and eventually eliminating their use should most definitely help alleviate that problem.
Again, the banks and companies would be acting very differently if this was the case.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Maybe do your research before making your claims.
right back at ya. I recommend starting with Mein Kampf.
then I recommend not taking results from the first page of Google when you try to prove somebody wrong without knowing what you're talking about.
serious question: do you know why Hitler came to power? like the main reason? (without Googling it)
send me as many pics of bodies that you want to. hey, notice all the shaved heads?
i refer back to my flowchart, in which you have failed to find a logical fallacy.
those bodies... do you know anything about the camps... honestly...
what are you trying to argue, by linking the bodies? please learn more about the camps. it's embarrassing
here, i am going to school you quickly on your points:
Alright:Hitler was responsible for the start of WW2 where 55 million people were killed.
why did Hitler propose peace to the UK over 12 times? why did Hitler use Blitzkrieg? why did Hitler attempt via peaceful means several times to reclaim the German-speaking areas of Eastern Europe taken from Germany after WW1, arguably unjustly?
Over 20 million of those were Germans.
so he killed his own people, you're saying? look up "G-day"
He is also responsible of the execution of 6 million Jews (Holocaust) where the population of Jews in Europe went from 9 million to 3.
hmm. how many non-Jews? less than 6 presumably
Hitler used Propaganda techniques to achieve his selfish goal in building a German Empire in Europe.
refer to chapter 6 of Mein Kampf: "War Propaganda"
He was a fascist, a strong nationalist... And also an imperialist.
and? tbh he was an anti-imperialist, which you would know if you read Mein Kampf.
He took over the Sudetenland which is a chunk of land in the Czech Republic where 3.5 million Germans lived, afterwards he took the entire Republic.
true. and? conquest is... what?
He took land back from France, Belgium, and Poland, which he was not allowed to do according to the Treaty of Versailles and its 14 points.
yeh he did this to secure the area from being used as a mounting point by the Allies. it's quite clear. the French were sitting waiting near the border in trenches for him to attack and he went around that, through the low countries and into France. what is wrong here?
On September 1st WW2 began when Germany carpet bombed Poland off the map - they surrendered within a month.
yes. could have surrended earlier and avoided being carpet-bombed. although the extent of bombing on Poland was nowhere near the extent levied on Germany by the Allies, and Germany did not intentionally target civilian areas at anywhere near the level the Allies did.
https://www.hellstormdocumentary.com/ and "G-day" (foiled by German intelligence)
1940, June, before the killings allegedly commenced, yes. By the Jewish World Congress. 6,000,000. there's the notion for ya"The Allied Powers were aware of the scale of the Jewish Holocaust two-and-a-half years earlier than is generally assumed, and had even prepared war crimes indictments against Adolf Hitler and his top Nazi commanders.Newly accessed material from the United Nations – not seen for around 70 years – shows that as early as December 1942, the US, UK and Soviet governments were aware that at least two million Jews had been murdered and a further five million were at risk of being killed, and were preparing charges. Despite this, the Allied Powers did very little to try and rescue or provide sanctuary to those in mortal danger.
flick through it. explain the rest of them https://archive.org/details/SIXMILLIONOPENGATESByS.A.R.Lynch271_201808/page/n15/mode/2up
also, it's barely an autobiography, it's more like political theory mixed with anecdotes and historical issues that have resulted in problems in modern (then) Germany and AustriaNo, it's definitely an autobiography, by definition. The rest of the things you just mentioned is something called context.
you haven't read it. so stop acting like you know what's in it. I don't see why you think something has changed here.
he did make Germany prosperous.........you just love the idea of mass genocide, don't you?
this right here proves to me all you know about WW2 is what you learned in school. I advise reading some books about the interwar period, which they don't really tell you properly about in school, and the pre-WW1 period. or you can read Mein Kampf, where that period is summarised and is backed up by the historical record as being truthfully told by Hitler.
come back to me when you know something. theorising doesn't help you learn.
-->
@fivesix
right back at ya. I recommend starting with Mein Kampf.then I recommend not taking results from the first page of Google when you try to prove somebody wrong without knowing what you're talking about.serious question: do you know why Hitler came to power? like the main reason? (without Googling it)
Reading Mein Kampf wouldn't be research for the history of what actually happened.
It would be research in studying Hitler as a person, I'll give you that.
Actually, not the first result from Google (I like to do my research).
Ok let's answer your serious question.
Without doing research.
