rusty..I just new someone was going to pull the whole "interpret history" angle...
so rusty here is your big chance... why don't you do me a favour and interpret 2000000 people dying in concentration camps in another way.
any interpretation will do...
hmmm... a bit stuck are we?
well that might be because 2 million dead is 2 million dead is 2 million dead.
Jail for not believing holocaust
Forum rules
Please read the discussion section rules before posting in here. By posting in this section, you acknowledge to have read and understood them, and agree to abide by them at all times.
Of course, the global forum rules apply here too.
NOTE: posts in this section are not counted towards your total.
Please read the discussion section rules before posting in here. By posting in this section, you acknowledge to have read and understood them, and agree to abide by them at all times.
Of course, the global forum rules apply here too.
NOTE: posts in this section are not counted towards your total.
Hmm I don't think the issue here is truly if it happened or not - I think most sane people (for once i will include the puppi 
) will believe or have been in some way part of the horrors in Germany.
I think that the problem is the fact that if you disagree with something from history/life/the universe you will get punish that severely. To use an example (and yes, maby there was that kinda useless law in Austria) - I could say that the KKK did only good....
A Question.. could what he said be seen as hate speech?
) will believe or have been in some way part of the horrors in Germany.I think that the problem is the fact that if you disagree with something from history/life/the universe you will get punish that severely. To use an example (and yes, maby there was that kinda useless law in Austria) - I could say that the KKK did only good....
A Question.. could what he said be seen as hate speech?
"Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
-
GreyWolf
- Registered User
- Posts: 4754
- Joined: 06 Aug 2003, 02:00
- Processor: PHENOM II 945
- Motherboard: Asus M4A78
- Graphics card: HIS ICEQ 4850 1GB
- Memory: 4GB CORSAIR XMS II 1066
- Location: , location, location!
ok...so he disagrees. Now why is he disagreeing? To me the only reason he could be doing this is cos he is one of Hitlers long lost death robots.
No sane person could go around saying things like that.
so! he belongs in prison becuase he is probably insane and genocidal.
btw... comparing this to that mohammed cartoon is comparing apples to oranges. That was a satirical cartoon, this guy is being serious.
ps...who you callin puppi?
No sane person could go around saying things like that.
so! he belongs in prison becuase he is probably insane and genocidal.
btw... comparing this to that mohammed cartoon is comparing apples to oranges. That was a satirical cartoon, this guy is being serious.
ps...who you callin puppi?
Last edited by GreyWolf on 21 Feb 2006, 18:41, edited 1 time in total.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist that black flag, and begin slitting throats."
- H. L. Mancken
- H. L. Mancken
As serious as the Creationists or the Big Bang theorists or the Dinosaur Man or the Evolutionists?
btw... apples and oranges are fruit.. close enough?
btw... apples and oranges are fruit.. close enough?
"Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
-
GreyWolf
- Registered User
- Posts: 4754
- Joined: 06 Aug 2003, 02:00
- Processor: PHENOM II 945
- Motherboard: Asus M4A78
- Graphics card: HIS ICEQ 4850 1GB
- Memory: 4GB CORSAIR XMS II 1066
- Location: , location, location!
come on jee..you have to see the fundemental difference here... creationists and evolutionists... its all theoretical. The holocaust actually hapened.
suppose we don't punish people for denying it? then one day in the future a lot of people will accept that it didn't. the world will have forgotten an important lesson.
suppose we don't punish people for denying it? then one day in the future a lot of people will accept that it didn't. the world will have forgotten an important lesson.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist that black flag, and begin slitting throats."
- H. L. Mancken
- H. L. Mancken
I don't think that will ever be possible. Neither do you, or so many of us that were touched directly and indirectly by the atrocities.GreyWolf wrote: then one day in the future a lot of people will accept that it didn't. the world will have forgotten an important lesson.
It does not matter if it is just a theoretical debate (well, the debaters on each side can prove that what they say happened...). It is a case of principle.
Oh Capanno_Del_Kimakigami, go play in the Hovand thread and leave intelligent debating to us adults
Its about the law and the punishment..."Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
Thanx for insulting my intelligence. I cant help losing respect for you jee.
I would expect that people here would argue about 'stuff worth arguing about'. You guys easily say hey, this is my oppinion. Now this guy comes and presents his, and you freak out and bash him. Dont tell me what he did was illegal. You are arguing about the fact that he SAID it.
I would expect that people here would argue about 'stuff worth arguing about'. You guys easily say hey, this is my oppinion. Now this guy comes and presents his, and you freak out and bash him. Dont tell me what he did was illegal. You are arguing about the fact that he SAID it.
