Ing exchange between Holocaust-Shoah Believers and Holocaust

The following exchange between Holocaust-Shoah Believers and Holocaust Revisionists was deleted on 3 February 2008, as indicated by the final entry. ________________ Talking Philosophy – The Philosophers’ Magazine Blog Should I debate a Holocaust denier?

Posted on February 1st, 2008 by Julian Baggini Ive got a dilemma. I have been asked to take part in a university debating society event against the motion Free Speech Should be Free from all Restraint. Easy enough of course people should not be free to follow me round the street calling me a rapist, for example. The problem is the person speaking on the other side: David Irving, historian and holocaust denier.

The issue for me is not about whether Irving should be allowed to air his views: I think he should. The serious issue for me is whether it is right to give people with such views a prominent public platform, thereby legitimising them in some way. In theory, it sounds nobler to always fight the truth out in public, but we surely cant ignore the fact that the attention someone gets has as much, if not more, of an impact than what we actually say when we debate them.

So if I say yes, am I standing up for free speech, or am I complicit in giving Irving, and his views, more attention and respect that they deserve?

Advice please! Filed under: Critical Thinking , In the News , Ethics Theres some truth in that 133 Responses to Should I debate a Holocaust denier?

Tony L , on February 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm Said: It sounds to me like a setup. Im sure there are plenty of people in the world who could argue the for position more responsibly than Irving so it would seem the organisers are simply courting controversy. You already know what sort of kerfuffle is going to be generated: the question is how sure are you that you can come out of it looking like a responsible person against the claims of those only interested in the controversy itself?

Gary Curtis , on February 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm Said: I dont understand what it is that youre supposed to debate. Surely Irving isnt going to defend the notion that freedom of speech should be free of all restraint. The man is a fascist, after all. Literally. I assume all that he would defend is the right of holocaust deniers to deny the holocaust, which you seem to agree with, as do I. So, whats the debate?

It sounds to me as if its just going to be a forum for Irving to deny the holocaust, which I wouldnt participate in if I were you. Andrew ,

on February 1st, 2008 at 4:54 pm Said: Youre definitely giving him more attention and respect than he deserves. Hes not a reputable historian (not because of his pro-Hitler stance, but because he faked evidence), and hes not a champion of free speech (the trial in the course of which it became clear that he had faked historical evidence was an attempt by Irving to use the libel laws to silence a critic).

He is only posing as a champion of free speech these days because he cant get any attention as a historian after Prof Richard Evans utterly demolished his reputation as a scholar . Ophelia Benson ,

on February 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm Said: My advice is that you shouldnt, for the reasons you indicate, which are the same reasons Deborah Lipstadt keeps trying to explain to (say) student newspaper editors that free speech principles do not mean they are required to give David Irving or any other denier a platform. Check out Lipstadts blog for much excellent commentary on this subject from someone who knows a lot about it.

Ophelia Benson , on February 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm Said: Exactly. (I cross-posted with Andrew.) Irving tried to silence Lipstadt via a libel trial, and he faked his evidence. Ophelia Benson , on February 1st, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said: More Richard Evans on falsification of history and the Holocaust. Paul Hutton , on February 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pm Said: If you did take part, your actions would be contrary to the argument youd be presenting I suppose.

On the other hand, you could go and take the opportunity to seriously haul him over the coals. If you were very harsh and personal in your attacks on him you might be more likely to win the debate! Might not get invited back though! Seriously though I guess its also a question of time and resources. A limited supply of both means they have value. There are other more interesting people with more interesting ideas to spend these on.

If people ever begin to take Irvings views very seriously, then it may be worthwhile for people to challenge his ludicrous ideas. Best not to turn him into a figurehead for a movement much more honourable than him. Jean Kazez ,

on February 1st, 2008 at 5:42 pm Said: I dont think so. You wont actually get to fight for the truth (about the Holocaust) because the subject of the debate is free speech, not the Holocaust. Youd have to say hello and shake hands and all thatBesides, the set-up is not in your favor. Irving is being given the position thats mostly right. Youd be left nitpicking about the need to restrain people from crying fire in movie theaters. Hell look like the winner, when in fact hes a loser.

