Looks like we have a Holocaust denier, er, I mean someone who is just ‘asking questions’ and searching for ‘the truth’. My grandfather actually liberated Dachau and the things he saw scarred him for life. He only told one person about what he saw (my grandmother, who eventually told my mother when he passed on which is how I found out the specifics) and apparently when he did he was in tears. Anyway, the point is that other than the massive amounts of evidence that corroborate that the Holocaust did happen (on the scale that it happened) that I personally knew someone that saw it first hand.
I’ve always done that. Debating helped me sharpen it. The best advice I can give to someone who wants to be better at debate is to know your subject matter well and know when you’re talking to a brick wall.
It has been my experience that shame words are indicative of a weak argument.
I find it amusing that you clump holocuast denial as a BNP subject, like communism as a communist ideology!
And no, you didn’t just try to compare Keynesians & communists to neo-Nazis?
The Holocaust deniers estimated Jewish losses from various concentration camps, and place it around 3 million Jews killed. Auschwitz alone has contributed to 1.1 million deaths. You go beyond that and declare none of those deaths happened (or rather, that they weren’t mass exterminated). Incidentally, who is the one making hasty accusations here? Figures are derived from Nazis paperwork and some from population demographics and ther are some academic disputes about that. However, all agree that 6 million Jews disappeared - i.e. negative evidence. The Red Cross reports on the number of corpses present at the time of the liberation of the camps, and doesn’t take into account mass graves and creamtions. The Holocaust deniers don’t deny the holocaust killings but rather the number of Jews killed!
Furthermore, the Jews were not simply a workforce, were you declared the Nazi’s would kill them! Ha! If they were then they’d have been working with the French labourers etc. who were transported to Germany in the form of forced labour. The Holocaust death toll is speculative and based upon actual documentation, bodies found, survivors and guards testimonies and inferences drawn from those and other sources. You’re trying to give excuses for the existence of the cremation chambers, and that is fine but how do you account for the photos, testimonials, Nazi official documents pertaining to medical torture (which can be found in the Harvard archives, Nuremberg trials section), the six million missing Jews etc … ? This might interest you. Moreover, why would such a huge number of Jews die at such rate? Auschwitz ovens could burn thousands every day (I’ve been there) and are you telling me that thousands died of natural causes at the same time?
The Jews and other sub-humans were purpose-exterminated, and the Vatican (under Pope Pius XII) who knew all-along, finally denounced the mass extermination on Christmas in 1942.
Richard Harwood gets a bashing here. In any case, I am studying the Vatican’s policy under Pope Pius XII during WWII and it’s certainly more interesting and worth my time. Just finished my second book on this.
No.
His argument was two sentences after, what you call, a “shame word” …
This is something I have been wondering about for some time. How does interventionism fit in with anacrcho-capitalism? I am not sure how it does …
As it happens, I do think that the war in Iraq was, not only necessary, but long overdue. I believe in an interventionalist policy where by dictators and tyrannts are simply not allowed to get away with crimes simply because they are on the other side of a man-made fence.
I am not sure what the policy would be an anarchic society, but perhaps in an anarchic society a person wouldn’t get to become a tyrant or dictator.
What do you think?
It is a shame word. Bert started off saying he was skeptical. He also shared his source and invited more information. That’s an opportunity to enlighten someone, not to go after their character or paint them with a broad brush.
People get fanatical about Jews, Israel and the Holocaust, and all it serves to do is polarize everyone even more. I’m particularly sensitive of this, because holocaust denial has been used as an excuse by the state to silence free speech, and many in the libertarian movement have been unfairly accused of being anti-semitic.
If you want to correct the narrative about the holocaust, there are better ways of doing it. Shame words don’t open up minds to new ideas or different perspectives.
Assuming you’re serious, how did killing 100s of thousands of Iraqi civilians, many of them children, punish Saddam for his crimes?
I’m particularly sensitive of this, because holocaust denial has been used as an excuse by the state to silence free speech
Where?
And I agree with you btw that we should hear the other persons opinions before making a conclusion.
Firstly, I have never come across this term “shame word” … is this a Mises term or something.
But I was just pointing out that the user’s argument was actually there, but you omitted it and simply referred to a single sentence - which in isolation, gives the impression of having no merit. That is all.
I have nothing against free-speech. Although, personally, I think it needs to be said with some delicacy and awareness that what you say may shock some people. I mean, if we are truly concerned about free speech. JS Mills makes this point rather nicely. This is why I was opposed to the “burn a quran” day.
The Iraq War was one of the shortest wars the UK was involved in. It took around two weeks to find Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice. Much of the killings of Iraqi civilians, were committed by Sunni and Shia Muslims - bombing each other etc …
I do think there were problems, that may have been overlooked, in the Iraq War. But, if you ask me if it was right, to go to war against Saddam Hussein and bring him justice. Then absolutely! Moreover, the problems of the Iraq war (and indeed the war itself) is completely down to him and how he treated the UN, UNMOVIC and the international community on a very important issue.
