Why are holocaust revisionist persecutor any better than Islamic terrorists?
Obviously it was a horrific event that happened today in Paris where Islamic extremist terrorists killed 12 press members. The response has been for people to say that they want to stand up for freedom of speech.
But why are the many European governments like Germany and Austria much better than this. They jail people for questioning the Holocaust. They even jailed a student for a chemical analysts thesis and a lawyer who defended a Holocaust heretic for defending them in court. The police are
called if anyone says anything negative about the Jewish religion. (Same difference to criticising Muslims or Catholics).
I understand that most people's views are driven by social norms, but think about it objectively. What is the difference? These are both efforts by belief systems to harm and silence their opponents.
But why are the many European governments like Germany and Austria much better than this. They jail people for questioning the Holocaust. They even jailed a student for a chemical analysts thesis and a lawyer who defended a Holocaust heretic for defending them in court. The police are
called if anyone says anything negative about the Jewish religion. (Same difference to criticising Muslims or Catholics).
I understand that most people's views are driven by social norms, but think about it objectively. What is the difference? These are both efforts by belief systems to harm and silence their opponents.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Jkruger1
Obviously it was a horrific event that happened today in Paris where Islamic extremist terrorists killed 12 press members. The response has been for people to say that they want to stand up for freedom of speech.
But why are the many European governments like Germany and Austria much better than this. They jail people for questioning the Holocaust. They even jailed a student for a chemical analysts thesis and a lawyer who defended a Holocaust heretic for defending them in court. The police are
called if anyone says anything negative about the Jewish religion. (Same difference to criticising Muslims or Catholics).
I understand that most people's views are driven by social norms, but think about it objectively. What is the difference? These are both efforts by belief systems to harm and silence their opponents.
But why are the many European governments like Germany and Austria much better than this. They jail people for questioning the Holocaust. They even jailed a student for a chemical analysts thesis and a lawyer who defended a Holocaust heretic for defending them in court. The police are
called if anyone says anything negative about the Jewish religion. (Same difference to criticising Muslims or Catholics).
I understand that most people's views are driven by social norms, but think about it objectively. What is the difference? These are both efforts by belief systems to harm and silence their opponents.
Because mocking a dead prophet that most people don't give a **** about is not the same as denying the atrocities of a government which almost destroyed europe and killed 50 million people
if we mock muhammed what will happen - nothing
if we deny the holocaust - there is a good chance that nazi groups will gain a stronghold with most people forgetting what they are capable of, and I'm sure most muslims do not want this
Original post by Borgia
Because mocking a dead prophet that most people don't give a **** about is not the same as denying the atrocities of a government which almost destroyed europe and killed 50 million people
if we mock muhammed what will happen - nothing
if we deny the holocaust - there is a good chance that nazi groups will gain a stronghold with most people forgetting what they are capable of, and I'm sure most muslims do not want this
if we mock muhammed what will happen - nothing
if we deny the holocaust - there is a good chance that nazi groups will gain a stronghold with most people forgetting what they are capable of, and I'm sure most muslims do not want this
Right ok, so there are special historical reasons for persecuting people who bring our empirical evidence that seems to disagree with what people call The Holocaust, and for not being negative about the Jewish religion. Special historical reasons.
An Islamic extremist could equally say that there are special historical reasons, special religious reasons and special community reasons why they need I do their acts so that the millions killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are not forgotten and that it never happens again. It's a ridiculous reason to kill innocent people who have nothing even to do with it, but it's the same argument.
They persecute people for criticising religious things and the other lot persecute people for inconvenient empirical facts. They are both just as ridiculous.
It's not better. They should not jail holocaust deniers.
Original post by Jkruger1
Right ok, so there are special historical reasons for persecuting people who bring our empirical evidence that seems to disagree with what people call The Holocaust, and for not being negative about the Jewish religion. Special historical reasons.
An Islamic extremist could equally say that there are special historical reasons, special religious reasons and special community reasons why they need I do their acts so that the millions killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are not forgotten and that it never happens again. It's a ridiculous reason to kill innocent people who have nothing even to do with it, but it's the same argument.
They persecute people for criticising religious things and the other lot persecute people for inconvenient empirical facts. They are both just as ridiculous.
An Islamic extremist could equally say that there are special historical reasons, special religious reasons and special community reasons why they need I do their acts so that the millions killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are not forgotten and that it never happens again. It's a ridiculous reason to kill innocent people who have nothing even to do with it, but it's the same argument.
They persecute people for criticising religious things and the other lot persecute people for inconvenient empirical facts. They are both just as ridiculous.
No it isn't. In countries where the Nazis had power, the utmost respect is given to their victims and and support for the Nazis is illegal.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether a man who died 1400 years ago and most likely had much of his life fabricated is drawn on paper.
Denying war crimes is illegal. Drawing historical figures isn't.
