Why are holocaust revisionist persecutor any better than Islamic terrorists?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by limetang
There's the key difference that going to jail is different to being killed, but the point is still valid.
Put it in plain English how machine-gunning random people and bystanders because you are offended at a picture is the same as punishing someone for spreading lies about an horrific event that actually happened?
Original post by Jkruger1
I am not talking about people who make blanket statements of the top of their head like "The Holocaust never happened" (because I feel like saying it) or the world is only 6 thousand years old or ancient aliens exist.
I am talking about people who have produced or cited hard physical, chemical, analytical or legal analysis or acted in an official instructed legal capacity. If someone has made an objective empirical objective study or observation that seems to lead to the Holocaust being significantly and materially different to the popular story, they have been persecuted. The persecutor can't persecute the evidence or analysis so they shoot the messenger. There is a long list of such people.
Part of the persecutor is to label such people as being ridiculous and careless and just "denying something obvious" for an agenda and you ignore the point that I am talking about people who have cited something objective and who have no agenda like Sylvia Stolz or the student who did the PhD thesis or Fred Leuchter, Paul Rassinier, David Irving. Most people who attempt discredit them simply copy paste someone else's discreditation and have never even looked at their analysis
These quasi-religious nut jobs ("Holocaustianity") ought on try and jail The Times and The Daily Mail for staying that Simon Wiesenthal is a compulsive liar. The compartmentalisation of people when being explained a statement like that is just staggering. For 99% of people, their analysis is constrained by the herd and facts mean nothing if they disagree with the herd.
I am talking about people who have produced or cited hard physical, chemical, analytical or legal analysis or acted in an official instructed legal capacity. If someone has made an objective empirical objective study or observation that seems to lead to the Holocaust being significantly and materially different to the popular story, they have been persecuted. The persecutor can't persecute the evidence or analysis so they shoot the messenger. There is a long list of such people.
Part of the persecutor is to label such people as being ridiculous and careless and just "denying something obvious" for an agenda and you ignore the point that I am talking about people who have cited something objective and who have no agenda like Sylvia Stolz or the student who did the PhD thesis or Fred Leuchter, Paul Rassinier, David Irving. Most people who attempt discredit them simply copy paste someone else's discreditation and have never even looked at their analysis
These quasi-religious nut jobs ("Holocaustianity") ought on try and jail The Times and The Daily Mail for staying that Simon Wiesenthal is a compulsive liar. The compartmentalisation of people when being explained a statement like that is just staggering. For 99% of people, their analysis is constrained by the herd and facts mean nothing if they disagree with the herd.
But they haven't provided hard evidence.
They've attempted to wrap up falsehoods as fact.
Original post by MatureStudent36
But they haven't provided hard evidence.
They've attempted to wrap up falsehoods as fact.
They've attempted to wrap up falsehoods as fact.
Perhaps you can explain how Germar Rudolf (one of a long line of Holocaust revisionists, by implication of his findings I guess) wrapped up falsehoods in his PhD thesis.
And if you believe he is wrong and his data, intentions, methodology or findings are incorrect so what, what has that to do with his right to present them. If someone disagrees with something they should present an alternative and the most plausible idea wins, or both thesis sit in the public domain and people are free to pick which one they think is more credible.
From Wikipedia
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf
Germar Rudolf (born 29 October 1964) is a German chemist and a convicted Holocaust denier.
Rufolf was born in Limburg an der Kahn, Hesse. After finishing secondary education in 1983 in Remscheid, Rudolf studied chemistry in Bonn, completing his studies in 1989. As a student, he joined A.V. Tuisconia Königsberg zu Bonn and K.D.St.V. Nordgau Prag zu Stuttgart. Both are Catholic fraternitiesbelonging to the Cartellverband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen. He was a temporary supporter of the CSU/CDU, but parted ways and became a temporary member of Die Republikaner(REP) due to their more patriotic policy.
After his military service, he was temporarily employed at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, beginning in October 1990, where he prepared a PhD thesis. Starting in 1991 he wrote a paper, entitled "Report on the formation and verifiability of cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz gas chambers" on behalf of the Düsseldorf attorney Hajo Herrmann, a former Luftwaffe pilot holding the rank of Oberst. In 1993, when his report caused some media attention, his employer ordered Rudolf not to enter the Max Planck Institute unless without permission. When Rudolf did enter the institute uninvited, his employment contract was terminated without notice. In 1994 this termination was converted into a termination by mutual agreement. In 1996 the University of Stuttgart demanded that Rudolf retract his application for his final PhD examination, otherwise the University would deny it, rendering his PhD thesis worthless. The legal basis for this is a German law permitting universities to deny or withdraw academic degrees where the candidate in question has used his academic credentials or knowledge to commit a crime. Rudolf subsequently withdrew his application.