Josh Dies is my hero! |50,000,601.375 forum points
-
GreyWolf
- Registered User
- Posts: 4754
- Joined: 06 Aug 2003, 02:00
- Processor: PHENOM II 945
- Motherboard: Asus M4A78
- Graphics card: HIS ICEQ 4850 1GB
- Memory: 4GB CORSAIR XMS II 1066
- Location: , location, location!
capanno... picture the scenario 2 thousand years ago...
jesus comes along and performs some miracles. then a couple of years later, some moron decides:
"hey you know what? jesus didn't do jack!"
pretty soon people start repeating what he said and believing it. fast foreward a few centuries, and you have capanno having arguments with kronos, and a lot of people in between, not knowing what the truth actually is.
do you get my point?
jesus comes along and performs some miracles. then a couple of years later, some moron decides:
"hey you know what? jesus didn't do jack!"
pretty soon people start repeating what he said and believing it. fast foreward a few centuries, and you have capanno having arguments with kronos, and a lot of people in between, not knowing what the truth actually is.
do you get my point?
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist that black flag, and begin slitting throats."
- H. L. Mancken
- H. L. Mancken
ohhh religion comes into it now... hehe..waits for the fun to begin.GreyWolf wrote:capanno... picture the scenario 2 thousand years ago...
jesus comes along and performs some miracles. then a couple of years later, some moron decides:
"hey you know what? jesus didn't do jack!"
pretty soon people start repeating what he said and believing it. fast foreward a few centuries, and you have capanno having arguments with kronos, and a lot of people in between, not knowing what the truth actually is.
do you get my point?
You could put that 2 ways, jesus could of done jack all and people might of said he did.
no raabi, nothing to do with religion. GW just used an analogy that would be understood in the same vein as in this thread.
"Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
read the rest of my post.jee wrote:no raabi, nothing to do with religion. GW just used an analogy that would be understood in the same vein as in this thread.
and when bringing up jesus etc it does have something to do with religion.. note i said religion comes into this now. I didnt say it was the main point but it did infact come into this debate.
We supposedly live in a moral society, a society that has values and absolutes, or so civilised people would like to believe. History teaches us the past, proven history is fact, it happened. From this fact we are supposed to draw conclusions, look at the bad, take heed and we should then attempt not to repeat it again. This admittedly does not always happen, WWI and WWII is an example.
Now the Germans, Polish and Austrians do not have "Nicht Wieder" written above the concentration camps because they had spare steel lying around, they put it up as a reminder of how low a nation, a people, any nation, any people can sink. Would the holocaust have happened if the Nazi Party was not in power, I think it would have. The timing, the circumstance and the poverty were in the correct mix, the Nazi’s proved a willing catalyst. So ashamed were these nations that they introduced a law in an attempt to win back some of the prestige they once enjoyed, they were embarrassed, just as the older generation there still are.
Now as the new "freedom" generation is upon us, the "know it all" young pioneers of this universe, all of a sudden I, if I want to call you a moron or worse, must be allowed to do so, no matter the hurt, embarrassment and just plain degradation it may cause. I draw the line, what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Freedom of speech, the freedom of the media; are all fine concepts when applied against rule. If they are not, they become no more than tools in the hands of anarchists.
We have seen how whores have become sex workers abortionists are suddenly angels of mercy, terrorists become struggle heroes and politicians, why? Because we have no absolutes any more.
Fools like David Irvine are now suddenly to be forgiven for the hell and hurt that his denial beliefs caused, his so called repentance was no more than a ploy to prevent a jail sentence, "I am shocked" he said, no more shocked than the tattooed survivors of the Camps. Why should he be allowed to get away with the thrown down gauntlet to the Austrian Government, because of freedom of speech, I believe not. It is not the tail that wags the dog; he was wrong, is wrong and must pay the penalty like I would have to do if I denied that my brother committed murder, knowing full well that he did.
Now the Germans, Polish and Austrians do not have "Nicht Wieder" written above the concentration camps because they had spare steel lying around, they put it up as a reminder of how low a nation, a people, any nation, any people can sink. Would the holocaust have happened if the Nazi Party was not in power, I think it would have. The timing, the circumstance and the poverty were in the correct mix, the Nazi’s proved a willing catalyst. So ashamed were these nations that they introduced a law in an attempt to win back some of the prestige they once enjoyed, they were embarrassed, just as the older generation there still are.
Now as the new "freedom" generation is upon us, the "know it all" young pioneers of this universe, all of a sudden I, if I want to call you a moron or worse, must be allowed to do so, no matter the hurt, embarrassment and just plain degradation it may cause. I draw the line, what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Freedom of speech, the freedom of the media; are all fine concepts when applied against rule. If they are not, they become no more than tools in the hands of anarchists.
