Another try at defining "Holocaust Denier" Part II

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

Another try at defining "Holocaust Denier" Part II

#1

Post by Dan » 30 Nov 2003, 21:32

— Acknowledging the historical events, but saying that the victims "deserved" what happened to them constitutes "Holocaust Denial" because it is an affront to moral decency.

Having defined "Holocaust Denial" I leave it up to others to weigh the moral issues for themselves.
Isn't that somewhat arrogant? Voila! I have defenitively defined Holocaust Denial. Fiat definition!

So someone believes every word spoken by Lipstadt, but says the Jews hold a degree of culpability (I do not say I believe this) because of the large scale activity of ethnic Jews in the excesses of Communism, and the fear and vengence targets of these excesses bore them. Is that person a Holocaust Denier?

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
Location: Chicago
Contact:

#2

Post by R.M. Schultz » 01 Dec 2003, 05:25

Dan wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:Having defined "Holocaust Denial" I leave it up to others to weigh the moral issues for themselves.
Isn't that somewhat arrogant? Voila! I have defenitively defined Holocaust Denial. Fiat definition!
Again and again and again I have asked the crypto-fascists, Holocaust Deniers, and Hitler fans on this forum to help in defining Holocaust Denier only to have them sabotage my effort at every turn.

Dan — you have had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to help define Holocaust Denier and you have gone off on every tangent imaginable rather than deal with the issue at hand. For you to accuse me of trying to undertake this effort as a fiat is morally disingenuous — go suck eggs!


Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#3

Post by Caldric » 01 Dec 2003, 05:53

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Dan wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:Having defined "Holocaust Denial" I leave it up to others to weigh the moral issues for themselves.
Isn't that somewhat arrogant? Voila! I have defenitively defined Holocaust Denial. Fiat definition!
Again and again and again I have asked the crypto-fascists, Holocaust Deniers, and Hitler fans on this forum to help in defining Holocaust Denier only to have them sabotage my effort at every turn.

Dan — you have had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to help define Holocaust Denier and you have gone off on every tangent imaginable rather than deal with the issue at hand. For you to accuse me of trying to undertake this effort as a fiat is morally disingenuous — go suck eggs!
Why must it be defined? You have often showed your support of communism, but I do not see people looking to define you. I find crypto-communist to be as bad as crypto-fascist but I see no reason to start strife by defining it to my idea of what is right and wrong.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#4

Post by Dan » 01 Dec 2003, 10:20

Dan — you have had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to help define Holocaust Denier and you have gone off on every tangent imaginable rather than deal with the issue at hand. For you to accuse me of trying to undertake this effort as a fiat is morally disingenuous — go suck eggs!
OK, a Holocaust denier is

a) A term east coast elitist Jews use to smear people they don't like

b) A term liberal non-Jews use to make them feel morally superior to other people.

c) An over-reaction to the Holohoax industry (a la Tim Cole's thesis) that will die away once the myths surrounding what happened to the Jews during the second world war are stopped being shoved down our throats.

d) A straw grasped by desperate Arabs in their losing fight against an established Jewish State in what they regard as their part of the world.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#5

Post by Penn44 » 01 Dec 2003, 15:50

Dan wrote:
OK, a Holocaust denier is

a) A term east coast elitist Jews use to smear people they don't like
1. Please name me one of these "east coast elitist Jews," and please give me an example where they smeared someone they didn't like with "Holocaust Denier."
2. If I cut off one of these "east coast elitist Jews" in traffic, do you think they would get angry, and yell out their car window at me, "You Holocaust Denier you"?
3. Do you realize that your use of the phrase "east coast elitist Jews" sounds like you are suggesting that this group is dedicated to a "conspiracy" of some sorts?
4. Did you pickup the phrase, "east coast elitist Jews" from The Protocols of Zion?
5. Are west coast elitist Jews nicer than east coast elitist Jews?
6. Do non-elitist Jews ever use the term, "Holocaust Denier"?
7. Do you realize that your use of the term, "east coast elitist Jews" sounds extremely antisemitic?
Dan wrote: b) A term liberal non-Jews use to make them feel morally superior to other people.
1. Again, please give me a specific example of this.

2. NOTE: If someone denies the Holocaust, they are either woefully ignorant, psychologically unstable, immoral, or a combination of these. So, yes, the use of the term, Holocaust Denier could suggest that the person in question is morally questionable.
Dan wrote: c) An over-reaction to the Holohoax industry (a la Tim Cole's thesis) that will die away once the myths surrounding what happened to the Jews during the second world war are stopped being shoved down our throats.
1. Overreaction? So, you are saying that people should not get upset when someone denies that the Germans murdered several million people?

2. "Shoved down our throats." You do have control of your life, don't you? If you do not like hearing or reading about the Holocaust, simply close the book or magazine or turn the TV channel. You do not have to read or listen to the information. You have that choice.

