Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are holocaust revisionist persecutor any better than Islamic terrorists? watch

    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guybrush Sheepgood)
    Well these laws existed in WW2 and they didn't work, so no.



    I am not getting anything conflated.

    I never said it was a 'direct' link, or a prerequisite, that would of course be nonsense.
    True ... so in light of that what do we expect laws against holocaust denial to do?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guitarded)
    Not necessarily. Sure, outright denial is a bit ridiculous considering the number of witness accounts, Nazi documentation and the fact that Auschwitz still stands along with all the box cars.
    But did it happen the way we're told it did? Some people believe the 6 million figure is a huge exaggeration, and that a large portion of prisoners died from a typhoid outbreak rather than mass execution.
    Germans are very correct and really don't need people living far away from any concentration camp debating wether it is true. Go to Germany and speak to the older ones, those trains full of people weren't made up and while it may be easy to think you would have a point, never having lived in an area, were the Genocide was committed, but go there and actually read about it and you would probably come very fast to the conclusion, that it was that big. And nobody says, there were all executed, so your argument is pointless. On the other hand saying it is no genocide, because they died not by execution, but by the conditions in the ghettos, concentration camps, etc. is simply very weired... you don't need to execute someone to kill him. (A large part were of course executed, but it was defnitely not the only way to die and them passing away was no accident.)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    True ... so in light of that what do we expect laws against holocaust denial to do?
    Well the holocaust happened partially due to the amalgamation of myths and prejudices that have occured throughout history against the Jews. No other group has been persecuted in the same way across all civilisations, for most of history. It becomes clear (especially at the time these laws were first enacted - just after WW2) that society is unable to regulate itself enough to prevent these myths from happening and becoming out of control. Therefore governments must take action to protect their Jews by outlawing these myths and legends and allowing them to propagate. Holocaust denial is one more modern myth to add to the collection.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guitarded)
    Not necessarily. Sure, outright denial is a bit ridiculous considering the number of witness accounts, Nazi documentation and the fact that Auschwitz still stands along with all the box cars.
    But did it happen the way we're told it did? Some people believe the 6 million figure is a huge exaggeration, and that a large portion of prisoners died from a typhoid outbreak rather than mass execution.
    Jewish prisoners died in a variety of ways, they were shot, tortured, starved, worked to death, beaten to death, diseased, gassed and burned. Why does it matter how any Jewish prisoner died? They still died. And any that died of typhoid died as a result of poor treatment and imprisonment. And they probably would have been 'killed directly' if typhoid hadn't killed them anyway. Any deaths were meticulously calculated by the Nazis. After all, the concentration camps were work camps before they became death camps. The 'final solution' did not need to entail any specific method of murder.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reptilian)
    That's BS. Historical events should not be exempt from questions and criticism. I, for one, do not believe that the Holocaust occurred in the magnitude that they tell us it did and these laws affirm my belief but that does not mean that my belief somehow endangers Jews.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So, you want to talk about BS?
    By your logic, if Muhammad existed, his life is a historical event and should not be exempt from questions and criticism. Therefore, if someone wants to make a cartoon about him being "partial to children", then why not?

    I - and many others - do not believe that he existed, or even if he was a real person he was no messenger of God, but that does not mean that my belief endangers Muslims. So why do some of them take it upon themselves to go killing people over it? And the ones that don't are blaming the cartoonists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GailQ)
    So, you want to talk about BS?
    By your logic, if Muhammad existed, his life is a historical event and should not be exempt from questions and criticism. Therefore, if someone wants to make a cartoon about him being "partial to children", then why not?

    I - and many others - do not believe that he existed, or even if he was a real person he was no messenger of God, but that does not mean that my belief endangers Muslims. So why do some of them take it upon themselves to go killing people over it? And the ones that don't are blaming the cartoonists.
    Listen here, you hyperactive child, get your nappy out of its twist and realise what I made this thread for. It is highlighting France's hypocrisy through it's actions in allowing these cartoons but then banning any discussion or questioning of the holocaust. Believe whatever tripe you want but if you want full freedom of speech, you must give it to those who oppose you also.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    Go to Germany and speak to the older ones, those trains full of people weren't made up and while it may be easy to think you would have a point, never having lived in an area, were the Genocide was committed, but go there and actually read about it and you would probably come very fast to the conclusion, that it was that big. And nobody says, there were all executed, so your argument is pointless.
    I wasn't stating my beliefs about what happened in the Holocaust, I'm saying some people (not me, though I'm open to everyone's ideas) believe that while the Holocaust did happen, the truth has been skewed and some aspects happened differently to what we are typically lead to believe.