We have seen how whores have become sex workers abortionists are suddenly angels of mercy, terrorists become struggle heroes and politicians, why? Because we have no absolutes any more.
Fools like David Irvine are now suddenly to be forgiven for the hell and hurt that his denial beliefs caused, his so called repentance was no more than a ploy to prevent a jail sentence, "I am shocked" he said, no more shocked than the tattooed survivors of the Camps. Why should he be allowed to get away with the thrown down gauntlet to the Austrian Government, because of freedom of speech, I believe not. It is not the tail that wags the dog; he was wrong, is wrong and must pay the penalty like I would have to do if I denied that my brother committed murder, knowing full well that he did.
Mmmmm, I'm in two minds about this.
David Irving already admitted he was wrong in saying that Auschwitz had no gas-chambers:
He admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. He said this is what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.
"I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court.
"The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."
On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.
"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."
Source: BBC
Even though it's illegal to deny the Holocaust ocurred, I'm wondering if it's right to jail someone for an opinion expressed almost 15 years before - especially when that same person has since apparently changed their viewpoint.
Hmmmm...not as easy to judge this one as I had originally thought.
David Irving already admitted he was wrong in saying that Auschwitz had no gas-chambers:
He admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. He said this is what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.
"I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court.
"The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."
On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.
"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."
Source: BBC
Even though it's illegal to deny the Holocaust ocurred, I'm wondering if it's right to jail someone for an opinion expressed almost 15 years before - especially when that same person has since apparently changed their viewpoint.
Hmmmm...not as easy to judge this one as I had originally thought.
-
rustypup
- Registered User
- Posts: 8872
- Joined: 13 Dec 2004, 02:00
- Location: nullus pixius demonica
- Contact:
sheesh... my point is not arguing support for this less than pleasant individual... it's about the whole "lock him up for saying something we don't like.." bit...GreyWolf wrote:so rusty here is your big chance... why don't you do me a favour and interpret 2000000 people dying in concentration camps in another way.
the case being argued is whether he should be locked up for speaking tripe?.... imagine where that would leave us ?
if he chooses to make public his interpretation of the events we must assume that this is what he believes to be true. if that's the case, you would employ your own reasoning skills to decide whether or not you would subscribe to his POV....
Taking into consideration that up till this point it has been illegal to do so in Austria, the country *must* be brimfull of people capable of publicly calling him to question over the validity of his statements. do you see this?... if he gets to say it wasn't so, we get to say it was... what's so complicated about this? it is encumbant on those who say it was so to retain and perpetuate the truth....
having actual legislation and laws in place to incarcerate people for voicing their delusions has got to be questioned... 8O
frankly, I am confused as to how this issue remains clouded in reactionary arguments... first off... scrub the actual case under discussion and ask yourself whether you *willingly* accept that your thoughts need to be curtailed by law, to prevent the memetic seeding of your fellow man and the eventual destruction of earth.. hey... it must be pretty dangerous having an independant thought, so your imprisonment is only for the good of mankind as a whole... right?
Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so - Bertrand Russel
-
GreyWolf
- Registered User
- Posts: 4754
- Joined: 06 Aug 2003, 02:00
- Processor: PHENOM II 945
- Motherboard: Asus M4A78
- Graphics card: HIS ICEQ 4850 1GB
- Memory: 4GB CORSAIR XMS II 1066
- Location: , location, location!
around in circles we go...
he is not saying "something we don't like", this is guy is plain denying the truth. He is jailed because the truth he is denying is monumentaly important in the history of mankind.
I realise you are a proponent of free speach, so am I, but every case is unique, none more so than this one. how would you feel about people suddenly saying that apatheid never happened?
he is not saying "something we don't like", this is guy is plain denying the truth. He is jailed because the truth he is denying is monumentaly important in the history of mankind.
I realise you are a proponent of free speach, so am I, but every case is unique, none more so than this one. how would you feel about people suddenly saying that apatheid never happened?
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist that black flag, and begin slitting throats."
- H. L. Mancken
- H. L. Mancken
-
rustypup
- Registered User
- Posts: 8872
- Joined: 13 Dec 2004, 02:00
- Location: nullus pixius demonica
- Contact:
i personally might get riled and refer to them in an unsanitary manner...GreyWolf wrote:how would you feel about people suddenly saying that apatheid never happened?
but I would be horrified if they were sent to prison for saying it... they may be deluded, uninformed or even out to make some sort of name for themselves... but when there is a wealth of evidence which lends credence to the historical event, the likliehood of them garnering any support is minimal at most..
go ahead and lambast them in public, call them whatever you will, (although in this country there is a limit to what you can call them), but you don't lock them up for it... or would you?
Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so - Bertrand Russel
Indeed, freedom of speech entails saying what one believes, and it that clashes with what other persons believe, so be it.GreyWolf wrote:around in circles we go...
he is not saying "something we don't like", this is guy is plain denying the truth. He is jailed because the truth he is denying is monumentaly important in the history of mankind.
I realise you are a proponent of free speach, so am I, but every case is unique, none more so than this one. how would you feel about people suddenly saying that apatheid never happened?
This is not about free speech. This man made damaging and inflamatory statements about something very sensitive to millions of people. He is also potentially hurting history as we know it due to the fact that many deranged people will believe what he says. The world cannot suffer another atrocity like the holocaust but thanks to morons like this one it might be possible.
Also, if you know that there is a law prohibiting such statements then why make them? He is getting what he asked for.
"He's got a big gold ring which says Jesus Saves
and it's dented from the punch thrown at work that day"
and it's dented from the punch thrown at work that day"
I don't know much about all of this, but I went back to a post by Lance. He pointed out that this guy broke the law. You guys are just going back and forth here. (eg) If you are caught smuggling drugs into Bali..you face the a death sentence. Most people know that, but some do it anyway. so this guy said some things that offended others, Does he deserve to be put in jail for his opinion or beliefs....i don't think so. I would think he's a nutter, just as i would think the same of someone who said apartheid never happened, but the fact is that if he actually had a warrant out for his arrest for breaking a law that they have in Austria then he should not have gone there. Those are their laws. Stupid to some, maybe, but very important to others.
Should only this part of history be protected thus or should the law be expanded to cover all points in history where genocide or gross human rights violations occurred?
If yes then from whose perspective should this undisputable version of history be told?
for example, should the natives of both north and south America be allowed to instate a law that jails anyone who disputes what their historical records say happened when these continents where first colonised. How about if Muslim countries put you in jail if you do not agree with their historical records of the crusades? Or maybe the Zulus should petition to have the battle of Blood River recorded from their perspective only (as a mass slaughter) as apposed to the Afrikaners perspective (a triumph over seemingly insurmountable odds). The problem with this law is that it allows almost every nation in history to be a victim.
If yes then from whose perspective should this undisputable version of history be told?
for example, should the natives of both north and south America be allowed to instate a law that jails anyone who disputes what their historical records say happened when these continents where first colonised. How about if Muslim countries put you in jail if you do not agree with their historical records of the crusades? Or maybe the Zulus should petition to have the battle of Blood River recorded from their perspective only (as a mass slaughter) as apposed to the Afrikaners perspective (a triumph over seemingly insurmountable odds). The problem with this law is that it allows almost every nation in history to be a victim.
I'm with Rustipup on this ... I cannot believe this discussion has lasted so long and become so "controversial". I honestly believe that personal emotions have clouded some very valid points made on both sides. And the key to debating something is to take emotion OUT of the debate AND be willing to see both sides .. else it turns into a mud slinging contest. Let's state the facts:
1. This gentleman broke a law and if that law carries a jail sentence, then he has received what is his due under Austrian law.
2. Yes, the Holocaust DID happen, no one is denying that. And YES, it was horrific etc.
3. Yes, there is a saying that history belongs to the victor. In other words, history is "story and/or facts" told from the winning side's perspective. Is that TRUE ??? I don't know! But does it make sense ... Yes. Does this "idea" mean that the Holocaust did not take place? HELL NO! Again, the Holocaust was very real and tragic
4. Is this guy an idiot for claiming that the Holocaust did not take place? MOST DEFINATELY. Do you have a right to not like him because of it. OF COURSE
OK, so where did things go pear-shaped (another fruit reference!):
1. Should we expect every person travelling abroad to know every law of the country they are travelling to? NOT AT ALL. We should expect them to abide by "basic laws" i.e. the laws from their own country. Granted, if you're going to say something controversial, I guess you should find out whether it is legal or not. But we've agreed that the guy is an idiot and did not think about this before he made the statement.
2. Are we allowed to question the validity of a law that removes a person's right to express his view and opinion, regardless of how stupid, damaging etc? YES! And that's what's being done. NO one is questioning the stupidity of his comment, we are however (being part of a country that allows us to speak our mind without being prosecuted by criminal law) questioning the validity of a law (by comparison to our laws) that removes free speech (again, regardless of how damaging it can be). Remember Galileo being burned at the stake for his views only for them to be proven true YEARS later? AGAIN, this does not mean the non-existence of the HOLOCAUST will be proven to be true ... We all agree that it did happen and no-one can change that part of history.
