Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 06 - 06:13 AM Stuff like "there is no written and signed command by Hitler" is really pretty insignificant either way. Neither is the question of precise numbers. The core fact, proven to the hilt, is that there was a sustained and policy of genocide of Jews, Roma and other people seen as undesirable by the Nazi state. That is the Holocaust, and Holocaust denial is about seeking to deny that. When the term is used in a much wider sense, to include any kind of speculation or investigation into the details of what happened and how it happened, that plays into the hands of Holocaust deniers. ............................ The evident self-defeating motive behind the Iran conference is apparently a belief that, if it is accepted the Holocaust happened, this somehow implies an acceptance of the way in which the state of Israel was established, and of the fate of the Palestinians. So Holocaust denial is seen as a way of challenging the right to exist of Israel. In reality it is the other way round. By linking the Palestinian cause to Holocaust denial the organisers weaken it. It implies accepting the logic by which the Holocaust justifies what happened to the Palestinians. 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. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 13 Dec 06 - 10:27 PM Not only is there living proof, there are meticulous detailed documents supporting evidence wcjich is available. The death register from the Mauthausen concentration camp contains rows of neatly printed names. The times of execution are each two minutes apart. The date is April 20, 1942 -- Adolf Hitler's 53rd birthday. "Every second minute there is another prisoner and this goes on for pages," says Udo Jost, an archivist at the International Tracing Service (ITS) which looks after the world's biggest collection of documents from World War Two. "They shot 300 prisoners for Hitler's birthday present: not just shot but then registered them by name." Millions of documents, like this register from the camp near Linz in Austria, sit in the cellars of a converted hotel in the central German town of Bad Arolsen, testament to the chillingly efficient bureaucracy of the Nazi regime. Some 17 million people are named in the documents -- those who were murdered, those who survived the concentration camps and then the millions who were forced to work on farms and in factories under Hitler's employment policies. The ITS, under the management of the International Committee of the Red Cross, has been administering the archive and answering queries for around 60 years. Until now, Germany had staunchly opposed opening the archive to a wider public. But under pressure from Holocaust groups, authorities said last month they would allow historians to use the archive, and also give a digital copy of the 47 million documents it contains to each of the 11 nations which oversee the work of the ITS. The 11-country board is to meet starting on Tuesday to alter the ITS' mandate, the first step in the process of unlocking the store. Changing the mandate requires unanimous approval. Much of the archive's material is highly sensitive. "Believe me," Jost says pointing to drawer after drawer of workers' documents in the basement of the ITS building, "there was no firm of any size which did not use slave laborers." Mind-numbing bureaucracy The racks of green movable shelves on the second floor of the archive look like those one might expect to find in a tax office or a library. The contents, gathered since the end of World War Two from archives across Germany, Russia and the former communist eastern European bloc, have never been seen by the public. A pink "imprisonment order" details how a Pole ended up in a concentration camp for his affair with a German woman; a sheaf of papers neatly typed by a Gestapo officer records a woman's protest at the sterilization of her mixed-race son, Gregor. The detail is often absurd. A lined page with neat handwriting tells how prisoners at the Gross-Rosen concentration camp in modern Poland, were obliged to search each other for lice. "Block 8, 14 January 1945, 784-strong. 37 lice found in 13 prisoners," the note reads, listing the affected inmates. "One laughs but in this case, this individual was recorded as having one louse on this day in this camp," Jost says, pointing to a name on the list. "At least we can confirm that on this day he was in Gross-Rosen and for that fact alone then he would have got 7,500 euros ($9,539) from the forced labor fund." The German government and industry started paying compensation to slave workers and other Holocaust survivors around five years ago. Not only does the archive contain information on concentration camps like Auschwitz and Belsen, as well as the fates of millions of Jews, Roma and other victims of Hitler's regime, it also contains lists of postwar displaced persons. Arthur Berger, an adviser at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, said this area had yet to be researched. "The basic outlines of history are not going to be changed by this," he told Reuters. "But it is the details, the human interest in these stories which is so important. There is a new richness that is added and that is something that was missing." Painstaking work Trucks full of paperwork arrived at the center from across the Allied zones after the war and a team of over 1,000 sifted through them to create a complex card register of all the names. Three rooms alone are stacked full of cardboard drawers, each containing hundreds of cards marked with name after name. Among these are former