    My point was simply (as someone earlier in the thread had stated) that no historical event should be exempt from questioning, regardless of how much evidence there is to suggest the event in question happened the way it did.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reptilian)
    x
    Double standards
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reptilian)
    Listen here, you hyperactive child, get your nappy out of its twist and realise what I made this thread for. It is highlighting France's hypocrisy through it's actions in allowing these cartoons but then banning any discussion or questioning of the holocaust. Believe whatever tripe you want but if you want full freedom of speech, you must give it to those who oppose you also.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The only one getting anything in a twist here is you. You like talking, but can't handle the slightest criticism without resorting to calling people children. You talk about France's hypocrisy, but don't recognise your own. No, I don't think Holocaust denial should be against the law.

    But when you want to start talking rubbish and actually deny the scale of it - as you did in the post to which I previously replied - then I will tell you where to put your opinions. That's the same freedom of speech you're fighting for in this thread, isn't it?

    You're hypocrisy is actually unreal. You complain about not having the freedom to deny the Holocaust but when I exercise my freedom of speech to tell you that you're wrong to deny - or even belittle - it, you start with your petty nonsense.
    You tell me that it's "tripe" to not to believe in Muhammed when you are the one denying the scale of the Holocaust - something which there is actually proof for.

    I also notice that you made no attempt to argue any of the points I challenged you on, which says a lot more than you calling me a child.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    OP has a good point. Banning someone from wearing a burkha is also not following freedom of expression very well either.


    "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

    That applies to holocaust deniers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GailQ)
    So, you want to talk about BS?
    By your logic, if Muhammad existed, his life is a historical event and should not be exempt from questions and criticism. Therefore, if someone wants to make a cartoon about him being "partial to children", then why not?

    I - and many others - do not believe that he existed, or even if he was a real person he was no messenger of God, but that does not mean that my belief endangers Muslims. So why do some of them take it upon themselves to go killing people over it? And the ones that don't are blaming the cartoonists.
    Your post was not worthy of a proper reply but as you have clearly act as though you are somehow victorious from your last post, I will address you.

    I did not insinuate anywhere that the Prophet (PBUH) should be free from criticism, in fact, I was only saying that if we accept total freedom of speech, we cannot restrict it to things we are okay with. Freedom of speech is only freedom when it allows you to express dislikeable views otherwise it become a a 'you are free to say anything you want except...'

    The problem I have with the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo is that the Western countries are acting as though they are champions of free speech when there are cases where free speech is not given. (People get jailed for twitter trolling for example in the UK)

    Show me where I said the Prophet (PBUH) should not be allowed to be ridiculed if people wish to do so?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uer23)
    Don't be silly. Denying the holocaust is not a turn in events that will lead up to another one. Just admit it, there are sentiments that even emotionally touch the bastions of free speech.
    As I wrote before, whether it is silly or ineffective is irrelevant to why they did it.

    6 million Jews dead after 100's of years of persecution in Europe. The laws are there to stop it happening again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reptilian)
    Your post was not worthy of a proper reply but as you have clearly act as though you are somehow victorious from your last post, I will address you.

    I did not insinuate anywhere that the Prophet (PBUH) should be free from criticism, in fact, I was only saying that if we accept total freedom of speech, we cannot restrict it to things we are okay with. Freedom of speech is only freedom when it allows you to express dislikeable views otherwise it become a a 'you are free to say anything you want except...'

    The problem I have with the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo is that the Western countries are acting as though they are champions of free speech when there are cases where free speech is not given. (People get jailed for twitter trolling for example in the UK)

    Show me where I said the Prophet (PBUH) should not be allowed to be ridiculed if people wish to do so?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No one says total freedom of speech should be allowed. Your argument is a strawman.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guybrush Sheepgood)
    Jewish prisoners died in a variety of ways, they were shot, tortured, starved, worked to death, beaten to death, diseased, gassed and burned. Why does it matter how any Jewish prisoner died? They still died. And any that died of typhoid died as a result of poor treatment and imprisonment. And they probably would have been 'killed directly' if typhoid hadn't killed them anyway. Any deaths were meticulously calculated by the Nazis. After all, the concentration camps were work camps before they became death camps. The 'final solution' did not need to entail any specific method of murder.
    So essentially what you're saying is that suggesting typhoid was the primary cause of death isn't really Holocaust denial, since the Nazis would still be responsible for it.

    If I were to publish a book arguing that 90% of prisoners at Auschwitz died of typhoid (lets say I had a copy of unseen Nazi documentation regarding the disposal of typhoid-infected bodies in support of this) and that the Nazis had actually intended on keeping the majority of fit-to-work prisoners alive as long as possible, executing only the weak..... should I be prosecuted for Holocaust Denial? Regardless of how ridiculous such a claim might be how weak the evidence may be, why should it be against the law to openly consider the possibility?