Millions were killed in the Holocaust. I knew survivors myself. They saw their friends and families brutally murdered. Millions were gassed to death for being Jewish or a gypsy, gay or merely opposing the regime.
There is so much evidence, photographic, witnesses, death camps, gas chambers etc.
How anyone can deny such an event took place is a disgrace and I'd go as far to say that denial of such is motivated by either a mix of anti-semitism and homophobia or by being very messed up in the head.
There is so much evidence, photographic, witnesses, death camps, gas chambers etc.
How anyone can deny such an event took place is a disgrace and I'd go as far to say that denial of such is motivated by either a mix of anti-semitism and homophobia or by being very messed up in the head.
Original post by Bornblue
Millions were killed in the Holocaust. I knew survivors myself. They saw their friends and families brutally murdered. Millions were gassed to death for being Jewish or a gypsy, gay or merely opposing the regime.
There is so much evidence, photographic, witnesses, death camps, gas chambers etc.
How anyone can deny such an event took place is a disgrace and I'd go as far to say that denial of such is motivated by either a mix of anti-semitism and homophobia or by being very messed up in the head.
There is so much evidence, photographic, witnesses, death camps, gas chambers etc.
How anyone can deny such an event took place is a disgrace and I'd go as far to say that denial of such is motivated by either a mix of anti-semitism and homophobia or by being very messed up in the head.
Your response is flawed. Yesterday the British media ran a story about a suspended Labour Party representative that used Auschwitz in an advert to slam the Tory Party (the usual nonsense policies of lip service). The usual nonsense political reaction occurred to the nonsense act. The British media ran stories which implied that Auschwitz was in Germany when it was actually in Poland. Educated and even educators people talk about death camps in Germany when the so called expert historians say that none were in Germany (the ones in Germany were
tested by Dr. Charles Larson, the U.S. Chief Forensic Pathologist in 1945 and the result was negative) and the historical experts then say that the death camps were in Poland. But now if you keep in mind the series of events in the popular story, write them down and you ask your surviver friends non-leading questions about these camps, I would bet that the answers do not correspond with these. This evidence you refer to, can you actually empirically tally it to the widely believed story, or are these just artefacts which you attribute to the story. For example a sword could be displayed in a museum with a place that says "This sword was used to kill Julius Caesar." That alone does not mean that the sword was used
to kill Julius Caesar. Someone a long time ago may have just said that. In a modern context you if you had DNA evidence on the murder weapon, and records demonstrated that the murder weapon was found near a body, you were able to trace the ownership of the murder weapon etc. this would be corroborating evidence. In the 1970s, 30 historians signed a document that basically says it doesn't matter about the evidence of the Holocaust or whether it was technically possibly, it just happened.
Now you talking about people denying the death of millions. The British police are investigating the disappearance of a young boy in the 1980s. One theory is that a Paedophile network of high ranking people may have taken the boy. The police have said that they will follow the evidence wherever it will lead.
Yet when people have done various hard facts empirical studies in German run camps like Auschwitz like the student jailed for a chemical analysis, people are not allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Instead people like you will jump in and accuse them of denying the death of millions and other people want to harm them and jail them.
Yet if you ask the average Iraqi what transpired in the 2 Gulf Wars, the response aligns with the officially known facts and will be far worse than what the average person believes. It much more empirically aligned than the German death camp story.
But despite this dehumanising and punishing people for views on ww2 Germany is encouraged yet we get angry when Muslims do the same. Both acts of repression should not be tolerated.
As to criticising Jews, for example if someone says that the United States is
run largely by neoconservative Jews, the statement is frowned upon, and in Germany the police may be called, yet the statement is empirically true.
People like to state that one persons belief is delusional while fighting people on empirical indisputable facts, then because they cannot win against hard facts, resorting to name calling, labelling and censorship.
The only differences between the 2 approaches is that one is using state violence to arbitrate and one is arbitrating through the barrel of a gun.
Why do people act like this? Because they are not free despite the alleged framework of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. People are slaves.
(edited 9 years ago)
Because holocaust denial in many countries that were affected by the holicaust is code by the extreme right for 'I agree with what happened.'
I have no problem with revisionist history, but in the case of the holocaust that should be refining what happened. Not denying it happened which is what you're avaderge holcaust denial nut job does.
I have no problem with revisionist history, but in the case of the holocaust that should be refining what happened. Not denying it happened which is what you're avaderge holcaust denial nut job does.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
Because holocaust denial in many countries that were affected by the holicaust is code by the extreme right for 'I agree with what happened.'
I have no problem with revisionist history, but in the case of the holocaust that should be refining what happened. Not denying it happened which is what you're avaderge holcaust denial nut job does.
I have no problem with revisionist history, but in the case of the holocaust that should be refining what happened. Not denying it happened which is what you're avaderge holcaust denial nut job does.
It doesn't matter. Free speech means free speech not just free speech for things we like.
