Log in

View Full Version : Vatican Priest Rejects Holocaust


Rainbow
February 4th, 2009, 07:26 PM
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the Vatican's clarifications over the readmission of a bishop who queries the Holocaust do not go far enough.

"In my opinion these clarifications are not yet sufficient," Mrs Merkel said.

A row erupted last month after Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of four conservative bishops - one of whom says no Nazi gas chambers existed.

Pope Benedict has distanced himself from those beliefs and expressed "full and indisputable solidarity" with Jews.


Source: BBC NEWS | Europe | Merkel joins Papal Holocaust row (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7867775.stm)


Does anyone notice the hypocrisy? They want the right to insult the prophet but revoke that same right to people who have different thoughts regarding the holocaust.

Rainbow
February 5th, 2009, 12:53 PM
I know its illegal, and thats where the hypocrisy part comes in. Not only is it forbidden to discuss in Germany but in many European countries refuting the Holocaust will get you very much in trouble. So why do they deny people the freedom to speak their minds about the holocaust while they contest Muslim sentiment and defend freedom of expression regarding a prophet? Double standard anyone?

winwun
February 5th, 2009, 01:08 PM
If you control the money, you control the speech . . .

Can you say, "Rothschild" ? ?

I believe Eggs was a Brown Shirt, wasn't he ? ?

IMO, the ennobling characteristics of The Church in no way mitigate their long history of supression and thievery, the selling of offices and sacraments, the hoarding of great wealth in the face of starving suppolicants, and IMO, the perpetuation of slavery in the guise of making women "brides of Christ", while allowing and encouraging the Chauvinistic practice of priests, et al, living in comfort, on the backs of those they rob.:icon_evil:

Rainbow
February 5th, 2009, 02:43 PM
So you consider the Holocaust happening or not to be an opinion? >_>

I believe that you are entitled to your opinion no matter what. Even if it means criticizing a prophet whom is held dearly in the hearts of millions. Its your right and you are entitled to it.

And its also my right to question the happenings at concentration camps and to question western propaganda regarding this issue.

djura
February 6th, 2009, 12:27 PM
I believe that you are entitled to your opinion no matter what. Even if it means criticizing a prophet whom is held dearly in the hearts of millions. Its your right and you are entitled to it.

And its also my right to question the happenings at concentration camps and to question western propaganda regarding this issue.

I have this t-shirt that says "Jesus saves and takes half damage", and it never got me in any trouble. Hell, no one even made any comment, apart from "where did you get it, I wont one just like this".
One of mine best friends is Muslim, and the guy that will be a best man on my wedding is deeply religious, jet we play cards every Saturday evening. I'm saying this because I know for a fact that a Muslim, Orthodox Christian and atheist can, indeed, play cards, have good time, and even make fun of each others beliefs, jet be there for one another when needed.
What pisses me off is everlasting call to freedom of speech in order to dispute what we all know not to.. Having "different thoughts" regarding Holocaust is just imbecile, and for first time in my life, I'm proud to live in a country where it's also illegal.
And "insulting the prophet" although wary wrong, makes me wonder what would have happened if someone drew a cartoon with Jesus blowing him self up, or Buddha or whichever religious figure - NOTHING! You wont to know how I know? IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!
Don't mean to insult you or anyone for that meter, and before you ask, I've read the Kuran, and even though I agree with almost everything written in there, for me - it's just another religion and it's no more wrong to make fun of it than it's wrong to laugh at any other religion.
Holocaust, on the other hand, was something we know had happened for a fact, and no one can dispute, no matter what he believes.

Rainbow
February 6th, 2009, 01:13 PM
We are not discussing whether it is right to ridicule a prophet or refute a massacre. We are discussing the right to bring forth and challenge ANY subject without it landing you in trouble. How can one proclaim and promote freedom of speech yet subdue in the mean time?

How can you go around boasting that you believe in freedom of speech but refuse people the right to discuss the holocaust?

winwun
February 6th, 2009, 01:15 PM
Does anyone know the difference in the survival rate during the holocaust between members of the Kapo club and non-members ? :icon_mad:

Rainbow
February 6th, 2009, 01:45 PM
Does anyone know the difference in the survival rate during the holocaust between members of the Kapo club and non-members ? :icon_mad:


Its not what this is about, its not whether the holocaust happened or not. Its about the right to freely challenge whichever topic if so willing, a right which you claim to believe in.

tagnostic
February 6th, 2009, 03:06 PM
there is a fundamental difference
between challenging beliefs
and denying facts

djura
February 6th, 2009, 06:53 PM
We are not discussing whether it is right to ridicule a prophet or refute a massacre. We are discussing the right to bring forth and challenge ANY subject without it landing you in trouble. How can one proclaim and promote freedom of speech yet subdue in the mean time?

How can you go around boasting that you believe in freedom of speech but refuse people the right to discuss the holocaust?

Look, you can question what ever you like, and call it what you will. One thing you can not do is lie, and call this freedom of speech. Especially if used to serve a purpose of your own agenda. And for that purpose one can not use all means, as well as challenge proven facts, especially ones so sensitive as the Holocaust.

Loki
February 6th, 2009, 11:42 PM
I'm with Rainbow on this - Cardinal Adolf has every right to state his opinion.
What he doesn't have is the right to be taken seriously.

So he believes something that is contrary to all evidence - he's a Catlick Priest - no surprise there!

Sure, people abuse the free speech stuff - that's no reason to censor them. It might be a reason not to broadcast their views though.

That's the fault of the media - controversy sells!

Kabel
February 7th, 2009, 03:37 AM
I do not agree with your opinion, but I will defend your right to have it with my life.

I think Voltaire said something like that. It was my first thought, and because I agree with it, I thought I'd post it.

Has anyone actually been convicted for not believing in the Holocaust?
I'd consider protesting, if I wasn't a lazy teen.

djura
February 7th, 2009, 10:48 AM
The whole concept of society is based on censuring stuff that offends people. If you make a sexist joke about a woman, she has every right to sue you, and in all probability this will cost you a lot. Same goes for gay people, or for any other minority that is a part of a society.
In 1993 if I remember correctly, Ice-T made a record with a band "Body Count" called "Cop Killer". This was a good selling album, but it was banned in the UK and US (I'm not really sure about Germany as well). The courts ruled that one can not spread public hate and therefor it is illegal for one to state "I wont to shoot a cop in his face" publicly.
For some statements, freedom of speech just doesn't cut it.
I believe it's the same with Holocaust - it is offensive for survivors (my grandfather included) to state that such thing never took place.
Imagine a rape victim being told that "it wasn't actually rape" or "blown out of proportion" or even "you made it all up"...
You just don't say that - no degree of freedom of speech can ever make up for being such a prick.

tagnostic
February 7th, 2009, 03:10 PM
an interesting point
where is the line between
"free speech" for the individual
and "the Public Good"
at what point do the rights of the one stop
for the good of the many

Kabel
February 7th, 2009, 04:09 PM
...

I respectfully disagree. And sorry to hear about your grandfather.

Loki
February 7th, 2009, 06:40 PM
djura - likewise, sorry to hear about your Grandfather's experience. It must have been hell on earth.

I still disagree though.
I posted a comment made by Stephen Fry (UK comedian) a few weeks ago.
He was at a festival just after the Danish Mohammed Cartoon Massacre and said this of the offence the Muslims took to the cartoons...
"So you're offended. So fucking what?"

What he was saying, so succinctly, was should your feelings have more worth than my right to express a genuinely help opinion?

I think you're right about the incitement bit though. If you're standing in Speakers Corner and trying to inflame a crowd to go and lynch a group then that's not free speech, it's incitement to violence.

I think the old children's chant applies here...
"Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but words can never hurt me!"

tagnostic
February 8th, 2009, 12:56 AM
I think that Freedom of Speech is both a right and a privilege,
and that when it is abused, there should be a corresponding
penalty. I believe the you have the right to your opinion and
the right to express it, however if you abuse these rights in a
manner detrimental to the public good, then you have taken
yourself out of society to such an extent that for it's own benefit
should/can/will remove you from said society.
These are extreme circumstances, ie: causing or attempting to cause physical harm to anyone else by speech, gesture or any other form of communication.
Freedom of Speech is not just a right, its a Responsibility.

Sister Faith
February 8th, 2009, 03:56 AM
Has anyone actually been convicted for not believing in the Holocaust? I'd consider protesting, if I wasn't a lazy teen.

Just to name a few ;)

David Irving (http://chronicle.com/news/article/937/austrian-court-upholds-conviction-of-the-holocaust-denier-david-irving)
Pedro Varela (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n2p29_Weber.html)
Germar Rudolf (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2386563,00.html)
Ernst Zundel
James Keegstra
Robert Faurisson
Roger Garaudy

Holocaust denial: A global survey
(https://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=172)https://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=172

djura
February 8th, 2009, 09:35 AM
I don't have problems with people talking about what ever they wont, it's one of fundamental rights everyone should have. What I do have a problem with is the agenda behind an opinion, and where it potentially leads to.
I see no reason what so ever, one would question the Holocaust unless there is something else on his mind, and that is just plain wrong.

Freedom of Speech is not just a right, its a Responsibility.
Damn str8!

And thanks to all of you for taking my grandfather into consideration before actually replying my posts, I appreciate it. My opinion, however is not based on he went trough, because he never talked about it, I honestly don't know. I still believe that some statements and some views should be censured for the sake of the ones offended by them.
And one last thing - I can say whatever I like in a public forum, such as this one. Some of you might read it, and some of you might not. None of you know me, and I don't know any of you, so whatever I say holds little or no weight. Sure as hell isn't gonna change anyone's life or anything. Even so, there are mods, that will delete my comments if they contain stupid shit offensive to others.
A public figure can change so much with a single sentence - who knows what his remarks caused, got me pissed off real hard, that sure. People like that should be censured.