Between 1991 and 1994, Herrmann as well as other defense lawyers used Rudolf's report for the defense of several defendants, among them Otto Ernst Remer, a former Wehrmachtofficer charged with incitement of hatred, a criminal offense in German law. Although Rudolf was aware from the outset that his work would become publicly associated with an extremely controversial individual, he insisted that even an individual as despised by the general public as Remer has a right to a legal defense. Rudolf stated that his findings at Auschwitz and Birkenau "completely shattered his world view," which motivated him to continue despite increasing societal and legal resistance against his work.
Among other things, the report states that, after having collected and analyzed samples from the walls of various buildings in the Auschwitz concentration camp, only insignificant and non-reproducible traces of cyanide compounds can be found in the samples taken from the gas chambers. Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy from The Holocaust History Projecthave criticized the report, saying that like Fred Leuchter in the Leuchter report, Rudolf did not discriminate against the formation of iron-based cyanide compounds, which are not a reliable indicator of the presence of cyanide, and that thus his experiment was seriously flawed.[2]
Both in 1994 and in 1995 Rudolf was evicted from his rented apartments after media articles had reported about police searches in his homes. In 1995 a TV report revealing the identity of his current employer led to the immediate termination of his employment contract. That same year Rudolf was expelled from the Catholic fraternities on grounds of having violated his fraternity's principles by his Holocaust denial publications.
In 1995, Rudolf was sentenced to 14 months in prison by the district court of Stuttgart because of the "Rudolf Report", as Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. Rudolf avoided prison by fleeing to Spain, England and finally to the United States. There, he applied for political asylum.........
The Rudolf report can be found at:
https://archive.org/details/TheRudolfReport
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Simes
She called the holocaust “the biggest lie in world history”. But it happened, so it is not.
The incompetent capital punishment machine maker? He was discredited in 1999.
The Nazi-funded, pseudo-pacifist, pro-Nazi author and ex-SS officer sponsored speaker? Yep, he sounds like a reliable source
Who was 7 when WW2 ended and who was proven in court to be racist and who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence", particularly when failing to defend his libel case. A nut case.
Of course, debunk the evidence first and deny the truth. In that case, you prove your argument.
Let's see you post a scholarly peer-reviewed article from a reliable academic institution for each of the above people defending their argument.
The incompetent capital punishment machine maker? He was discredited in 1999.
The Nazi-funded, pseudo-pacifist, pro-Nazi author and ex-SS officer sponsored speaker? Yep, he sounds like a reliable source
Who was 7 when WW2 ended and who was proven in court to be racist and who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence", particularly when failing to defend his libel case. A nut case.
Of course, debunk the evidence first and deny the truth. In that case, you prove your argument.
Let's see you post a scholarly peer-reviewed article from a reliable academic institution for each of the above people defending their argument.
See above post for scholarly article defending a single dimension of analysis that has an implication for their argument. But look what happened to the author. He was subjected to more than a decade of witch hunts and given a custodial sentence. So is it any wonder that there are not peer review journals? The authors would be lined up against the wall and shot so to speak and in Britain and the United States sacked from their institutions.
Not really a good argument to say that
no one has done X when they get shot for doing it. The people doing the shooting are self-defeating and self-negating to anyone with an ounce of common sense (which is rare) because they show that no evaluation of opposition is allowed in the public space rendering their thesis untested.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Simes
What point?
Put it in plain English how machine-gunning random people and bystanders because you are offended at a picture is the same as punishing someone for spreading lies about an horrific event that actually happened?
Put it in plain English how machine-gunning random people and bystanders because you are offended at a picture is the same as punishing someone for spreading lies about an horrific event that actually happened?
Well I already said there's a big difference in that nobody is going to kill you for holocaust denial. But the facts are that at the base they are BOTH situations where someone's free speech/expression is being punished (either through courts or via a vigilante).
And further the dangerous thing about holocaust denial laws is that they ban a discussion of history in case of offence. The laws as they stand basically say "This happened and there is to be no debate or discussion or descent on the truth of the matter'
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Jkruger1
Perhaps you can explain how Germar Rudolf (one of a long line of Holocaust revisionists, by implication of his findings I guess) wrapped up falsehoods in his PhD thesis.
