What purpose does Holocaust denial serve ?

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 26 May 2003 17:15

Get back on topic or this thread will be closed.

/Marcus

Scott Smith · Post by **Scott Smith** » 26 May 2003 17:15

witness wrote:Does Scott Smith negate the fact that remebrance of the victims of bigotry and intolerance might help prevent younger generations from repeating the mistakes of the past ?

Yes, I find that premise questionable at best.

Always "waving the bloody shirt" is likely to engender the opposite result of peace, reconciliation, and respect.

Now, as to the definition of Victimology, I have explained it many times. I did not coin it by any means.

witness · Post by **witness** » 26 May 2003 18:28

Throwing in an ambiguous term and then running away...being unable to explain it .

This term "Victimology" is absolutely empty and pretentious drivel having neither historical nor political or philosophical meaning whatsoever..
You are invited to prove the opposite Scott Smith.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 26 May 2003 22:22

Scott -- I also believe that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If you have some evidence that Nizkor is a "Hate-Site," or that Nizkor links posted here contain "Hate-Site materials," let's see it.

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 26 May 2003 23:40

witness wrote:

This term "Victimology" is absolutely empty and pretentious drivel having neither historical nor political or philosophical meaning whatsoever..
You are invited to prove the opposite Scott Smith.

Well, Erik wasn’t invited, actually, but couldn’t resist the challenge from the positing of “absolute” knowledge on “historical or philosophical meaning”, by an eminent contributor to this Forum.

The driveller(?) Scott Smith wrote:

Now, as to the definition of Victimology, I have explained it many times. I did not coin it by any means.

Google says, for example, that there exists an International Victimology Website:

IVW was launched in June 1999 as a resource for all those interested in improving justice for victims of crime and abuse of power.

http://www.victimology.nl/

The "absolutely empty and pretentious drivel" of such a term seems to be calling for the virtue of "empathy", even!

There is also a World Wide Victimology organization, i.e. The World Society of Victimology

The Origins of the WSV are rooted in . . .
the works of early victimologists and in the pioneering First International Symposium on Victimology' organized by Israel Drapkin in Israel 1973.

http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/fb06/victimology/

So the term cannot be said to be puked together by denier’s drivel.

Here is a political application of the term, posted a year ago on the Net:

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/March/Victim/

Scott Smith didn’t coin the critical or dismissive usage of the term either, it seems (although he can have used it before March 2002, of course!).

witness · Post by **witness** » 27 May 2003 00:09

Concerning Eric's irony about me allegedly claiming to hold some"“absolute” knowledge". Can I just ask where Eric gets it from ?
This term "Victimology" is being tossed around by Scott Smith who is implying that it is relevant to the victims of Nazism. When I challenged him to define "Victimology" he dodged . I've never encountered this term before and for me this is only an empty word expressing nothing else but hatred to the victims of Nazism and those who remember them.
As for the existing organizations - no wonder there are a lot of similiar organizations believing for example in ghosts and in existence of UFO.
Do I have to accept these views just because there are people who believing in those things decided to organize themselves in groups and gave them names...?

witness · Post by **witness** » 27 May 2003 00:36

As for the Google search you might want to print in this search engine box such words as 'witch' "UFO'" "dwarf" etc etc etc. I am pretty sure you will get an adequate outcome Eric.
Remember the reflection methaphor ( encountering your own image in whatever you are currently preoccupied with ..)

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 27 May 2003 01:07

witness wrote:

Concerning Eric's irony about with regards to me allegedly claiming to hold some"“absolute” knowledge". Can I ust ask where did Eric get it from ?

You claimed such knowledge concerning the term “victimology”, didn’t you?

Witness wrote:
>>This term "Victimology" is absolutely empty and pretentious drivel having neither historical nor political or philosophical meaning whatsoever.. <<(see above)

You are right about the “irony”, of course. That’s Erik’s personal way to handle his envy when he meets “absolute” judgements and pronouncements in any area of knowledge. He strives to “undermine” in order not to be crushed by his "superiors".

This term "Victimology" is being tossed around by Scott Smith implying that it is relevant to the victims of Nazism. When I challenged him to define "Victimology" he dodged .

If I understand Scott Smith rightly, he is critical to “victimology” as a method to understand history, not to a feeling or empathy for the victims of war and terror and oppression.

You do not necessarily arrive at knowledge and understanding of history just because you have arrived at a emotionally satisfying “balance check” of its victims.

At the very least, you have a problem of communicating such personal, emotionally satisfying knowledge and understanding to others.

The last resort seems to be to try to tell those “others” that they are not as good as yourself. They must be persuaded to be ashamed of themselves, after having finally accepted you as a “model”.

You risk to activate their envy instead --- er, well, like Erik’s, for example…

The science of “Empathology” is in its cradle…but I claim no absolute knowledge on the subject.

Maybe Google…surprise, surprise!! It has a home page, even!!

http://empathology.com/index.html

Is that it? "Empathy" as a science?

Back to "victimology"!

I've never encounter this term before and for me this is only an empty word expressing nothing else but hatred to the victims of Nazism and those who remember them.