Julian Baggini , on February 1st, 2008 at 7:29 pm Said: All these seem like excellent reasons not to take part, and none of them deny Irvings right to his views. So, I wonder, why is it that in most mainstream debates, people instantly make the leap from I wouldnt give him the platform to I deny him his right to free speech? (Ophelia draws this distinction lucidly.) The former doesnt imply the latter. I guess most fora for debate arent as intelligent as this one!

Nice to all more or less agree – but lets not make a habit of it! Lee Henshaw ,

on February 1st, 2008 at 8:01 pm Said: I dont think you should go. I was recently asked in an interview with the Waterstones website if there is a book Id never have on my shelves. I told them that I couldnt think of a book so abhorrent that Id never read it, but that there were lots of books Id choose not to read. Also, think about the image you might leave behind. I chaired the Oasis team in the Oasis vs The Beatles debate at the Oxford Union.

Chairing The Beatles team was the the paeodophile Jonathan King. Theres a photo somewhere of me and Jonathan King shaking heads in the presidents library. Surely you wouldnt want something like that with you and Irving. michael reidy , on February 1st, 2008 at 11:58 pm Said: Take umbrage (shake the bottle well). Are you suggesting that I am the sort of publicity mad poltroon that would dignify his tripe with a counter-argument?

On the other hand its means that you have achieved a significant profile and its nice to be asked. So – Its not you David, its me, its a self-respect issue. Michael Sedgwick ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 am Said: In this case, im not so sure about living the dream of free speech. I think the possible good which would come about from such a debate is likely to seem vaguely phyrric when contrasted with his tabloid column inches and increased book sales (resulting from him trading on debating a respected philosopher). With all due respect to what is a worthy forum, a university society is also a small forum.

Were you to utterly destroy him in said debate (as is overwhelmingly likely, might I add), that fact alone would garner neither media coverage nor surprise. The very fact that he was allowed to debate would, however. The possible outcomes are lacking the balance that would make it worthwhile. On the other hand, if we start drawing lines with Irving, where does it stop?

Problematic. Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 am Said: But its not problematic. No one is silencing Irving by not debating him; no one is obliged to debate him on free speech grounds or any other grounds; no one is obliged to publish him or invite him to speak or buy his books for the local library.

We are allowed to draw lines, we are allowed to choose whom to debate and whom not to, just as we are allowed to decide what subjects to write about and what books to read. chris ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 am Said: No, basically. You are not right to think it has ANY relevance to free speech, you know the possible consquences of debating with him, all else is pretense. the right to speech is mirrored in the right to silence, and oft silence is more important that any words. If it was a debate about the holocaust on the other hand you would be expected to stand up and take him on.

Fredrick Toben , on February 2nd, 2008 at 7:17 am Said: Have a view of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDozr5Xtv4o – thats me in a live debate just after the Teheran Holocaust-Shoah conference ended – Of course a thinking person would debate anyone – even someone who is afflicted with the habit of using the following shut-up words: hater – Holocaust denier – antisemite – racist neo-Nazi – xenophobe – terrorist Go for it.

Wallie , on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 am Said: Strictly speaking, Irving isnt a Holocaust denier, but rather a Holocaust revisionist [there is a difference] – anyone who has read his books [such as Hitlers war of 1977] will see that he refers to the extermination of the Jews and regards it as an evil, His theory there [which he calls an hypothesis] is that Hitler gave no specific and

direct order for the extermination [in terms of historical documentation] but created the anti-Semitic climate for this to be carried out by his henchmen, such as Himmler, Heydrich and Eichmann et al. That Iriving has been traduced as a denier suggests that there is an establishment and conformist version of this history which must not be challenged in any way. Here we might invoke JS Mills classic, On Liberty.

