Denying the holocaust

Page 2 of 12 [ 177 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

29 Mar 2009, 1:17 pm

Concenik wrote:

It's weird. this thread tells you if you've edited your post ( :roll:

) but many others don't - who decides that? the OP?

The logic is basically that if someone posts after you, then any subsequent changes to your post show it being edited. If you edit prior to any more posts in the thread then no edit is shown. It sort of makes sense.

_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

29 Mar 2009, 1:22 pm

Orwell wrote:

Concenik wrote:

ruveyn said:

Quote:

. They are free to lie, [] (as long as what they say is true, otherwise it is libel or slander).

that doesn't make sense surely?

When you snip words out of the middle of a sentence, you often lose some meaning. Not surprising. I believe the parenthetical statement was only relevant to "defame" and not to the whole list of "lie, hoax, and defame."

Quote:

It's weird. this thread tells you if you've edited your post ( :roll:

) but many others don't - who decides that? the OP?

If you edit your post before anyone else posts after you, it does not get marked as edited. If you edit after there have been new replies, it starts counting your edits.

Hi Orwell!
I snipped it to point to where my confusion lay - it was grammatically quirly snipped or not.

Thanks for the heads up on the edit manner of the software.

Yes, that is how I remember the Voltaire quote now I read it quoted in it's usual translation! thanks - I am really bad at learning literary quotes by rote. ach - well, my memory isn't bad so I guess I don't mind.

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

29 Mar 2009, 1:24 pm

TallyMan wrote:

Concenik wrote:

It's weird. this thread tells you if you've edited your post ( :roll:

) but many others don't - who decides that? the OP?

thanks - yes, I do recall this kind of protocol - I haven't seen an 'edit' note on my posts for years now - it became alien to me - you're right it does make sense if there is a heated debate happening or some such..

thanks

gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

29 Mar 2009, 1:29 pm

Back on topic, it strikes me as kind of strange that there is such a knee-jerk reaction in so many countries towards holocaust denial. Why might this be? I myself do not deny the holocaust, but it does seem rather suspicious that they make it a crime to do so. There could well be some sort of cover-up involving the holocaust. I don't think a major cover-up involving something so big would be feasible, but some facts don't quite add up. *goes to double-check death statistics...*

_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

29 Mar 2009, 1:34 pm

TallyMan wrote:

OK. Dumb question time... Why were laws introduced making it illegal to deny the Jewish holocaust? The only two things that spring to mind are:

1. Denial would offend survivors of the death camps or the families of those killed... Ok but surely not worthy of a law forbidding it.

2. There is an old idiom along the lines of "Those that forget the lessons of history are condemned to relive it". So in other words if everyone ended up believing the Jewish holocaust never happened then such a thing could happen again and people would be less suspicious... thinking "no, can't be happening - people don't disappear by the million into death camps"; making a repeat of history more likely.

Anyone know?

Hmm, it's contentious but in 1946 i guess it was a different situation vis a vi press et al but I'd hazard a guess that it's partially attributable to the position that it largely precludes criticism of the Israeli state in it's policy towards land rights and human rights of the Palestinians.

eg. by the creation of a taboo - it's shocking to openly criticise Israel because it's the Jewish state and the Jews suffered terribly in the 2nd world war etc ergo it's really not cool or ok to criticize Zionist political policy - because it leads inevitably to 'anti-semitism' which could at some point exacerbate a situation where the Jews may by persecuted again..

I don't agree with the logic myself but I've ran it past open minded Israeli friend before and they thought it plausible, nee actual, in many ways.

Personally, I think bigotry in all forms is disgusting but I also think it's absolutely right that any nation is brought to the courts when it orders it's military to execute civilians. esp, children.

edit) the Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein is an excellent book for exploring issues such as these

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

29 Mar 2009, 1:48 pm

I think all speech should be free, no matter how stupid and misinformed that speech is. Censorship is one of many evils we must crush.

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

29 Mar 2009, 1:48 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:

I applaud your forthright bravery in saying your mind on a subject that often will lead to people labelling people as monsters for even considering appraising the data.

Thing is I have Jewish friends who are really open minded and one of them will totally agree with you that the official account is off mark - a lot of stuff was about demonising the Germans too.. soap, shrunken heads etc - its clear that these claims were propagandic fantasy concocted by the NKVD and to a lesser extent the western allied forces...but even now some people will say that it's fact!

Also I thought it was weird how lots of people thought Schindler's list - the film directed by Steven Speilberg was an actual factual account when in reality its largely a fictional dramatisation based very loosely on characters that did live - the story itself is largely fictional.

Last edited by Concenik on 29 Mar 2009, 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Mar 2009, 1:50 pm

Concenik wrote:

ruveyn said:

Quote:

. They are free to lie, [] (as long as what they say is true, otherwise it is libel or slander).

that doesn't make sense surely?

It would if no didn't snip. I said they are free to lie or defame (as long as what they say is true, otherwise it is libel or slander). Do you get it now? In short one should be able to defame freely without legal penalty as long as the defamation is true. In American courts truth is a defense against libel or slander.

ruveyn

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Mar 2009, 1:54 pm

Henriksson wrote:

I think all speech should be free, no matter how stupid and misinformed that speech is. Censorship is one of many evils we must crush.

