Why are holocaust revisionist persecutor any better than Islamic terrorists?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Jkruger1
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?
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?
Russia's isolated at the moment and Russia today Is state owned and run. It's a propaganda machine for Putin so beware .
There's exttemists in all religion, but they're not a majority.
You do realise that there is a world of difference between holocayst deniers and religious Zealots.
Original post by Viridiana
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.
Instead of posting random incorrect rubbish about a highly controversial subject, why not check your facts first rather than make a fool of yourself online?
It took me 20 seconds to find out your post is nonsense.
A modern crematorium only takes about an hour to cremate a big fat American plus their coffin.
The six death camps that used incineration each had multiple furnaces could handle multiple emaciated corpses at once, were run 24x7, and took about 90 minutes. Birkenau alone could shift 6,000 bodies per day.
The Germans are efficient and do not muck about, especially in industry. If they needed furnaces, they built furnaces. We're not talking some complicated high-tech solution, just sodding great ovens.
Original post by Simes
Please, we live in the 21st century now where we have an internet and search engines and online databases and wikipedia.
Instead of posting random incorrect rubbish about a highly controversial subject, why not check your facts first rather than make a fool of yourself online?
It took me 20 seconds to find out your post is nonsense.
A modern crematorium only takes about an hour to cremate a big fat American plus their coffin.
The six death camps that used incineration each had multiple furnaces could handle multiple emaciated corpses at once, were run 24x7, and took about 90 minutes. Birkenau alone could shift 6,000 bodies per day.
The Germans are efficient and do not muck about, especially in industry. If they needed furnaces, they built furnaces. We're not talking some complicated high-tech solution, just sodding great ovens.
Instead of posting random incorrect rubbish about a highly controversial subject, why not check your facts first rather than make a fool of yourself online?
It took me 20 seconds to find out your post is nonsense.
A modern crematorium only takes about an hour to cremate a big fat American plus their coffin.
The six death camps that used incineration each had multiple furnaces could handle multiple emaciated corpses at once, were run 24x7, and took about 90 minutes. Birkenau alone could shift 6,000 bodies per day.
The Germans are efficient and do not muck about, especially in industry. If they needed furnaces, they built furnaces. We're not talking some complicated high-tech solution, just sodding great ovens.
Yeah, I saw this info too. On Wikipedia. It's not exactly a reliable source of information. I'm not claiming what I said was 100% true, but in a world where denying Holocaust is a crime I wouldn't exactly expect Wikipedia to quote information that could deny it.
An average human body takes from two to three hours to burn completely and will produce an average of 3 to 9 pounds (1.4 to 4.1 kilograms) of ash. The amount of ash depends usually on the bone structure of the person and not so much their weight [source: Ellenberg].
They burn natural gas, propane or diesel instead of the coke and coal that fueled retorts as late as the 1960s, allowing for more efficient and hotter burning while leaving little odor or smoke.
They burn natural gas, propane or diesel instead of the coke and coal that fueled retorts as late as the 1960s, allowing for more efficient and hotter burning while leaving little odor or smoke.
Taken from here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/cremation1.htm
So, as you can see, another source (I'm not claiming it's 100% true but at least it's not Wiki) claims that nowadays we can burn a body in 2-3 h and in 1940s the system used to be less efficient.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
Russia's isolated at the moment and Russia today Is state owned and run. It's a propaganda machine for Putin so beware .
There's exttemists in all religion, but they're not a majority.
You do realise that there is a world of difference between holocayst deniers and religious Zealots.
There's exttemists in all religion, but they're not a majority.
You do realise that there is a world of difference between holocayst deniers and religious Zealots.
The only difference really between these dimensions is that one is politics and one is religion. The attitude of people is based on society's tolerance for religious or political positions. Society has a high tolerance for religion and a low tolerance for taboo political positions.
I think the main difference between the two is that nobody's actually blown up a building because the people inside denied the Holocaust. I can see the similarities you draw between the movements' ends, but their means are very different.
Original post by Jkruger1
The only difference really between these dimensions is that one is politics and one is religion. The attitude of people is based on society's tolerance for religious or political positions. Society has a high tolerance for religion and a low tolerance for taboo political positions.
Congratulations. You've got it. You can't ban mainstream religious issues
Original post by Jkruger1
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
What does murdering eight cartoonists have to do with that?
Why is it that the French will bang on about freedom of speech and freedom to say the most despicable things is a bastion of their culture and one which is essential for democracy but:
1. Holocaust denial is an imprisonable offence in France and many other European countries
2. It is illegal to express your religion in public.
Is this not major hypocrisy?
Posted from TSR Mobile
1. Holocaust denial is an imprisonable offence in France and many other European countries
2. It is illegal to express your religion in public.
Is this not major hypocrisy?
Posted from TSR Mobile
I agree that the fact that it is illegal to express religion in public in France is hypocritical, and makes no sense in conjunction with the idea of freedom of expression.