Mill would certainly admire Irvings courage to present an alternative view. Mill thinks that the will to conformity is an evil, and that free discussion and alternate opinion is essential to a free and healthy society. Indeed, he says that if an alternate view is not available it should be invented as a kind of devils advocate. This is because any established opinion which eschews opposition becomes stale and dogmatic and ripe for decay.

So the constant entertaining of opposing views is a kind of gymnasium for the mind. Mill thinks that society should have recognised forums for debate and dialectics. Such forums themselves have rules and limits to enable them to function efficiently. However, the free expression of all shades of opinion is the end towards such means should be directed, and so they should be as flexible and minimal as possible.

For Mill, opinion is only limited by the principle of harm which means definite damage. He gives the famous example that, while it is acceptable to state that corn dealers are starving the people in print [and print is a platform], to shout the same thing to an agitated mob outside a corn-dealers house is unacceptable. Note that the latter instance is not a forum for debate.

Note also that those who were protesting against free speech outside the Oxford Union when Irving was speaking there and chanting kill, kill have more in common with the mob Mill speaks of outside the corn-dealers house. Their intention is to create harm so that the authorities then have to close the debate. Mill would abhor such activities.

I have always thought that the distinction made between free speech and giving a platform is a fatuous one, as what is the use of having opinions if one cannot express them?

The idea that taking part in a debate with establishment figures somehow elevates one is laughable, and I always smile when politicians resign in protest from the Oxford Union because their ethical sensibilities have been offended by an indidual like Irving – who has no party, let alone an army. Fredrick Tben ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 am Said: Professor Deborah Lipstadt falsely labels David Irving a >Holocaust denier< . Irving’s field of study is not the Holocaust-Shoah. Also, he, like Lipstadt, is a Holocaust believer because he believes, without producing any physical evidence, that limited gassings occurred. A so-called >Holocaust denier< refuses to believe in any claim made by anyone about homicidal gassings having been perpetrated by the Germans during World War Two.

This is because to date no-one has produced the murder weapon. It’s as simple as that – the forensic evidence is missing from this gassing claim. Please view and scroll down to read Lipstadt’s comment on my posting: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n371.htm sean ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm Said: Julian, I think you should attend so long as you choose your arguments carefully; using David Irving himself as an example of free speech that should be allowed despite its ridiculous or abhorrent nature might be one strategy. He represents views that practically no one in the audience will share, thats why hes been invited. Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm Said: To refuse to debate is to concede the argument.

So your choice is participate or lose by default. Every refusal to debate David Irving is a tacit admission that the man is right. Fredrick Tben ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm Said: In German there is the concept of >Beruehrungsangst< fear of contact, or in English, guilt by association. That to me seems a rather immature attitude to adopt. Surely, if you are secure in your value system, then you will discuss/debate anything with anyone. Demonising someone who has written over 30 books of substance, as Irving has, is intellectual and moral cowardice writ large – a failure of nerve!

Lipstadt is no match for Irving and so she bitches forth in infantile fashion, smearing him with her own failed value system. Be a man and stand up and fight for your beliefs! Rose ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm Said: I dont think you should debate. Like Irving himself, this debate is not about genuine inquiry, rather it is a deliberate attempt to generate controversy in order to gain press. Reframing Irving in terms of freedom of speech is altering his public image and thereby lending him some undeserved credence.

He is no defender of freedom of speech: he is merely a conniving manipulator who would stoop to deliberately falsifying the horror of the holocaust for his own gain. To participate in this debate would be to be manipulated by him. Peter Wakefield Sault ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm Said: It does not matter what the debate is about, nor what anyones moral opinion of the content might be. To run away from a debate or to refuse to participate is to concede defeat. To refuse then to acknowledge such a defeat is a display of bad faith indicative only of a poor loser. Paul Hutton , on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm Said: It does not matter what the debate is about, nor what anyones moral opinion of the content might be.

To run away from a debate or to refuse to participate is to concede defeat. To refuse then to acknowledge such a defeat is a display of bad faith indicative only of a poor loser. What about if the terms of the debate were dubious?

