Debating with deniers

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 06:00 PM

The discussion about 'semite' shows exactly why i use
the phrase "anti-Jewish" in preference to "anti-Semitic"
as more accurate.

It's worth reading a book I may have mentioned here,E.H.
Carr's What is History? on some of the problems of writing
history. One that he raises is about how we decide what a
fact is. Another about just how filtered and a matter of
choice is what we call History.


   And 'what really happened' was shown to be capable of
being made problematic not only by the great divergence of
evidence common in trials but by a famous incident. (This
point is NOT meant in any way as anti-American but about
difficulties in seeking agreement about historical facts.)
That was the Rodney King incident. Tho' we also get it
every day over some sporting incident or another.

So little wonder there are ongoing disputes about historical
facts.

And there are surely innumerable events that are surely
beyond dispute.

So history is full of pitfalls.

And its frustrating to discover that writers produce books explaining what really happened about some event or other
after having done some years of research. How on earth we
layman are supposed to know, without the benefit or possibility
of sufficient research, what really happened,.................






      Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Rowan
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 04:15 PM

Thanks McGrath. Your correction made my point (about relatedness) much more effectively than I had. And better addresses the nonsense.

I'm reminded that the birth certificates of Jews born in Palestine before 1947 have the descriptor 'Palestinian Jew' (or words to that effect) rather than "Israeli", and that some of these people (who have Israeli passports) are not very pleased with the similarities between the "Israeli" policies towards non-Jewish residents in the area and South African policies towards non-whites before 1990.

There's quite a lot of factual history that gets 'overlooked', if not actually denied, in various history wars.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 03:22 PM

Here's a piece in todays's Guardian by a Muslim vice-chair of Respect which bears on this - Muslims need to take part - Palestinian dispossession is a reason to participate in Holocaust Memorial Day, not boycott it :

Participation in this national event in no way legitimises or justifies the dispossession of the Palestinian people - in fact, remembering the lessons of the Holocaust does the very opposite.

We should be part of it because there are lessons from history which relate very closely to our experience today. We should be part of it because our refusal merely gives succour to those who peddle prejudice and lies about the Holocaust.
..........................

I wonder who is going to jump in with "100 - look at me"

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 01:34 PM

I certainly didn't mean to imply that 6 Jews died. Thanks to Wolfgang for pointing out the "factor of a million" phrase. English literature majors should always tread carefully when talking numbers! ;>}

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 12:59 PM

"Semitic" is a linguistic term, applying to a whole range of langauges across the Middle East, Arabic being the most widely spoken. It's got nothing particularly to do with Palestine or what is now Israel, except that one of the languages in the linguistic group was Hebrew and another was Aramaic, used by the Jewish inhabitants if that area in ancient time.

So "Semite" means people who speak Semitic languages, or whose ancestors spoke them. And most people who fall into that categorey are Arabs, all the way from Morocco to Iraq. "Arabs and Bedouins were not Semites" is in fact completely wrong.

I think the research Rowan would be referring to may have come up with evidence indicating that Palestinian Arabs are to a very large extent descended from those Jews of ancient Palestine who were able to remain there at the time when many others were compelled to leave in the First Century.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Slag
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 04:24 AM

All any living organism has is stimulus, response, memory and anticipation based upon that memory. Memory is the key element here. Facts are the things remembered and it is our understanding of the facts, how the facts relate to each other and their significance for our future actions that is all-important. On a societal level, our history is our memory and it has a direct bearing on our future. To deny historical facts is to lobotomize the foundational element from the collective consciousness. If it is allowed to happen it takes away the necessary tools for making intelligent and informed decisions and dooms us to repeat mistakes madein the past.

I have made this observation in other threads but it is germane to this discussion and so I will also repeat: a curse and a pox upon any who attempt to rewrite factual history.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Rowan
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 01:20 AM

And, as well, all the Israelis (Jewish and Palestinian, whether Christian or Muslim) that can trace their ancestry completely in the area east of the Mediterranean are Semitic. I mention this because of a much earlier post making mention of antisemitism. I forget the name of the investigator (it might or might not have been associated with the collection of peoples' DNA from populations spread across the globe) but the DNA analysis of all those whose ancestry was limited to that part of the world variously known as Israel or Palestine showed they were all Semites, irrespective of religion. Arabs and Bedouins were not Semites, so all the nonsense about Muslim Palestinians being "Arabs" is just yet another example of fraternal conflicts being the most vicious of all conflicts.

