Holocaust Denial

Not at all.

You and I think very differently about what should be or not.

I see no point is continuing this discussion with you. Goodbye.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I do applaud the fact that you are open minded enough to recognise that you are close minded. It is an interesting balance.

If you hope to have a fruitful time on this forum I recommend you learn something of logical fallacies and of the difference between opinion and fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actully, I came here to have fun and perhaps join in on a conversation that was civil.

You've shown me that I'm in the wrong place. I'll correct that now.

Do you feel nice and superior now? Glow in it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please identify where in my posts I have been uncivil towards you. The first instance in which I can see such a claim may be made is when I say that in part of your response you were 'emoting great gobbets of indignation'. Why did I say that? Your phrases...

"What you suggest is fantasy."

"There are examples of that type of idiocy being prosecuted by members of societies throughout history."


"Your argument is pointless. It's fantasy."

"Your example above ........It's outrageous."

Actually, I think you have to read the entire post in order to capture the near hysterical manner in which you seek to convey your outrage at my thesis, which was submitted obecctiviely and without an ounce of emotion.

My colourful phrase - emoting gobbets of indignation - was an objective description of your post. Your post was not civil. I have no problem with that incivility at all. It was an effective way of conveying how you felt. But please do not be so ingenuous as to think such an emotional outburst will not be commented on, especially when it flags up a weakness in your argument.

Edited addition:
It is for you to decide if you are in the wrong place or not. You are certainly displaying the wrong attitude. Emotional, oversensitivity is attacked here.

I feel neither superior or inferior to you. I do feel that the thesis I presented and the manner in which I presented it was superior to your thesis and your argumentative structure. This feeling is based upon demonstrable features of both. Perhaps, you also need to learn that attacks on ideas are not attacks on the person.

Second Edit:
If you are truly going to be driven out because one person mounts a vigorous attack on your thesis then it probably is best that you leave. It doesn't show much strength of character. I was seeing you as lady with teenage children. I would have thought you would have had to deal with worse than me in raising them.

 

I have children who have teen-aged children and I'm male. You sound like a land shark. Why do you present yourself as an attacker? Do you feel that attack is something you have to do in a discussion? I've been on the net since shortly after it's conception. I've seen people who can discuss without attack and those who can't. All an attack such as yours does is draw others who like that style of argument. It makes people such as me leave.

Right? Wrong? Why assign either? The fact is that I've left the discussion as a result of your style of attack, not because of it's content. If your goal was to drive away anyone who disagrees with you, then you have succeeded as far as I'm concerned.

There will always be others who come forward for you to attack.

Have a good attack.

I'm simply going somewhere else where attacks aren't.

I don't like being attacked.

Discussion groups are one thing. Attack groups are quite another.

You've made it clear that this is an attack group.

Your actions have made it clear that you are an attacker.

Enjoy your attacks.

I'll enjoy my discussions elsewhere.

 

Why do you perceive me as an attacker?
Why did you violently and aggressively attack my first quite neutral post?

I do attack: I attack wrong ideas and poorly presented arguments. If you have been on the internet since its inception then I amazed that you cannot disitnguish between an attack on an idea and an attack on a person.

!. You haven't left the discussion. this is the third time you have come back declaring you are going to leave.
2. It looks to me like you are running away because you were unable to repond logically to my arguments, so you have instead dredged up a bunch of personal and subjective twists on the issue.

And please note, you are the one who introduced this personal issue. I continue to say and say clearly - I have nothing whatsoever against you. How can I? I don't know you. It is your arguments - as presented - that were very weak. Your arguments are all I have to go on.
I think they were incorrect. ( Would you prefer that I commend them and pretend they were first rate?) You are perfectly free to demonstrate why my arguments are wrong, but instead you threw this emotional hissy fit.

Trust me, if I was attacking you, you would know about it. I have made a simple attack on and destruction of your argument. Come back at me with a better argument, not a bunch of emotional mumbo jumbo.

Au revoir.

 

Please note that everything I say in my posts is my opinion unless I specifically quote or cite someone else. I don't want to have to keep saying "In my opinion".

I keep coming back because I hate leaving something half done. I shouldn't have said I was leaving. That was temper speaking.

You're correct. I came on pretty strong with the "fantasy" "idiocy" "pointless" and "outrageous" remarks. Had I not used them, would you have replied in a more conversational tone or would your response have been the same?

The aggressive type of debating style you use is something I've found to be something I avoid. The "In your face" type thing bothers me. A lot use it and a lot don't. Those that don't are the ones I try to respond to.

I really mean no disrespect to you on this issue. That is why I had to come back and explain this to you.

I'm a pretty laid back type of person. I'm old fashioned as hell and I'm very strict about manners, both from me and too me.

The point I was attempting to make in my argument is that when words are used in a manner that inflicts radical insult to others, such as making fun of the Jewish deaths and prison camps when speaking to someone who has been in one and seen the real, up close and personal suffering, it's something that I feel should not be allowed. I used the example of someone making a remark about literally eating children to a group that contains children because most people would find that type of statement very upsetting.

