I'm not presenting evidence, because you haven't presented an argument. You took some cherry-picked testimony, knowing full well that it disagrees with the vast body of testimony, and tried to use it to claim that, since this testimony is obviously unreliable, all the testimony must therefore be unreliable.
That's not an argument, it's a non-sequitur.
Screeching "EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE!" isn't an argument, either.
Meanwhile, I've presented a rational argument, explaining away all of your objections, and all you can do in response is demand evidence we both know exists, and you could easily find on your own, call me childish and accuse me of being a good writer.
So, tell me, where, in all of that, does your argument lie?
Another series of non-sequiturs in defense of a murderous socialist regime. Moreover, it misses the bigger picture. Why on earth would an entire group of people make up something as horrifying as the Holocaust if it didn't happen? Why would someone like Corrie Ten Boom have gone along with such a deception? Why would Eisenhower have insisted so fervently that it happened?
How do you get an entire continent of people to go along with claiming something happened to them, when they know it didn't? How do they benefit?
In order to believe what you're saying, you'd have to believe Jews had a nature somehow different to the rest of humanity, because no human population could be convinced to lie as breathtakingly and convincingly up until their deathbeds. There would be people recanting left and right. And yet, you say a handful is enough to prove a fraud. It's absurd. What ideal do you suppose they're upholding in their minds? We're talking millions of people, all making similar claims. MILLIONS. And not just Jews. Poles. Gypsies.
I'm not presenting evidence, because you haven't presented an argument. You took some cherry-picked testimony, knowing full well that it disagrees with the vast body of testimony, and tried to use it to claim that, since this testimony is obviously unreliable, all the testimony must therefore be unreliable.
That's not an argument, it's a non-sequitur.
Screeching "EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE!" isn't an argument, either.
Meanwhile, I've presented a rational argument, explaining away all of your objections, and all you can do in response is demand evidence we both know exists, and you could easily find on your own, call me childish and accuse me of being a good writer.
So, tell me, where, in all of that, does your argument lie?
Another series of non-sequiturs in defense of a murderous socialist regime. Moreover, it misses the bigger picture. Why on earth would an entire group of people make up something as horrifying as the Holocaust if it didn't happen? Why would someone like Corrie Ten Boom have gone along with such a deception? Why would Eisenhower have insisted so fervently that it happened?
How do you get an entire continent of people to go along with claiming something happened to them, when they know it didn't? How do they benefit?
In order to believe what you're saying, you'd have to believe Jews had a nature somehow different to the rest of humanity, because no human population could be convinced to lie as breathtakingly and convincingly up until their deathbeds. There would be people recanting left and right. And yet, you say a handful is enough to prove a fraud. It's absurd. What ideal do you suppose they're upholding in their minds? We're talking millions of people, all making similar claims. MILLIONS. And not just Jews. Poles. Gypsies.
You're out of your damned mind.