Which means the pressure on us all to help resolve them rather than exacerbate them is that much more exquisite.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 08:27 PM

I looked up Yezidis, and there's an interesting account of them in Wikipedia. Interesting lot. They aren't Christians - they sound more like an Islamified version of Mithraism than anything, with a distinctly different spin on some things:

"Then God gave life to Adam from his own breath and instructed all archangels to bow to Adam. All archangels obeyed except Melek Ta'us. As God inquired, Malak Ta'us replied, "How can I submit to another being! I am from your illumination while Adam is made of dust." Then God praised him and made him the leader of all angels and his deputy on the Earth.
.......................
I take your point about both being right, if they are looking from different points of view.

If I say New York is in the direction where the Sun sets, and someone else on the Mudcat, in San Francisco says, no it's in the direction where the Sun rises we'd both be right. But we'd also both be wrong in thinking the other person was wrong.

In the context of the topic the thread the analogy with that is the way that you have two sets of people who see each other as the source of terrible events in the Holy Land - and are all too often unable to recognise the true source of the events in a third set of people, outside the Middle East.

The Palestinians identify the Israelis (and their backers) as the ultimate cause of their suffering, and the Jewish Israelis identify the Palestinians (and their backers) as the cause of the continuing agony. And both should recognise the true cause as the persecution of Jews in Europe over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 06:02 PM

"When two people have an argument, they can't both be right. But they can both be wrong."

Sometimes they can both be right, they just don't realise that their views are compatible and don't understand the wider issue enougto see thhat their argument is a false one.

So they're not exactly wrong ... yet ...



And on a completely different tack, (to add to the 'weird' religions thing) there are the Yezidi's, christians from the Middle east, (I've forgotten exactly from where) who consider that God (being all forgiving) reinstated Lucifer as top angel after he had been condemned, thus rendering him worthy once again of the worship of virtuous faithful christian men and women.

Christians worshipping lucifer - yet not in a way that contradicts any of their christian ideals.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 05:21 PM

How I found that page, Ivor?

An odd way really - I was trying to find out something about a guitar I had, so I googled for that, and about the only mention of it (apart from, one on the Mudcat by me sometime back) was at a site called Harmony Central Guitar Base.

When I'd read what it had about my guitar, I noticed, up the top of the page there was a menu, including "Forums". So I opened that up, and saw it had a section "The Political Party - A place for musicians to share their thoughts on political and social issues. 18 and over recommended. May contain objectionable language."

And in there I found a thread labelled as "Jews went to Tehran's holocaust denial conference". And in there was the link I gave. Together with a "discussion" thread which made me appreciate the level of discussion we have at the Mudcat, even when it slips. Even the slanging matches that sometimes flare up here.

It's odd how the Internet gets us places we hadn't planned to go.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 04:04 PM

When two people have an argument, they can't both be right. But they can both be wrong.

That's what I meant about the difference between a debate and a discussion.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 03:37 PM

Thanks for that,McGrath.

Did you Google that to find it?

Otherwise,I think those posters who said in effect, engaging
with them is a waste of effort, are right.

An interesting spin-off, for me, is the question of the human
habit of being immovable about something in one's world or
one's thinking, other than something like 1+1=2 (and I'm not sure
how many of THOSE there are.) A lot to do with the objective/subjective conundrum,I suspecy. There's a good picture
of it in the last juror to hold out in the film 12 Angry Men.
There were two people in a minority of one in the film, him, and Fonda soon after the beginning.

Perhaps we can rely on the truth that "truth will out."

Still, mental or psychological immovability is an interesting matter to consider.

(Oviously a book here. But surely it's been written.)






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 11:04 AM

True enough, the Neturei Karta are a fringe type of Judaism, but then the Amish are a fringe type of Christian. I don't think calling them nutcases helps any - in neither case do they go round killing people in the name of their version of their religion.

And they aren't the only fringe religion involved in this affair, on both sides. There are powerful voices on the Zionist side with some extremely strange and extreme religious views. There is the type of Christian Fundamentalism which sees support of Israel as a way of bringing about an End Time in which all Jews who do not accept Jesus will be wiped away. There is a variety of Jewish Fundamentalism which is dedicated to bringing about an Eretz Israel in which followers of other religions will have no place.