And if you believe he is wrong and his data, intentions, methodology or findings are incorrect so what, what has that to do with his right to present them. If someone disagrees with something they should present an alternative and the most plausible idea wins, or both thesis sit in the public domain and people are free to pick which one they think is more credible.
From Wikipedia
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf
Germar Rudolf (born 29 October 1964) is a German chemist and a convicted Holocaust denier.
Rufolf was born in Limburg an der Kahn, Hesse. After finishing secondary education in 1983 in Remscheid, Rudolf studied chemistry in Bonn, completing his studies in 1989. As a student, he joined A.V. Tuisconia Königsberg zu Bonn and K.D.St.V. Nordgau Prag zu Stuttgart. Both are Catholic fraternitiesbelonging to the Cartellverband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen. He was a temporary supporter of the CSU/CDU, but parted ways and became a temporary member of Die Republikaner(REP) due to their more patriotic policy.
After his military service, he was temporarily employed at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, beginning in October 1990, where he prepared a PhD thesis. Starting in 1991 he wrote a paper, entitled "Report on the formation and verifiability of cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz gas chambers" on behalf of the Düsseldorf attorney Hajo Herrmann, a former Luftwaffe pilot holding the rank of Oberst. In 1993, when his report caused some media attention, his employer ordered Rudolf not to enter the Max Planck Institute unless without permission. When Rudolf did enter the institute uninvited, his employment contract was terminated without notice. In 1994 this termination was converted into a termination by mutual agreement. In 1996 the University of Stuttgart demanded that Rudolf retract his application for his final PhD examination, otherwise the University would deny it, rendering his PhD thesis worthless. The legal basis for this is a German law permitting universities to deny or withdraw academic degrees where the candidate in question has used his academic credentials or knowledge to commit a crime. Rudolf subsequently withdrew his application.
Between 1991 and 1994, Herrmann as well as other defense lawyers used Rudolf's report for the defense of several defendants, among them Otto Ernst Remer, a former Wehrmachtofficer charged with incitement of hatred, a criminal offense in German law. Although Rudolf was aware from the outset that his work would become publicly associated with an extremely controversial individual, he insisted that even an individual as despised by the general public as Remer has a right to a legal defense. Rudolf stated that his findings at Auschwitz and Birkenau "completely shattered his world view," which motivated him to continue despite increasing societal and legal resistance against his work.
Among other things, the report states that, after having collected and analyzed samples from the walls of various buildings in the Auschwitz concentration camp, only insignificant and non-reproducible traces of cyanide compounds can be found in the samples taken from the gas chambers. Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy from The Holocaust History Projecthave criticized the report, saying that like Fred Leuchter in the Leuchter report, Rudolf did not discriminate against the formation of iron-based cyanide compounds, which are not a reliable indicator of the presence of cyanide, and that thus his experiment was seriously flawed.[2]
Both in 1994 and in 1995 Rudolf was evicted from his rented apartments after media articles had reported about police searches in his homes. In 1995 a TV report revealing the identity of his current employer led to the immediate termination of his employment contract. That same year Rudolf was expelled from the Catholic fraternities on grounds of having violated his fraternity's principles by his Holocaust denial publications.
In 1995, Rudolf was sentenced to 14 months in prison by the district court of Stuttgart because of the "Rudolf Report", as Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. Rudolf avoided prison by fleeing to Spain, England and finally to the United States. There, he applied for political asylum.........
The Rudolf report can be found at:
https://archive.org/details/TheRudolfReport
And if you believe he is wrong and his data, intentions, methodology or findings are incorrect so what, what has that to do with his right to present them. If someone disagrees with something they should present an alternative and the most plausible idea wins, or both thesis sit in the public domain and people are free to pick which one they think is more credible.
From Wikipedia
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf
Germar Rudolf (born 29 October 1964) is a German chemist and a convicted Holocaust denier.
Rufolf was born in Limburg an der Kahn, Hesse. After finishing secondary education in 1983 in Remscheid, Rudolf studied chemistry in Bonn, completing his studies in 1989. As a student, he joined A.V. Tuisconia Königsberg zu Bonn and K.D.St.V. Nordgau Prag zu Stuttgart. Both are Catholic fraternitiesbelonging to the Cartellverband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen. He was a temporary supporter of the CSU/CDU, but parted ways and became a temporary member of Die Republikaner(REP) due to their more patriotic policy.
