Well, isn`t it amazing where these threads lead. I haven`t read an OT thread in quite a long time but I just couldn`t pass this one up. It was like clock work. First media hype and then the obvious, like clock work, elendil kicks it off. (sorry elendil, never read your posts) I am laughin out loud so to speak at the intelect being sprayed out like the shot from a blunderbust. Ain`t religion grand. I wounder what the tole in human misery is throughout time of the joyous word. One of the things that grabbed me right off the bat was the calm conciderd reflection of the violence portrayed in this move. I have to chuckel in that we americans seem to have a way of seperating ourselves from the violence that we perpitrate throughout the world. Maybe if more of us got a little first hand experience at getting bloody we might be able to control our collective blood lust. Maybe not. I do get a kick out of christians and there ability to always find some justification in their little book for just about every atrosity they have been involved in. Likewise with the Jews as I watch them become what they most hated. Isn`t it weird how the highest calling always brings out the lowest behavior.
As far as Mels` move goes, heck I might see it, I like movies, I like good acting in a well directed story. I sure as hell won`t be watching a documentary, I wouldn`t even consider it a historical drama, but I bet it will be some great movemaking.
For me it was very easy to walk away from religion. I simply watched our chaplin blessing us lowly marines before combat and than had the opertunity to watch the other guys chaplin blessing them before combat. Both sides made the same sign of the cross and both sides had god on there side. It was histerical, and their blood and our blood fed the small creatures of the jungle and then we all went away. I hope you will forgive me if I think this is obserd. I haven`t read all the authors quoted in this thread nore do I understand much of what has been said, but I can`t help but think that there is little in the way of evalution being presented here. To progress, there are things which must be discarded, no matter how cherished.
Tom
Gibson's Passion
-
ciberspiff
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:05 am
Simply put you stepped into a conversation you knew nothing about. Jim quoted some sources on the Holocaust that needed the view of a different opinion. You, in turn, decided to make a smart ass comment. It had no place in the conversation. That, is my problem. You showed an incredible amount of ignorance and insensitivity in deciding that you had to put you $0.02 into a situation that did not need it.elendil wrote: [snip much moronic drivel not worth repeating]
I personally don't give a damn about you, your family or background unless it is germane to the topic at hand. Now, if you or your family has been involved in the Holocaust then I will gladly eat my words and apologize. I'll even make a donation to the Holocaust Museum for them. If, on the other hand you are the a$$hole I believe you to be, then you should learn a lesson from this spanking and stay out of things beyond your comprehension. Stick to music and other things that do not strike at the emotional nervecenter of those who have lost loved ones.
You obviously either a) don't know a g-d damned thing about the Holocaust and the writings of Sacks, b) know about the writings and agree with the author, or, c) know about the writings and disagree with the authors. If it's b) or c) you never would have spoken up. So, in basic deductive logic, it must be a). Now take your spanking like a man. You got caught flapping your lip when you crossed the line. Now grow up already and move on.
Enough of this childish nonsense. We now return you to your previous program on whistling...
-
Wombat
- Posts: 7105
- Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Probably Evanston, possibly Wollongong
The biggest gain to be had from following Daniel's implicit advice consists not in what you might learn about yourself but rather in what you might learn about others.elendil wrote:Daniel wrote:I very much agree with that. Most of the Christian faith takes on deeper meaning when understood in its proper historical context.What amazes me is how many of Christianity knows very little of the Jewish roots.
-
glauber
- Posts: 4967
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: I'm from Brazil, living in the Chicago area (USA)
- Contact:
I had a dream this morning that this thread was locked! 
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!
--Wellsprings--
--Wellsprings--
I grew up among people with tattoos on their arms.
Though nobody in my family died in the Holocaust,
I do think I know personally where the anger
comes from. I consider the Holocaust the greatest moral
teacher in history, the thing we must make most
sure never happens again, not to anybody. In
that spirit, let me say this personally.
I would have given the world for parents with tattoos
on their arms, who screamed in their sleep at night;
and for siblings with tattoos who could walk and speak and remember
what happened five minutes ago. This would have
been incommensurably better than what I got.
Nobody has a monopoly on the unspeakable, it turns out.
One never knows what the person one is speaking to
has been through.
I've learned that no amount of suffering makes anybody
special. It may entitle us to understanding, but
it never entitles anybody to abuse anybody
else. Much of the harm in history has been done
by people who believed they had suffered
unjustly and made the mistake of supposing
that this placed them above the bounds of
civility.