The reason I put that link was as a reminder that it's all a bit more complicated than it often get presented as being. And that discussion over on that link is quite interesting in itself, and some people from here might like to join in it.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Dazbo
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 10:30 AM

Seems to me the problem is that one man's evidence is another man's conspiracy.

Who can really prove one way and another that, for example a document is not a really good fake? That an eye witness hasn't got an ulterior motive for what they're saying? That film or tv evidence wasn't manufactured in Shepherd's Bush or Hollywood?

Theres none so blind as those that will not see.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 08:36 AM

Each religion has its crazy fringe nutcases.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 07:26 AM

McGrath, you bring Joy to my heart.

(oh God what am I saying!)

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 09:59 PM

Here's a link to a BBC story (accompanied here by a bunch of posts from members of the public arguing back and forth) about an aspect of that Iran conference that hasn't got that much attention - Why are Jews at the 'Holocaust denial' conference?:

A handful of Orthodox Jews have attended Iran's controversial conference questioning the Nazi genocide of the Jews - not because they deny the Holocaust but because they object to using it as justification for the existence of Israel...
...A representative, UK-based Rabbi Aharon Cohen, told the conference he prayed "that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely the state known as Israel, be totally and peacefully dissolved".
In its place, Rabbi Cohen said, should be "a regime fully in accordance with the aspirations of the Palestinians when Arab and Jew will be able to live peacefully together as they did for centuries".

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Cluin
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 03:51 PM

Oh look, this isn't an argument.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

No it isn't.

It is!

It is not.

Look, you just contradicted me.

I did not.

Oh you did!

No, no, no.

You did just then.

Nonsense!

Oh, this is futile!

No it isn't.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lox
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 09:16 AM

LOL

The rest simply died of unnatural causes right?

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 08:24 AM

Let's suppose that this figure is wrong by a factor of 1 million

Pedant alert: That would make 6 murdered Jews. Obviously not what you mean.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,Owlkat
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM

To heck with the Holocaust deniers, I want to have a crack at the Flat Earth Society!!!!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM

It might be like trying to argue with Jade Goody or Vicky Pollard, but just think how they end up looking. Nobody takes people like that seriously.

They put up their fortifications and you undermine the foundations.

The wall comes tumbling down and you say "look your walls have fallen down" and they respond "oh no they haven't" or more pertinently "... yer but no but yer but no but ...", convince themselves that they're doing fine and soldier on.

Oh why oh why can't people just ... well ... you know ...

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:12 PM

Yes,GUEST Meg,I do want to enter some kind of encounter with deniers, have realised that online is not the place,don't think my hand is at all fully revealed by my Jewishness being known.

   That last point is because my questions belong to a pretty objective realm.

   i had originally asked where I might encounter deniers safely, and as McGrath has indicated,I don't think the deniers have a leg to stand on objectively. Thus,I'm in no hurry and feel no need to worry, to get into abuse (I'm in no way suggesting,Meg, that you or anyone has suggested any such thing - it's my very own invention), or feel any need to respond in the slightest to anything other than reasoned argument. Certainly not to anger or insult.


   Probably correct that discussion is more appropriate than debate. The idealist in me would say that it must be possible for changes of opinion through debate, otherwise it wouldn't look like real debate (to me), merely assertions and reassertions of immovable positions.

   "When I'm wrong,I change my mind. What do you do?" (Keynes)






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Rowan
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 05:20 PM

Some observations of the postings on the thread so far.

McGrath of Harlow has presented an excellent analogy to the worth of the discussion/debate on the motives of denying the Holocaust. In Australia we've been exposed to similar discussion/debate over whether white settlers did/didn't massacre Aboriginal people in vast numbers and whether or not there was 'official' sanction to the murders. The context of the Australian debate/discussion is known as "The History Wars" and the attempted revisionism is mostly pushed by (what in Australia is called) the conservative ("reactionary"?) Right. Relative to the European Holocaust, they could be lumped as "deniers".

Many conservatives are quite content with what they see as the status quo and wish to avoid scrutiny of the history that lead to their current (and comfortable) positions, although many Jewish Israelis (as distinct from the Palestinian Israelis, who may be Christian or Muslim) may not regard their current position as particularly "comfortable". Limiting the time-depth of their examination (as has been done in one post above) can only lend support to a lack of understanding of the issues involved, which is used by reactionaries to justify the status quo.