After his military service, he was temporarily employed at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, beginning in October 1990, where he prepared a PhD thesis. Starting in 1991 he wrote a paper, entitled "Report on the formation and verifiability of cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz gas chambers" on behalf of the Düsseldorf attorney Hajo Herrmann, a former Luftwaffe pilot holding the rank of Oberst. In 1993, when his report caused some media attention, his employer ordered Rudolf not to enter the Max Planck Institute unless without permission. When Rudolf did enter the institute uninvited, his employment contract was terminated without notice. In 1994 this termination was converted into a termination by mutual agreement. In 1996 the University of Stuttgart demanded that Rudolf retract his application for his final PhD examination, otherwise the University would deny it, rendering his PhD thesis worthless. The legal basis for this is a German law permitting universities to deny or withdraw academic degrees where the candidate in question has used his academic credentials or knowledge to commit a crime. Rudolf subsequently withdrew his application.
Between 1991 and 1994, Herrmann as well as other defense lawyers used Rudolf's report for the defense of several defendants, among them Otto Ernst Remer, a former Wehrmachtofficer charged with incitement of hatred, a criminal offense in German law. Although Rudolf was aware from the outset that his work would become publicly associated with an extremely controversial individual, he insisted that even an individual as despised by the general public as Remer has a right to a legal defense. Rudolf stated that his findings at Auschwitz and Birkenau "completely shattered his world view," which motivated him to continue despite increasing societal and legal resistance against his work.
Among other things, the report states that, after having collected and analyzed samples from the walls of various buildings in the Auschwitz concentration camp, only insignificant and non-reproducible traces of cyanide compounds can be found in the samples taken from the gas chambers. Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy from The Holocaust History Projecthave criticized the report, saying that like Fred Leuchter in the Leuchter report, Rudolf did not discriminate against the formation of iron-based cyanide compounds, which are not a reliable indicator of the presence of cyanide, and that thus his experiment was seriously flawed.[2]
Both in 1994 and in 1995 Rudolf was evicted from his rented apartments after media articles had reported about police searches in his homes. In 1995 a TV report revealing the identity of his current employer led to the immediate termination of his employment contract. That same year Rudolf was expelled from the Catholic fraternities on grounds of having violated his fraternity's principles by his Holocaust denial publications.
In 1995, Rudolf was sentenced to 14 months in prison by the district court of Stuttgart because of the "Rudolf Report", as Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. Rudolf avoided prison by fleeing to Spain, England and finally to the United States. There, he applied for political asylum.........
The Rudolf report can be found at:
https://archive.org/details/TheRudolfReport
Was this the giy who knowingly conducted a test for cyanide incorrectly for shock value?
he repeated an experiment done by an American whocondicted the same flawed experiment.
basically, cynadide interacts on the surface of concrete. Take samples of concrete an inch below the surface and you won't get the samples you need.
take one right wing extremist, repeat the same experiment and then you get a handful of non too bright conspiracy theorists actually giving ammunition that supports right wing extremists.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
Was this the giy who knowingly conducted a test for cyanide incorrectly for shock value?
he repeated an experiment done by an American whocondicted the same flawed experiment.
basically, cynadide interacts on the surface of concrete. Take samples of concrete an inch below the surface and you won't get the samples you need.
take one right wing extremist, repeat the same experiment and then you get a handful of non too bright conspiracy theorists actually giving ammunition that supports right wing extremists.
he repeated an experiment done by an American whocondicted the same flawed experiment.
basically, cynadide interacts on the surface of concrete. Take samples of concrete an inch below the surface and you won't get the samples you need.
take one right wing extremist, repeat the same experiment and then you get a handful of non too bright conspiracy theorists actually giving ammunition that supports right wing extremists.
I'm not going to pretend that I have the skill in Chemical analysis to discuss such a report I.e. Cyanide with iron-based compounds v. Cyanide with iron compounds, except to be able to perform a very basic document in place check which is to say that it appears to be a well researched scholarly document at post graduate level.
While the document is above my skill level in that area, The point that I am making is that such a report should be on the table for discussion and contribution to general knowledge if ratified as opposed to suppressed and having the author persecuted and jailed.