Anybody who has been through some of the
things related in this thread is in a position
to become a very good man or woman.
I wish i were less fortunate!
Everyday I let go of anger; every morning
it is there again. I will never stop letting go
of it, or having to. I'm as realistic
as the next fellow: no pacifist. I would
have enlisted in WWII. But I'm determined
to learn practically the lessons of the Holocaust. Best
Though nobody in my family died in the Holocaust,
I do think I know personally where the anger
comes from. I consider the Holocaust the greatest moral
teacher in history, the thing we must make most
sure never happens again, not to anybody. In
that spirit, let me say this personally.
I would have given the world for parents with tattoos
on their arms, who screamed in their sleep at night;
and for siblings with tattoos who could walk and speak and remember
what happened five minutes ago. This would have
been incommensurably better than what I got.
Nobody has a monopoly on the unspeakable, it turns out.
One never knows what the person one is speaking to
has been through.
I've learned that no amount of suffering makes anybody
special. It may entitle us to understanding, but
it never entitles anybody to abuse anybody
else. Much of the harm in history has been done
by people who believed they had suffered
unjustly and made the mistake of supposing
that this placed them above the bounds of
civility.
Anybody who has been through some of the
things related in this thread is in a position
to become a very good man or woman.
I wish i were less fortunate!
Everyday I let go of anger; every morning
it is there again. I will never stop letting go
of it, or having to. I'm as realistic
as the next fellow: no pacifist. I would
have enlisted in WWII. But I'm determined
to learn practically the lessons of the Holocaust. Best
glauber meyer pinto ribeiro wrote:
However, I believe that there was a misunderstanding of sorts, or at least some speech at cross purposes, so I wanted to set the record straight--stay tuned.
Hey, we all know the unpleasantness was jim stoner's fault, anyway. He thinks just because he published a book on the common law he can throw his weight around on any topic he chooses.
No dream, glauber meyer pinto ribeiro. At my request, Dale kindly unlocked this thread so that I could respond to ciberspiff. At the risk of surprising absolutely no one let me just say that I'm not one to take a spanking in stoic silence.I had a dream this morning that this thread was locked!
However, I believe that there was a misunderstanding of sorts, or at least some speech at cross purposes, so I wanted to set the record straight--stay tuned.Hey, we all know the unpleasantness was jim stoner's fault, anyway. He thinks just because he published a book on the common law he can throw his weight around on any topic he chooses.
elendil
-
Lorenzo
- Posts: 5726
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Oregon, USA
Whoever thought of locking this thread just elevated themselves another foot in my estimation, and if they choose to do so again...it'll add another foot, since it was hardly worth unlocking anyway.
BTW, I provided blackhawk with his request by PM, since the board was locked, which was probably a better choice anyway.
__________________________________________
I wonder what would happen if a certain memeber here on this
forum were subjected to a "Vote of No Confidence" by other members. I
think I've counted about 20 so far, indepentent voters of course! You
think he'd catch on after while.
BTW, I provided blackhawk with his request by PM, since the board was locked, which was probably a better choice anyway.
__________________________________________
I wonder what would happen if a certain memeber here on this
forum were subjected to a "Vote of No Confidence" by other members. I
think I've counted about 20 so far, indepentent voters of course! You
think he'd catch on after while.
-
Caj
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Binghamton, New York
- Contact:
Right. Many Holocaust deniers will admit the existence of concentration camps, but deny the existence of extermination camps. There is no reason to believe that Gibson himself is a denier, but his statement is exactly the kind of thing a denier could say. Thanks to Jim for pointing that out.jim stone wrote:The quotations I read never used the word 'Holocaust.' The claim that what happened to the Jews was an utter atrocity--(the camps, hundreds of thousands of people dying through neglect and disease) and that Hitler was a monster is consistent with denial.Actually, when he was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, he not only stated that the Holocaust happened, but that it was an utter atrocity and that Hitler was a monster.
Deniers will often play word games on the unprepared, who don't think about this important distinction between concentration camps, and extermination camps like Auschwitz/Birkenau. For instance, they will tell you that "there were no gas chambers at Dachau," and trip up the unwary folk who try to argue with them.
Of course, there is a massive pile of evidence for the extermination camps (and furthermore, evidence of a deliberate plan); these word-games are precisely what you should expect from anyone making a claim against so much evidence.