While Alaska has been recently mentioned as a possible destination for Zionists, there were other places considered in the past; Kenya, the Kimberley (NW Australia) and SW Tasmania are three that come to mind. I think it no coincidence that all were, at the time, considered parts of the British Empire. And I can't recall anybody being taken seriously as Holocaust Deniers before the (very) anglosaxons started the process.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 08:33 AM

McGrath, I agree, but would just like to say that I perceive it as possible that a debate needn't always be about one point of view versus another.

Sure, all debates involve conflicting viewpoints and there is an element of competition that is inevitable, but the end goal of a debate needn't be that one view prevails intact at the expense of it's rival.

For example, a debate in parliament. paticularly, say, the european parliament, where there is less of a confrontational edge to what there is in the UK parliament.

Though in the UK it is fair to say that the process of debate is less about being stubbornly partisan and more about subjecting ideas to the type of ruthless scrutiny that serious debate necessitates.

Often the end result of debate in this context is that essential changes are made to policy, rather than that it simply wins or loses.

Of course the above scenario is idealised to a certain extent, but it serves to show the debating takes many forms including direct confrontation.

And if "revisionism" is about doctrines as much as it is about interpretation, then it is essential that a perverse doctrine not be allowed to dominate "the debate" generally simply as a consequence of the absence of an opposing doctrine, and the ruthless scrutiny that its advocate might offer.

Ruthless scrutiny rocks!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:49 AM

"Debate" implies opponents, with fixed positions squaring up to each other, with the expectation that one side is going to win and the other lose. It's a kind of game. It's perfectly possible to have a debate in which neither side is right.

"Discussion" implies an exploration of a topic in the hope of getting a clearer understanding of the truth.

Clearly anyone who denies that there was a sustained attempt by the Nazis at genocide of Jews and Roma, and mass killings of other categories of "undesirables" is not merely mistaken, but perversely mistaken. The right approach to that kind of thing is not to "debate with the deniers", but to present the evidence that disproves the assertion. The aim is not to convince the people making the assertions, but to make it harder for anyone to be taken in by them.

However that shouldn't mean that a particular account of what happened should be seen as set in marble, not open to review in the light of subsequent information. Nor should it mean that the way in which the Holocaust and accounts of the Holocaust have been used subsequently should be a no go area.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,Meg
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 08:45 PM

Ivor, you sound eager to debate, and "debate" is not what happens in relation to deniers. They have a closed opinion, and it is not given to you to open it. You say you wish not to show your hand, but as soon as they notice that you're a Jewish person, that will have happened.

I'm on your side in the argument, but I feel a though you're expecting to "win" something. If you don't look closely at the playing field of the "debate", you won't notice that there's no win possible, except to deny the deniers the attention that they crave. Engaging on their terms is to have lost what you wish to win.

Perhaps you're asking something about how to address the issue effectively?

Sincerely

Meg

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 08:59 AM

That last guest was me

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 08:58 AM

Here's what the dictionary says

blicky


Perhaps I'm not as ignorant as GregF suggests, since by his logic (as described in my earlier highlighted paradox), his own use of the word wouldbe redundant.

Leaving us with the definitions given at the above link.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 05:39 AM

Surely whether history and historical research are revisionist or not depends on whether or not an alteration in a standard view is involved.

   As I understand it, some history books are written simply to produce a freshly-written account of a (the?) standard view, the kind of stuff that 'revisionists' are revising.

   And we musn't forget that all history is written from a point of view (see E.H.Carr's What Is History?). Thus we get a conservative view of history, a socialist view, a conspiratorial view etc. ad nauseum.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 08:06 PM

Or we avoid using the term. Or maybe qualify it when we do use it. For example "unhistorical revisionism", "revisionism with a Nazi agenda", or "responsible revisionism" - terms like that.

There'd still be room for arguing about the terms, but I think there'd be less likelihood of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lox
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 07:19 PM

I'm going to go read up on grammer.

If that last post made sense, then alphabet judging pruriently sideways ... eleven!

Know what I mean?

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lox
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 07:15 PM

Though it strikes me that if the study of history is a constantly revisionist process by nature, then to describe any particular form of it as "revisionist" to the exclusion of another form is a fallacy ...

... Unless ...

... there is be a seperate meaning to this word, when used in the context of the study of history.