And I know I'm boring the hell out of everyone, but I just remembered this:
http://www.krompir.co.yu/005/setnja/209.jpg
Now, no one can import the candy to the US, because some black people feel that word "NEGRO" implies racial prejudice. To these people, it's all the same that this particular candy comes from another part of the world, where this word means something compliantly different, it's just offensive to therm, so no more candy.
If a stupid candy can be censured, why cant a public figure be censured as well - for the sake of people offended by his views?

winwun
February 8th, 2009, 01:27 PM
If Mods on this site are going to censor posts that are offensive, they must have a very high tolerance, or are all dead-drunk in the corner . . .

rmw
February 8th, 2009, 03:42 PM
If Mods on this site are going to censor posts that are offensive, they must have a very high tolerance, or are all dead-drunk in the corner . . .

A little of both. ;) To be honest, unless it's spam or blatant porn, the mods pretty much let things be. And yes, we have had posters who have said things that were offensive. TS with his view that CP should be legal, or Mushy spouting off about how women should be held solely financially responsible for pregnancy and child-rearing spring immediately to mind. And most other posters here called them out on their views. If mods deleted everything that we found offensive, there would be no forum.

Rainbow
February 9th, 2009, 12:06 PM
there is a fundamental difference
between challenging beliefs
and denying facts


I can put forth lots of "facts" and analysis to disrupt the validity of your facts. My opinion on this matter is the following; this issue is engraved in propaganda and so veered by global political agenda's that it is very very hard to dismiss the very real possibility of world powers using the events of the holocaust and blowing them out of proportion to reach an end. We simply and bluntly put will never acquire the truth of what happened there no matter what we do. Because the events are shrowded in secrecy and because open discussion on the subject is forbidden. So i ask, if there are so many who refute the holocaust (do a bit of research and youll find how many), does the image of the "Holocaust" being irrefutable shatter in your minds? If it is a "fact", and it had happened the way they tell us it happenned. Then why are there are so many people denying it, and so many books denied distribution because they tackled a different version of what they would like us to believe?

I do believe that the killing of jews happened, but i also believe that similar persecussion to Christians, Slavs and Poles also happened. They always point out that 3 million jews were killed in Poland following the invasion, but what they leave out is the fact that 3 million other Christians were also killed in the same time period.

Look, you can question what ever you like, and call it what you will. One thing you can not do is lie, and call this freedom of speech. Especially if used to serve a purpose of your own agenda. And for that purpose one can not use all means, as well as challenge proven facts, especially ones so sensitive as the Holocaust.

Everything that is contrary to popular belief gets labeled as a lie, and if it gets proven is deemed a truth. Echoes of diversity and relativity pulse here, there is no one single truth, each may see things according to his perspective. So i ask. Why do u want to offend 1.25 billion people but do not want to offend 2.1 billion people? An inconsistency is valid here.


The whole concept of society is based on censuring stuff that offends people. If you make a sexist joke about a woman, she has every right to sue you, and in all probability this will cost you a lot. Same goes for gay people, or for any other minority that is a part of a society.
In 1993 if I remember correctly, Ice-T made a record with a band "Body Count" called "Cop Killer". This was a good selling album, but it was banned in the UK and US (I'm not really sure about Germany as well). The courts ruled that one can not spread public hate and therefor it is illegal for one to state "I wont to shoot a cop in his face" publicly.
For some statements, freedom of speech just doesn't cut it.
I believe it's the same with Holocaust - it is offensive for survivors (my grandfather included) to state that such thing never took place.
Imagine a rape victim being told that "it wasn't actually rape" or "blown out of proportion" or even "you made it all up"...
You just don't say that - no degree of freedom of speech can ever make up for being such a prick.


You must also try not to forget that not all "rights" are universal and that each country applies its own set of rules. Besides, making blatant and sexist remarks you may get in legal trouble in some countries, but that should not be labeled in same category as discussing the Holocaust and i think its clear why they dont compare. Whom who do have a scheme my friend are the regimes who try to inhibit discussing the Holocaust. Regimes that try to force their own telling on us, while supressing the voice of the so many that have spoken against them.

And remember that ones who deny the Holocaust are not intent on offending others. Rather just tackling an accepted dogma in your western society's. Tell me, if you do no want to speak of the Holocaust because you do not want to offend people, why do so many in this forum offend lots other by making fun of their gods and the facts that they are theists. So the point here is that you do not want to discuss of the Holocaust because you have deemed it as absolute and unquestionable, not because it offends people. If you have taken "dont talk about it, it offends people" i suggest you review most of this forum's threads and posts and label them as such. Also you may want to take a look at the prophet's caricatures and label them on your way, less you are seen as a hypocrite.

an interesting point
where is the line between
"free speech" for the individual
and "the Public Good"
at what point do the rights of the one stop
for the good of the many

Public good? Will the fabric of society shatter if one were to question the Holocaust? :D

I think that Freedom of Speech is both a right and a privilege,
and that when it is abused, there should be a corresponding
penalty. I believe the you have the right to your opinion and
the right to express it, however if you abuse these rights in a
manner detrimental to the public good, then you have taken
yourself out of society to such an extent that for it's own benefit
should/can/will remove you from said society.

You have just crapped individualism into the toilet. Expressing ones opinion will not lead to the demise and subsequent destruction of society. On the contrary i believe that the less taboo subjects a society has the less it is burdened by constraints, less thought constraint and more prone to advandcment.

By the way, you cannot have a right which is a privilege. Once you are priviliged to a right, it ceases to be a right.

Dementis
February 9th, 2009, 02:27 PM
I have to agree with rainbow here. No matter how ridiculous the idea of the holocaust not happening is, everyone should be entitled to their own opinion.

Perna de Pau
February 10th, 2009, 09:39 AM
As some have already pointed out freedom of expression has exceptions. We are not entitled to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, if there is no fire.

The Holocaust is another exception, which was set - and rightly so - because of the unique circumstances of what happened during the second world war. This particular exception should however be limited in time.

On the one hand, once there are no survivors alive, the offense to their descendants is less important (nobody would argue that denial of the Spanish inquisition should be forbidden on the grounds of respect due to its victims).

On the other hand - and this is much more important - the fact that the Holocaust is considered important enough to become an exception to freedom of expression is a very strong argument to those who wish to impose other exceptions based on reasons that are, from their point of view, even more important.

What is happening, for instance in the United Nations, is quite worrying (to say the least):

extract from a press release by Article19:

"In 2009, it is worthwhile reflecting on the current challenges for freedom of expression. One of the most contentious issues currently on the agenda of institutions within the UN system is that of defamation of religion. Starting in 1999, a strategic voting bloc of countries led by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference has been steadily pushing through a series of critical resolutions that limit the rights of individuals and groups to criticise religions."

In view of the above I wonder whether time has not come to exclude Holocaust denial from the accepted exceptions to freedom of expression. Such exclusion would of course not mean that we think it any less likely to have happened but only that denying it is no longer dangerous and the reasons which justified this exceptions no longer exist.

djura
February 10th, 2009, 09:40 AM
I can put forth lots of "facts" and analysis to disrupt the validity of your facts. My opinion on this matter is the following; this issue is engraved in propaganda and so veered by global political agenda's that it is very very hard to dismiss the very real possibility of world powers using the events of the holocaust and blowing them out of proportion to reach an end.

OK, you have a grange against Jews, I can't help you with that.


If it is a "fact", and it had happened the way they tell us it happenned.


Photos, films, millions of testimonies and trials tell us this is how it happened. Now you can dispute this all you like, and YES it is your right to speak of what ever you like in whichever fashion. Unless you have a higher agenda, I'd just call you dumb.


I do believe that the killing of jews happened, but i also believe that similar persecussion to Christians, Slavs and Poles also happened. They always point out that 3 million jews were killed in Poland following the invasion, but what they leave out is the fact that 3 million other Christians were also killed in the same time period.


Holocaust was never about ONLY JEWS, man you need to get your shit together. And YES, other religions ware killed also, including Muslim.
If you bother ever to read "Mein Kampf" you'll find out that Hitler had particular interest in all colored people, especially Arabs. He just never got around to slathering you.


Everything that is contrary to popular belief gets labeled as a lie, and if it gets proven is deemed a truth. Echoes of diversity and relativity pulse here, there is no one single truth, each may see things according to his perspective. So i ask. Why do u want to offend 1.25 billion people but do not want to offend 2.1 billion people? An inconsistency is valid here.


Because, there is NOTHING RELATIVE about Holocaust. People ware tortured and murdered for no reason, apart from being different color, religion, or opinion.


You must also try not to forget that not all "rights" are universal and that each country applies its own set of rules.


Yeah, right, so you don't believe in punishing the murderers?


Besides, making blatant and sexist remarks you may get in legal trouble in some countries, but that should not be labeled in same category as discussing the Holocaust and i think its clear why they dont compare. Whom who do have a scheme my friend are the regimes who try to inhibit discussing the Holocaust. Regimes that try to force their own telling on us, while supressing the voice of the so many that have spoken against them.


I read this 4 times, still don't understand what you ware trying to say.


And remember that ones who deny the Holocaust are not intent on offending others. Rather just tackling an accepted dogma in your western society's.


So if I was to rape your sister, and say latter I meant no disrespect, we would be cool, right?!? Or maybe if my friend wanted to challenge the rape it self, you would take the time to listen to him? GTFOH!
Besides, I don't live in western society, and accepting dogma is something you might try NOT TO DO!



Tell me, if you do no want to speak of the Holocaust because you do not want to offend people, why do so many in this forum offend lots other by making fun of their gods and the facts that they are theists.