I don't know if it's true, maybe someone knows more, but I've read once an argument against Holocaust that said that even modern crematories can only burn ~4 bodies down to ash during a day because such temperatures are required and it takes so long. Meanwhile, the belief is that in Auschwitz they burned down (thus no bodies left) like, millions of bodies. 70 years ago. In 4 crematories. If you believe the base of the argument (the facts about how cremating works, and I know nothing about that so can't argue nor agree), it does seem to make sense.
Original post by Jkruger1
I'm not going to pretend that I have the skill in Chemical analysis to discuss such a report I.e. Cyanide with iron-based compounds v. Cyanide with iron compounds, except to be able to perform a very basic document in place check which is to say that it appears to be a well researched scholarly document at post graduate level.
While the document is above my skill level in that area, The point that I am making is that such a report should be on the table for discussion and contribution to general knowledge if ratified as opposed to suppressed and having the author persecuted and jailed.
While the document is above my skill level in that area, The point that I am making is that such a report should be on the table for discussion and contribution to general knowledge if ratified as opposed to suppressed and having the author persecuted and jailed.
Basically, the fool you've quoted repeated the actions of another holocaust denying fool.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter
He knowingly misrepresented a scientific study to justify his warped opinion.
The scientist in this documentary about this very issue explains at 30 minutes in why both of these muppets are wrong and dangerous
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=47jeOYLauxw
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Viceroy
I'm not sure I understand why people have an "opinion" on whether or not the Holocaust happened. Why not have an "opinion" on whether or not some other historical event happened? What makes the Holocaust so special in this regard to revisionist historians?
Because those who seek to Donside the holocaust tend to be the ones that actually tacitly supported it.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Because those who seek to Donside the holocaust tend to be the ones that actually tacitly supported it.
Indeed -- "Revisionist" Holocaust history is simply a guise for anti-Jewish thinking.
You never see anyone saying "I don't believe that the American Civil War ever happened!" If you don't see that, than there's no reason to see it for other historical events.
Original post by Viceroy
Indeed -- "Revisionist" Holocaust history is simply a guise for anti-Jewish thinking.
You never see anyone saying "I don't believe that the American Civil War ever happened!" If you don't see that, than there's no reason to see it for other historical events.
You never see anyone saying "I don't believe that the American Civil War ever happened!" If you don't see that, than there's no reason to see it for other historical events.
They are most certainly a frightening group of people.
I have no problem with for example, a new piece of evidence being presented tohibe a better understanding from a historical perspective, but that's bet done by historians.
In this case we have amateurs attempting to give a degree of professionalism to a rather sinister argument.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Basically, the fool you've quoted repeated the actions of another holocaust denying fool.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter
He knowingly misrepresented a scientific study to justify his warped opinion.
The scientist in this documentary about this very issue explains at 30 minutes in why both of these muppets are wrong and dangerous
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=47jeOYLauxw
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter
He knowingly misrepresented a scientific study to justify his warped opinion.
The scientist in this documentary about this very issue explains at 30 minutes in why both of these muppets are wrong and dangerous
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=47jeOYLauxw
But you are missing the point. You might think they are wrong. I am not talking about their findings are correct or incorrect. They may be wrong or they may be right.
I'm saying it's dangerous to persecute them and dangerous not to put their findings into the general debate.
Original post by Viceroy
I'm not sure I understand why people have an "opinion" on whether or not the Holocaust happened. Why not have an "opinion" on whether or not some other historical event happened? What makes the Holocaust so special in this regard to revisionist historians?
Opinions form where people find gaps between commonly held beliefs and evidence. One of the tactics used to discredit them is to say they are "denying the Holocaust" and with no basis, when in fact they usually find some empirical facts that question some aspects of the story but not all. No Holocaust revisionist claims that less than 100,000 People died in German camps. They just disagree on the numbers and cause of death.
It's not true that people only have opinions on the Holocaust. People have opinions of a whole range of historical events from the creation of the Federal Reserve to the causes of World War I to the case for the Second Iraq war.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Jkruger1
But you are missing the point. You might think they are wrong. I am not talking about their findings are correct or incorrect. They may be wrong or they may be right.
I'm saying it's dangerous to persecute them and dangerous not to put their findings into the general debate.
I'm saying it's dangerous to persecute them and dangerous not to put their findings into the general debate.
It's not dangerous to persecute them because the pond life that feed off their lies are even more dangerous. It's the lesser of two evils.
It's no different to the balancing act with islamic fundamentalists. They can claim whatever they want, but as soon as they start making claims that cross a line then they get charged with inciting violence.