**EDIT: The point to maybe consider ... is that he should probably be charged in a civil lawsuit and punished (if found guilty), but not a criminal one **
3. The views of some of the posters (and mine) have merely been that, in our view, we are moving backwards against the some of the footprints of democracy (free speech and thought) when we reach the level where we jail people for expressing their ideas. It's kinda like the state forcing a specific religion upon you and you will be killed if you practice any other religion. We would all be up in arms about that, yet, we are OK with this man's right to free speech and thought being taken away.
4. Again, he is an IDIOT and yes, he broke a law. But we question whether certain ideals, beliefs and/or morals should be upheld by a law that goes against something that a democratic society is usually very proud of i.e. free speech and thought.
Finally, let's use the religious example. Many people have claimed that Jesus never lived or that he was just an ordinary man, yet that has not changed the views of MILLIONS of Christians all over the world. This guy made a stupid statement, but MILLIONS of people (German, Russian, Jewish and others) will ensure that his views are drowned out by facts. In summary, common sense will always prevail in these types of situations. You don't need a court to enforce it. You shouddl merely feel sorry for a person who is/was as foolish as Mr Irvine.
Now, let's continue the debate focussing on the LAW in AUSTRIA and not the validity of the Holocaust or whether this dumbass is getting what he deserves. Emotion never adds to a good debate, it merely causes people with valid opinions to lose interest.
My 2c worth ...
beerman
1. This gentleman broke a law and if that law carries a jail sentence, then he has received what is his due under Austrian law.
2. Yes, the Holocaust DID happen, no one is denying that. And YES, it was horrific etc.
3. Yes, there is a saying that history belongs to the victor. In other words, history is "story and/or facts" told from the winning side's perspective. Is that TRUE ??? I don't know! But does it make sense ... Yes. Does this "idea" mean that the Holocaust did not take place? HELL NO! Again, the Holocaust was very real and tragic
4. Is this guy an idiot for claiming that the Holocaust did not take place? MOST DEFINATELY. Do you have a right to not like him because of it. OF COURSE
OK, so where did things go pear-shaped (another fruit reference!):
1. Should we expect every person travelling abroad to know every law of the country they are travelling to? NOT AT ALL. We should expect them to abide by "basic laws" i.e. the laws from their own country. Granted, if you're going to say something controversial, I guess you should find out whether it is legal or not. But we've agreed that the guy is an idiot and did not think about this before he made the statement.
2. Are we allowed to question the validity of a law that removes a person's right to express his view and opinion, regardless of how stupid, damaging etc? YES! And that's what's being done. NO one is questioning the stupidity of his comment, we are however (being part of a country that allows us to speak our mind without being prosecuted by criminal law) questioning the validity of a law (by comparison to our laws) that removes free speech (again, regardless of how damaging it can be). Remember Galileo being burned at the stake for his views only for them to be proven true YEARS later? AGAIN, this does not mean the non-existence of the HOLOCAUST will be proven to be true ... We all agree that it did happen and no-one can change that part of history.
**EDIT: The point to maybe consider ... is that he should probably be charged in a civil lawsuit and punished (if found guilty), but not a criminal one **
3. The views of some of the posters (and mine) have merely been that, in our view, we are moving backwards against the some of the footprints of democracy (free speech and thought) when we reach the level where we jail people for expressing their ideas. It's kinda like the state forcing a specific religion upon you and you will be killed if you practice any other religion. We would all be up in arms about that, yet, we are OK with this man's right to free speech and thought being taken away.
4. Again, he is an IDIOT and yes, he broke a law. But we question whether certain ideals, beliefs and/or morals should be upheld by a law that goes against something that a democratic society is usually very proud of i.e. free speech and thought.
Finally, let's use the religious example. Many people have claimed that Jesus never lived or that he was just an ordinary man, yet that has not changed the views of MILLIONS of Christians all over the world. This guy made a stupid statement, but MILLIONS of people (German, Russian, Jewish and others) will ensure that his views are drowned out by facts. In summary, common sense will always prevail in these types of situations. You don't need a court to enforce it. You shouddl merely feel sorry for a person who is/was as foolish as Mr Irvine.
Now, let's continue the debate focussing on the LAW in AUSTRIA and not the validity of the Holocaust or whether this dumbass is getting what he deserves. Emotion never adds to a good debate, it merely causes people with valid opinions to lose interest.
My 2c worth ...
beerman