If we use it correctly, we are committing a fallacy as it is unnecessary, since all history research is revisionist. So if we use it at all we must be using it according to a different meaning.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 04:09 PM

In all those cases further historical research has led to fresh understandings, and controversy about fresh understandings, of what happened and why it happened, and the term "revisionist" has been thrown about as an insult.

The point is, there not one single revision, there's a continuing sequence of revisions, and they don't all go the same way.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 07:26 AM

and let's not forget about the Irish and the Scots.

the Irish famine and the highland clearences and Scottish Famine as well.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 06:31 AM

"The price of liberty etc.etc.,and vigilance isn't the
same as arguing at evry last opportunity. It sounds like
the opening of those archives that Dave (the ancient
mariner) introduced me to (can only speak for myself) will
be more nails in the deniers coffin."

Absolutely!!!

A few inconsistencies does not make the whole story a lie.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 05:56 AM

I am so grateful for a wonderful discussion (not an attempt
to end it,obviously).

   Whether to debate or not may depend on how dangerous the
deniers might look. I'm thinking of Gentleman's Agreement
(novel and film). Agentile journalist 'becomes' a Jew, and
notices
much anti-Jewish stuff. He later realises nthat by saying
nothing
when hearing such stuff, he is enabling it to survive. So
it's difficult to judge how best to proceed.

   Since opening this thread,I've realised the bleedin'
obvious point that asking my questions online is self-defeating insofar as a point of them is to surprise the deniers.

   The price of liberty etc.etc.,and vigilance isn't the
same as arguing at evry last opportunity. It sounds like
the opening of those archives that Dave (the ancient
mariner) introduced me to (can only speak for myself) will
be more nails in the deniers coffin.


   And the discussion has reminded me of one point about
history I hit on this year. Always wonder what they're
talking about whenever you hear (or read) anyone ask what
the verdict of history will be. As McGrath of Harlow implies,
such a question is close to void of meaning.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lox
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:50 PM

3refs

"Is it important, for me as an individual, to know the truth as best as it can be told? Yes!"

Nice post - I agree.

To add to that, perhaps a better way of looking at the situation is to talk about the "discussion" or "search" for the truth as a wide field of study that includes many conflicting points of view on many topics within the overall subject area of the holocaust.

Sharing information and increasing understanding and knowledge is all part of this process, and at times someone will raise their head and say "it's a lie it never happened."

If the discussion is already out there and keeping itself in the limelight, through the efforts of people such as us on forums such as this and wider, then the deniers will quckly look out of depth to those who are keeping track of it.

Debates about the detail should be encouraged as much as possible to highlight just what a bunch of outlandish loonies the deniers are when they try to butt in.

Azizi and Wilfried for example in the "growing up in post holocaust Germany" thread have given our souls but a taste of great riches.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 03:13 PM

"Their Jew hating rhetoric has calmed down a bit. Instead of calling for the death of all Jews in Isreal they actually suggested moving Isreal to Alaska. (yes they actually said that)" Donuel

They'd be welcome- they would make Alaska bloom.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:53 PM

Good post, 3refs.

The danger here is in establishing any history as sacred, unquestionable truth. If any of the traditional facts about the Holocaust, ie the 6 million figure, is found to be innaccurate, does that jeopardize the entire truth of what happened? I think not. Let's suppose that this figure is wrong by a factor of 1 million, and that the proof is apparent and substantial. Would a Holocaust Defender be better served by sticking to the 6 million figure and denouncing the challenger as a liar, or by admitting the fact and moving on to more undeniable truths? The first argument would in fact lend credence to all other challenges, no matter how absurd.

I also share some of your reluctance to even make this argument in the forum. By saying that the Holocaust should be open to re-examination in the light of 60 years having passed, am I likely to be lumped into the freak fringe of Deniers? I certainly hope not. I just would hope that anyone defending the Holocaust as a real event is armed with factual information to support his point of view, and enough information to refute the other side. The tendency toward anger, indignation, and insult when confronted with arguments that re-define or deny the Holocaust, no matter one's personal opinion of his opponent, is in my view extremely counter-productive. And there is a huge difference between someone who disagrees with certain accepted facts, and one who denys the entire event.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:07 PM

I AM NOT A DENIER!!!!