I make fun of other peoples BELIEFS which are questionable at best, and not of the FACTS that are well documented.


So the point here is that you do not want to discuss of the Holocaust because you have deemed it as absolute and unquestionable, not because it offends people. If you have taken "dont talk about it, it offends people" i suggest you review most of this forum's threads and posts and label them as such. Also you may want to take a look at the prophet's caricatures and label them on your way, less you are seen as a hypocrite.


I have no problem discussing the Holocaust. I have a problem with YOU discussing something you know nothing about, besides you dislike the people that ware killed, so it must be OK then?!? Read a book or two before judging others.
And if you see me as a hypocrite, I am proud!


Public good? Will the fabric of society shatter if one were to question the Holocaust? :D


Will it shatter over a cartoon?
I take Holocaust more seriously then cartoons, how about you?


You have just crapped individualism into the toilet. Expressing ones opinion will not lead to the demise and subsequent destruction of society. On the contrary i believe that the less taboo subjects a society has the less it is burdened by constraints, less thought constraint and more prone to advandcment.


Why don't we all start painting swastikas in public locations and call it individualism? I shouldn't have to tell you what offensive is, just as I don't have to tell you no to fart out lout during Salaat.


By the way, you cannot have a right which is a privilege. Once you are priviliged to a right, it ceases to be a right.


Your wary exsistance is a privilage, yet you feel it is your right. People in the Holocaust didn't have this right, and for them this was privilage rearly achivable.

sudikics
February 10th, 2009, 12:29 PM
I may be biased, but the Holocause deniers need to just STFO and GTFO.

My grandmother and my grandfather both went through the Holocaust. MY grandfather was sent to Italy for collegee before the war. When the Nazis invaded Poland, his family had set up a system: they woudl send him a picture, and if they were standing, things were OK, and if they were sitting, things were bad. MY grandfather got his first picture: they were lying on the ground.

One day, the pictures stopped coming.

MY grandmother's story is worse. She watch the Nazis burn the synagouge her parents were in to the ground. Her brother, who had saved her life when she was little, protected her, and he was shot. He died in her arms. She was captured and put on a train with thousands of other children to a death camp. SHe managed to jump off the train, but couldn't convince the young children to jump with her. At this point, she was only 17.

She then spent time actually working for a Nazi general as a maid, concealing her Jewish past. Finally, she got away to America, where she met my grandfather.

My grandfather, later in life, took up geaneology as a hobby. He traced our family tree back many generations. HE had a habit of putting a little star next to every person who died in the Holocaust.

There are a hell of a lot of stars on that paper.

I have, sittign in my room, books of evidence my grandfather compiled which conclusively prove that millions were slaughtered in WWII. We have video, audio, visual, tex, and eyewitness accounts of everythign that happened.

The Holocaust happened. Now shut the fuck up.

/my two bits.

tagnostic
February 10th, 2009, 01:24 PM
Yes, we do make fun of any belief system that can not be logically defended, including our own premises here, the fact that we can logically defend our premises to a better conclusion than any other religion just adds to the reductio ad absurdia. We also attack any belief system that causes harm to children, would anyone care to defend that as "individualism". We argue/discuss reality, and belief systems in toto. We have argued/discussed the merits of rock bands & video games, operating systems, we are not always open minded about everything, but as a general rule we're about as open to discussion as any group you'll find. There is however a difference between discussion and falsification of facts to cause harm. Last time I checked this was called larceny and prosecutable in just about every country.
We have been accused 'et al' and I took the liberty of defending et al, this is not to say that I speak for everyone in any specific instance, this is just my humble opinion.
tag

sudikics
February 10th, 2009, 09:02 PM
Yes, we do make fun of any belief system that can not be logically defended, including our own premises here, the fact that we can logically defend our premises to a better conclusion than any other religion just adds to the reductio ad absurdia. We also attack any belief system that causes harm to children, would anyone care to defend that as "individualism". We argue/discuss reality, and belief systems in toto. We have argued/discussed the merits of rock bands & video games, operating systems, we are not always open minded about everything, but as a general rule we're about as open to discussion as any group you'll find. There is however a difference between discussion and falsification of facts to cause harm. Last time I checked this was called larceny and prosecutable in just about every country.
We have been accused 'et al' and I took the liberty of defending et al, this is not to say that I speak for everyone in any specific instance, this is just my humble opinion.
tag
And that was the story of how one man simultaneously both won an internet argument and the entire internet.

Kudos, Tag.

rmw
February 11th, 2009, 01:23 AM
Let's pretend for a moment that some of the Holocaust deniers are correct, and "only" a couple hundred thousand people died, and not six million. Isn't that "couple hundred thousand" still a frighteningly large number?

rzm61
February 11th, 2009, 03:16 AM
Compared to todays war in the middle east....not too sure, cause aren't those numbers pretty high?

djura
February 11th, 2009, 08:58 AM
According to every credible source out there, bodycount was 6 million plus. It is a historical fact, and so far I've seen no credible source that disputes this - apart from handful Nazi parties and historian wannabes.
But it's not about numbers, it never was. It doesn't matter if it was only one person that got killed - it's unacceptable. To question this is to question the crime it self.
Now, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, someone who knows a lot about crime and murder wrote something like this:

"By not speaking of crime, we indeed deny it's wary existence. And by denying it we only spread the seeds of hate that will only grow a thousand times bigger, for future generations to sow.
This is why children are so careless for crime that happens. The young are often guided by a belief that crime is never punished, and it's always a source of truth and well being... It's so tight... It's so horribly hard to live like that!"

Sorry about my translation, but hopefully you'll get the picture.

Compared to todays war in the middle east....not too sure, cause aren't those numbers pretty high?

Yes, the number of people killed is high, and it's getting worse by the minute. And not just in the middle east, all over the world. Recent wars in my former country left at least 100.000 dead people. And, YES, wars kill innocent people, civilians, women and children. And YES it is the most horrible thing man has come to invent during the history of existence. But no one has ever put up a concentration camp with custom built extremely efficient killing machines, and nobody ever made human soap, not to go trough other details.
And nothing is ever going to make what happened during Holocaust better, so people who try to do this should shut the fuck up!

Rainbow
February 11th, 2009, 10:57 AM
OK, you have a grange against Jews, I can't help you with that.So your opting with the anti-Semitic counter argument ey? Well since i am a Semite that actually doesn't work. And no i dont have any grude against Jews, i just have a whole lots against murdering bastards called Zionists, but that’s an entirely different story.

Photos, films, millions of testimonies and trials tell us this is how it happened.Give me one single testimony, reel, “fact” which proves that gas chambers were used.

Now you can dispute this all you like, and YES it is your right to speak of what ever you like in whichever fashion. Unless you have a higher agenda, I'd just call you dumb.Since we are on mutual grounds that it is anyones right to discuss the Holocaust and any other event, why are we arguing?

Holocaust was never about ONLY JEWS, man you need to get your shit together. And YES, other religions ware killed also, including Muslim.
If you bother ever to read "Mein Kampf" you'll find out that Hitler had particular interest in all colored people, especially Arabs. He just never got around to slathering you.
Where did i ever say that the Holocaust was only about the Jews? Thats actually what i was trying to disprove in the part you quoted, to say that it wasnt all about the Jews.

Because, there is NOTHING RELATIVE about Holocaust. People ware tortured and murdered for no reason, apart from being different color, religion, or opinion.
The way one views the Holocaust is relative. Big difference. You see it as unquestionable and undeniable, when i tend to look at it with a different look and argue against some of the things they are trying to make us believe. Your point of view, my point of view.

Yeah, right, so you don't believe in punishing the murderers? Please do tell me how u concluded that?

I read this 4 times, still don't understand what you ware trying to say.You cant compare sexist remarks with discussing the Holocaust. One must differentiate here, the sole intent of the sexist remark is to offend the other, so it is taken under a guise, while questioning the Holocaust is not meant to offend others, although it will inadvertently do so because it is a touchy subject, but in the end every subject is a touchy subject for someone. So we cant just go around picking subjects we cant talk about, you no longer implement a right that is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is no longer a right if one can tell you what u can and cant talk about. one questions the Holocaust because one is not convinced of the story laid forth. Call him dumb call him stupid, it his right to question anything and everything.
So if I was to rape your sister, and say latter I meant no disrespect, we would be cool, right?!? Or maybe if my friend wanted to challenge the rape it self, you would take the time to listen to him? GTFOH!......you actually know the difference between saying something and doing something right?

I make fun of other peoples BELIEFS which are questionable at best, and not of the FACTS that are well documented.
You question beliefs because of the lack of tangible facts they provide, i question your belief in the Holocaust because of the prejudice, global influence and intent. And because of my opinion towards distortion of the facts and the global political agenda. See how it is relative?

I have no problem discussing the Holocaust. I have a problem with YOU discussing something you know nothing about, besides you dislike the people that ware killed, so it must be OK then?!? Read a book or two before judging others.
And if you see me as a hypocrite, I am proud!
Why am I seeing you as a hypocrite? Answer please.
Chill...we are just discussing something here, no need to get all pumped up. If this subject affects you this much, avert from discussing it with someone who has contrary belief.

Will it shatter over a cartoon?
I take Holocaust more seriously then cartoons, how about you?No it wont, the reason why anyone has the right to speak their minds about the prophet.
What I take seriously is the fact of the double standard and hypocrisy present in western countries about this matter.
Why don't we all start painting swastikas in public locations and call it individualism? I shouldn't have to tell you what offensive is, just as I don't have to tell you no to fart out lout during Salaat. I don’t think its legal for someone to paint anything on a public space, but even if it wasn’t and according to western countries set of rules, he can draw whatever is his choosing. You are not grasping the notion I am trying to partake; to not let anyone tell you what u can and cant do, what u can and cant say, no matter the subject.