And how was the jailed lawyer Sylvia Stolz, jailed for defending a client against "Holocaust denial" (witch trial) using code to agree with the German position in the war. How was the PhD student who made a camp chemical analysis thesis based on empirical analysis using code?
Original post by Jkruger1
It doesn't matter. Free speech means free speech not just free speech for things we like.
And how was the jailed lawyer Sylvia Stolz, jailed for defending a client against "Holocaust denial" (witch trial) using code to agree with the German position in the war. How was the PhD student who made a camp chemical analysis thesis based on empirical analysis using code?
Posted from TSR Mobile
And how was the jailed lawyer Sylvia Stolz, jailed for defending a client against "Holocaust denial" (witch trial) using code to agree with the German position in the war. How was the PhD student who made a camp chemical analysis thesis based on empirical analysis using code?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Free speech is free speech, but not when it feeds right wing extremists who wish to close down free speech. That's the problem. You need to impose limits to stop nightmares coming back to haunt us.
This is a topic that isn't even worth defending. Holcaust deniers tend to be a sub culture of sub culture.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Jkruger1
Obviously it was a horrific event that happened today in Paris where Islamic extremist terrorists killed 12 press members. The response has been for people to say that they want to stand up for freedom of speech.
But why are the many European governments like Germany and Austria much better than this. They jail people for questioning the Holocaust. They even jailed a student for a chemical analysts thesis and a lawyer who defended a Holocaust heretic for defending them in court. The police are
called if anyone says anything negative about the Jewish religion. (Same difference to criticising Muslims or Catholics).
I understand that most people's views are driven by social norms, but think about it objectively. What is the difference? These are both efforts by belief systems to harm and silence their opponents.
But why are the many European governments like Germany and Austria much better than this. They jail people for questioning the Holocaust. They even jailed a student for a chemical analysts thesis and a lawyer who defended a Holocaust heretic for defending them in court. The police are
called if anyone says anything negative about the Jewish religion. (Same difference to criticising Muslims or Catholics).
I understand that most people's views are driven by social norms, but think about it objectively. What is the difference? These are both efforts by belief systems to harm and silence their opponents.
It is no better. People who deny the holocaust should not be jailed, governments that jail or prosecute them should be criticised.
Original post by BitWindy
It is no better. People who deny the holocaust should not be jailed, governments that jail or prosecute them should be criticised.
You mean those governments that not to long ago were implicit in genocide should be criticised for ensuring that genocide never happens again in their borders?
Obviously jailing holocaust deniers is ridiculous but it's nowhere near as bad as some muslim nutjobs killing 12 people.
Original post by MatureStudent36
You mean those governments that not to long ago were implicit in genocide should be criticised for ensuring that genocide never happens again in their borders?
I mean what I say.
It is not complicated. No one should be jailed for going against consensus. No one should be jailed for merely stating an opinion, no matter how unpopular it is. A government that uses force against dissenters for merely dissenting is not acting legitimately.
Also, which extant governments are you talking about?
Original post by MatureStudent36
Free speech is free speech, but not when it feeds right wing extremists who wish to close down free speech. That's the problem. You need to impose limits to stop nightmares coming back to haunt us.
This is a topic that isn't even worth defending. Holcaust deniers tend to be a sub culture of sub culture.
This is a topic that isn't even worth defending. Holcaust deniers tend to be a sub culture of sub culture.
The Islamic terrorists might argue that you need to impose limits with a gun to stop the nightmare of Western culture haunting the world, and a culture which they would argue wishes to close down the free speech of ISIS to discuss using any method possible to propagate the will of the Prophet.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Jkruger1
The Islamic terrorists might argue that you need to impose limits with a gun to stop the nightmare of Western culture haunting the world, and a culture which they would argue wishes to close down the free speech of ISIS to discuss using any method possible to propagate the will of the Prophet.
They can argue what they like.
I'm not aware of an issue within Islam or Christianity where a western democracy knowingly coordinated the mass extermination of several million people in an industrialised method such as gas chambers.
Holocaust denial is illegal in those countries that were directly involved in acts of genocide (France, Germany and Austria in particular.) it's not illegal anywhere else.
Holocaust denial is denying something we know happened happening.
Original post by BitWindy
I mean what I say.
It is not complicated. No one should be jailed for going against consensus. No one should be jailed for merely stating an opinion, no matter how unpopular it is. A government that uses force against dissenters for merely dissenting is not acting legitimately.
Also, which extant governments are you talking about?
It is not complicated. No one should be jailed for going against consensus. No one should be jailed for merely stating an opinion, no matter how unpopular it is. A government that uses force against dissenters for merely dissenting is not acting legitimately.
Also, which extant governments are you talking about?
A government has a duty to protect its people from nasty people. Holicaust deniers in many cses are nasty people denying a fact to garner support for their fringe cause.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