When I was a kid and played "Cowboys and Indians", somebody inevitably was "Billy The Kid"! Why? Because we were lead to believe, via books, movies and lore, that Billy was a "Wild West Legend" of epic proportions. It wasn't until many years later that I was made aware of more of the facts. "Billy The Kid" was more attuned to "Dirty Little Billy" and was certainly no hero to emulate!
If you had asked me 30 years ago what the Holocaust was, my answer would have been "that's when 6 million European Jews were executed by lethal gas in Germany by Hitler". 6 Million Jews, lethal gas and Germany have all been adjusted somewhat in the last 60 years. As I have learned, through immersing myself as much as possible since my first response to this thread, I now know that some of what I believed was true, while some was not. I have read Deborah Lipstadt, The Weber-Shermer Clash,Robert Faurisson and Simon Wiesenthal among others. My overall view has changed somewhat as to what I believed was fact and what I now know is fiction. If not for dialogue of some kind how would I have learned what I now know? Is it important, for me as an individual, to know the truth as best as it can be told? Yes!
Call me what you will, but a denier, no!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Scoville
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 10:24 AM

I always thought Holocaust deniers were irrational in the first place (at least, that seemed like about the only way somebody could deny the Holocaust and keep a straight face; if they were off-balance in the first place).

I don't know about a safe place, but I'm not sure I see the point. I agree with LH that they basically do it to hear themselves talk and get attention. Know your facts, but don't encourage them. They're squeaky wheels and the more they squeak, the more likely that somebody is going to hear them and latch onto their ideas even if you're arguing rationally against them at the same time.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 09:46 AM

The DENIERS are in good company. The Swiss banks that holds billions in jewish gold and diamonds taken by the Third Reich as well as lowly concentration camp guards, REFUSE to release the money.
Germany will not provide Swizerland with a complete list of the holocaust victims, so what are the poor Swill Banks to do?

it will continue to be a vicious circle until the last teetering 90 year old holocaust survivor dies, thus leaving the Swiss accounts free and clear.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:42 AM

"The truth is the Palestinians were knock-on victims of the Holocaust, rather like driver caught up in a motorway pileup, injured by a vehicle propelled into theirs by another vehicle. No point in denying the existence of the pile-up, and imagining that the primary responsibility for the crash was the person driving the car that actually crashed into theirs."

Disagree, the Palestinians have always been the victims of a complete and utter lack of Palestinian leadership.

The creation of the State of Israel has got absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. Friction between Jew and Arab in Palestine was deliberately orchestrated by the lies of Yasser Arafat's Uncle during the 1920' and 1930's during the period of Britain's League of Nations Mandate.

Palestinian Arab leadership rejected every proposal laid before them. In 1947/48 when the British Mandate expired, the UN proposed a settlement which the Arabs again rejected. The armed forces of the Arab League attacked the Jews in Palestine, the Jews successfully defended themselves and THEN declared the State of Israel, which was immediately recognised by the United Nations.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 07:07 PM

There's a distinction between debating with people, and addressing false claims and correcting misinformation.

It's possible to do the latter without even acknowledgeing the existance of a person who may have made the false claims and peddled the misinformation.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 06:41 PM

Dave (mariner)

Great post, very interesting.


GregF

Maybe not debate them, but expose their lies to the wider jury ie the rest of the world and, more importantly, future generations.

You still have to argue and prove your case, whether in court or on the floor of a debating chamber.

In this case it's a kind of historical and political truth court.


Little hawk,

I think you've been a bit hasty.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 05:33 PM

Debating with deniers is a good thing to do if you want to waste enormous amounts of your personal time and energy for the sake of appeasing your own flaming ego...which is what the deniers are doing too.

It's a behavioral addiction. It's as easy to do it as it is to fall off a tightrope too, specially if you post on an internet forum like this one on a daily basis.

There should be a 12-step program out there to save people from this useless habit.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: KateG
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 04:36 PM

"The truth is the Palestinians were knock-on victims of the Holocaust, rather like driver caught up in a motorway pileup, injured by a vehicle propelled into theirs by another vehicle. No point in denying the existence of the pile-up, and imagining that the primary responsibility for the crash was the person driving the car that actually crashed into theirs. "

McGrath, that's a excellent analogy.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 03:48 PM

Well, I don't think you oppose a point of view by immediately denouncing your opponents as liars.

You do if their "point of view"[sic] is in reality nothing but a tissue of lies & propaganda.

Engaging them in debate- a supposedly rational, fact-based discussion- is absolutely pointless.

As said elsewhere by others it merely legitimizes their lies.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 02:28 PM

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/fi_fset.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143&ArticleId=44&MediaId=183