Caj
Well, here goes, a post probably no one has been waiting for, but one I feel I need to do. I apologize in advance for its length, but then no one needs to read it, anyway, if they don't want to. I do believe the length is necessary in order to set the record straight.
As you all know, I started this thread by posting a review of Mel Gibson's new movie, which has been generating a lot of controversey. The thread seemed to me to proceed pretty duckily for a while, and then Jon-M elected to share his annoyance with threads on religious topics, and also express his contempt for those of us who had been enjoying the exchange of ideas (my bold type).
Jon-M wrote:
This next quote I include simply to give an example of the flavor of my contribution to the inter-faith portion of the discussion. It will be relevant later.
elendil wrote:
Chuck_Clark, who had already stated that he was a non-believer and wouldn't be going to the movie then decided to direct a little general invective at the participants in the thread, and wrote:
ciberspiff wrote:
Please note something, however. In later posts ciberspiff claims to be speaking about the Holocaust, but in this initial post at least two topics are raised: 1. the drivel in this thread, and 2. the Holocaust and its deniers.
Holocaust deniers, to be quite frank, normally fly under my radar, so it was only to the first topic that I decided to briefly respond. Remember, I had been sitting at my computer watching the various interjections of people taking shots at me for even starting this thread, claiming they don't believe, don't care, that belief is only for easily deluded fools, that they never pay any attention to this stuff, etc., etc. Thus,
elendil wrote:
ciberspiff then wrote:
elendil wrote:
ciberspiff wrote:
elendil wrote:
ciberspiff wrote:
As to ciberspiff's claim that I had no business getting involved, the fact that ciberspiff gratuitously took a shot at a thread that I started ("drivel"), rather than simply addressing the issue of Holocaust deniers, which issue I did not raise or address, certainly entitles me to the reply I made.
Regarding ciberspiff's contention that I should not speak about the Holocaust, well, as I've made quite clear--I hadn't done so! Nor had I raised the topic. In fact, in an earlier part of the thread I had specifically stated that it wasn't my intent to even get into those aspects of the Gibson film--clearly signalling that I wanted to keep my distance from such emotional issues.
That leaves us with:
There are two separate issues here. No, I know nothing about Sacks. In fact I'd never heard of him before yesterday. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not I know anything about the Holocaust. I think I do. If there's anything on the Chiffboard to suggest otherwise, let ciberspiff do the research and point it out to me.
Let me just add that, for a period of about 5 years, my employment put me in regular contact with Holocaust survivors. No, not their relatives, the survivors themselves. Anyone who knows me will appreciate that I'm the sort of person who would want to learn about human nature from their experiences (although, granted, I don't think I have much to learn about human nature from Holocaust deniers). I took advantage of that opportunity, although I never, ever, pushed anyone to speak of painful experiences--due to my employment these exchanges were entirely spontaneous and voluntary. I sincerely believe that they were glad to help educate me and didn't regret speaking of their experiences to a relative stranger.
I will have nothing further to say on this matter.
As you all know, I started this thread by posting a review of Mel Gibson's new movie, which has been generating a lot of controversey. The thread seemed to me to proceed pretty duckily for a while, and then Jon-M elected to share his annoyance with threads on religious topics, and also express his contempt for those of us who had been enjoying the exchange of ideas (my bold type).
Jon-M wrote:
I chose not to respond, but Dale wrote:the very public religiosity expressed so often and at such length in this forum has altered the entire feeling of the board and makes coming here an increasingly unpleasant experience, for me at least. Whatever the true intent or value of this movie in itself, it has already become a political symbol of (and is being vigorously marketed to--not an insignificant fact) the most narrow segments of our society.
This apparently set Peter off, because Peter then decided it would be a good idea to write:Just for your future reference, everyone here is making an attempt to label off-topic threads OT. Furthermore, this thread has a title which would make it pretty clear that it isn't for some readers, including you. So, I do wish people would quit complaining about OT threads. Anyone can post and contribute to threads about whistles. The OT threads don't eliminate the space for music threads.Jon-M wrote:
overwhelmingly smug Christianity I find preached on what purports to be a site for music-lovers.
Still further, contributors to this civilized and friendly thread (so far) have included Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Messianic Jews and agnostic/atheists. I'm not seeing a smug Christian thing here.
and added:over the past few days I have been feeling the stong urge to ask Elendil cum suis to feck off or at least tone it down a bit.