.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#6

Post by Dan » 01 Dec 2003, 16:05

1. Please name me one of these "east coast elitist Jews," and please give me an example where they smeared someone they didn't like with "Holocaust Denier."


Anyone even moderately well read could name several of these people, but for the others, here are a few Abraham Foxman, Henry Kissinger, Robert Frum.

2. If I cut off one of these "east coast elitist Jews" in traffic, do you think they would get angry, and yell out their car window at me, "You Holocaust Denier you"?
No, you have to say thinks like the New Testament is the God's Word, or say that there weren't any homicidal gassings of Jews on German soil.

3. Do you realize that your use of the phrase "east coast elitist Jews" sounds like you are suggesting that this group is dedicated to a "conspiracy" of some sorts?
Well, one can't forever cater to the lowest common denominator.
4. Did you pickup the phrase, "east coast elitist Jews" from The Protocols of Zion?
Another book you haven't read.
5. Are west coast elitist Jews nicer than east coast elitist Jews?
They do less to antagonise conservative Christians
6. Do non-elitist Jews ever use the term, "Holocaust Denier"?
What is the highest level of math you had in school? I'll bet the average poster here understands something as simple as sets and subsets.

7. Do you realize that your use of the term, "east coast elitist Jews" sounds extremely antisemitic?
To them, yes. But as many have gone into print saying that the New Testament is antiSemetic, you just have to realize that the phrase coming from them is just like Holocaust Denier, i.e. a meaningless slander.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#7

Post by Dan » 01 Dec 2003, 16:07

Dan wrote:

b) A term liberal non-Jews use to make them feel morally superior to other people.


1. Again, please give me a specific example of this.
I cannot give a handy example and stay within the guidelines of this forum.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#8

Post by Dan » 01 Dec 2003, 16:10

2. "Shoved down our throats." You do have control of your life, don't you? If you do not like hearing or reading about the Holocaust, simply close the book or magazine or turn the TV channel. You do not have to read or listen to the information. You have that choice.


Didn't you forget taxes? How do I get out of funding Holocaust Memorials if I think it's unfair to give them lots of money while virtually ignoring the sufferings of others?

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#9

Post by Penn44 » 01 Dec 2003, 16:49

Dan:

When will you explain to me about these "myths" surrounding the Holocaust?


.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#10

Post by Dan » 01 Dec 2003, 16:57

I did, just now on another thread. Could you give it a look? But in the mean time, here's a nice story that Hilberg said is a lie, and naturally Disney paid for a 6 month option to make a movie about it.
By David Mehegan,
Globe Staff

T'S an amazing story. But then, it's often said, all Holocaust survivor stories are amazing.

It starts in autumn 1941. A Belgian Jewish girl, age 7, runs away from the family that took her in when her parents were arrested by the Germans. Determined to find her parents, she sets out on foot toward the east.

Over the next four years, she wanders through Germany, Poland, and Ukraine, turning south through Romania and the Balkans, hitching a boat to Italy, then walking back to Belgium via France.

For most of this time, the girl sleeps in forests and is, for weeks at a stretch, fed and protected by packs of friendly wolves. She joins bands of partisans, sneaks into and out of the Warsaw ghetto, witnesses the execution of children, kills a German soldier with a pocket knife, and finally has a happy reunion at war's end with her Belgian foster grandfather.

That's the story of Misha Levy Defonseca, 67, who today lives in Milford with her husband, two dogs, and 23 cats. Her book, ''Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years,'' was published in 1997 by tiny Mt. Ivy Press, owned by Jane Daniel of Gloucester.

The book drew high-profile endorsements by Leonard P. Zakim, late director of the New England Anti-Defamation League (''a scary must-read for anyone interested in the Holocaust''); journalist/historian Padraig O'Malley; and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel (''very moving'').

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#11

Post by Penn44 » 01 Dec 2003, 18:09

Dan:

Are you going to discount the Holocaust because of one story?

I can produce other false stories. Are you going to discount the Holocaust because of these as well?

Dan, I strongly suspect that you are holding back your real opinions about the Holocaust. I strongly encourage you to speak your mind about the Holocaust.

.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
Location: Chicago
Contact:

#12

Post by R.M. Schultz » 01 Dec 2003, 18:37

Caldric wrote:Why must it be defined?
Damn! Why didn't I think of that! If we don't define it then it just becomes a handy insult to fling about at people! Without definitions or proof we can wallow in a MyCarthyite orgy of mud-flinging and calumny! How much better that would be than scholarly discussion!

Wow! This is so much fun! Since I no longer have to define my terms I could call Caldric a Holocaust Denier since he disagrees with me! I could call Witness a Wife Beater (since I do know he has a wife)! I could call Scott Smith anything I want since he can't call me anything back! And I know for a fact that Penn 44 is a Bourgeois Deviant! (But don't ask me to define "deviation!") Wow, this is so cool! I haven't had so much fun since C. Udenz called me a paedophile!
Caldric wrote:You have often showed your support of communism, but I do not see people looking to define you. I find crypto-communist to be as bad as crypto-fascist but I see no reason to start strife by defining it to my idea of what is right and wrong.
There is no need to define my political stance since I have openly stated my views on many occasions. Just to re-cap, I am a follower of Oswald Spengler, a National Bolshevik. There is nothing "crypto" about my communism!