Unlike Austria !
I never questioned his argument. His argument was the best part of his post. My issue was with the namecalling. I don’t think it served his grandfather’s story well.
Irrelevant.
No, most of the killings were a result of the invasion, or the UN sanctions in the 90s.
Yes, mass murder and property destruction are pretty big problems.
Did you enlist to fight in the war?
So the UK has no moral responsiblity for invading a country that has not attacked it?
Are you a libertarian?
Soviet Canada.
Are you Canadian?I ask simply because I thought you were referring to the US. I know Canada is less lax on hate speech compared to the US. The most recent example being an Iman who got banned from the country for suggesting that the government adopt a policy of homosexual genocide.
I don’t understand why you think one of the most important points I made is “irrelevant”. The Iraq War’s mission was to deal with Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice. We managed to do this extremely (relatively) quickly, and thus minimised the potential extra loss of life. This makes all the difference when you start considering that most of the casualties were after the war in Iraq. It is, at this point, that I suspect something more wise should have been done to bring-about a stable government. I am not sure what it would have been though. The UK was trying to deal with Muslim fascists blowing each other up!
I also don’t know why you’re cutting up what I say into tiny sentences, and thereby missing the overall point. It seems pointless to debate then? So, I am going to have bring each sentence back into the main essence of my argument.
What are you talking about? The Iraq War of 2003?
What mass murder? Property destruction was the inevitable consequence that Saddam knew was going to happen if he continued to ignore, and work against the United Nations, the international community on an extremely important issue.
I think you’re missing the real problem here. Namely, the fact that a tyrant was suspected of having WMDs, was given many opportunities to work with the UN on this, refused to do so, lied to them on many occasions, moved around weapons and was caught doing so, and what are you expecting the UK to do amidst all of this? Lol? Pretend he wasn’t a threat? Hope nothing will happen? Get real!
I was a young 14 year old then.
But a nice cheap ad hom attack nonetheless, especially since you were criticising someone else’s debating style!
I don’t know you, and you’re probably a decent person, but I find this perspective odious (in all honesty).
If there was a person getting beaten-up down the road, I would do something to help him. If I could, I’d phone the police, or even help him fight the bully. Zoom out, and this is how I would operate on the international scene. If some tyrant is mass killing his own people, I would intervene. I find the position whereby “oh, but he isn’t doing anything to me” to be nothing short of morally dysfunctional. So, yes, the UK did have a moral responsibility to intervene (and a legal one!).
In any case, this is sidetracking the thread? Is it not?
In an anarcho-capitalist society, assume Person A is being attacked by Person B with a gun yet Person A has no gun to protect himself/herself. Does Person C (who has a gun) have the right to defend Person A against Person B for a cost assuming that Person A allows it? Would that count as a service transaction or is that frowned upon considering Person B never attacked Person C?
I hope one day to get banned from every country on Earth. I wonder where they would send me. I hope the moon.
The justness of the war is not determined by its length.
No it wasn’t. That is what it became. You don’t invade with 10s of thousands of troops and billions in hardware to collect one man against whom no court had convicted.
How many lives were lost? How much was minimized?
Do you not know the history of the war going back 13 years previous?
Fallujah?
So if David Cameron ignored the UN, then it would be ok to bomb your house and family?
And yet he had no weapons. So what was his crime? What did the UN charge him with? What conviction was made before the invasion?
The weapons inspectors couldn’t find the weapons BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE. It’s hard for an innocent man to prove his innocence, which is why the standard for conviction is proof of guilt from the accuser, not proof of innocence by the accused.
It was not an ad hom. I was inquiring as to the strength of your convictions and to confirm something which consistently seems to be true. It’s always politicians and non-military who like to talk about the moral righteousness of war. Soldiers have usually seen too much to feel very good about the things they are asked to do.
Did you read my response to Brian up thread, about how this moral position necessitates that you intervene (particularly now that you are old enough to hold a weapon) against every unjust regime in the world?
You’re right, I am sorry for bringing up Iraq. Oh wait, I didn’t.
I’m posting this because it may be instructive to Brian, and that was what he was looking for. A better way to handle these debates. You’re an interventionist, and I am not. It is ideal for that purpose.
As far as being morally dysfunctional, wouldn’t you say the loss of life to retrieve Saddam, which far outweighed the bad he did in the world, isn’t more dysfunctional? If not, is there any cost in property or innocent life which you think would be too high to deal with a dictator? Is capturing Saddam worth the loss of one innocent person? 10? 1,000? 1,000,000?
Do you believe in an interventionist policy whereby the United States supports dictators and tyrants?
Yes.
Americans almost always assume the conversation is about America. =D
Free speech. Not hate speech. It is free speech which they abhor. They love to promote hateful speech when it serves the aims of the state and its supporters.
Glad I’m not the only one around here who has to put up with ‘Soviet Canada’.
More taxes and more stimulus will get us out this recession, am I right?