Well, of course, Dale had already remarked on that obvious point. I again let the very personal nature of the comment slide, except to joke about my "feckless" nature.And no, before somebody remarks on the obvious, I generally don't read or contribute to these things
This next quote I include simply to give an example of the flavor of my contribution to the inter-faith portion of the discussion. It will be relevant later.
elendil wrote:
I thought the inclusion of Michael Medved, a noted film critic, might be particularly relevant.It wasn't my purpose in this thread to focus on the controversey over imputed anti-semitic tendencies in the Gibson family. Not having seen the movie, my hope remains that its reported faithfulness to its sources will lead Christians to a deeper understanding of their faith that the hope of Israel was fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The film itself purports only to deal with a small part of that, 1/3 to be precise, but if it leads Christians to explore their faith further I believe that this can only lead to better understanding between Jews and Christians.
However...
If anyone wishes to read about the debate among Jews regarding the movie, here are some links to people like michael medved, daniel lapin, and shmueley boteach:
Chuck_Clark, who had already stated that he was a non-believer and wouldn't be going to the movie then decided to direct a little general invective at the participants in the thread, and wrote:
Once again, I ignored this, despite the obvious question: why do these people keep coming to a thread that they claim they don't care about? However, jim stone then posted some remarks about a fellow named Sack who goes around addressing conventions of Holocaust deniers. That got ciberspiff involved for the first time, although he clearly must have been lurking on the thread to even be aware of jim's post.There are plenty of others who think that the religious intrusions are inappropriate when there are so many other places for the believers to preach and ramble. It's just that they don't bother to say much at these times.
ciberspiff wrote:
And then ciberspiff launched into a lengthy attack on Sack.I wouldn't normally bother with the drivel in this thread, but this crossed the line for me.jim stone wrote:
I read a moving and extraordinary essay by John Sack
[...]
Please note something, however. In later posts ciberspiff claims to be speaking about the Holocaust, but in this initial post at least two topics are raised: 1. the drivel in this thread, and 2. the Holocaust and its deniers.
Holocaust deniers, to be quite frank, normally fly under my radar, so it was only to the first topic that I decided to briefly respond. Remember, I had been sitting at my computer watching the various interjections of people taking shots at me for even starting this thread, claiming they don't believe, don't care, that belief is only for easily deluded fools, that they never pay any attention to this stuff, etc., etc. Thus,
elendil wrote:
What I was saying could be paraphrased thusly: another person who claims "this stuff" (i.e., posts on religious topics) are "drivel" "can't let go" (i.e., can't seem to stay away from posts on religious topics).Geez, another one who can't stand this stuff but can't let go.I wouldn't normally bother with the drivel in this thread, but this crossed the line for me.
ciberspiff then wrote:
This response puzzled me. True, I made a little dig, but it was pretty mild, especially when you review the sort of shots I'd been taking all day long. And I didn't see anything particularly ignorant or classless in my one line response. On the other hand, the phraseAh yes. You yet again prove your ignorance is only surpassed by your lack of class.
suggested to me that ciberspiff was one of those people who simply detest me on general principle. So, curious,You yet again prove...
elendil wrote:
This, to me, very mild response, drew the following, to me, very remarkable and vitriolic reply:Well, class is, to some extent, a matter of personal style. I would be interested to discover the source of my ignorance. However, if you'd like to also delve into my lack of class, please feel free.
ciberspiff wrote:
Now I was really puzzled! What in the world could have set ciberspiff off to that extent, and what kind of person thinks it's acceptable to say to other Chiffers: shut the f*#k up and stick to things you know about? Something really odd was going on here, and I wanted to find what the problem was, because I couldn't honestly see where I could have provoked any reasonable person to that extent. So,I'd like to strongly recommend this thread moves off the Holocaust and keep the focus on Gibson's movie, which is where it started.
[/rant on]
And for the record Elendil. When you have lost 90% of your family in the Holocaust, have parents with tattoo's, have listened to them screaming in their sleep from the memories, then, and only them, will your opinion on this topic mean anything to anyone other than yourself. Until then, shut the f*#k up and stick to things you know about.