Hitler came to power from influencing the people of Germany, with a future of prosperity, and used the historical significance of the hating of Jews, to make the people more eager to follow him, because he was following a popular trend.
So, while promising prosperity, and wealth for all, he murdered 6 million Jews, and even more Germans.
Never got even close to the prosperity he promised.
All I can say for that question, was he was very influential, and preached popular beliefs to the extreme.
send me as many pics of bodies that you want to. hey, notice all the shaved heads?i refer back to my flowchart, in which you have failed to find a logical fallacy.
Alright.
In your flowchart, you say that homicidal gas chambers are not materially proven to exist.
Pictures
Also
The extermination procedure in the gas chambers / Auschwitz and Shoah / History / Auschwitz-Birkenau
So that's definitely a logical fallacy.
those bodies... do you know anything about the camps... honestly...
DO YOU??
This is something we literally learned in middle school.
what are you trying to argue, by linking the bodies? please learn more about the camps. it's embarrassing
I'm not arguing anything. I am showing you evidence that everyone knows exists.
You are the one arguing against historical evidence.
I'm starting to think you are a Nazi.
why did Hitler propose peace to the UK over 12 times?
So, again, you didn't prove my point wrong, only brought other points in.
Is what I said wrong? If so, how?
Also, I will answer your questions.
It was after he murdered a lot of people, so..........yea, it was more of a "please don't hurt me I'm sorry."
why did Hitler use Blitzkrieg?
........it's a war tactic.........used in war.............
I honestly have no words.
why did Hitler attempt via peaceful means several times to reclaim the German-speaking areas of Eastern Europe taken from Germany after WW1, arguably unjustly?
Again, plea for his safety.
After he realized, he was going to die, he tried his best to save himself, or his pride, given he killed himself anyways.
so he killed his own people, you're saying? look up "G-day"
Yes, he did.
Also, G-day is a tech enthusiast meet up from country's all over the world so........
hmm. how many non-Jews? less than 6 presumably
In all of these responses you have yet to say the information is wrong, which is proving that you are just deciding to ignore the information, and facts, and instead come up with," oh well what about these people that died."
A lot of kinds of people died in WW1. How all of them died? Some I don't know. But I'm not talking about Russia, I am talking about Germany right now.
refer to chapter 6 of Mein Kampf: "War Propaganda"
No.
and? tbh he was an anti-imperialist, which you would know if you read Mein Kampf.
Actions speak louder than words.
true. and? conquest is... what?
Good point.
yeh he did this to secure the area from being used as a mounting point by the Allies. it's quite clear. the French were sitting waiting near the border in trenches for him to attack and he went around that, through the low countries and into France. what is wrong here?
France defending its country is not a reason to break a Treaty that many countries have signed and agreed to.
yes. could have surrended earlier and avoided being carpet-bombed. although the extent of bombing on Poland was nowhere near the extent levied on Germany by the Allies, and Germany did not intentionally target civilian areas at anywhere near the level the Allies did.https://www.hellstormdocumentary.com/ and "G-day" (foiled by German intelligence)
The documentary is promoting Communism.
Not going to trust anyone who promotes that.
flick through it. explain the rest of them https://archive.org/details/SIXMILLIONOPENGATESByS.A.R.Lynch271_201808/page/n15/mode/2up
Instead of asking more questions, maybe actually reply to my evidence.
Your responses are:
"Yea but look at this."
"Well, don't worry about that evidence. Look at this instead"
It's all BS.
you haven't read it. so stop acting like you know what's in it. I don't see why you think something has changed here.
I don't have to read Mein Kampf to know what kind of book it is.
Mein Kampf is like a Bible to you huh. Hitler must be Jesus.
this right here proves to me all you know about WW2 is what you learned in school. I advise reading some books about the interwar period, which they don't really tell you properly about in school, and the pre-WW1 period. or you can read Mein Kampf, where that period is summarised and is backed up by the historical record as being truthfully told by Hitler.come back to me when you know something. theorising doesn't help you learn.
Anything I said not historically accurate?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Another reason why I know this global warming crisis isn't really a crisis, is because take a look at our banks.The "professionals" claim that in a couple of decades, Icecaps will melt and that will raise ocean levels, to about 5 ft higher or such.If that really was a threat, you wouldn't be able to get a loan, because the banks would basically be throwing away money if they did.The banks know this is BS, because otherwise they would be giving out loans.
Bankers are not climate scientists and Banks still have still have vast financial interests in the promotion of fossil fuels.