Your wary exsistance is a privilage, yet you feel it is your right. People in the Holocaust didn't have this right, and for them this was privilage rearly achivable. Once a right is controlled by someone or something it ceases to be.

I may be biased, but the Holocause deniers need to just STFO and GTFO.

My grandmother and my grandfather both went through the Holocaust. MY grandfather was sent to Italy for collegee before the war. When the Nazis invaded Poland, his family had set up a system: they woudl send him a picture, and if they were standing, things were OK, and if they were sitting, things were bad. MY grandfather got his first picture: they were lying on the ground.

One day, the pictures stopped coming.

MY grandmother's story is worse. She watch the Nazis burn the synagouge her parents were in to the ground. Her brother, who had saved her life when she was little, protected her, and he was shot. He died in her arms. She was captured and put on a train with thousands of other children to a death camp. SHe managed to jump off the train, but couldn't convince the young children to jump with her. At this point, she was only 17.

She then spent time actually working for a Nazi general as a maid, concealing her Jewish past. Finally, she got away to America, where she met my grandfather.

My grandfather, later in life, took up geaneology as a hobby. He traced our family tree back many generations. HE had a habit of putting a little star next to every person who died in the Holocaust.

There are a hell of a lot of stars on that paper.

I have, sittign in my room, books of evidence my grandfather compiled which conclusively prove that millions were slaughtered in WWII. We have video, audio, visual, tex, and eyewitness accounts of everythign that happened.

The Holocaust happened. Now shut the fuck up.

/my two bits. Friend, reread the entirety of the thread. This isn’t about denying the holocaust but rather the right to speak freely about it.
There is however a difference between discussion and falsification of facts to cause harm. Last time I checked this was called larceny and prosecutable in just about every country.

There is however a difference between discussion and falsification of facts to cause harm. Last time I checked this was called larceny and prosecutable in just about every country. One has to prove that the facts presented are false first. Guilty before proven innocent?

We also attack any belief system that causes harm to children, would anyone care to defend that as "individualism". Do you believe that ALL the people who question the Holocaust are bent on the destruction of the Jews and hate them?

Let's pretend for a moment that some of the Holocaust deniers are correct, and "only" a couple hundred thousand people died, and not six million. Isn't that "couple hundred thousand" still a frighteningly large number? Of course it is.

To question this is to question the crime it self. To question the existence of God is blasphemy in itself. Ring any bells? I know what u are going to respond with, but how can you seriously defend your position while u are utterly unaware of the going on in the other side, and do not know of the claims they have provided, I can tell that u don’t know anything about the Revisionists from the blatant and ignorant label u cast them with “handful Nazi parties and historian wannabes”.

http://static.nme.com/images/08724_101928_pinkfloyalbumsleeve13L06060.jpg

Perna de Pau
February 11th, 2009, 11:40 AM
As nobody commented on my last post, which was followed by a much longer one, I presume that some might not have seen it and I post it again. I apologise to those who read it and just did not wish to comment .

I would be particularly interested in knowing your opinion about whether or not, and for what reasons, Holocaust denial should be excluded from the accepted exceptions to freedom of expression.

As some have already pointed out freedom of expression has exceptions. We are not entitled to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, if there is no fire.

The Holocaust is another exception, which was set - and rightly so - because of the unique circumstances of what happened during the second world war. This particular exception should however be limited in time.

On the one hand, once there are no survivors alive, the offense to their descendants is less important (nobody would argue that denial of the Spanish inquisition should be forbidden on the grounds of respect due to its victims).

On the other hand - and this is much more important - the fact that the Holocaust is considered important enough to become an exception to freedom of expression is a very strong argument to those who wish to impose other exceptions based on reasons that are, from their point of view, even more important.

What is happening, for instance in the United Nations, is quite worrying (to say the least):

extract from a press release by Article19:

"In 2009, it is worthwhile reflecting on the current challenges for freedom of expression. One of the most contentious issues currently on the agenda of institutions within the UN system is that of defamation of religion. Starting in 1999, a strategic voting bloc of countries led by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference has been steadily pushing through a series of critical resolutions that limit the rights of individuals and groups to criticise religions."

In view of the above I wonder whether time has not come to exclude Holocaust denial from the accepted exceptions to freedom of expression. Such exclusion would of course not mean that we think it any less likely to have happened but only that denying it is no longer dangerous and the reasons which justified this exceptions no longer exist.

winwun
February 11th, 2009, 12:20 PM
People will use events and situations, Child abuse, Drunk driving, Holocaust, Inquisition, whatever, to push their own selfish agenda, most often to put money in their pockets, and will give little heed, or pay little respect to the actual event or situation itself.

They are ONLY concerned with their own interpretation, as it betters their position in whatever scheme they are pushing at the moment.

Recently, the diabetes association tried to get the standard for diabetes lowered in order to include more borderline cases as "diabetics" in order to make their "numbers" higher, because any cause, no matter what, must have high "numbers" if it seeks to enlarge its base.

Anti-Drunk driving people are boosting their claims by including the numbers of PASSENGERS in fatal wrecks that showed evidence of alcohol consumption in the same attempt.

Persons who start out to do good most often wind up doing well . . .

djura
February 11th, 2009, 12:32 PM
So your opting with the ant-Semite counter argument ey? Well since i am a Semite that actually doesn't work. And no i dont have any grude against Jews, i just have a whole lots against murdering bastards called Zionists, but thats an entirely different story.

This makes it all OK, you being a Semite?

Give me one single testimony, reel, fact which proves that gas chambers were used.


My grandfather made human soap in Dachau. Came home in late 1945 weighing 33kg (he was 172 cm tall), and this was after he spent 4 months in a hospital.


Since we are on mutual grounds that it is anyones right to discuss the Holocaust and any other event, why are we arguing?



Where did i ever say that the Holocaust was only about the Jews? Thats actually what i was trying to disprove in the part you quoted, to say that it wasnt all about the Jews.


Holocaust is about killing people. I personally don't care which - my grandfather was an orthodox christian in case you ware wondering. You seem to make a difference, and I find this disgusting.


The way one views the Holocaust is relative. Big difference. You see it as unquestionable and undeniable, when i tend to look at it with a different look and argue against some of the things they are trying to make us believe. Your point of view, my point of view.


No intelligent human being on Earth sees murder as relative. And who the fuck ARE THEY? The murdering globalizing sons of bitches? The US, the EU, the Jews? WTF?


Please do tell me how u concluded that?


You stated that some things are more relative in different countries.
SOME AREN'T!


You cant compare sexist remarks with discussing the Holocaust. One must differentiate here, the sole intent of the sexist remark is to offend the other, so it is taken under a guise, while questioning the Holocaust is not meant to offend others, although it will inadvertently do so because it is a touchy subject, but in the end every subject is a touchy subject for someone. So we cant just go around picking subjects we cant talk about, you no longer implement a right that is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is no longer a right if one can tell you what u can and cant talk about. one questions the Holocaust because one is not convinced of the story laid forth. Call him dumb call him stupid, it his right to question anything and everything.


You got this all wrong. Speech is free, and it's anyone's right. If your mother didn't tech you manners, nether can I. Questioning your motives, is free as well, and it's just the thing I'm doing now. I'm not calming you cant talk about certain things, but merely suggesting it's not polite to discuss things you don't have a clue about. Furthermore, your motives are questionable at best, regarding this subject since you are a 21 year old moron from Lebanon.


......you actually know the difference between saying something and doing something right?


You do have a sister, right?


You question beliefs because of the lack of tangible facts they provide, i question your belief in the Holocaust because of the prejudice, global influence and intent. And because of my opinion towards distortion of the facts and the global political agenda. See how it is relative?


Yeah, global influence of evil mutherfuckers who are after all peace loving nations. They bring prejudice all sorts of evil stuff... Paranoia anyone?


Why am I seeing you as a hypocrite? Answer please.
Chill...we are just discussing something here, no need to get all pumped up. If this subject affects you this much, avert from discussing it with someone who has contrary belief.


Hypocrisy is the most often word used by you. I find that hypocritical at best.


No it wont, the reason why anyone has the right to speak their minds about the prophet.
What I take seriously is the fact of the double standard and hypocrisy present in western countries about this matter.
I dont think its legal for someone to paint anything on a public space, but even if it wasnt and according to western countries set of rules, he can draw whatever is his choosing. You are not grasping the notion I am trying to partake; to not let anyone tell you what u can and cant do, what u can and cant say, no matter the subject.


How the fuck would you know ANYTHING about western countries sets of rules? Do you live in a western country? Even where I live, which is as far as possible from "western" stereotype Muslims fbusted windows down and protested for a week because of cartoons. Hell, half of city center was trashed. You thing police came to beat the up?

I wont you to go out in the street and yell "I'm gay!" I double dare you!
And don't fucking preach me about rights and free speech.


One has to prove that the facts presented are false first. Guilty before proven innocent?


One doesn't have to prove stuff already been proved. Don't like this proof? You still believe the Earth is a flat disc? Maybe there is not enough proof for that also.


Do you believe that ALL the people who question the Holocaust are bent on the destruction of the Jews and hate them?


All people who question murder, hate the victims.


To question the existence of God is blasphemy in itself. Ring any bells? I know what u are going to respond with, but how can you seriously defend your position while u are utterly unaware of the going on in the other side, and do not know of the claims they have provided, I can tell that u dont know anything about the Revisionists from the blatant and ignorant label u cast them with handful Nazi parties and historian wannabes.

http://static.nme.com/images/08724_101928_pinkfloyalbumsleeve13L06060.jpg

I'm not even going to comment on your "good intentions".