In many countries, there are laws in place that concern how people speak to each other. In most cases of this that I've heard of, I think that it's a good idea. I have the impression that you may think that anyone should be able to say anything they wish to anyone they wish at any time they wish.

Is this a true statement of what you believe?

Again, I apologize for getting angry. I now realize that I'm speaking to a person who uses an aggressive style of discussion and I'll accept that and work around the parts that really bother me.

I'm interested in how you think about this type of issue.

Who knows? You may change my mind. Let's discuss the subject and find out.

A point of interest is that yes, I've been on the net since before the creation of "Windows" and when the only way to use it was with Unix commands from a dos type prompt. All the "Archie" characters were well represented and at the time, I thought their usage pretty funny. Things were very different then.

If you continue to speak with me here, you'll find that I never, ever lie. I detest liars. If I say something to you, you can take it to the bank that it is in fact what I think, have done or have seen. In time, perhaps you'll know me well enough to see that.

If you choose to continue discussing things with me, I look forward to future discussions.

Nat

 

define "evidence"...

wouldn't the testimony of survivors be "evidence"?

wouldn't the capitulation of former Nazi camp guards be "evidence"?

wouldn't the mass burial pits and human remains at the camps be "evidence"?

although not Jewish, I had (note past tense) several relatives who were sent to Auschwitz and/or Dachau. Of the 15 relatives that I know of, only one made it out alive. He was old enough to prove useful, yet young enough to not pose a threat.

back to "evidence"... what of the first-hand accounts of journalists and soldiers who were first on the scene to view the atrocities? I suppose that isn't "evidence" either...

and if it really didn't happen, why would the German government STILL be paying money for something that they "didn't do" because "it didn't happen"?

 

and yes... The captured Russian soldiers, Poles, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and political dissidents were captured and brutalized as well. The difference is, if they died in captivity, they died from hard labor in dismal conditions (which in itself is homicide to me), while Jews were "exterminated" as though it should ever be one races' right to eliminate another. "The Final Solution", I believe, only applied to Jews, no other prisoners.

 

and just to come full circle... I have NO DOUBT that the Holocaust did in fact happen. That being said, I don't think 'Holocaust Denial' should be illegal. If it is, then I suppose the "Creation" vs. "Evolution" argument will be decided in a court by which side has the most evidence in it's favor. I dare say that the Vatican will not be happy with the outcome of that decision...

"Holocaust Denial" through a bullhorn into the open doors of a Temple, on the other hand, should be illegal. I guess what I'm saying is that it should be about the context and the forum, rather than the simple act itself.

Opinion is opinion. It becomes an issue when a dispute arises over a cataclysmic event and both sides present very public, 'in your face' arguments which are designed to hurt rather than debate or educate.

 

NGM - What on earth are you talking about? You seem to find it very easy to disagree with others but find it somehow hurtful when they disagree with you. If you don't want to continue debating the matter: be my guest.

Sooo... you think that free opinion can be used simply to wound? Well in most cases of Holocaust Denial I firmly believe that it isn't. There is only a small percentage of convicted Holocaust Deniers who have actually said that the Holocaust didn't happen at all. So the rest were merely questioning certain aspects.
If that was universally illegal then consistency should dictate that we can't debate the manner of any historical mass killings at all.

 

Can you come up with evidence of 'the rest'? You know names and how many who were merely questioning aspects are actually in jail, or ever were?

 

It had nothing to do with someone just disagreeing with me. Just work around the issue. It wasn't directed to you.

 

OK.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you for that apology. Would I have been more conversational? Almost certainly. (Recall my welcome to you that you said gave you a laugh.)
Would I still have tried to demolish your central thesis with vigour? Absolutley: I thought it was flawed. I still do.

I am both old and old fashioned. While I favour manners (an willl argue that nothing in my posts was umannerly) I favour clear thinking even more.
In the absence of clear thinking, in the presence of weak thinking, bad decisions get made. Decisions that lead to events like the Holocaust. So I place clear thinking well ahead of good manners in any heirarchy of actions.

It might not be upsetting in a society in which cannabilism was an accepted practice. I believe the New Guinea natives saw it as a mark of respect to eat their enemies.
Now in such a society, speaking out against the accepted norm would be discoureage, or more likely forbidden. You said earlier 'Those restrictions are developed via a consensus of opinion within that society. It exists. It's in place and is practiced.'
I agree this is what happens. And with those restrictions in place, with no free opportunity to speak of alternatives, it is very difficult for change to occur. So if you restrict speech to what the society finds acceptable at that time then you support and defend the status quo.
And that would mean slavery, suppression of women's rights, racial segregation and a host of other practices we now feel to be wrong, would have been sustained fro longer. And had true freedom of speech been in place when they were fought against they would have lasted fro less time.

So, yes, when you ask me do I think people should be allowed to say anything I reply with a definitive yes.