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#13

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 01 Dec 2003, 19:32

Since I no longer have to define my terms I could call Caldric a Holocaust Denier since he disagrees with me!
You have already done that. YOUR " definition of "Holocaust Denial/Denier" is couched in a such personal point of view, that it is not a definition that anyone but yourself can use. And you use it as a cudgel to beat people about the head who disagree with your point of view , excuse me, your defintion of Holocaust Denial.

Your reasoning on this whole topic of HD, is so circular and has so many mental blocks in it, it is amazing. I of course cannot debate on your terms and since anybody else's terms are "HD" to you , it is a waste of time. I only note all this, because there are surely many third parties interested
or reading this topic, they just don't want to wade though the muck created and get it stuck to them. I myself would love to see some new
insights on this issue but I believe you have scare people away with zealous single-mindedness. Look at how personal this "scholary topic" is , why has that occured? Should we start again ? Part 3? Round 3? 103?

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#14

Post by Caldric » 01 Dec 2003, 20:12

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Caldric wrote:Why must it be defined?
Damn! Why didn't I think of that! If we don't define it then it just becomes a handy insult to fling about at people! Without definitions or proof we can wallow in a MyCarthyite orgy of mud-flinging and calumny! How much better that would be than scholarly discussion!

Wow! This is so much fun! Since I no longer have to define my terms I could call Caldric a Holocaust Denier since he disagrees with me!
I do not see it as fun I see it driving away people who may have a different opinion on the subject than yourself. The question is simple, why must you start this crusade (which many see as arrogant) to define people into categories. Who cares? If they bring insightful and intelligent information to a discussion why do we care if they are even Bolsheviks? If they say "There was not holocaust it is all a sham" well then they show their ignorance and there is no need to continue discussing with them. But if they question the use of Gas Trucks and have reasonable information to discuss why try to shut them up? This was Roberto's biggest complaint, that to censor their ignorance is to give them credence. If you just keep labeling and banning then you make many doubt and some will think perhaps they were correct. Instead of facing the questions the questions are hidden behind rhetoric and arrogance. With the presumption to judge anyone that makes a comment that is not status quo or questions the status quo and label them is not sharing information.


There is no need to define my political stance since I have openly stated my views on many occasions. Just to re-cap, I am a follower of Oswald Spengler, a National Bolshevik. There is nothing "crypto" about my communism!
Then does that mean anyone who questions the Holocaust and the history of the holocaust is automatically a fascist? Perhaps there is nothing fascist about them either perhaps they just want to know the truth. With all of these fascist remarks running around one would think he was at Bolshevik Convention.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
Location: Chicago
Contact:

#15

Post by R.M. Schultz » 01 Dec 2003, 21:06

Caldric wrote:The question is simple, why must you start this crusade (which many see as arrogant) to define people into categories. Who cares?
Ultimately, I guess, we have three choices of what to do with the term "Holocaust Denier":

— Define it so that we can use it in a useful way.

— Not define it, so that we can use it as a handy epithet to throw at our enemies.

— Not define it, not use it, and pretend that no one denies the Holocaust.

Which of these three do you advocate?
Caldric wrote:If they say "There was not holocaust it is all a sham" well then they show their ignorance and there is no need to continue discussing with them. But if they question the use of Gas Trucks and have reasonable information to discuss why try to shut them up?
That was kind of the whole point in having a flexible definition that required multiple points of agreement. I concede that one might be able to disagree on the particulars of the Holocaust without denying it, though at some point such nit-picking slips over into outright denial.
Caldric wrote: …This was Roberto's biggest complaint, that to censor their ignorance is to give them credence. If you just keep labelling and banning then you make many doubt and some will think perhaps they were correct. Instead of facing the questions the questions are hidden behind rhetoric and arrogance. …
I miss Roberto as much as anyone and to a point I agree with him. I am against banning members for political reasons. Holocaust Denial, as such, should not be sufficient cause to ban a member, but consistent undermining of the discussion, incivility, and flaming unreasonableness probably should be cause for banning. If you will recall, the first attempt at defining Holocaust Denier was sabotaged by Scott Smith, and it is only since he has been banned (along with the even crazier "Poison Dwarf") that such a discussion has become possible.
Caldric wrote:Then does that mean anyone who questions the Holocaust and the history of the holocaust is automatically a fascist?
Though there is a strong correlation, they are not exact synonyms. There are, for instance, non- fascist anti-semites who deny the Holocaust for racial, not political, reasons, and the Edelfaschisten (e.g. Ernst Jünger or Arthur Möller van den Bruck) who are not anti-semitic in the least.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”