Rainbow
February 12th, 2009, 10:53 AM
This makes it all OK, you being a Semite? Makes what okay? I told you i have nothing against the Jews. Its very low of you to play this card in order to further augment ur argument.

My grandfather made human soap in Dachau. Came home in late 1945 weighing 33kg (he was 172 cm tall), and this was after he spent 4 months in a hospital. Yes, im not saying that free labor wasnt the case. I dont know how the above is related to gas chambers.

Holocaust is about killing people. I personally don't care which - my grandfather was an orthodox christian in case you ware wondering. You seem to make a difference, and I find this disgusting. Holocaust is not only about killing people. If you invest some time to broaden your horizon instead of just buying the things they tell you might have a more objective stance on the whole situation. And no, i did not differentiate between killing Jews and killing christians. Im just saying that the killing of christians also happened.

No intelligent human being on Earth sees murder as relative. And who the fuck ARE THEY? The murdering globalizing sons of bitches? The US, the EU, the Jews? WTF? If you actually take the time and read and learn as to why your Holocaust happened you might have a change of perception on the whole thing.And yes, murder in some society's is not seen as horrificly as our societies do.

And who the fuck ARE THEY? The murdering globalizing sons of bitches? The US, the EU, the Jews? WTF? Not Jews, but Zionists. I dont care to explain further on this issue because i feel its to no avail.

You stated that some things are more relative in different countries.
SOME AREN'T!Like? Give me one example and ill give you a society which views it differently.

I'm not calming you cant talk about certain things, but merely suggesting it's not polite to discuss things you don't have a clue about. Furthermore, your motives are questionable at best, regarding this subject since you are a 21 year old moron from Lebanon.Why are my motives questionable? I am but a mere individual who holds no power to change things. Even if i had motives, i couldnt do anything to accomplish them. Your logic is kind of twisted.

You do have a sister, right?Please dont mention relatives in this disscusion.

Yeah, global influence of evil mutherfuckers who are after all peace loving nations. They bring prejudice all sorts of evil stuff... Paranoia anyone?
Dogmatic behavior and ignorance anyone? We cant follow with this discussion, you refuse to take my argument seriously and into consideration.

How the fuck would you know ANYTHING about western countries sets of rules? Do you live in a western country? Even where I live, which is as far as possible from "western" stereotype Muslims fbusted windows down and protested for a week because of cartoons. Hell, half of city center was trashed. You thing police came to beat the up?How does this paragraph add to the conversation?

One doesn't have to prove stuff already been proved. Don't like this proof? You still believe the Earth is a flat disc? Maybe there is not enough proof for that also.
Give me evidence detailing the use of gas chambers against Jews. I never said that i believed that the earth is flat.

All people who question murder, hate the victims. Some people who question murder, question the reason for the murder itself.

The most blunt statement in this topic. The "Final Solution" to the "Jew problem" was indeed exterminating every last one of them.Prove that the Final Solution was indeed laid forth to exterminate the Jews and not deport them to another region.

Rainbow
February 12th, 2009, 11:03 AM
As nobody commented on my last post, which was followed by a much longer one, I presume that some might not have seen it and I post it again. I apologise to those who read it and just did not wish to comment .

I would be particularly interested in knowing your opinion about whether or not, and for what reasons, Holocaust denial should be excluded from the accepted exceptions to freedom of expression.

I guess the ramifications start with a single thing. Europeans would have had a much stronger argument concerning their right to speak their minds about the prophet or any other religious figure if the contradiction to their statements didnt exist. I.e, the Holocaust. I know this, because in alot of discussions Muslims have used this issue to further alleviate their argument.

Like: "If they dont have the right to speak about the Holocaust because they would offend the Jews, they shouldnt have the right to insult our prophet because they would insult us."

djura
February 12th, 2009, 11:03 AM
You are a Nazi mutherfucker Rainbow... I just hope the "Zionists" get to you, and put you into "free labor" camp.

winwun
February 12th, 2009, 11:37 AM
Eine Volk, Eine Reich, Eine Google . . .

tagnostic
February 12th, 2009, 02:48 PM
ich bin ein Googlisch

winwun
February 12th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Alle kunst ist umsunst wen ein engel auf das zundloch brunzst . . .:icon_eek:

A serious question about the german labor camps, you hear about how the germans made soap from the bodies of the dead internees, but the pictures I've seen of the bodies looks like all the fat was worked off them before they died.

Making soap is good PR for the loyal opposition, but I believe the germans were smart enough to get all the work they could out of the prisoners, and the cost of a bar of soap was far less than the value of the free labor.

Home-made soap DOES require a large amount of fat, and the only fat prisoners were the kapos.

tagnostic
February 12th, 2009, 07:51 PM
in Texas prisons
the inmates made/used lye soap
(no fat required)
which was also sold to other institutions of confinement
up until 1994,
affectionately known as "state soap"
do not get it in your eyes
or your clothes
kinda caustic

Loki
February 13th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Anyone want to take the Jew/Holocaust/Whatever into another thread?

Upto Rainbow and djura I'd say?



Whatever - cut the sniping here please.

Rainbow
February 14th, 2009, 07:20 PM
Anyone want to take the Jew/Holocaust/Whatever into another thread?

Upto Rainbow and djura I'd say?

No no wait im still verifying the data provided and building my argument.

Loki
February 14th, 2009, 08:14 PM
No no wait im still verifying the data provided and building my argument.

Fine by me Rainbow - I wasn't going to stop the argument - I wondered if you wanted to give it it's own thread?- I'll leave it as is :D

djura
February 15th, 2009, 12:38 PM
I'm done...

Rainbow
February 16th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Eine Volk, Eine Reich, Eine Google . . .

Are you actually serious for what u have provided here? The articles only state that the Germans intended Jewish destruction but deliver no quotations and no reference from the original source they claim to derive their information from. Not very serious i would say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

No wiki's please, serious academic articles and journals are credible and reliable.

Please i dont want to turn this thread into a Holocaust thread, this thread was intended to show the utter dismissal of freedom of speech.

tagnostic
February 17th, 2009, 12:45 AM
Isn't Wiki
the Ultimate Freedom Of Speech?
yet it's not citable
but Al JeZeera is?

sudikics
February 17th, 2009, 01:42 AM
Are you actually serious for what u have provided here? The articles only state that the Germans intended Jewish destruction but deliver no quotations and no reference from the original source they claim to derive their information from. Not very serious i would say.
Let's see. If you'd like, I can provide several first-hand accounts, alogn with evidence which perfectly fits where the witnesses say it should be. For instance, I have that picture my grandfather received of his family laying down on the ground.

If you need evidence, I suggest that you go find some Holocaust survivors and ask them straight int he face for their proof. I hope they show you their tattooed numbers.

You see, there is more evidence for the Holocaust than there is for, say, evolution.
No wiki's please, serious academic articles and journals are credible and reliable.
Tag puts your hypocrisy perfectly, but if you really want evidence, I'll let you do part of the work.

http://www.historians.org/search/googleresults.cfm?cx=014835234373118822110%3Afusdh-vx_jm&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Holocaust&sa=Search#957
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/
http://www.bccla.org/positions/freespeech/85keegstra.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=d_WQswUkFO4C&dq=isbn:0465021530&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
Please i dont want to turn this thread into a Holocaust thread, this thread was intended to show the utter dismissal of freedom of speech.
*looks at title about Holocaust denial*

Hmm....

Really, it's about both.

Rainbow
February 17th, 2009, 09:19 PM
Isn't Wiki
the Ultimate Freedom Of Speech?
yet it's not citable
but Al JeZeera is?

You can cite from Wiki, i never said you couldnt, but no academic would take an argument that derives its sources from wiki seriously, i thought the why's of this were already understood.

Let's see. If you'd like, I can provide several first-hand accounts, alogn with evidence which perfectly fits where the witnesses say it should be. For instance, I have that picture my grandfather received of his family laying down on the ground.

If you need evidence, I suggest that you go find some Holocaust survivors and ask them straight int he face for their proof. I hope they show you their tattooed numbers.

You see, there is more evidence for the Holocaust than there is for, say, evolution.

So what are you trying to say?

http://www.historians.org/search/goo...&sa=Search#957 (http://www.historians.org/search/googleresults.cfm?cx=014835234373118822110%3Afusdh-vx_jm&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Holocaust&sa=Search#957)
http://www.holocaust-history.org/aus...and-operation/ (http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/)
http://www.bccla.org/positions/frees...5keegstra.html (http://www.bccla.org/positions/freespeech/85keegstra.html)
http://books.google.com/books?id=d_W...ummary_s&cad=0 (http://books.google.com/books?id=d_WQswUkFO4C&dq=isbn:0465021530&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0)
http://www.holocaust-history.org/

Will be looking into those.


Really, it's about both.


Lets see, discussing the freedom to talk about the Holocaust is the same subject as denying the Holocaust?




You can deny the Virgin Birth in the Western world. You can claim Blessed Mary was a harlot. You can deny the Resurrection. You can deny the Israeli holocaust against Palestinians and the Allied holocaust against Dresden. All of these according to the Judaic thought-police are mere “opinions” of men.

But the only divine truth that the Judaics demand the world must confess is execution gas chambers in Auschwitz. This is what the Judaic “Holocaust” theology has created: the de-sacrilegation of Christianity and state-enforced belief in what I term, “Holocaustianity.”

