Double standards for holocaust deniers/revisionists
Unfortunately, a person's holocaust denial or revisionism tends to strongly influence how others regard that person's views on other controversial issues, e.g., Darwinism and abortion. For example, when I talk about Darwinism, some people who agree with my anti-Darwinist views overlook my holocaust revisionism, but many of the same people would make ad hominem attacks against my holocaust revisionism if I supported Darwinism. Conversely, Darwinists tend to condemn my holocaust revisionism because I am an anti-Darwinist but would tend to overlook my holocaust revisionism if I were a Darwinist. This situation is so bad that someone told me that he and his colleagues wanted to cite this blog but were afraid of being associated with a holocaust revisionist. This kind of obsessive double standard for holocaust deniers/revisionists is evident in the case of a German opponent of abortion who is also a holocaust revisionist, and an anti-Semitic holocaust revisionist at that (my holocaust revisionism is not anti-Semitic). A blog article says (embedded links omitted),
.
BTW, I feel that Lerle is being unfairly persecuted because I have seen no evidence that any of his statements -- though anti-Semitic -- are incitements to violence.
Also, in the above article, we see arbitrary censorship of comments rear its ugly head again. So far as I can see, I am the only Internet user who has consistently campaigned against arbitrary censorship of comments (no, ViW, censorship of gossip about the private affairs of the blogger is not arbitrary).
A person's views on one controversy and his/her views on another controversy should be regarded as strictly separate, except where there is a direct link between the two controversies. My views about evolution have nothing to do with my views about the holocaust, except for my view that the establishment's views on both controversies are dogmas.
.
.
Despite the revelation that Lutheran pastor Johannes Lerle is a vicious antisemite sentenced to jail in Germany for the crime of incitement by denying or minimizing the Holocaust, the American religious right and pro-life movement continues to cast him as a martyr imprisoned for opposing abortion.
Notwithstanding the fact that translations of Lerle's antisemitic writings have been posted on the website Free Republic, a new thread has appeared, yet again casting him as a martyr. At this point, having been fully informed of the kind of man he is, one must assume the moderators of the site approve of what he stands for; posts of an anti-conservative nature get taken down in minutes.
Bill Dembski also has been informed of the facts, and even though RWP has placed comments on uncommondescent.com alerting them to Lerle's views, a post by Dembski claiming Lerle was being persecuted either for creationist or anti-abortion views still remains up, with no disavowal from site management. Again, uncommondescent removes other objectionable material rapidly. RWP has emailed lifesitenews about their story, . . . . . and to their credit, it was retracted within 24 hours.
Now fringe wingnut site Stop the ACLU has gotten in on the act.
At what point does the Religious Right's continued support of Lerle, now the truth about him is widely available on the internet, become a tacit endorsement of his antisemitism?
BTW, I feel that Lerle is being unfairly persecuted because I have seen no evidence that any of his statements -- though anti-Semitic -- are incitements to violence.
Also, in the above article, we see arbitrary censorship of comments rear its ugly head again. So far as I can see, I am the only Internet user who has consistently campaigned against arbitrary censorship of comments (no, ViW, censorship of gossip about the private affairs of the blogger is not arbitrary).
A person's views on one controversy and his/her views on another controversy should be regarded as strictly separate, except where there is a direct link between the two controversies. My views about evolution have nothing to do with my views about the holocaust, except for my view that the establishment's views on both controversies are dogmas.
.
Labels: Holocaust revisionism (1 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/28/2007 04:08:00 PM
14 Comments:
"the establishment's views on both controversies are dogmas"
This is a tautology.
Impostor said...
>>>>>>"the establishment's views on both controversies are dogmas"
This is a tautology. <<<<<<<
Not necessarily. The establishment's views on a particular controversy are not necessarily dogmatic. But the establishment's views on evolution and the holocaust happen to be extremely intolerant.
> Unfortunately, a person's holocaust denial or revisionism tends to strongly influence how others regard that person's views on other controversial issues <
It is reasonable to allow someone's irrationality on one subject to color how their judgement might be viewed on others.
>>>>> Unfortunately, a person's holocaust denial or revisionism tends to strongly influence how others regard that person's views on other controversial issues <
It is reasonable to allow someone's irrationality on one subject to color how their judgement might be viewed on others. <<<<<<<
Assuming hypothetically that a person's views on one subject are irrational or are viewed as irrational, that irrationality should be a consideration in another subject only when it is necessary to take that person's word as to facts -- otherwise that person's views on the other subject should be independently evaluated on their own merits.
> that irrationality should be a consideration in another subject only when it is necessary to take that person's word as to facts <
Yes but you so often are not presenting facts, but rather your interpretations as facts, often interpretations that would be the reverse of what more rational people might make. This is what makes your irrationality an issue.
Your stated views that most scientific progress is impossible without outside intervention certainly bears on your belief that evolution is impossible.
>>>>>> that irrationality should be a consideration in another subject only when it is necessary to take that person's word as to facts <
Yes but you so often are not presenting facts, but rather your interpretations as facts, often interpretations that would be the reverse of what more rational people might make. This is what makes your irrationality an issue.