How about yelling Fire! in a crowded theater when there is no fire?

Or how about inciting to riot or lynch?

Or how about verbally organizing the commission of a felony?

There are forms of speech that are not protected. What is protected under the First Amendment is freely speaking to petition the government for redress of grievances. Also freedom of the press is guaranteed federally but if the press prints a false defamation, then it is subject to a libel tort.

ruveyn

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

29 Mar 2009, 1:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Concenik wrote:

ruveyn said:

Quote:

. They are free to lie, [] (as long as what they say is true, otherwise it is libel or slander).

that doesn't make sense surely?

Yes, I've got it already - sorry if you were offended ! wasn't intended, really..

Look, here's what you actually said:

Quote:

Short of incitement to riot or panic and suborning a felony there should be no restraint on free expression. People have the right to tell whatever lies they wish (as long as they are not commiting fraud). They are free to lie, to hoax and to defame (as long as what they say is true, otherwise it is libel or slander).

I still think it's a bit dicey - it wasn't a big deal though - I just wanted to understand your point properly

- and not a little hard to decipher because I happened to snip the quote for efficacy of pointing out my problem in understanding what you meant - I snipped it to direct exactly to where I had lost track of it. sorry anyhow - it wasn't a big deal

sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

29 Mar 2009, 2:18 pm

Hector wrote:

Should denying the holocaust be legal?

Disclaimer: I do not deny the holocaust and am not interested in discussing whether or not the holocaust took place. I am interested in discussing whether it should be legal to deny the holocaust.

A matter of interest topic

I am interested in whether the Holocaust or any genocide took place, because such horrendous deaths are denied for political reasons. There are ulterior motives for denying genocides, especially the Holocaust. Denying it itself is not a crime in Canada. Nor is it a legal event. What is a problem is what happens when people deny an event such as the Holocaust. It is done to discredit a group of people and their suffering, and so if the Holocaust is false then other things said about or by the people who have suffered a genocide is also disbelieved. Then there is the hate speech which often accompanies the drivel proposed by genocide deniers. Spreading of hate and when it is proven in court is a crime in Canada, not the denying itself.

_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo

Hector
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,493

29 Mar 2009, 2:24 pm

Concenik wrote:

Also I thought it was weird how lots of people thought Schindler's list - the film directed by Steven Speilberg was an actual factual account when in reality its largely a fictional dramatisation based very loosely on characters that did live - the story itself is largely fictional.

That, I think is more down to the gullibility of many people when watching cinematic works of "historical fiction" (other examples: Gladiator, Michael Collins, JFK) than the nature of the holocaust itself.

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

29 Mar 2009, 2:30 pm

sartresue wrote:

Hector wrote:

sorry - no offence but that line of reasoning is a logical fallacy - it doesn't necessarily follow at all that that would be the case - it is your opinion fair enough but you present it as if it were a conclusive statement of fact..which it is not really..the first part not the bit about hate speech - I don't want to snip your quote

sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

29 Mar 2009, 2:39 pm

Concenik wrote:

sartresue wrote:

Hector wrote:

A matter of fact topic

It is the case. This is precisely why people deny certain events and not others. I was not presenting it as a logical argument, as ulterior motives are not a matter of logic--just politics and emotional agendas. Just as your assertion about post WW2 Israel gives away your agenda. :twisted:

_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo

gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

29 Mar 2009, 2:44 pm

I have found the (dubious) statistics for the death toll at Auschwitz-Birkenau. According to Adolf Eichmann, 3m died there, though he later changed his mind about that figure. The Soviet authorities and Polish communists say between 2.5m and 4m. Some French guy called George Wellers concluded, based on German data, that the death toll was just over 1.6m.

So basically, it depends if you'd rather believe Eichmann (not likely), the invading commies (also unlikely), or some random French guy with German data.

Something is definitely fishy...I'm not saying that the deaths didn't happen, but from what I can see, everyone involved was out to protect their own interests.

Eichmann - maybe wanting to boast to start with (he was evil, after all), then tried to take back the statement to get off easier.
Soviets - trying to make the Nazis look really bad, because they were enemies.
Wellers (German data) - that German data was probably compromised considerably. They were trying to HIDE their crimes from the world, they would have destroyed a lot of records at many points, not just at the actual camp.

Just my take on it.

_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

29 Mar 2009, 5:54 pm

Hector wrote:

Should denying the holocaust be legal?

It is illegal in Germany: The underlying idea of of the "Streitbare Demokratie" ("militant democracy") which has the right to defend itself and its values against anyone how is hostile to the constitution with the means of the powers of the state, namely the legal system. Thus the most of the extreme right wing does also denial the Genocide on the Jews, this article is a very convenient way to loch those people up (besides other like that showing emblems of forbidden organizations is a crime too).

---

The background is to see in first German Republic of Weimar (1918-1933) in which the extreme right and left abused the democratic process to overturn the republic. Therefore German's post constitution of 1949 makes the defence of the "liberal democratic order" an obligation of all state institutions including the lawmaker.

Page 2 of 12 [ 177 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12 Next

Jump to:

Denying the holocaust Post Reply New Topic

Denying the holocaust