Holocaust denial vs. arresting Holocaust deniers

[Mischief]

David Irving(I've read his book, and he's far from a neo-nazi), Robert Faurisson, and Ernst Zundel. As far as I'm aware of, few people whom have been arrested are sympathetic towards Hitler or his actions.

Oh really?

re David Irving: The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism",[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

I could go on, but I think that you have established pretty well in other threads as well as this one that you have, at the least, a rather eccentric view of who constitutes a credible source.

 

[rainforests1]

Irving's material or an English court, which is more trustable? I think Irving had 5 children so I can't say I like him too much, but I'd trust his own sources over an English court(the New World Order) every single time.

 

[Mischief]

Irving's material or an English court, which is more trustable? I think Irving had 5 children so I can't say I like him too much, but I'd trust his own sources over an English court(the New World Order) every single time.

Thank you for once again confirming what I said in my previous post.

 

[rainforests1]

This must be mlp. I've never heard of governments arresting people who question other historical events such as the ethnic cleansing of 12-15 million Germans after World War 2(2 million dead) or the Indians being mostly wiped out(possibly 100 million deaths). Why would governments treat one historical event so much differently than others? I kind of expected governments in Western Europe to do this, but I'm surprised they do it in Eastern Europe. I thought they were better than this.

 

[das_nut]

Irving was a legitimate scholar at one time, and was considered a credible source about WWII.

Then he went off the deep end.

I don't know if he's an anti-Semite or not. Checking the Wikipedia page, he sure sounds like one.

But I don't think that questioning the holocaust, being an anti-Semite, or associating with Neo-Nazis (as long as they aren't engaging in illegal acts) should be a crime.

By drawing a curtain across the Holocaust and saying "you should not question this", we weaken the arguments for the Holocaust. There should be plenty of evidence to support the Holocaust and refute the deniers.

 

[rainforests1]

Irving was a legitimate scholar at one time, and was considered a credible source about WWII.

Then he went off the deep end.

He wasn't controversial in the beginning(much more liked), then was much more controversial(and hated). Could his views of history have most(or everything) to do with his reputation? It's very possible. This is where a debate comes in. If he's wrong, he'd be exposed in a debate. When the opposing side turns down debates, it's hard to debate.

 

[Kitties]

I believe the Salem witch trials happened and how many hundreds of years ago was that. I also don't think that we as humans are through with atrocities. And I guess, tying into the pacifist thread, is one of the reasons I don't retaliate against others. But that said I live in a relatively safe society and a safe apartment and I don't worry about the government breaking my door down.

 

[beancounter]

Mod Post
Please remember to avoid posting comments that do not contribute to the discussion.
Also, please do not "like" those kinds of post.

Etiquette Rule
2.Avoid posting “empty” or useless responses, such as ”lol” or ”cool.” Only post responses when you have something to contribute.

 

[ledboots]

Mod Post
Please remember to avoid posting comments that do not contribute to the discussion.
Also, please do not "like" those kinds of post.

Etiquette Rule
2.Avoid posting “empty” or useless responses, such as ”lol” or ”cool.” Only post responses when you have something to contribute.

I didn't see any of those kinds of responses, did I miss them?

 

[SummerRain]

I didn't see any of those kinds of responses, did I miss them?

Although the rules give one-word type examples, this also applies to responses that don't make/respond to any debatable points, or make any sort of argument. So something like "this thread is full of rubbish" or a response to a member that doesn't debate or argue, but just generally criticises them, count as pointless posts. The point really is to encourage proper debate and discussion in the debate forum, so the rules/etiquette is different to the rest of the forum where chatting/etc is fine (and encouraged!).

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think ledboots didn't see that a post was deleted.

 

[ledboots]

I think ledboots didn't see that a post was deleted.

Oh, thanks Blobbenstein, that explains it; I must have come in after it was deleted.

 

[sequoia]

Every holocaust denier I've met has been racist as hell. Throw them off a cliff for all I care.