The Judaic “Holocaust” theology represents the gradual erosion of the claims of the New Testament and the increasing supremacy of Orthodox Judaism’s worldview. (Hoffman)

Read letter from Michael Hoffman to the Pope.
Link (http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/02/hoffmans-letter-to-pope-benedict-xvi.html)


Thursday, February 05, 2009
Hoffman's Letter to Pope Benedict XVI
I believe in freedom of speech for Bishop Williamson

Pope Benedict XVI
Vatican City

benedictxvi@vatican.va (benedictxvi@vatican.va)

Your Holiness

Is it not true that under the Second Vatican Council's doctrine of Religious Liberty, that Bishop Richard N. Williamson has the right to express his conscience and opinion on the subject of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz? Why is the Council's doctrine of liberty being suspended in his case?

Your Secretary of State has made belief in the "Shoah" a criterion for holding office in the Church. Is the rabbinic "Shoah" mysticism now a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church?

If so, on what Biblical, patristic and theological basis is the warning of the Apostle Paul in Titus 1:14 now overthrown?

Do Catholics no longer have the right to doubt or question aspects of secular history? Does the Magsterium of the Church now decree the undoubted veracity of the figure of Six Million deceased Judaic persons, and the undoubted existence of a mass killing operation in Auschwitz-Birkenau, conducted by means of poison gas chambers?

Are you aware of the extent to which the Crucifixion of Christ has been replaced by Auschwitz as the central ontological event of western history? Do you wish to be complicit in the disastrous effects that continue to accrue from this derogation of Jesus and deification of man?

I firmly believe in freedom of speech for Bishop Williamson. I am deeply troubled by your attempted suppression of his rights in this matter. It would seem that, under your pontificate, casting doubt on a supposition of secular history is now a de facto heresy. I can find no grounds for this innovation in Scripture or Catholic tradition.

I also urge you to compassionately use your influence to solicit the immediate release of the imprisoned chemist Germar Rudolf, who has been jailed for more than a year in Germany, for writing scholarly books (http://www.vho.org/dl/ENG/loth.pdf (http://www.vho.org/dl/ENG/loth.pdf)) on the technical and scientific aspects of the alleged homicidal gas chambers. His suffering and that of his young family must not be ignored or dismissed. He deserves mercy. He has committed no crime. His continuing incarceration in Germany is a scandal and a disgrace for which German Chancellor Angela Merkel bears grave responsibility.

Sincerely,

Michael Hoffman

Idaho, USA

winwun
February 17th, 2009, 11:44 PM
Apparently the Jews, much like the blacks, are riding the PC gravy-train of past offences (real and/or perceived), and will, again like the blacks, steam-roll anyone or thing in their path.

"But that was yesterday, and yesterday's gone . . ."

I have purposefully dangled references to the Kapos a few times in this thread, and the mentions have been ignored and the silence is nothing less than deafening -- if you're going to point out the naughty acts of one side, while we're at it, let's be fair and point out both sides . . .

Loki
February 18th, 2009, 12:03 AM
Apparently the Jews, much like the blacks, are riding the PC gravy-train of past offences (real and/or perceived), and will, again like the blacks, steam-roll anyone or thing in their path.

"But that was yesterday, and yesterday's gone . . ."

Nothing new in that winwun. Colour and religion has fuck-all to do with it though - just a case of sour grapes.
And let's face it, some Americans do go on about the War of Independence a bit. And change history to reflect their views :D
(Especially the part about France and Spain LOL)


I have purposefully dangled references to the Kapos a few times in this thread, and the mentions have been ignored and the silence is nothing less than deafening -- if you're going to point out the naughty acts of one side, while we're at it, let's be fair and point out both sides . . .

Just because no-one has replied doesn't mean they were missed.:icon_rolleyes:

(I probably missed them if that's any consolation? :D)

tagnostic
February 18th, 2009, 08:38 AM
Are you aware of the extent to which the Crucifixion of Christ has been replaced by Auschwitz as the central ontological event of western history? Do you wish to be complicit in the disastrous effects that continue to accrue from this derogation of Jesus and deification of man?
Idaho, USA

From this it would appear that he is not disputing the historical facts, he is instead upset with its impact on the "catholic" church et al,

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 06:14 PM
Interesting take on hate speech by Thunderf00t. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aFEBWjJYs0

I basically agree with him, but I would say that tehre cannot be limits on free speech, including that which is intended to start illegal activity. All that we can do in response to that is be more aware and prepared to deal with actual legal transgressions when they occur.

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 06:32 PM
sounds like a slippery slope
Im all for freedom of speech
and freedom in action
as long as it doesnt
impinge on others
rights to the
same freedomś
where do you draw the line?

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 06:52 PM
sounds like a slippery slope
Im all for freedom of speech
and freedom in action
as long as it doesnt
impinge on others
rights to the
same freedomś
where do you draw the line?

Well I would hold that freedom of speech in itself never impinges on anyone elses freedom.

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 06:59 PM
I would beg to differ,
I know this is only an isolated situation
but what if giving false testimony
in court (free speech)
cost some one else their freedom/life?

is free speech the right to lie?
or is it the right to voice honestly held opinions?
when and how do you decide of speech/writing
is malicious or an incitement to impinge on others rights?

again,
whereś the line?

Sister Faith
March 22nd, 2009, 07:04 PM
sounds like a slippery slope
Im all for freedom of speech
and freedom in action
as long as it doesnt
impinge on others
rights to the
same freedomś
where do you draw the line?

It is a very slippery slope. Free speech is one of the few checks against corruption in our institutions that we have. Denying some the right is denying ourselves to that right as well.

I would draw the line at inciting violence/harm to others and only prosecute when it can be proven that violence was perpetrated as a direct result of the incitation.

I would also apply any present or future laws against hate speech evenly across the board without any political bias.

Canada prosecuted Keegstra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra) (who did not promote violence) but refused to prosecute Raymond Villeneuve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Villeneuve) who did and who's hate speech was the provable cause of violence, death threats and arson against immigrants and anglophones in the 1990's. :icon_evil:

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 07:07 PM
I would beg to differ,
I know this is only an isolated situation
but what if giving false testimony
in court (free speech)
cost some one else their freedom/life?

is free speech the right to lie?
or is it the right to voice honestly held opinions?
when and how do you decide of speech/writing
is malicious or an incitement to impinge on others rights?

again,
whereś the line?

This may seem a bit pedantic but is the testimony itself responsible for that person't loss of rights? Or is the proceeding action of the court responsible for it? Only action can oppose rights.

Now that said, the person giving false testimony is still at fault... in the same way that they would be if they had planted false evidence. They are wrong in that they are arranging circumstances such that it is likely that someone's rights will be impinged upon. They are being manipulative and underhanded, and if caught they should be duely punished.

However, there is still no way for the action of speech itself to break anyone's basic human rights

Lying is bad, but taking away the right to lie is worse.

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 07:10 PM
interesting point
but the bottom line
is that speech and communication et al
can and does cause physical harm
and a loss of rights
my point remains
where do my rights end and yours begin

(ps, big fun, missed this while you were gone)

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 07:22 PM
That's true, but there is no way to be sure of which words will cause harm. It comes down to a question of influence: the smallest thing said by someone with strong influence can lead to harm and horrible violations of rights, while the worst indicment of a race can leand to nothing in different circumstances. Do we really have the right to restrict teh freedom of everyone because of the harm that very few can do if not watched carefully?

To illustrate: should we ban or heavily regulate the ownership of kitchen knives because in the hands of some they become deadly?

Only action should be regulated restricted and punished.

PS: good to be back :D

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 07:25 PM
interesting allegory
but once a knife is used in a crime
do you punish the instigator (hate speech)
the knife weilder
the shop that sold the knife
or
the company that made it?

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 07:28 PM
interesting allegory
but once a knife is used in a crime
do you punish the instigator (hate speech)
the knife weilder
the shop that sold the knife
or
the company that made it?

the knife wielder.

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 09:11 PM
Hitler never pulled a lever, yet he was the proximate cause
Bin Laden didnt fly a plane, but his words were the proximate cause

you get the idea,
words can make
you culpable

thediddydude
March 22nd, 2009, 10:32 PM
I have heard this story many times, each time i do it sickens me more to the core.

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 10:36 PM
I have heard this story many times, each time i do it sickens me more to the core.

would you care to elaborate?

my position is that these people
using words were the proximate
cause of physical harm to others
and should be punished accordingly

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 10:51 PM
Hitler never pulled a lever, yet he was the proximate cause
Bin Laden didnt fly a plane, but his words were the proximate cause

you get the idea,
words can make
you culpable

Culpable, yes, of manipulation. Hitler was responsible for orchestrating a genocide. That is a horrific, monstrous thing to do, obviously, and he is indeed culpable for it. Guilty of murder, I think not.

Bin Laden is responsible for organising terrorist attacks, which again, is awful, but he is not in any way guilty of hijacking a plane.

Only action can violate rights. If nobody had acted on Hitler's call to kill the jews, would he still be history's monster? I think not. I think he would have just been a monsterously racist politician.

If nobody had listened to Bin Laden's pleas to destry the Twin Towers, would he still be the modern bogeyman? Again, no. Just another racist extremest.

Yes these people are monsters, but their words in and of themselves do not make these people culpable. The act of speaking has never destroyed a building or activated a gas chamber or fired a gun.

Do not condemn anyone because of what they say, disagree. Condemn only action.

rmw
March 22nd, 2009, 10:56 PM
Do not condemn anyone because of what they say, disagree. Condemn only action.

But it was their words that led to action. Look at it from something a bit less extreme than Hitler or bin Laden:

You yell "fire" in a crowded restaurant. Patrons panic, and a person is trampled to death in the ensuing rush. Are you guilty of murder? Yes, at least indirectly. You may not have been part of the mob that crushed the victim, but your word(s) led up to the action that resulted in a person's death.