Holcaust deniers are actually inciting violence. You have no comprehension how f***ed in the head and totally dangerous to society right wing extremist on the continent are.
The UK has not made holocaust denial illegal. It hasn't had to as firstly we weren't complicite in the mass mutder of millions of people on an indiatrial scale, and secondly, we don't have the right wing nutters that places like germany and France do.
You can argue this however you want to, the fact is that these laws have popular support in these countrys because they know that the dangerous fringes of society are the only ones that benfit from them brig lifted.
This Diane about fr edinburgh of speech. This is about containing an aborant horror
Original post by MatureStudent36
It's not dangerous to persecute them because the pond life that feed off their lies are even more dangerous. It's the lesser of two evils.
It's no different to the balancing act with islamic fundamentalists. They can claim whatever they want, but as soon as they start making claims that cross a line then they get charged with inciting violence.
Holcaust deniers are actually inciting violence. You have no comprehension how f***ed in the head and totally dangerous to society right wing extremist on the continent are.
The UK has not made holocaust denial illegal. It hasn't had to as firstly we weren't complicite in the mass mutder of millions of people on an indiatrial scale, and secondly, we don't have the right wing nutters that places like germany and France do.
You can argue this however you want to, the fact is that these laws have popular support in these countrys because they know that the dangerous fringes of society are the only ones that benfit from them brig lifted.
This Diane about fr edinburgh of speech. This is about containing an aborant horror
It's no different to the balancing act with islamic fundamentalists. They can claim whatever they want, but as soon as they start making claims that cross a line then they get charged with inciting violence.
Holcaust deniers are actually inciting violence. You have no comprehension how f***ed in the head and totally dangerous to society right wing extremist on the continent are.
The UK has not made holocaust denial illegal. It hasn't had to as firstly we weren't complicite in the mass mutder of millions of people on an indiatrial scale, and secondly, we don't have the right wing nutters that places like germany and France do.
You can argue this however you want to, the fact is that these laws have popular support in these countrys because they know that the dangerous fringes of society are the only ones that benfit from them brig lifted.
This Diane about fr edinburgh of speech. This is about containing an aborant horror
Under that same logic we would need to ban Islam because of the nutter extremist Muslims.
Original post by Jkruger1
Under that same logic we would need to ban Islam because of the nutter extremist Muslims.
You can't ban a religion. You especially can't ban a religion because of the actions of a tiny minority.
Original post by Viceroy
Indeed -- "Revisionist" Holocaust history is simply a guise for anti-Jewish thinking.
You never see anyone saying "I don't believe that the American Civil War ever happened!" If you don't see that, than there's no reason to see it for other historical events.
You never see anyone saying "I don't believe that the American Civil War ever happened!" If you don't see that, than there's no reason to see it for other historical events.
But you're free to doubt it, and you're free to discuss it. Not the case with the holocaust in countries that criminalise holocaust denial. You're probably correct that most of the people who engage in holocaust denial aren't particularly present people, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be free to express their opinion.
Let's say hypothetically that there were a fraudulent genocide (disclaimer Im not suggesting nor do I think that the holocaust didn't happen), it was the view of the state that it did happen, and there were laws that prevented you from doubting it happened. Well wouldn't such a law suddenly become dangerous and oppressive then? My argument is that we can't pick and choose here, and that we must allow for discussion of any point of history no matter how horrific the people discussing or how offensive people may find discussion of it.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
You can't ban a religion. You especially can't ban a religion because of the actions of a tiny minority.
I saw reports on Russia Today about Boko Haram soldiers (or barbarians) taking over villages and the villagers interviewed said that all the Arab villagers joined them. (Of course the BBC is far to P.C. to report that). So on that basis you could make a case that Islam is a dangerous force like extremists you are talking about and therefore needs to be banned.
So I go back to saying, if you are going to justify banning Holocaust revisionist on the grounds that theoretically it could lead to some sort of disorder, violence, totalitarian regime takeover, then surely that case applies to Islam?
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 1 minute ago
Official Newcastle University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 1 minute ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Posted 1 minute ago
can you get accepted into a uni after being rejectedLast reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Warwick vs UCL vs LSE for a career in private equity/ quant/ acturial scienceLast reply 2 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2846
Last reply 6 minutes ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 9 minutes ago
Official: Queen's University Belfast A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 9 minutes ago
Schroders apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 10 minutes ago
Am I allowed a Calculator for university Computer Science exams?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
