What kind of argument is this?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 04 Jul 2003 02:12

Dan -- I absolutely agree with you. I think this parody is an excellent debating point for some serious issues. I'd like to hear what you and other readers have to say about it before I express myself, so I don't stifle the debate before it gets started.

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 04 Jul 2003 02:45

Erik -- I asked you a number of questions. You didn't answer them (perhaps you didn't see them), but posed some more of your own.

Those questions were:

(1) How convincing or effective do you think this approach is to a discussion of historical problems?

(2) Do you think this type of argument should be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

(3) Don't you think that the passage "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result." takes the argument out of the denial category?

You asked: "Do you mean parody as a form of argument? Or the argument apart from the parody?"

Don't you think that the form of argument is the same in both the parody and the inspiration for the parody?

And now that I've pointed the questions out again, won't you answer them?

Very well then.

(1) If you can make a funny parody of the approach, then it must be convincing or effective to a discussion of historical problems. “The form of argument is the same in both the parody and the inspiration for the parody”, as you say – and so it wouldn’t be funny if it wasn’t convincing.
So: it is as effective and convincing as it is funny when parodied.

(2) All taste has its censorship. “Taste cannot be controlled by law”, according to your Jefferson. But if tastelessness can be parodied to sweetness, then the end justifies the inspiration of the argument.

(3) The “denial category” must be wide enough to get anybody wrong.

“Denials of genocide make no sense unless one sees in them renewed opportunities for the same passions, meanings, and pleasures that were at work in the genocide itself, now revived in symbolic processes of murdering the dignity of the survivors, rationality, truth, and even history itself." - Dr. Israel Charny

http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/charny.html

Even laughing at a parody of a genocide denial can be regarded as a category of denial, since it is of the same form as laughing at the genocide itself (“the same passions, meanings, and pleasures that were at work in the genocide itself, now revived in symbolic processes of murdering the dignity of the survivors, rationality, truth, and even history itself”.)

And that is the real sweetness suggested in answer (2) above. It can be controlled by law.

Scott Smith · Post by **Scott Smith** » 04 Jul 2003 03:00

David Thompson wrote:Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

Absolutely not. What august body with its moist finger in the wind divines this legislative taste? And if they get their truth from a crystal ball, what do I do to access the database, put a coin in the slot, perhaps?

The accusation has been made that her holiness, Edith Stein was gassed--and this makes her a saint. What evidence do they have to support this accusation? That is a reasonable question.

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 04 Jul 2003 03:06

Witness wrote:

Yes.
An argument of the kind " show me more evidence that Edith Stein was gassed in Auschwitz . The eyewitness accounts are not enough for me .I am Skeptic " could not be answered by anything else but parody.
If you believe a priori that all eyewitness accounts were lies with the same success you would declare any attesting evidence to be lies.
Just recollect what R "skeptics" try to prove about the photographs of the Eisanztgruppen executions.( "Fakes. ..This is not an Eisanztgruppen .. Those are not the Jews .. The pictures were meddled with " etc ) . Nothing would do Erik.
And guess what Erik. This kind of "sophisticated languge" etc can not find nothing else but ridicule.
So just "deal with it ".

Mr. Thompson asked:

This form of argument is frequently employed in arguing the sort of controversies we discuss in this section of the forum. In my opinion, the use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric.

How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems?

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 04 Jul 2003 03:23

Mr. Thompson wrote:

Dan -- I absolutely agree with you. I think this parody is an excellent debating point for some serious issues. I'd like to hear what you and other readers have to say about it before I express myself, so I don't stifle the debate before it gets started.

(Erik’s emphasis.)

But Dan wrote:

Quote:
Does the passage "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result." take the argument out of the denial category?

It would seem designed to create anger and frustration in the population group it was aimed at. It mocks and demeans this target group, and an even handed antiFreespeech law who treat it the same way as someone who writes that the Jews had it good at Auschwitz.

So, I would say it a valuable debating tool.

(Erik’s emphasis).

“…this parody…”!

Is it the parody that is “designed to create anger and frustration in the population group it was aimed at”?

That must have been aimed at the “mad revisionists” then? The “parody”, that is?

If that is what Dan means, is that also what Mr. Thompson “absolutely agree with”?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 04 Jul 2003 03:31

Erik -- Do you find the statement: "I absolutely agree with you. I think this parody is an excellent debating point for some serious issues." somehow . . . ambiguous?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 04 Jul 2003 03:36

Scott -- You said: "The accusation has been made that her holiness, Edith Stein was gassed--and this makes her a saint. What evidence do they have to support this accusation? That is a reasonable question."

Since this is already the subject of discussion on another thread (Apologia for Genocide, at http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=25141), let's keep it there, unless there's some good reason for discussing it on two threads at once.

The topic here involves the form of the argument given at the start of this thread, and whether it is convincing or objectionable. I'd like to hear more of your opinions about it, if you'd care to give them.

witness · Post by **witness** » 04 Jul 2003 03:40

Erik wrote:Witness wrote:
Yes.
An argument of the kind " show me more evidence that Edith Stein was gassed in Auschwitz . The eyewitness accounts are not enough for me .I am Skeptic " could not be answered by anything else but parody.
If you believe a priori that all eyewitness accounts were lies with the same success you would declare any attesting evidence to be lies.
Just recollect what R "skeptics" try to prove about the photographs of the Eisanztgruppen executions.( "Fakes. ..This is not an Eisanztgruppen .. Those are not the Jews .. The pictures were meddled with " etc ) . Nothing would do Erik.
And guess what Erik. This kind of "sophisticated languge" etc can not find nothing else but ridicule.
So just "deal with it ".