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 11:19 PM
But it was their words that led to action. Look at it from something a bit less extreme than Hitler or bin Laden:

You yell "fire" in a crowded restaurant. Patrons panic, and a person is trampled to death in the ensuing rush. Are you guilty of murder? Yes, at least indirectly. You may not have been part of the mob that crushed the victim, but your word(s) led up to the action that resulted in a person's death.

But the fact remains that words without action cannot violate rights. You are guilty of lying (which, yes, is bad) but you have not violated anyone's human rights. The lie led to dangerous circumstances, but still, robbed of action, is harmless.

Let me illustrate: if you yell fire in a building with one other person, will anyone get hurt?

The words do not commit the crime

tagnostic
March 22nd, 2009, 11:39 PM
gonna just have to differ
on this one,
if the words
were the proximate cause
of the action, then that person
is just as culpable

final example
charles manson
never caused physical harm
but Im really happy heś been removed
from society for the actions he incited

Al Farabi
March 22nd, 2009, 11:49 PM
gonna just have to differ
on this one,
if the words
were the proximate cause
of the action, then that person
is just as culpable

final example
charles manson
never caused physical harm
but Im really happy heś been removed
from society for the actions he incited

I think I am being misunderstood. I am not saying that people who instigate crimes through their words are innocent. I am just saying they are innocent of the crime itself.

I am merely trying to demonstrate that any law that restricts what people can say is inherrently flawed because it can never - by the nature of speech itself - be universal. Saying what people can't say doesn't work because the same words in different circumstances could lead towildly different interpretations and therefore outcomes.

Consider, just for example, the difference in meaning of "using a rubber" in different geographical locations.

tagnostic
March 23rd, 2009, 12:01 AM
ok,
im kind of in agreement with some of that,
itś the crime itself argument im having an issue with
granted the moron the allows himself to be manipulated
by words needs to be segregated from society,
my position is that the person who took advantage
of a weak minded individual, using words and symbology
is equally culpable

(really enjoying this, and where the heck is Yiuel?)

Al Farabi
March 23rd, 2009, 12:05 AM
ok,
im kind of in agreement with some of that,
itś the crime itself argument im having an issue with
granted the moron the allows himself to be manipulated
by words needs to be segregated from society,
my position is that the person who took advantage
of a weak minded individual, using words and symbology
is equally culpable

(really enjoying this, and where the heck is Yiuel?)
I agree that they are equally guilty, but not for the same crime. How can asking someone to stab your wife and stabbing your wife possibly be considered the same crime?

(and yeah I dunno!)

tagnostic
March 23rd, 2009, 12:08 AM
i guess im thinking
more of probable
cause and effect
if you believe that
your words will cause
an effect regardless of
whether you commit the act
your culpable..

Al Farabi
March 23rd, 2009, 12:12 AM
i guess im thinking
more of probable
cause and effect
if you believe that
your words will cause
an effect regardless of
whether you commit the act
your culpable..

You are guilty of trying to incite immorality (which is in itself immoral). That's a bad thing to do, for sure, and (importantly) it is an action. The words themself are not what make you guilty, what makes you guilty is the incitement (which is an action).

rmw
March 23rd, 2009, 12:17 AM
But how else would you incite, other than words?

Al Farabi
March 23rd, 2009, 12:22 AM
But how else would you incite, other than words?

example?

tagnostic
March 23rd, 2009, 12:23 AM
why would you want to?
live yours, dont tell otherś what to do
living my life is enough
without trying to live others


this is really fun
where the heck
is Yieul?

Al Farabi
March 23rd, 2009, 12:26 AM
Words are a tool. What they are used for is upon the concience of the user. Posession of a gun does not make a murderer. Pointing a gun at someone does not make you a murderer. Firing a gun does not even make a murderer. Only to point the gun at another man and fire is to be a murderer.

So too is the way with words.

tagnostic
March 23rd, 2009, 12:31 AM
brings us back to an old question,
if you are asked by your country
to fight an unjust war
and you refuse
who should be prosecuted
you for dereliction of duty
or
whoever gave the order?

Al Farabi
March 23rd, 2009, 12:35 AM
brings us back to an old question,
if you are asked by your country
to fight an unjust war
and you refuse
who should be prosecuted
you for dereliction of duty
or
whoever gave the order?

Well if the interaction ends there, then nobody should be prosecuted. You should be allowed to say no just as they should be allowed to ask.

tagnostic
March 23rd, 2009, 03:01 AM
hehehehe
good solution

not always practical though

sudikics
March 23rd, 2009, 03:47 AM
Note to thread: I changed the thread titles to "Vatican Priest Rejects Holocaust". Hope no one minds.

winwun
March 23rd, 2009, 11:53 AM
To point the gun, fire the gun, hit a vital spot causing the death of the target, being arrested , tried, and convicted, makes it murder . . .

Up to being convicted, it is not murder, it is homicide . . .

. . . .and words are all we have . . . .

thediddydude
March 23rd, 2009, 04:52 PM
would you care to elaborate?

my position is that these people
using words were the proximate
cause of physical harm to others
and should be punished accordingly

I will, he goes against all historic resources with his bizarre comment, and for what? Is this comment for the sake of his religion? no.

I believe that going against the holocaust's exisitence is going against the billions of people who suffered, we have evidence like the diary of anne frank.

Is this preist BLIND?

Sister Faith
March 23rd, 2009, 05:22 PM
Is this preist BLIND?

Yes. And willfully so. :icon_evil:

But should he be punished/prosecuted for opening his mouth and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the level of his blindness?

If all the people like him were silenced, how would we know who needs a crash-course in history? How could we stop the flow of mis-information/propaganda to the sheeples if we don't know it exists?

This type of evil will never be eradicated unless it is allowed to rise to the top of the collective conscious-awareness pool where it can die in the light of day like the pond-scum it is.

On a related note, the latest from Pat Condell: Free Speech is Sacred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzTA_D5NpU&feature=sdig&et=1237725204.73)

Enjoy!

thediddydude
March 23rd, 2009, 05:44 PM
I believe that freedom of speech can only be used up to an extent of when you go against all humans have established. Focusing more on the topic.

@sister of faith

Thanks, for your comment. However, i don't see how he can go against something that had been proven for many years. The holocausts information has always been totally correct, sure you might get the little flaw or two. But the main picture is definetely clear, historians were outraged at the man's comment. However they thought he was so stupid to say such a thing that most didn't even bother putting in any evidence for him to gaze upon! Leaving all to the church to decide his fate, and being the forgiving, loving, people they are. They re-instate him, allowing him more chances to say speeches and be publizized to the media.

Thanks sister of faith :)

tagnostic
March 23rd, 2009, 05:48 PM
you can deny gravity when your falling
but when you reach the ground the truth hurts

thediddydude
March 23rd, 2009, 06:28 PM
you can deny gravity when your falling
but when you reach the ground the truth hurts

Exactly.

Yiuel
March 23rd, 2009, 08:27 PM
thediddydude : People can go against anything, no matter how obvious the proofs are. Because of proof that can lead to your own insecurity is a really bad one. Think of some of those bigotted Christians who, when explicitly shown their oh-so-holy-text to be factually contradictory, will deny the contradiction. A world of certainty shattered by an annoying evidence is something really difficult to support.

But even so, I am with Sis on this one. People can be stupid, people can be idiotic, people can be blinder than moles. Yet no matter how hard you try to suppress them, they will one day explode into the public sphere : better to have their stupdity exposed while the evidence is easily accessible than having some future Flavius Joseph 200 years after the events rewriting history for his own convinience, since all direct evidence will have since then disappeared off the surface of our Blue Marble.

thediddydude
March 23rd, 2009, 09:11 PM
thediddydude : People can go against anything, no matter how obvious the proofs are. Because of proof that can lead to your own insecurity is a really bad one. Think of some of those bigotted Christians who, when explicitly shown their oh-so-holy-text to be factually contradictory, will deny the contradiction. A world of certainty shattered by an annoying evidence is something really difficult to support.

But even so, I am with Sis on this one. People can be stupid, people can be idiotic, people can be blinder than moles. Yet no matter how hard you try to suppress them, they will one day explode into the public sphere : better to have their stupdity exposed while the evidence is easily accessible than having some future Flavius Joseph 200 years after the events rewriting history for his own convinience, since all direct evidence will have since then disappeared off the surface of our Blue Marble.

Ah i see the point now. Thankyou for opening my eyes! yeah i am with sister as well, i doubt that many other people would do the same thing in the future. It takes only one to expose the entire thing.

Thanks for making me understand, i am still getting to grips with deep debates.

djura
March 24th, 2009, 11:22 AM
Nothing in this world happens for no reason. Sure people will lie, they do so every day. Sure people will say horrible things to one another, spread rumors, try to make white black etc. But let's look at the WHY this is being done for a sec.
Someone would lie to their boss, thinking up some stupid reason for being late to work - OK. Someone would lie to get laid - like so-so OK. Another person, a banker, would lie to gain profit - NOT OK. Point being, everyone does something with an AGENDA, and this is a scary part, for me at least.
Sure freedom of speech is universal human right, but than again try to say "I'm gay" in Iran for instance - they would chop your head off or something. Better still, write "Osama rules" on your t-shirt and take a walk beside 9-11 spot. I'm pretty sure you'll have a bunch of angry people trying to take your scalp off - and with every right I might say.
Insult one person publicly, you might end up in jail for as long as one year. Insult 100 million people and you get to be called stupid?!? For fuck sake?!?
What worries me is the possibility of this "incident" not happening for no reason. I don't care about what some stupid priest says, I'm worried about his agenda, and about what happens after a person in power (at least some) states something as monstrous as this.
So, going against gravity, like Tag sad, would leave you with a sour bottom, and going against the most viscous crime in history of human kind leaves you with what - freedom of speech discussion?!?