<<<<<<
You missed my point entirely. What I obviously meant was that evaluations of my interpretations of facts on subjects other than the holocaust should be based solely on the merits of those interpretations, without consideration of my views about the holocaust. You are obviously lacking in reading comprehension skills.
>>>>>> Your stated views that most scientific progress is impossible without outside intervention certainly bears on your belief that evolution is impossible. <<<<<<
I never stated any such views.
> You missed my point entirely. <
No, you missed my point entirely.
When you show irrationality on one subject and then make "interpretations", rather than state facts or give logical arguments, the lameness of your previous "interpretations" is obviously an issue.
You are obviously lacking in reading comprehension skills.
>>>>>> Your stated views that most scientific progress is impossible without outside intervention certainly bears on your belief that evolution is impossible. <<<<<<
> I never stated any such views. <
You have told both me and your brother that the knowledge of what to eat could not have been found by trial and error before the whole population was poisoned. You have also claimed that inventions such as photography could not have been developed without outside intervention. Your argument was somewhat like "irreducible complexity".
Now don't show yourself to be a pathological liar by claiming you don't know me.
Just caught this one...
> No, you missed my point entirely. <
Doesn't he always?
> You have told both me and your brother <
Uh oh! Larry has proven by his actions that he has some sort of psychological problem with the existence of either of you. He accepts me as real!
> Now don't show yourself to be a pathological liar by claiming you don't know me. <
Whether or not he proves himself to be a patholocal liar on this issue or not, he has done it on others. I would expect him to censor this as "gossip" because of his psychological problems but I have seen it so the cat is out of the bag.
P.S. How is the growth of the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers? Is there a single practicing member yet?
Bill Carter says,
>>>>>> When you show irrationality on one subject and then make "interpretations", rather than state facts or give logical arguments, the lameness of your previous "interpretations" is obviously an issue. <<<<<<
So you are saying that if -- hypothetically -- you agreed with my views about the holocaust, you would then conclude that I am a "rational" person and would therefore automatically agree with -- or at least be more inclined to agree with -- my views against Darwinism? Or vice-versa? Why shouldn't your argument cut both ways?
And I have done much more than just make interpretations here -- I have also presented a lot of facts. It is ironic that you accuse me of not presenting facts when this blog is far better documented than most blogs. And since when is a logical argument or an attempt at a logical argument not an interpretation?
As I said, people's views on different subjects should be viewed independently of each other unless there is some direct connection, and you Darwinists have denied that there is any connection between Darwin and Hitler.
>>>>> You are obviously lacking in reading comprehension skills. <<<<<
And you are obviously lacking in originality -- all you can do is throw my own retorts back at me.
It looks like you have painted yourself into a corner again.
> So you are saying that if ...<
No. He is saying what he said. You definitely have reading comprehension problems.
>... hypothetically -- you agreed with my views about the holocaust, you would then conclude that I am a "rational" person and would therefore automatically agree with <
That is one of the classic logical errors. Even if the premise were true, the conclusion would not be a logical result of it.
> Why shouldn't your argument cut both ways? <
The answer is over your head.
> And I have done much more than just make interpretations here -- I have also presented a lot of facts. <
They are well hidden. Just making unsupported statements or irrational interpretations is not presenting facts.
> And since when is a logical argument or an attempt at a logical argument not an interpretation? <
Since the term "logical argument" came into existence. You are trying to redefine terms again. Get a dictionary somewhere. Have you ever seen one?
> you Darwinists have denied that there is any connection between Darwin and Hitler. <
Because there isn't.
It looks like you have painted yourself into a corner again.
Do you think that it is possible that you will ever win an argument here (or anywhere else)? Perhaps you could hire someone with a brain to argue your causes.
> Why shouldn't your argument cut both ways? <
You are saying "All A are B, therefore All B are A."
What a fathead!
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> Why shouldn't your argument cut both ways? <
You are saying "All A are B, therefore All B are A." <<<<<<<
You profoundly retarded nincompoop, I said nothing of the kind. Saying that something cuts both ways does not necessarily mean that it cuts as deeply both ways. But as Mercutio said in Romeo & Juliet after he was stabbed, "'Tis not so wide as a church door, nor so deep as a well, but 'tis enough."
ViW driveled,
>>>>>> you Darwinists have denied that there is any connection between Darwin and Hitler. <
Because there isn't. <<<<<<
If you believe that, then you have no business arguing that there is any connection between my views about the holocaust and my views about Darwinism.
> I can "gossip" about me here, but you can't. Those are the rules. <
So much for your braying about the "fairness doctrine".
> However, I generally try to avoid gossiping about myself here. <
Much of your description of yourself is untrue. You claim not to censor and you even claim not to have deleted posts when you have done so.
> I was forced to gossip about myself when Fake Dave misrepresented himself as my brother in comments on Fatheaded Ed's blog. <
Fake Dave did not misrepresent himself. The only one posting as Dave Fafarman on Ed's blog was your brother, real Dave.
If you don't believe that it was your real brother, why did you pressure your mother to call him and ask him to stop posting?
> If you believe that, then you have no business arguing that there is any connection between my views about the holocaust and my views about Darwinism. <
There is no connection. I guess you will never learn.
Post a Comment
<< Home