If someone was asked to debate about the finer points of European law and the person opposing the motion was a plumber and all he knew about was plumbing I dont believe it would be a sign of cowardice not to take part. Rather it would be a sign of prudence. And yes, Irving probably knows about as much about free speech as a plumber knows about European law. Ophelia Benson ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm Said: That Iriving has been traduced as a denier suggests that there is an establishment and conformist version of this history which must not be challenged in any way. Whewwwwwww Wallie are you even aware of the outcome of the Irving libel trial?

Are you aware that Richard Evans (after several months of painstaking research aided by assistants) found numerous instances of falsification of evidence in Irvings book?

Irving is not a revisionist, he is a falsifier – there is a difference. Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm Said: Ah. Fredrick Toben. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Fredrick_T%C3%B6ben Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm Said: Here we might invoke JS Mills classic, On Liberty. Mill would certainly admire Irvings courage to present an alternative view. Really. Would he certainly admire Irvings extensive falsification of historical evidence?

And would he admire Irvings courage to sue Deborah Lipstadt for libel?

Rose , on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm Said: I hope my previous post was not too vehement: I strongly dislike people of Irvings ilk. Irving is a shrewd manipulator and calling his scheme a debate is laughable. He is obviously just creating a platform for himself to either a) generate publicity, or b) to cast himself in the seemingly righteous role of defender of free speech, or c) both.

Someone of Julians credibility and renown would not only bring more attention to the debate and thereby help Irving gain more attention, it would also convey a subtle message to the public that Irving is a worthy opponent of Julians. In this case, Julian would not be backing down from a debate, he would simply be electing to not contribute to more publicity for Irving.

He has no obligation to accept Irvings offer, and to anyone who has even read only a few writings of Julians, his refusal is quite obviously not a defeat. Peter Wakefield Sault ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm Said: Paul Hutton asks If someone was asked to debate about the finer points of European law and the person opposing the motion was a plumber and all he knew about was plumbing I dont believe it would be a sign of cowardice not to take part. Rather it would be a sign of prudence. That may be true but an unopposed motion is still automatically carried. Dont forget that it is the *audience* that finally decides the outcome of a debate, in a show of hands.

In your example, if the opposer was an idiot and the audience was full of idiots then all the proposers fine points would be lost on them and the idiot opposing the motion might well win the debate even though that might be for all the wrong reasons. And I do not think you are right to denigrate plumbers. Rose ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm Said: Btw Ophelia I really admire your grip on reality and your sarcastic turn of phrase. Sharp as nails, you are. The world needs you: keep it up! Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm Said: Thanks Rose! Rose , on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm Said: I only wish that more people could understand what youre on about, and that I could write as clearly as you. Sigh.

Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm Said: Rose says it would also convey a subtle message to the public that Irving is a worthy opponent of Julians. The only way to find out who is a worthy opponent of whom is to put the two together in a debating chamber. Once again, for Julian to bow out would be for Julian to admit that his arguments dont hold up in the conditions of a formal debate.

Frankly, I would rather see Germar Rudolf debate the Holocaust enlightenment side but, of course, Germar Rudolf languishes in a German prison convicted of the crime of holding the wrong opinion. That in itself is an admission that the Holocaust industry hasnt got a leg to stand on. Paul Hutton ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm Said: That may be true but an unopposed motion is still automatically carried. Brilliant. Ive just set up a debate saying that I should be the new Prime Minister. I sent a quick email to Gordon inviting him to oppose the motion. He refused to take part for some reason, therefore the motion is carried.

Re plumbers; many of my closest friends are plumbers and they tell me they are certainly not offended by the empirical observation that they are not experts on the finer points of European law. Rose , on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm Said: Holocaust enlightenment?

Maybe Im ignorant, but what the hell is THAT all about?