And what if someone does stand up at a local community meeting, with children present, and begin to advocate child cannabilism? I also believe in freedom of action. The speaker will find it difficult to speak with a fist in his mouth.
Am I denying the speaker their freedom of speech? Temporarily. They are free to distribute their ideas in a more palatable form (pun intended) at a later date.
And I shall not contest any civil or criminal action brought against me for my assault on the individual.

That's where I am coming from.

 

I am a proponent of free speech as it usually allows utter arseholes to expose themselves in public. Free speech also serves as a 'wake up call' to the complacent. My one issue is that it has not thus far prevented would be tyrants from committing blatent acts of, well, tyranny. Such people have used 'free speech' to spread messages of hatred, usually directed at vulnerable minorities within a given society, to whip up discontent, scapegoat, and then get said minority either expelled or extinguished. Once that little task has been completed you will notice suddenly 'free speech' is supressed by said tyrants.

The line between freedom of speech and hate mongering is a very fine one readily exploited by those who would be rid of it if ever powerful enough to do so.

 

Tell me, have you ever heard of Google? I searched 'convicted of Holocaust Denial'.

In these cases the 'criminals' questioned aspects only:

http://www.ejpress.org/article/21586
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2328344,00.html
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=119219
(look at the replies to this one)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...olocaust-denial-charge-for-irving-515790.html

This man disputes the use of the gas chamber, but I couldn't find evidence to suggests that he doesn't believe any genocide to have happened at all.

http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/10997

This is an article which touches on a few HD cases, but isn't a specific report on a conviction.

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/02/barry-chamish-holocaust-revisionist.html

(from: "http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html")

 

I'm a bit confused by what you are saying. Am I to believe that you think it's ok for anyone to say anything they wish, but you'll punch them in the mouth for doing so?

If total free speech is what you think should be, then why would you want to punch anyone in the mouth for saying something? It would seem that you would want to just discuss it with the person and try to talk it out.

If the laws exist to prevent violence to another person and yet you take it upon yourself to commit violence on someone for using their right to free speech, how is that right? It seems contradictory. You even admit that you would be denying someone of the very right you think they should have.

Please explain this to me.

 

While I applaud the right of free speech, nothing is completely free. The freedom to say what we wish carries with it certain responsiblities. In the scenario you set up I have decided, as an individual, that the person promoting cannibalism in this specific setting has abused the right. Since, as you correctly pointed out, children might be harmed then prompt action is required. I am assuming that attempts to shout him down, or persuade him to find another venue, have failed. A swift blow seems a suitable solution.

There are two follow-ons to that. Note, that it is not that he has chosen to propose this concept that I am objecting to, but the timing of that proposal and the location. So I would fully support his right to say it elsewhere. Secondly I have taken precipitate and illegal action. I fully expect the law to be applied to me in this instance.

I see no other way of both defending his right to say what he wishes, while exercising some control over when, or to whom he says it. Naturally I will avoid actually hitting if I can. I've managed to avoid hitting anyone in four decades of adult life, since my scowl has been known to knock people down thirty yards away.

 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what you're saying. If controls are placed on what this guy says, or the fear of physical harm, then he doesn't have free speech in any way. He is being given a ultimatum that if he exercises his desire for free speech then he'll suffer harm for it from you even though you are saying that he should have free speech.

That sounds to me as though he has free speech as long as it's according to your rules. That isn't free speech.

It can't be both ways and really be free speech. Either he has the freedom to say anything he wants or he really hasn't free speech.

It's like the days of old that you spoke of. If a women 100 years ago was to join a group of men in a tavern and say that she'd like to join in with them in a lively political debate, there is a very good chance that they would have actually thrown her out of the place on her ear. However, the women's suffrage movement overpowered the norm with shear numbers and volume. What was not allowed, was then not only put into societies face, but done with a vengeance. As a result, women gained privilege.

If this man we speak of showed up at your church with 50 other cannibalistic people and THEN told everyone of their desires to chop up and eat small children, then you would be unable to attack them and prevent them from expressing their right to free speech. Would that make what they did acceptable to you? If not, how is that different then your examples of rights being won through actions deemed unacceptable in the past?

In the present day example, you've become the person forbidding the exercise of free speech. The fact that you're willing to be jailed for your preventing someone from exercising their right to free speech doesn't mean that he still had his right. He didn't. You stopped him from having that right in reality. He has no right to free speech unless he can exercise that right without fear of reprisal from the general public.

If Susan B. Anthony had been punched in the mouth every time she stated her views, it may have set women back 100 years or more.

You say you're in favor of free speech. How can this be, given your views of the example I gave? You seem to believe in free speech as long as it's speech you agree with.

Please, make me understand. I still don't understand how you can say you believe in free speech unless you're really saying you believe in free speech as long as it meets your standards.

If free speech is conditional, or "has it's responsibilities" then it's really not free speech. True free speech means the freedom to express your opinion at any time and place you wish, without fear of reprisal by law or by the general public.

Perhaps I'm just not seeing the real picture. Please clarify it more for me.