[/rant off]
elendil wrote:
Notice the part in bold type--I'm clearly saying that I hadn't been talking about the Holocaust. Notwithstanding that,ciberspiff wrote:1. While I try to be obliging, I won't be able to "shut the f*#k up"--as I had occasion to mention earlier to Peter, who wanted me to "feck off," I'm feckless, so I can't do that.[business of shutting the f*#k up omitted here]
2. I wasn't aware that I was speaking about the Holocaust in this thread. I have spoken about it at some length in past threads, and if I've displayed ignorance I'd appreciate it if you would bring that to my attention. It's not a topic on which I would wish to display ignorance.
3. Not that it matters that much, but I have to admit to some curiousity about what you know about me and my family, and why you think that what you know about us disqualifies me or them from speaking about any topic in particular.
4. I disagree with the argument that emotional involvement is a necessary precondition for making an intelligent contribution to an issue--and, I'm sorry, shouting at me won't change my mind about that.
ciberspiff wrote:
So, now I'll finally reply to the latest outburst.Simply put you stepped into a conversation you knew nothing about. Jim quoted some sources on the Holocaust that needed the view of a different opinion. You, in turn, decided to make a smart ass comment. It had no place in the conversation. That, is my problem. You showed an incredible amount of ignorance and insensitivity in deciding that you had to put you $0.02 into a situation that did not need it.elendil wrote:
[snip much moronic drivel not worth repeating]
I personally don't give a damn about you, your family or background unless it is germane to the topic at hand. Now, if you or your family has been involved in the Holocaust then I will gladly eat my words and apologize. I'll even make a donation to the Holocaust Museum for them. If, on the other hand you are the a$$hole I believe you to be, then you should learn a lesson from this spanking and stay out of things beyond your comprehension. Stick to music and other things that do not strike at the emotional nervecenter of those who have lost loved ones.
You obviously either a) don't know a g-d damned thing about the Holocaust and the writings of Sacks, b) know about the writings and agree with the author, or, c) know about the writings and disagree with the authors. If it's b) or c) you never would have spoken up. So, in basic deductive logic, it must be a). Now take your spanking like a man. You got caught flapping your lip when you crossed the line. Now grow up already and move on.
Enough of this childish nonsense. We now return you to your previous program on whistling...
As to ciberspiff's claim that I had no business getting involved, the fact that ciberspiff gratuitously took a shot at a thread that I started ("drivel"), rather than simply addressing the issue of Holocaust deniers, which issue I did not raise or address, certainly entitles me to the reply I made.
Regarding ciberspiff's contention that I should not speak about the Holocaust, well, as I've made quite clear--I hadn't done so! Nor had I raised the topic. In fact, in an earlier part of the thread I had specifically stated that it wasn't my intent to even get into those aspects of the Gibson film--clearly signalling that I wanted to keep my distance from such emotional issues.
That leaves us with:
You obviously either a) don't know a g-d damned thing about the Holocaust and the writings of Sacks,
There are two separate issues here. No, I know nothing about Sacks. In fact I'd never heard of him before yesterday. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not I know anything about the Holocaust. I think I do. If there's anything on the Chiffboard to suggest otherwise, let ciberspiff do the research and point it out to me.
As I've said, I don't, or didn't, know about the author or his writings. Based on what I've heard, I have no intention of getting to know either the author or his writings any better. Whether I agree with the author, I'll leave to ciberspiff to research and decide. Not having read his books, I'm not in a position to judge.b) know about the writings and agree with the author,
Once again, I know nothing about Sack's writings, except what I read yesterday and, quite frankly, I didn't read it very thoroughly because Holocaust denial isn't something that interests me. I'm not saying it may not hold out a legitimate interest to others, such as jim stone, but as far as I'm concerned it hasn't become enough of a societal problem for me to pay attention to on its own merits.or, c) know about the writings and disagree with the authors.
I've already admitted that I knew nothing at all about something that I said nothing at all about. ciberspiff's logic, based on false factual premises, totally misses the mark (pun entirely intended). I decline the spanking, manfully or otherwise, but if a spanking could be considered to be in the nature of a negotiable instrument, I will gladly assign it to someone who might better appreciate it. And now I suggest that there's someone else around here who needs to do a bit of growing up.If it's b) or c) you never would have spoken up. So, in basic deductive logic, it must be a). Now take your spanking like a man. You got caught flapping your lip when you crossed the line. Now grow up already and move on.