chancellors Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt, listed under his given name Herbert Frahm. Both men opposed Hitler. Archivists believe Bad Arolsen serves to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive. "Working here you get a different sense of this period in history and also of the responsibility which we have as the children born in the postwar period ... to keep memories alive of these people, these victims," 52-year-old Jost said. Decades after the end of the war, the requests for information continue to pour in. This has created a backlog at Bad Arolsen and added to the calls for the archive to be opened up to other organizations. "They are three years behind in giving answers," Berger said. "The survivors are elderly now and in their 80s and 90s and so they deserve answers quickly. "We owe a moral debt to the families and every country has to try to help them find out finally what happened to their relatives." |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Lonesome EJ Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:55 PM Pravda on the "Holocaust Myth" |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Lonesome EJ Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:32 PM McGrath said "The point is, people who deny the holocaust are liars, not real historians." Well, I don't think you oppose a point of view by immediately denouncing your opponents as liars. These people are very likely deluded, but they may fully believe what they're saying. There is in fact a body of work that supports the revisionist view of the Holocaust. A search online will reveal numerous references to the "holocaust Myth", including one from Pravda, the official Russian periodical. The crux of the revisionist argument boils down to the following, as far as I can tell: 1) The wholesale murder of Jews in German camps was never state policy, and there is no written and signed command by Hitler which states this. 2) It is true that Jews were unwanted in Germany, but the program was one of deportation, not slaughter, with many Jews being sent to the USSR, etc 3) The gas chambers were never used for execution. Zyklon B found in the camps was a standard pesticide used in the German Army for delousing. 4) The figure of 6 million deaths is grossly exaggerated. An example is shown with Auschwitz. Initial estimates of dead were in the 1-1 1/2 million at Aushwitz, but were later revised to 300-400,000, but without any corresponding adjustment in the total 6 million figure. On and on, and, well, you get the picture. My point is, these people are not just denying that anything happened. They are fairly specific, with points that I believe need to be addressed in argument. We can never assume that Truth can be defended by simply shouting "Lies!" We sometimes must do battle on the field of rational discussion. On CNN, Glen Beck said "the Iranian President is trying to figure out if the Holcaust happened? Here's a clue...rent Schindler's List." That kind of argument is idiotic. A movie can be many things, moving, transcendent, revelatory...but it isn't necessarily true. Watch "Triumph of the Will." |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:49 PM minor subconcious antisemites like Mel Gibson What's a SUBCONSCIOUS antisemite, please? For that matter, what's a semite? Thank you |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM Sorry, Sould have writen Wilfried Schaum. Please accept apologies |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:52 PM The land of ... erm ... snow? |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Donuel Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:50 PM Today in Tehran Iran, the only ambassador of the USA was David Duke. He shared the podium with President Amadijad. 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) Having lost innumerable aunts and uncles in the holocaust I share none of the antisemetic attitudes of these extremist whackos...or even the minor subconcious antisemites like Mel Gibson. HOWEVER I did say more than once that if it came down to a massive nuclear war or moving moving Isreal to South Carolina, I would be in favor of Fort Sumner guarding the port of New Haifa. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:49 PM And there is great importance attached to that kind of pursuit. In fact if you check out the "post holocaust Germany" thread, you will see that it is currently happening right under our very noses. And very grateful too we are to both Azizi and Peter Schaum I have no doubt. Please read 3refs post earlier, to which I had initially responded, to understand where my initial "false distinction" problem arose from. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:41 PM Those who say it didn't are, and have been known for a while as "the revisionists" And that is precisely what I see as dangerous. Because assimilating the terms "Holocaust denial" and "revisionism" plays into the hands of the Holocaust deniers. The danger is that every time some historical investigation throws up evidence that some aspect of the accepted narrative is wrong - even relatively minor details - this will be presented as somehow strengthening the case of the Holocaust deniers. The logic being that in this instance "revisionism" has been demonstrated to be correct - and "revisionism" has been identified as equivalent to Holocaust denial. Sorry if I annoy you with this, lox. I don't think the distinction I am making here is in fact pedantic. ...................................... One example of a situation where a kind of revisionism has been relevant is the one which has insisted that more attention be given to the genocide of Roma (gypsies) in the Holocaust. I remember talking to someone who had told me how, on a visit to a Holocaust memorial, he came across someone weeping with indignation at the fact that this genocide was mentioned alongside the Holocaust of Jews, because she felt that somehow this was an intrusion and an insult. The point is, there is scholarly history, and there is popular history, and sometimes the popular history fails to take into account aspects of the scholarly history - and the popular history is the one that can shape the world. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:29 PM Absolutely. Just look at Nick Griffen! Remember the BNP broadcast where he was standing next to the spitfire? The nervous ticks in his face? Not so much mountain goats as mounting goats. The BNP will never be a force in the UK as long as they remain a laughing stock. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,MarkS Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:19 PM You cannot debate the deniers because their entire point is to use a debate with you to further advance their ideas. A better strategy would be to meet them with Ridicule and Mockery. EG David Duke is saying these things in order to deflect attention to the fact that he molests mountain goats. (or something equally outrageous.) Etc Now it is he who is on the defensive, and he will never be able to advance a denier argument without putting a companion idea (accusation of mountain goat molestation) into the head of his audience members. These people will go away faster in the face of laughter then in the face of indignation. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:10 PM greg, So does that mean you agree with 3refs that we should debate the revisionists or not? Context is very important you know. Especially for a historian. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:05 PM I refer you to the post just before yours |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Greg F. Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:58 PM A revisionist historian is one who argues that the established view of history is wrong and that a different version is right. Simplistic, and absolutely wrong. Shows an absolute ignorance of historians and historiography. ALL history is 'revisionist' in the sense that points of view change as time advances and additional primary documentation continues to be made available. Question is, can the conclusions drawn be supported by believable evidence & historical fact. As has been stated elsewhere, you don't hear people complaining much about "revisionist dentistry". |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:54 PM In the faux holocaust "did it or didn't it happen" debate, their are two camps. Those who say it didn't are and have been known for a while as "the revisionists" Perhaps that is the distinction you wish to draw attention to, or would you rather assert your right to be a pedant despite the risk of becoming facetious. I Think you are sincere McGrath, but I think you are slightly irritated by me and you are quick to engage me sometimes on points that you otherwise might overlook. This side argument has already taken up too much of our time. Let's check out wolfgangs links and get our teeth stuck in where we can bite some really meaty chunks outof a few genuine arseholes |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:28 PM The Iran conference, of course, was designed to tweak America's nose. Israeli Jews are present (although that means little). A commission has been appointed to study the holocaust, but my guess is that it will die in the months to come. Almadinejad has somewhat moderated his statements; his latest- "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soom the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom." Aside from the rhetoric, the moderate Muslim press supports the existence of the holocaust. 'Al Jazeera' quotes German historians, who believe some 6 million were killed, quoting from original Nazi documents. http://english.aljazeera.net/News is a good source of Middle Eastern Muslim news and opinions. A poll currently running shows that 44% believe the Hezbollah will topple the Lebanon government. 53% believe Pakistan is equipping the Taliban. 65% believe that reforms by Turkey, aimed at EU membership, will continue. The polls may be unrepresentative, but they are not designed to lead to a desired answer (think Lou Dobbs, CNN). |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:07 PM The point is, people who deny the holocaust are liars, not real historians. The fact that enormous numbers of people were systematically murdered as a deliberate act of policy by the Nazi regime, and that Jews were a particular target selected in this process - that is not open to genuine question. And that is where Holocaust Denial fits in. But real historians do have to be open to the process of revising existing understandings of history to take account of information that was not previously available or was not taken into account. "Revisionism" is a reasonable label for this process. This means that holocaust deniers have a motive to try to disguise their lies as "revisionism", and they do this. This kind of thing has an effect of blurring the distinction between genuine historians who are honestly re-examining historical data and people such as holocaust deniers who have completely different motivations. "Revisionism" gets used as a dirty word for a dirty enterprise. However there is still a place for investigating the Holocaust - how it came about, what exactly happened, what were its consequences, and how has the narrative that emerged about it affected subsequent events. And all these are topics where a kind of "revisionism" can be appropriate - and it would be wrong to use that term as a way of excluding this kind of investigation. The same kinds of issues arise in relation to other historic crimes and disasters, which have rightly taken on a major role in the way descendants of survivors have interpreted the world and have acted, such as the Slave Trade or the Irish Famine. Basically, there is a revisionism that seeks to reveal the truth, and a revisionism that seeks to conceal the truth - and the distinction between these two matters. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:36 PM McGrath In fact, my point was in fact that a holocaust denier IS revising the established view and IS therefore revisionist. So unlike your example, there aren't two seperate entities to compare in the way that you have compared Lions and Hedgehogs. To use your way of looking at things, a better analogy would be to look for a distinction between Lions and Cats. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:24 PM in the context that they are all carnivores, yes. In the context of people who deny the holocaust, whether they are "revisionist" or "deniers", also yes. The deniers wear red underpants, the revisionists wear french negligee. That distinction is irrelevant. So your example above falsely portrays my logic and falsely defends 3refs |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:13 PM A carnivore is an animal who eats other animals. A lion is an animal who eats other animals. A hedgehog is an animal who eats other animals. Therefore the distinction between lions and hedgehogs is false. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:05 PM Depends wat you mean by a debate. Ideally, a debate is an intelligent and constructive exchange of arguments intended to establish a clearer understanding of an isue. Sometimes though, debating is about making your opponent look like a donkey. Anyone who insists on holding onto an untenable point of view in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, is asking for a bruising intellectually. Again, the point isn't to change their minds, but to convince neutral observers that deniers have no leg to stand on and that they and their weak position are laughable and not worthy of the space they occupy. Invite them onto the radio and assist them to make fools of themselves. It's all about who's listening. PS A revisionist historian is one who argues that the established view of history is wrong and that a different version is right. Someone who denies the holocaust is doing just that. The distinction is false. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 06 - 01:02 PM All history is largely a matter of revising previous history, as further information emerges or existing information gets examined in new ways. The suggestion that a final account of any historical event is possible, so that any fresh look at it is heretical is not compatible with the study of history. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: 3refs Date: 13 Dec 06 - 10:19 AM No, I guess you can't debate the deniers! Perhaps the revisionists? |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:55 AM Deja vu! |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: jacqui.c Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM Sorry - put the above post on the wrong thread - senior moment!!!! |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: jacqui.c Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM Kevin - unfortunately the Whitechapel Murders have become something that some people are enthusiastic about. Probably because they were never solved and were played up by the press of the day. Anyawy, there are gided tours of the area nowadays in addition to the regular rehashes by the press and the books and the films....... |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:23 AM Holocaust Denial The link list at the end of the article gives several sources. The Frank Miele link goes to a post at a website, where this discussion seems to be held sometimes. Wolfgang |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:19 AM As opposed to be being tried for the crime they have been accused of committing. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Teribus Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:30 AM Can't speak about elsewhere but Witches were not burned at the stake in England or in Scotland, they were tried for the crime they had committed and sentenced accordingly, normal sentence was death by hanging. Burning at the Stake was reserved only for heretics. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: autolycus Date: 13 Dec 06 - 03:09 AM 3refs - what is left? The answer is questions. I have at least one question, maybe two, that ought to give deniers a huge problem. While in no way wishing to compare, I leart a bit from the broadcasting of some Platonic dialogues by the Beeb (BBC) in the 60s. The beauty of Socrates' approach was to test to destruction the arguments of his students by questions. Mind you, his students are made to answer honestly and directly, not much like real people today. I quite agree,Wolfgang that if spectators learn summat, that would make it alll worthwhile. The evidence of the film Twelve Angry Men gives me hope in any discussion. Dealing with some people in real life does make me give up, too. I think I take it that no-one knows anywhere online where debating with deniers is available ? Ivor |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Peace Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM Game, set, match! |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Herga Kitty Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:20 PM Leadfingers - yeah, I thought it was about the thickness of tights too, when I saw the title thread, but then I opened the thread and realised it was about why I never knew my grandparents. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: bobad Date: 12 Dec 06 - 05:09 PM Well said lox. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:55 PM "Holocausts are not exclusive to the Jews." mmm hmmm "Is there anywhere on the planet, at any given time in our history, where man has not tryed to wipe out entire races or enslaved them?" mmmm hmmm All very interesting, but how does it help us to come to a conclusion about whether it is worth arguing with holocaust deniers? Are you saying that because these things are true that therefore we should not make a fuss when a nation/state sanctions a bogus investigation into whether the holocaust happened or not? We aren't talking about a playground prank here, we are talking about a politically significant statement of ideology. I am not a jew, but I am insulted by the crass nature of such a stunt since I am a human and it was a crime by humans against humans and serves as evidence of what we are capable of given the right brainwashing. What is your point? Why say what you said? Read the fucking question and the original post and try to give an intelligent answer and not just a "clever" one! And as for you "ignore them and they'll go away" advocates, I presume you are aware that that is precise;ly the attitude that allowed the original holocaust to happen. What about young angry muslims in Indonesia, Pakistan, the UK, USA, North Africa, Central Asia from Chechnya through to China etc etc etc ... Intelligent, and subject to persuasion (just like young people everywhere). If they here only one side of the debate, what point of view do you think they are likely to form. Now I don't believe in Panic and this information doesn't inspire it in me. What does freak me out is the glib, smug, dissociated, arrogant and offhand way that people are willing to accept emanations such as that one from Iran. If you don't care then fine, but if your response is "bloody whinging Jews complaining again" then you need to buck your ideas up pronto. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:47 PM Thousands died in front of our eyes English translation of an interview with an Auschwitz survivor (more interviews with eye witnesses in the links at the end of this interview) You should realise that you can't debate and win with the deniers. They have responses to each document or argument. They are (what in science is called) paradoxers. Whatever for you is proof isn't for them. They do not debate the way you are used to debate, so you will only be frustrated, unless... ...you realise that those who listen to such a debate are your target group. Those who want to be convinced before believing what they have learned. Those who have made the experience that sometimes they have not been told the truth. Those who rather believe the minority. In your debates with deniers these basically good people are the group you are really talking to. The deniers will not be convinced by any argument. But if you convince only 10% of those who listen to the debate you have done a great job. Wolfgang |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: 3refs Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:15 PM "I don't want to show my hand in advance, but I have the start of an approach where I won't be offering facts, evidence or logical argument." Well if your going to offer up yourself, you might want to think about what happened to the guy who tried it a couple of thousand years ago.(arrh) If you aren't going to offer up proof, what is left, Faith? I think all you could debate is the number of lives that were taken, and we'll never really know the extent of any of history's genocides. Is there anywhere on the planet, at any given time in our history, where man has not tryed to wipe out entire races or enslaved them? The question shouldn't be "if" it happened it should be "why" it happened! |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST Date: 12 Dec 06 - 01:19 PM No point debating with 10 deniers. One cross word and they ladder up to your knickers. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: autolycus Date: 12 Dec 06 - 12:53 PM I appreciate your first responses,and,as a Jew,I quite agree with 3refs that there have been other exx. of genocide,also too terrible. I still look forward to hearing from anyone who can answer my question about where it might be possible to have the debate safely. I don't want to show my hand in advance, but I have the start of an approach where I won't be offering facts,evidence or logical argument. Ivor |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: 3refs Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:38 AM "Knowledge is like anything else. It decays and dies unless it is nurtured." The burning of Witches gradually dissipated during the Age of Enlightenment, as people began to question the reality of many long-held religious beliefs. Estimates on the number of victims range from 3,000 (from a Roman Catholic source) to 9,000,000. Christian invaders systematically murdered tens of millions of Aboriginal people, from the Canadian Arctic to South America. The exact number is unknown. Natives were murdered by warfare, forced death marches, forced relocation to barren lands, intentional and accidental spread of disease, poisoning, the promotion of suicide through the destruction of their cultural and religious heritage, etc. Even today, Canadian Natives have the highest suicide of any population group in the world. Let's not forget the Aboriginals of Australia, or the Congolese, or the Hereros(Animists)or the Armenians or the Russians! Holocausts are not exclusive to the Jews. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:00 AM I listened to an interview on CBC with a gentleman in my home town who survived Auschwitz; who previously had never made it public knowledge that he was a survivor of the concentration camp. One of his customers was talking to him about his daughters school running a project on WW2. When he mentioned he was at Auschwitz, the customer persuaded him to talk to her class, he reluctantly did; something which for him raised so many memories of pain and suffering he never wants to do it again. He reluctantly gave the short interview to CBC to explain why he does not care to recall his experiences. Living proof, but what a hell of a way to live, non of his family survived, only him, and he wonders why every day of his life. I read the letters and reports of so called Doctors Finke and Rascher at Dachau who conducted the most horrific experiments on live human beings. There is a duty to debate with deniers everywhere, Lest We Forget and are forced to relive this history. Yours, Aye. Dave |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Leadfingers Date: 12 Dec 06 - 06:21 AM And I thought this was about Tights and the thickness thereof ! |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Paul Burke Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:18 AM The Iranian fundies are being provocative, and they are succeeding in provoking. Give the whole thing the attention it deserves. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:07 PM It depends how much patience you have, I guess... |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Mr Happy Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denier_%28measure%29 |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Adrianel Date: 11 Dec 06 - 08:47 PM These people have FAITH, and no amount of (logical) argument or evidence will convince them to change their minds. In the same way, I've found it useless to try to argue religion with someone who has FAITH. Because of the FAITH, they know they are right, and will not be swayed. As Chesterton (?) said of the two women having a discussion across the street, each from her own front door, "They're arguing from different premises, they'll never agree". |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: GUEST,lox Date: 11 Dec 06 - 03:34 PM A private debate is of course a waste of time, but making it public certainly isn't. Your target audience isn't those who have made up their minds one way or the other, but those who, through some travesty of education, are ignorant of the truth. The danger of the debate being repressed is that there are potentially more people who are ignorant of the truth, and therefore there are more people to recruit from. In a public forum like this one, it is therefore essential to explain yourself fully, carefully and politely, lest you alienate someone who might otherwise have been swayed by your argument. BBC world service, CNN etc have a responsibility to ensure that this information never dies. The big mistake is to take for granted peoples knowledge, understanding, understanding and agreement. The next mistake is to get upset when you are surprised to discover that you have made the first mistake. Knowledge is like anything else. It decays and dies unless it is nurtured. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:35 PM There is a dilemma here. On the one hand entering into a debate with people who deny that the holocaust took place can be taken as implying that the deniers have a case worth debating. On the other hand refusing to enter into a debate, and setting up laws against holocaust denial, can also be seen as implying that they have a case, which has to be suppressed, because it might win in a debate. A further complication enters into it, when the matter of the reality of the holocaust of Jews gets elided with other issues, such as the fate of other groups of victims and the question whether this is sometimes marginalised; and also the impact awareness of the holocaust continues to have on the way actions of Israel in relation to Palestine and on Palestinians have been interpreted. These are very different issues. Unlike the matter of the reality of the holocaust, there are genuine questions to be explored and debated. However it is evident that holocaust deniers are liable to seek to associate such questions with their own perverse enterprise, as a way of getting some credibility. And sometimes it seems that other people, who would sooner avoid these issues, prefer to see them associated with holocaust denial, as a way of avoiding them. |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:49 PM The deniers can't be argued with, since they start out with a predetermined conclusion, which they consider to overrule any factual data that may be given. No matter what facts you give them, they will take the position that you are deluded. Give it up. Dave Oesterreich |
Subject: RE: Debating with deniers From: autolycus Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:43 PM Sorry, forgot to prefix with BS - hopefully this'll soon go to the right place, I don't know how to do that. Ivor |
Share Thread: |