Again, the banks and companies would be acting very differently if this was the case.
As to the article from “Investor’s Business Daily” as soon as it mentioned “ Real Climate Science” and Tony Heller, who also isn’t a climate scientist, it lost any credibility.
A final point, if all the ice caps melt the sea level is expected to rise not 5 feet but somewhere between 60 and 70 meters that is up to around 200 to 230 feet.
-->
@Elliott
Bankers are not climate scientists and Banks still have still have vast financial interests in the promotion of fossil fuels.
But if the climate crisis was a real threat, then why wouldn't the banks be freaking out?
The banks are smart, and if they did see a real threat to their money, then they would be stopping loans.
But they know it's all BS, because if it wasn't they would be doing something about it.
As to the article from “Investor’s Business Daily” as soon as it mentioned “ Real Climate Science” and Tony Heller, who also isn’t a climate scientist, it lost any credibility.A final point, if all the ice caps melt the sea level is expected to rise not 5 feet but somewhere between 60 and 70 meters that is up to around 200 to 230 feet.
But they can look at the facts, and take from it what they can.
They are investors, and not stupid.
If they saw any sort of threat at all, they would be doing something.
Also lets not forget that these so called "climate scientists" said that the world was going to end in ten years about 15 years ago. So I wouldn't trust them either.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
send me as many pics of bodies that you want to. hey, notice all the shaved heads?i refer back to my flowchart, in which you have failed to find a logical fallacy.Alright.In your flowchart, you say that homicidal gas chambers are not materially proven to exist.PicturesAlsoThe extermination procedure in the gas chambers / Auschwitz and Shoah / History / Auschwitz-BirkenauSo that's definitely a logical fallacy.
that's definitely not a logical fallacy in my flowchart, which is what I asked you to find. and I did not claim that gas chambers are not materially proven to exist. the flowchart reaches that possibility in the centre, alongside the possibility that the evidence does not evidence gas-chamber deaths, unless you can show why it logically shouldn't, based on the source material https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/11/15/evidence-of-evil https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa5592 and known evidence of homicidal gas chambers.
here:
logical fallacynoun
- A fallacy; a clearly defined error in reasoning used to support or refute an argument, excluding simple unintended mistakes.
- a fallacy in logical argumentation
so, before I respond to everything else you have said, please either:
1. find a logical fallacy in my flowchart; or
2. state that you can't find a logical fallacy in my flowchart (i.e. it is logically sound, to your estimation)
another way to put it is: find a way out of the flowchart without reaching the end point. the way out must be grounded in logic and not subjective opinion. e.g. "there are two options there, but there would be three, because those two options don't cover all reasonable possibilities, and this is the third possibility that is not covered elsewhere in the flowchart." or "that lone next point is not the only reasonable possibility stemming from this point."
the reason I want you to do this? I want to know if your argumentation is grounded in reason and not in response. because if it's the latter then this discussion will never yield fruit for either of us and it is a waste of our time.
time is finite.
-->
@fivesix
Your flow chart leads to the possibility of gas chambers not existing but evidence says otherwise, so your flow chart outcome is wrong.
the reason I want you to do this? I want to know if your argumentation is grounded in reason and not in response. because if it's the latter then this discussion will never yield fruit for either of us and it is a waste of our time.
You want me to do this?
Why should I do what you want me to do.
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard:
Argue according to my standards, or we can't argue.
That's not how arguments work.
I could do the exact same thing for you.
I provided a timeline and the events, and things that Hitler did, and you have yet to say any of them are false.
You are a conspiracy theorist, and a bad one at that.
Go worship your Hitler statue, you Nazi.
You can't even argue rationally.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But if the climate crisis was a real threat, then why wouldn't the banks be freaking out?The banks are smart, and if they did see a real threat to their money, then they would be stopping loans.But they know it's all BS, because if it wasn't they would be doing something about it.
Why aren’t the banks freaking out.
Because climate change is outside their field of expertise.
Because banks are notoriously short-termist and they see the negative effects of climate change as being a distant future prospect that can be ignored.
Perhaps some of them are stupid and they refuse to accept all the scientific evidence.
However, The World Bank seems to accept the reality of climate change.
Also lets not forget that these so called "climate scientists" said that the world was going to end in ten years about 15 years ago. So I wouldn't trust them either.
As far as I am aware they have said nothing of the sort. Most climate models have been remarkably accurate in their predictions even those dating back to the 1970s, but climate deniers only like to focus on the few that haven’t and then spread the myth that they don’t work.