But Holocaust denial is denying something that actually happened and can be proven physically. Religion isn't something that can be physically proven so far more debatable.
I for one don't think total freedom of speech is a good idea or practical, and in fact it doesn't exist - people aren't entirely 'free' as some people don't express ideas they may have for fear they will be socially excluded.
But Holocaust denial is denying something that actually happened and can be proven physically. Religion isn't something that can be physically proven so far more debatable.
I for one don't think total freedom of speech is a good idea or practical, and in fact it doesn't exist - people aren't entirely 'free' as some people don't express ideas they may have for fear they will be socially excluded.
Original post by Reptilian
Why is it that the French will bang on about freedom of speech and freedom to say the most despicable things is a bastion of their culture and one which is essential for democracy but:
1. Holocaust denial is an imprisonable offence in France and many other European countries
2. It is illegal to express your religion in public.
Is this not major hypocrisy?
Posted from TSR Mobile
1. Holocaust denial is an imprisonable offence in France and many other European countries
2. It is illegal to express your religion in public.
Is this not major hypocrisy?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Disgrace of a country. Double standards.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Reptilian
Why is it that the French will bang on about freedom of speech and freedom to say the most despicable things is a bastion of their culture and one which is essential for democracy but:
1. Holocaust denial is an imprisonable offence in France and many other European countries
2. It is illegal to express your religion in public.
Is this not major hypocrisy?
Posted from TSR Mobile
1. Holocaust denial is an imprisonable offence in France and many other European countries
2. It is illegal to express your religion in public.
Is this not major hypocrisy?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Not really. Using your logic, France should allow slander and etc as well.
With regards to the holocaust...
Europe has a significant history of anti semitism that lead to the murder of 6 million Jews.
Therefore, these laws were put in place to prevent it happening again. Whether they are an effective measure is another discussion.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Reptilian
1. Holocaust denial is an imprisonable offence in France and many other European countries
This is the exception rather than the rule, and a hangover from WWII. Just because such a law exists does not make freedom of speech unimportant to the French people. How you arrived at the logical conclusion I cannot fathom; the two are not mutually inclusive.
By your logic, every country which values and upholds freedom of speech in the world is hypocritical for having some laws which restrict it.
2. It is illegal to express your religion in public.
What are you referring to, exactly?
Original post by Lady Comstock
This is the exception rather than the rule, and a hangover from WWII. Just because such a law exists does not make freedom of speech unimportant to the French people. How you arrived at the logical conclusion I cannot fathom; the two are not mutually inclusive.
By your logic, every country which values and upholds freedom of speech in the world is hypocritical for having some laws which restrict it.
What are you referring to, exactly?
By your logic, every country which values and upholds freedom of speech in the world is hypocritical for having some laws which restrict it.
What are you referring to, exactly?
Showing any sort of religious symbols or clothing in public is banned in France. So people can't openly wear crosses, hijabs, burqas etc
Original post by IdeasForLife
Douchebag of a country. Double standards.
I hope you're not one of the people bleating about how you shouldn't insult, how free speech should not cover the right to insult, etc.
Original post by Lady Comstock
I hope you're not one of the people bleating about how you shouldn't insult, how free speech should not cover the right to insult, etc.
That's too bad. You're gna be disappointed.
Original post by yabbayabba
Showing any sort of religious symbols or clothing in public is banned in France. So people can't openly wear crosses, hijabs, burqas etc
That's nonsense. It primarily applies to schools.
And freedom of speech =/= freedom to manifest one's religion. The French value the former but, for centuries, have restricted the latter in line with their secularist tradition.
Original post by IdeasForLife
That's too bad. You're gna be disappointed.
What were you saying about double standards?
Original post by Lady Comstock
What were you saying about double standards?
I'm sure you can guess. My post wasn't that long. Scroll up a bit ^
Jus taking advantage of free speech innit
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Lady Comstock
That's nonsense. It primarily applies to schools.
And freedom of speech =/= freedom to manifest one's religion. The French value the former but, for centuries, have restricted the latter in line with their secularist tradition.
And freedom of speech =/= freedom to manifest one's religion. The French value the former but, for centuries, have restricted the latter in line with their secularist tradition.
It doesn't only apply to schools, also to politics and any public institution. Freedom to manifest one's religion comes under the freedom of speech umbrella, it is hypocritical.
Original post by yabbayabba
It doesn't only apply to schools, also to politics and any public institution.
That's not as broad as "in public" as the OP stated; its primarily public buildings.
Your logic is basically saying that any rule a country has which limits human rights means that that country does not care about human rights. Do people in England not care about free speech because of slander laws?
When people support freedom of speech, they usually mean that they support freedom of speech within the law.
Freedom to manifest one's religion comes under the freedom of speech umbrella, it is hypocritical.
No it doesn't. Freedom of belief is linked to freedom of speech; the freedom to manifest one's religion in public has always been restricted in Western Europe. There is no unlimited right to manifest your religion in public.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 ?