Let me just add that, for a period of about 5 years, my employment put me in regular contact with Holocaust survivors. No, not their relatives, the survivors themselves. Anyone who knows me will appreciate that I'm the sort of person who would want to learn about human nature from their experiences (although, granted, I don't think I have much to learn about human nature from Holocaust deniers). I took advantage of that opportunity, although I never, ever, pushed anyone to speak of painful experiences--due to my employment these exchanges were entirely spontaneous and voluntary. I sincerely believe that they were glad to help educate me and didn't regret speaking of their experiences to a relative stranger.
I will have nothing further to say on this matter.
Last edited by elendil on Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
elendil
-
Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
Jesus Christ, a Jew, as pertains to His manhood, came first to the Jews. The apostles were Hebrews, as were so many of His followers. But He came also to the gentiles, as His covenant is of universal scope, so that people of every kindred, tongue, and nation should be brought into the household of faith, and granted everlasting life in the Kingdom which shall have no end.
What I am saying, is that Christians, who partake Christs blood, and who partake His body, and are washed, are made one with Christ, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and thus grafted in (see Romans chapter eleven).
What happened under Nazism was as great a tragedy as one can imagine... and then some. It was borne, not of Christianity (indeed, many Christians were tortured and/or killed in the Nazi persecutions), but of a very anti-Christian philosophy of hatred, and pride, which sought to assign blame for society's ills on everyone, but oneself. Pride and prejudice go hand in hand, and it behooves us all to tread softly.
What I am saying, is that Christians, who partake Christs blood, and who partake His body, and are washed, are made one with Christ, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and thus grafted in (see Romans chapter eleven).
What happened under Nazism was as great a tragedy as one can imagine... and then some. It was borne, not of Christianity (indeed, many Christians were tortured and/or killed in the Nazi persecutions), but of a very anti-Christian philosophy of hatred, and pride, which sought to assign blame for society's ills on everyone, but oneself. Pride and prejudice go hand in hand, and it behooves us all to tread softly.
Reasonable person
Walden
Walden
-
Caj
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Binghamton, New York
- Contact:
ciberspiff wrote: Simply put you stepped into a conversation you knew nothing about. Jim quoted some sources on the Holocaust that needed the view of a different opinion. You, in turn, decided to make a smart ass comment. It had no place in the conversation. That, is my problem. You showed an incredible amount of ignorance and insensitivity in deciding that you had to put you $0.02 into a situation that did not need it.
I'm sorry Ciberspiff, but I have to agree that Elendil did not post anything on that topic at all. Methinks you may have over-read his comment, and mistakenly lashed at someone who wasn't even participating in the discussion at hand.
I should also point out that you don't need to have lost loved ones in the Shoah in order to have some kind of right to talk about it. A lot of important scholarly work would not exist if people followed that rule. And a lot of scholarly work is necessary in order to document any atrocity of such monumental proportions.
Caj
-
Wombat
- Posts: 7105
- Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Probably Evanston, possibly Wollongong
Precisely. Anyone tempted to take the deniers seriously should take a close look at recent atrocities in places like Bosnia and Rwanda. The evidence there is still fresh. Listen to what the perpetrators and their apologists say about what happened and then measure that against the evidence. Better still, catch the perpetrators talking amongst themselves with their guard down. Then go back and ask yourself if the arguments of holocaust deniers are any more plausible.Caj wrote:
Deniers will often play word games on the unprepared, who don't think about this important distinction between concentration camps, and extermination camps like Auschwitz/Birkenau. For instance, they will tell you that "there were no gas chambers at Dachau," and trip up the unwary folk who try to argue with them.
Of course, there is a massive pile of evidence for the extermination camps (and furthermore, evidence of a deliberate plan); these word-games are precisely what you should expect from anyone making a claim against so much evidence.
Caj
Genocide is not unusual, it is all too common. It is even fairly well understood these days. It is not the sort of thing that happens by accident. Why would the sort of explanation that works best for genocide in general strangely fail us when we come to perhaps the biggest genocide of all?
Right. Many Holocaust deniers will admit the existence of concentration camps, but deny the existence of extermination camps. There is no reason to believe that Gibson himself is a denier, but his statement is exactly the kind of thing a denier could say.
Yes, I think this is true and also fair to Gibson.
I think I'm going to read reviews of the movie
before deciding about going. What I usually do
with movies. I seldom go anyway; can't afford
to because I'm strung out on pop corn.
Night all
Yes, I think this is true and also fair to Gibson.
I think I'm going to read reviews of the movie
before deciding about going. What I usually do
with movies. I seldom go anyway; can't afford
to because I'm strung out on pop corn.
Night all