If you wouldn't deny the holocaust based on the same evidence you just gave for denying the Palestinian genocide, that suggests the evidence you gave was never valid for denying a genocide in the first place. Your reasoning is arbitrary.

But it's not the same evidence. It's a completely different situation. Completely different events have occurred, completely different amounts of time have elapsed since and they have been subjected to completely different amounts of scrutiny. There's just no comparison.

Exactly. Arbitrary. You haven't laid out your personal methodology for determining whether something is a genocide, so you can give ad hoc reasons--like you just did--for why you made the judgement that you did.

In one case, naming two people who studied the events in Gaza and denied that it's a genocide was sufficient. In the other, you required a higher threshold of evidence. Arbitrary reasoning.

But I'm not making the claim that there's no genocide. And I certainly don't have a "personal methodology for determining whether something is a genocide"! (Do you?!) I'm pointing out that Ar-Curunir's claims don't seem to be supported by sufficient evidence, which is exactly what you are accusing me of doing here. Why don't you accuse Ar-Curunir instead?

If there's a genocide I would really like to know about it. All right-thinking decent people should. But the people pushing the idea that there is one don't seem to be applying sufficient rational skepticism and don't seem to be willing to engage in intellectual discourse on the topic, so they're really not winning me over.

Here's one of the big questions I find it hard to get an answer to: how is what's happening in Gaza materially different from what happened to Germany and Japan during WWII, or to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war?

I'll tell you what: if you prove to me that the Nazis committed genocide against the Jews and others--that is, if you win me over--then I promise I will prove to you that the Israelis are committing genocide against Palestinians. If you can't, or refuse, then I'll assume you concede the point. To be clear, I'm not making the claim that the Nazis didn't commit genocide, I'll just apply rational skepticism to your points.

I have no interest in proving anything to you. It's you who seems to have an interest in proving something to me. Your message suggests you _can_ do so, so please go ahead. I would particularly interested in your answer to my question above: how is what's happening in Gaza materially different from what happened to Germany and Japan during WWII, or to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war?

You have it backward. I pointed out that your reasoning for categorizing genocides is arbitrary. This wasn't about proving to you that a certain genocide is real, only pointing out your faulty reasoning. You are free to believe whatever you want about any historical event.

Now that we've cleared up that I'm not interested in answering your questions without some reciprocity, you can prove to me that the Holocaust was real. If you do, I'll respond in kind. If you won't, then you're out of luck. Knowledge is a gift, and you are not owed anything.

In case you weren't following the thread from the beginning, it started with voidhorse criticising Scott Aaronson for "defence of genocide" (and thereby making an implicit claim of genocide): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44317728

On a forum like HN I think it's reasonable to be asked to justify strong claims that one makes. However, I wasn't even doing that. Rather, I was asking whether voidhorse thought false claims of genocide were equally bad as defence of genocide. It turns out the answer is no: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44320889. I disagree, but fair enough, other people think differently.

So, I have what I originally asked for.

I don't actually have any questions for you. I was only asking since I perceived you were trying to convince me of something. If you're not, that was just a misunderstanding on my part, and no need to continue the conversation. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything! That said, I'm happy to continue to participate in a process of reasoned discussion and inquiry if anyone wants to, but firstly it's going wildly off topic. and secondly I don't see the standards of discussion so far to as particularly high.

It's no problem! I felt that you weren't really engaging in a reasoned discussion, which is why I commented in the first place--that is what I was pointing out. Maybe that will serve to improve future discussions.