Nobody can deny you the right to define the word “for yourself” in an emotionally satisfying way.

But you can also grant this right to others, and refrain to call such a right an expression of "hatred to the victims of Nazism and those who remember them”, just because you want to be absolutely right yourself.

Right?

As for the existing organizations - no wonder there are a lot of similiar organizations believing for example in ghosts and in existence ogf UFO.

Do I have to accept these views just because there are people who believing in those things decided to organize themselves in groups and gave them names..

Let them have your empathy!

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 27 May 2003 01:13

Let's get back on topic.

witness · Post by **witness** » 27 May 2003 02:55

Erik wrote:witness wrote:
Concerning Eric's irony about with regards to me allegedly claiming to hold some"“absolute” knowledge". Can I ust ask where did Eric get it from ?
You claimed such knowledge concerning the term “victimology”, didn’t you?

Witness wrote:
>>This term "Victimology" is absolutely empty and pretentious drivel having neither historical nor political or philosophical meaning whatsoever.. <<(see above)

Yes the term is empty and pretentious if the one who is using it is unable to give any definition .More so if such a term is used in an offensive for the victims of Nazism way.
Define what you are talking about and then we can discuss it.So far no go...

That’s Erik’s personal way to handle his envy when he meets “absolute” judgements and pronouncements in any area of knowledge

Nice try.. You are turning the tables here.I was not the one who claimed some absolute knowledge in the areas of "Victimology'. Scott Smith is expressing his biased opinion using various negative terms being absolutely unable to back up his assertions by any facts.
With the same succes I can call all Scott Smith utterances "Scottology "'
( Oops no pun intended ..)

He strives to “undermine” in order not to be crushed by his "superiors".

I don't know who (or what ) your "superiors" are but I strongly suspect that it is your own desire to damp the responsibility of Nazism on it's victims (or to negate it's historically proven crimes) by which you seem to be "crushed" indeed.

If I understand Scott Smith rightly, he is critical to “victimology” as a method to understand history, not to a feeling or empathy for the victims of war and terror and oppression.

In order to be critical of something one first has to define what he is critical of . Catching the logic ?

You do not necessarily arrive at knowledge and understanding of history just because you have arrived at a emotionally satisfying “balance check” of its victims.

Yes I agree tell it to Scott Smith and yourself .. You are guided by your (not very
attractive I would say) emotions to the victims of Nazism. Now tell me that you are driven by a desire to gain peaks of some objective and "absolute knowledge "

Interesting - Have you crossed your ways with some unfortunate Jew ,Russian or maybe Jehova witness ..? Having gallbladder problems perhaps ?

At the very least, you have a problem of communicating such personal, emotionally satisfying knowledge and understanding to others

Or Eric Eric. After having concocted a number of obscure posts you are talking about communication problems ?. Even your buddies by the Nazi apology have difficulties grasping your philosophizing full of endless question marks..

The science of “Empathology” is in its cradle

Oh one more ..

Can you define this one at least ?
However it seems to me that if we go on like this, inventing the new sciences in whatever way we fit necesasary, it would be much more appropriate for you to define one more term I am lending you now - the honourable science of "Hatredology" in which you are certainly an expert.
Since you are aware of so many new branches of human thought it is me who is getting quite envious of your supreme knowledge of these new born sciences
Would you share this supreme knowledge with us ignorant perhaps ?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 27 May 2003 03:02

The topic, gentlemen. Stick to it.

witness · Post by **witness** » 27 May 2003 03:03

Erik wrote:
As for the existing organizations - no wonder there are a lot of similiar organizations believing for example in ghosts and in existence ogf UFO.

Do I have to accept these views just because there are people who believing in those things decided to organize themselves in groups and gave them names..
Let them have your empathy!

What is this supposed to mean ? Are you having loosening of associations problems ?

witness · Post by **witness** » 27 May 2003 03:07

Sorry David . But I think we still need to define this term which Scott Smith periodically throws into discussions without caring to elaborate it's meaning.

Scott Smith · Post by **Scott Smith** » 27 May 2003 03:33

witness wrote:Throwing in an ambiguous term and then running away...being unable to explain it .
This term "Victimology" is absolutely empty and pretentious drivel having neither historical nor political or philosophical meaning whatsoever.. You are invited to prove the opposite Scott Smith.

I'm not responsible for your inability to understand the points I make.

Scott Smith · Post by **Scott Smith** » 27 May 2003 03:38

David Thompson wrote:Scott -- I also believe that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If you have some evidence that Nizkor is a "Hate-Site," or that Nizkor links posted here contain "Hate-Site materials," let's see it.

Nizkor promotes the Holocaust™ which is Hate propaganda against Germans of the WWII era, if not of Gentiles in general. Their mission statement is to promote the Gruelpropaganda of the war and to attack those who would seek to revise that orthodoxy. Historical inquiry and orthodoxy goes together like mischief and darkness. Personally I don't care about Nizkor and what they believe, but if Hannover's forum or Revisionist sites are classed as Hate (except when Roberto links to them, it seems) then so is Nizkor.