    (This isn't what I believe about the Holocaust, I'm just using it to illustrate my point about Free Speech)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reptilian)
    I did not insinuate anywhere that the Prophet (PBUH) should be free from criticism, in fact, I was only saying that if we accept total freedom of speech, we cannot restrict it to things we are okay with.

    Show me where I said the Prophet (PBUH) should not be allowed to be ridiculed if people wish to do so?
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But we DON'T have total free speech, any fool knows that. So that argument is invalid.

    When you say "Drawing cartoons of the Prophet (PBUH) is deeply offensive and should also be a crime under your logic as it is hateful towards the Muslim people. Why is an exception made for the Jews and not for Muslims? I hear Islamophobia".

    That insinuates that insulting Muhammed is equivalent to denying the Holocaust - which is pretty much the basis of your whole argument.

    But you are wrong because they are not equivalent. Insulting Muhammed would be equivalent to insulting Moses or Elijah or some other Jewish prophet and that is not against the law in France.
    Denying the Holocaust is not the same thing because the Holocaust was not a event related to religion (the Jews were not targeted because of their religion, and Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust).
    Nevertheless, I do not think that insulting Muhammed or denying the Holocaust should be illegal, I am just pointing out the flaws in your argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reptilian)
    That's BS. Historical events should not be exempt from questions and criticism. I, for one, do not believe that the Holocaust occurred in the magnitude that they tell us it did and these laws affirm my belief but that does not mean that my belief somehow endangers Jews.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It is illegal to deny any act of genocide within many EU states; it isn't only for the holocaust.

    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedoc...misc/93739.pdf
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guitarded)
    So essentially what you're saying is that suggesting typhoid was the primary cause of death isn't really Holocaust denial, since the Nazis would still be responsible for it.

    If I were to publish a book arguing that 90% of prisoners at Auschwitz died of typhoid (lets say I had a copy of unseen Nazi documentation regarding the disposal of typhoid-infected bodies in support of this) and that the Nazis had actually intended on keeping the majority of fit-to-work prisoners alive as long as possible, executing only the weak..... should I be prosecuted for Holocaust Denial? Regardless of how ridiculous such a claim might be how weak the evidence may be, why should it be against the law to openly consider the possibility?

    (This isn't what I believe about the Holocaust, I'm just using it to illustrate my point about Free Speech)
    Yeah, do that and come back once it's written.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guitarded)
    So essentially what you're saying is that suggesting typhoid was the primary cause of death isn't really Holocaust denial, since the Nazis would still be responsible for it.

    If I were to publish a book arguing that 90% of prisoners at Auschwitz died of typhoid (lets say I had a copy of unseen Nazi documentation regarding the disposal of typhoid-infected bodies in support of this) and that the Nazis had actually intended on keeping the majority of fit-to-work prisoners alive as long as possible, executing only the weak..... should I be prosecuted for Holocaust Denial? Regardless of how ridiculous such a claim might be how weak the evidence may be, why should it be against the law to openly consider the possibility?

    (This isn't what I believe about the Holocaust, I'm just using it to illustrate my point about Free Speech)
    As far as I'm aware, it's not, and you would not be prosecuted. And indeed what you have said is partially correct with regards to the beginning/middle of the war. The Nazis used slave labour as long as possible whilst executing those of no use as soon as they arrived in the camps. Later they wanted to speed things up and executed as many as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by comptroller)
    It is illegal to deny any act of genocide within many EU states; it isn't only for the holocaust.

    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedoc...misc/93739.pdf
    I think this highlights the problem more clearly than anything else. "Any act of genocide", well of course that's referring to the acts of genocide that have happened, so who is the great almighty authority that decides with reference to the law which acts of genocide are deemed to have happened? Let's say that there were (hypothetically) a completely fictional genocide, made up by some country, and that this genocide as a result of something was widely believed to have happened up to the point where it was covered under this law as being something you couldn't deny having happened. Nobody would be able to make the truthful claim that this hypothetical genocide had happened, and THIS IMO is primarily where the danger lies. See, I'm quite happy with people not denying the holocaust, it seems patently obvious it's a pretty sick thing to do, BUT they must have the right to say what they're saying because it is far too dangerous to set this precedent in case some situation as if described above does one day play out.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reptilian)
    I do not believe that the Holocaust occurred in the magnitude that they tell us it did
    So you have chosen to not believe the evidence that is available.

    You are welcome to believe what you want.

    But if you start preaching your beliefs that the photographic, film and written evidence of tens of thousands is all fabricated, be expected to be called an ignorant f**kwit, a liar, a fantasist or anti-Semitic.

    Unless you do it on white supremacist or radical Islamic or pro-Nazi web sites, of course, where such things are de rigueur.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 20, 2017
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.