Mr. Thompson asked:

This form of argument is frequently employed in arguing the sort of controversies we discuss in this section of the forum. In my opinion, the use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric.

How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems?

Have you asked yourself this question ?
You keep avoiding the question what kind of evidence is enough for you to be convinced that Holocaust happened .
Your pattern approach is to ask an ambiguous question for the sake of it's very ambiguity and then when answered directly become silent for a while .Then to show up just to shoot another ambiguous Bull with the air of profound philosophizing ..
So Erik "How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems"
Does this kind of "approach " deserve a ridicule ?

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 04 Jul 2003 05:25

Erik, could you please for the last time just concentrate really hard and answer one question put to you in a way that we don't have to spend 28 hours interpreting?

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 04 Jul 2003 05:42

Erik, could you please for the last time just concentrate really hard and answer one question put to you in a way that we don't have to spend 28 hours interpreting?

Yes.

Now it's done.

Now answer mine : which population/target group do you think is aimed at with this parody?

Revisionists?

Dresden inhabitants?

Holocaust victims?

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 04 Jul 2003 05:47

The author is turning what he percieves as the same form of arguements certain revisionists use when they are making points.

I think he is exaggerating the bad logic of most revisionists, but it is healthy in that it helps one to clairify his own thinking, and to review his objectivity.

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 04 Jul 2003 06:04

Dan wrote:

The author is turning what he percieves as the same form of arguements certain revisionists use when they are making points.

I think he is exaggerating the bad logic of most revisionists, but it is healthy in that it helps one to clairify his own thinking, and to review his objectivity.

Thanks for your answer.

Pending Mr. Thompson’s expressing his view, would you agree with the following estimate that he made in his initial posting?

This form of argument is frequently employed in arguing the sort of controversies we discuss in this section of the forum. In my opinion, the use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric.

How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems? Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

Scott Smith · Post by **Scott Smith** » 04 Jul 2003 06:14

Dan wrote:The author is turning what he percieves as the same form of arguements certain revisionists use when they are making points.

I think he is exaggerating the bad logic of most revisionists, but it is healthy in that it helps one to clairify his own thinking, and to review his objectivity.

I agree with Dan and I am the first one to admit that this is the childish argumentation of some Revisionists. Since I have been a gadfly about this on Hannover's forum I am close to getting banned. However, I will continue to be critical of such simplistic methodologies on my site. Hannover can respond to his critics at Rodoh but he will not have the Orwellian delete key strapped to his hip.

Anyway, Revisionists especially have to be skeptical of their own skepticism and not fall into orthodox ruts of their own. Being persecuted or legislated against does not necessarily make one right. It does, however, demand that we take a closer look, otherwise free-speech and free-thought is a sad joke rather than the pillar of democratic ideals.

Scott Smith · Post by **Scott Smith** » 04 Jul 2003 06:25

Erik wrote:Pending Mr. Thompson’s expressing his view, would you agree with the following estimate that he made in his initial posting?

This form of argument is frequently employed in arguing the sort of controversies we discuss in this section of the forum. In my opinion, the use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric.

How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems? Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

I agree that the masses can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, and further think that the electioneering of the Democracy-Capitalist System prefers to keep things that way. Even first-class schools do little more than drilling the students in how to pass standardized tests. All children must aspire to be "a little better than average." And wealthy school districts are able to "succeed" somehow. Nobody trains citizens to think and nobody wants citizens to think too much; they are just supposed to make good money and buy lots of things, and if lucky they can even make some unearned income by saving a little surplus to invest in securities. Keep that market up, woo-hoo! This pseudo-elite "middle class" might even think that they are able to think logically because they subscribe to the Wall Street Journal or have the Sunday New York Times delivered to their door.

However, I disagree that Revisionists alone exploit the inability of the Lumpenproletariat to reason logically. The gadflies did not invent the Holo-Cult that they lampoon, rationally or irrationally. And nobody is putting professional Holocaust survivors like Mr. Wiesel on trial for Thoughtcrime as they are Mr. Zündel. The bottom-line is that agree or disagree with Zündel he is being persecuted for his beliefs--and this, not the cowboy Revisionists like him, undermine democratic values. Anything that encourages Open Debate encourages logical thinking, whether it does or does not come from the Revisionists or their critics.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 04 Jul 2003 14:06

Pending Mr. Thompson’s expressing his view, would you agree with the following estimate that he made in his initial posting?

Quote:
This form of argument is frequently employed in arguing the sort of controversies we discuss in this section of the forum. In my opinion, the use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric.

Quality of debate has decreased over the years, and my views on American public schools are known to the board.

How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems? Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

Censoring such arguements would stiffle debate, so no. King Soloman has two sayings relating to such arguments. He say to answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. He also says not to cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample you. These sayings don't contradict each other, but show that different situations and different people require different treatment. In the one case it can help, in another it does no good at all.