EDIT:
WTF?!?

thediddydude
March 24th, 2009, 04:58 PM
Nothing in this world happens for no reason. Sure people will lie, they do so every day. Sure people will say horrible things to one another, spread rumors, try to make white black etc. But let's look at the WHY this is being done for a sec.
Someone would lie to their boss, thinking up some stupid reason for being late to work - OK. Someone would lie to get laid - like so-so OK. Another person, a banker, would lie to gain profit - NOT OK. Point being, everyone does something with an AGENDA, and this is a scary part, for me at least.
Sure freedom of speech is universal human right, but than again try to say "I'm gay" in Iran for instance - they would chop your head off or something. Better still, write "Osama rules" on your t-shirt and take a walk beside 9-11 spot. I'm pretty sure you'll have a bunch of angry people trying to take your scalp off - and with every right I might say.
Insult one person publicly, you might end up in jail for as long as one year. Insult 100 million people and you get to be called stupid?!? For fuck sake?!?
What worries me is the possibility of this "incident" not happening for no reason. I don't care about what some stupid priest says, I'm worried about his agenda, and about what happens after a person in power (at least some) states something as monstrous as this.
So, going against gravity, like Tag sad, would leave you with a sour bottom, and going against the most viscous crime in history of human kind leaves you with what - freedom of speech discussion?!?

EDIT:
WTF?!?

Your explanation is quite correct, it is scary to think that people can state something as bad as this and still be in their own house. Whereas someone else would have been locked away and would not have seen daylight for at least another 5 years...

Yiuel
March 24th, 2009, 05:10 PM
Human laws are human laws. They can easily be superceded. (cf the thread about inalienable rights) You may wish strongly that one act or another may be illegal and severly punished, and I am among those people, but human laws are human laws and they can easily be overruled by anything else.

Gravity and the way the Universe works cannot be so overruled by humans. Not only are they universal, but they are the truly inalienable laws. Comparing a human law to how the Universe works is then moot, except in our own moral terms.

(One good thing about the Universe though is that, within its limits, you can do pretty much anything. Including killing, hurting or jailing anyone that goes against any will that you have. Not necessarly the best way to do things, but, at least, it doesn't go against the Universe.)

Sister Faith
March 25th, 2009, 06:51 PM
So, going against gravity, like Tag sad, would leave you with a sour bottom, and going against the most viscous crime in history of human kind leaves you with what - freedom of speech discussion?!?

EDIT:
WTF?!?

I'm not saying that these idiots should go unpunished for their willful stupidity. I'm saying that instead of prison (which will ultimately teach them nothing), they should be made to listen to the howls of derision from the rest of us for as long as possible. :icon_evil:

winwun
March 26th, 2009, 01:45 AM
Ummm, can someone explain the priorities here . . . ? ?

It is OK to deny the existence of God and Jesus, but we are not going to let anyone deny the existence of a questionable event -- is that what I'm hearing here ? ? ?

Loki
March 26th, 2009, 01:54 AM
Ummm, can someone explain the priorities here . . . ? ?

It is OK to deny the existence of God and Jesus, but we are not going to let anyone deny the existence of a questionable event -- is that what I'm hearing here ? ? ?

Not from me you're not. As I've said before, everyone has a right to their opinion even if the masses disagree with it. Hell, I think I can survive someone saying that black is white too - not that I'll believe them.

I'm not sure what you mean by a questionable event winwun. If you mean the holocaust then I think there's enough evidence for that. Certainly more evidence than that extended for the existence of a god.

winwun
March 26th, 2009, 11:36 AM
Loki, . . .words are all I have . . .

I called the (*) a questionable event simply in literal expression, because it WAS an event, and if this thread proves nothing else, it DOES prove that the (*) is being questioned, ergo, (*)=event, thread=questions, soooo, (*) = questonable event . . .

I dunno -- seems clear enough to me . . .

Perna de Pau
March 26th, 2009, 07:00 PM
I'm not saying that these idiots should go unpunished for their willful stupidity. I'm saying that instead of prison (which will ultimately teach them nothing), they should be made to listen to the howls of derision from the rest of us for as long as possible. :icon_evil:

I would go further than that: let all those who feel offended by such statements file complaints against those who make them.

Nobody should be punished just for expressing an opinion but, as someone said, one can (sometimes one should) go to prison for offenses. This would join what Djura said about "agendas": the intention is important in judging whether there was offense or not.

I am not sure what is winwun aiming at but I do not like it.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 26th, 2009, 07:05 PM
"Yup the holocaust never happened 6 million jews just disapeared and started a secret underground city." ~TGRR

djura
March 27th, 2009, 10:49 AM
I would go further than that: let all those who feel offended by such statements file complaints against those who make them.

Nobody should be punished just for expressing an opinion but, as someone said, one can (sometimes one should) go to prison for offenses. This would join what Djura said about "agendas": the intention is important in judging whether there was offense or not.

I am not sure what is winwun aiming at but I do not like it.

Sure, there is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, we might complain to them. Problem is this court holds no power what so ever, and the best they can do is issue a recommendation to Vatican to instruct priests not to talk shit.
But than again, Vatican is out of jurisdiction of this court, as not being in the EU.
Domestic courts can't do anything as well, so I wrote a protest note to Catholic community in Serbia. Been 3 weeks now, got no answer.
So, after reading this, I actually phoned them and the person on the other end of the line told me that main priest (whatever rank he holds) isn't available for comment, and that Serbian Catholic church has no official comment about this, as they are not aware of such statements ever being made.
Seems to me, all I have left is to go and talk to this priest my self... or can't I? I'm about to phone the embassy of Italy, will post latter how it went.

Perna de Pau
March 27th, 2009, 05:43 PM
Sure, there is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, we might complain to them. Problem is this court holds no power what so ever, and the best they can do is issue a recommendation to Vatican to instruct priests not to talk shit.
But than again, Vatican is out of jurisdiction of this court, as not being in the EU.
Domestic courts can't do anything as well,

By the way the European Court of Human Rights is not a EU but a Council of Europe body (a different organisation with 47 member countries, instead of 27). It holds power but may only be seized when all the domestic appeal procedure has been used.

What I meant was the fact that most countries have legislation against insult/defamation and this legislation can be invoked against the priest, perhaps that of the country where the declaration was made.

Loki
March 28th, 2009, 12:28 AM
Loki, . . .words are all I have . . .

I called the (*) a questionable event simply in literal expression, because it WAS an event, and if this thread proves nothing else, it DOES prove that the (*) is being questioned, ergo, (*)=event, thread=questions, soooo, (*) = questonable event . . .

I dunno -- seems clear enough to me . . .

In binary it might. I thought words were all you have, yet you treat them with
all the respect of a manic mathematician. :icon_eek:

tagnostic
March 28th, 2009, 12:31 AM
In binary it might. I thought words were all you have, yet you treat them with
all the respect of a manic mathematician. :icon_eek:

a good mathmatician
would
reduce & simplify

Dolores
March 28th, 2009, 06:47 AM
Not only is it forbidden to speak the freedom of expression regarding the hypocrisy part comes in. Not only is it forbidden to speak the hypocrisy part comes in Germany European countries refuting a prophet? Double. So why do they contest Muslim sentiment and thats where the holocaust while their minds about the freedom of expression regarding a prophet? Double. So why do the Holocaust will get you very much in trouble standard anyone I know its illegal, and defend freedom of expression.

winwun
March 28th, 2009, 01:23 PM
A + B = C

A = a thread where events and topics are, or may be QUESTIONED.

B = event known as "The Holocaust".

C = DUHHH . . .

Al Farabi
March 28th, 2009, 06:21 PM
A + B = C

A = a thread where events and topics are, or may be QUESTIONED.

B = event known as "The Holocaust".

C = DUHHH . . .

Yes, it is true that anything that can be questioned is technically questionable by the strictest definition. We all understand that. However, the common usage of the word questionable is to mean something similar to 'doubtful.' I think we can all agree that, though some people may question the veracity of the holocaust, it is not, in the way most people would use the word, questionable.

So, winwun, please drop it.

tagnostic
March 28th, 2009, 06:28 PM
@ Al Farabi, love the new sig


careful, your questioning is showing

Al Farabi
March 28th, 2009, 06:37 PM
@ Al Farabi, love the new sig


careful, your questioning is showing

Well thank you. I have a new sig?

tagnostic
March 28th, 2009, 06:47 PM
Well thank you. I have a new sig?
pardon
above your avatar
you have achieved
Google Worshipper
status,
You might wanna change that,
heheheh

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 28th, 2009, 07:21 PM
He can't change it tag. Neither can we to be truthful. That is what the admin put in for certain number of post.

Speaking of his sig
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/common_sense_god_damn_super_power.jpg

Al Farabi
March 28th, 2009, 07:38 PM
He can't change it tag. Neither can we to be truthful. That is what the admin put in for certain number of post.

Am I able to change the first line one?

Speaking of his sig
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/common_sense_god_damn_super_power.jpg

Haha what a sweet picture.

tagnostic
March 28th, 2009, 07:40 PM
check with loki or fallen
they can handle it

winwun
March 29th, 2009, 12:50 AM
I think I gotcha, Al, let's see now -- to heck with what I said, and to heck with what I meant, it's going to be interpreted the way YOU want it to be -- is this about right ? ?

Al Farabi
March 29th, 2009, 04:34 AM
I think I gotcha, Al, let's see now -- to heck with what I said, and to heck with what I meant, it's going to be interpreted the way YOU want it to be -- is this about right ? ?

Actually, I was trying to point out to you why it was that everyone was arguing with you on what I assumed you felt was a very clear matter. I was attempting to help what seemed to be a disconnect.

I mean, why keep arguing about it and risk getting all worked up when we all actually agree?