Hmm. Im starting to formulate a hypothesis about why you are so quick to assign defeat to Julian and therefore victory to Irving . . . Rose ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm Said: And I just clicked on Ophelias frederick toben link . . . oh dear. Hypothesis confirmed. Not much point discussing any further with you either, peter sault. Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm Said: I should, of course, have said that Germar Rudolf was convicted of the crime of holding an *illegal* opinion, not a wrong opinion. In this case it is German law which is in the wrong.

Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm Said: Paul Hutton claims Ive just set up a debate saying that I should be the new Prime Minister. I sent a quick email to Gordon inviting him to oppose the motion. He refused to take part for some reason, therefore the motion is carried. You are absolutely right, Paul. However, I suspect you will find you are dealing with a bad loser so we will continue to see the face of hypocrisy occupying 10 Downing Street.

Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm Said: Rose admits defeat and withdraws Not much point discussing any further with you either, peter sault. Would any other sore losers like to try their luck against me?

Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm Said: Once again, for Julian to bow out would be for Julian to admit that his arguments dont hold up in the conditions of a formal debate. There is no bowing out here; Julian has been invited; he can say yes or no; he is certainly not required or obligated to accept; an invitation is not a mandate or a conscription. That aside, of course not wanting to take Irving seriously enough to debate him is not an admission of anything.

Irving is a known falsifier of historical evidence; that by itself is an excellent reason to refuse to debate him, because obviously it is impossible to check your opponents evidence during a debate, and Irving is known to be untrustworthy. To put it more plainly, how on earth would Julian know that Irving wouldnt simply offer false evidence during the debate?

He wouldnt; so no thank you. Irving de-legitimized himself by falsifying evidence. Its that simple. Rose ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm Said: Peter: the holocaust was real. Six million jewish people died. Anyone who says otherwise has another agenda. Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm Said: Ophelia Benson alleges Irving is a known falsifier of historical evidence I am not familiar with the details of that. Please would you be so kind as to provide some. What exactly is Irving known to have falsified?

Ophelia continues an invitation is not a mandate or a conscription. Quite so, Ophelia. As always, I am open to reasoned argument. Ophelia again: Irving de-legitimized himself by falsifying evidence If the allegation is true then you are quite right. Once again, I am unfamiliar with the exact nature of what he was presumably proved to have falsified, so I cant comment. As for evidence in general, it must at least have some kind of provenance associated with it.

Evidence can be challenged, after all. This is the greatest difficulty that anyone has in challenging the Holocaust narrative; there simply is no evidence whatsoever to support it. What is not presented cannot be challenged. That is why the Holocaust industry concentrates on character assassination rather than the presentation of evidential facts. Peter Wakefield Sault ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm Said: Rose claims Six million jewish people died Please may I see some evidence to support that claim. Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm Said: Some detail on Irvings falsifications here – http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/evans/6 Also, Peter, you should take a look at the trial. The judge was (as judges are allowed to be) quite forthright about Irvings way with evidence. there simply is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Thats absolute nonsense. See Raul Hilberg, to name just one. Check his notes. Ophelia Benson ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm Said: Same for the six million – see Raul Hilberg and his sources. Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm Said: Ophelia Benson would like to send me off on a wild goose chase. That is a familiar Holocaust industry tactic. Please present your evidence, if you have any, here in this forum. I will then be happy to deal with it on a point-by-point basis.

As you yourself pointed out only a couple of posts ago – an invitation is not a mandate or conscription and I am accordingly turning down your invitation to leave this forum. Rose ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm Said: There is abundant evidence. But there is no point showing it to you, because you will deny it, because you have already denied it. Hence you are a holocaust denier. Hence there is no point discussing this with you: nothing will convince you. And you will not convince me that somehow it is possible to fake something on the scale of the holocaust.

It is extremely improbable that the staggering amount of first-person testimonies from both Jewish and Nazi survivors and their decendents could be faked. I would go so far as to say impossible. I think your belief on this matter is so unlikely, that to believe it as a matter of fact is . . . well, crazy. Rose ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm Said: Peter, Im not asking you leave the forum. I have no right to do that. Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm Said: Dont be ridiculous. I havent invited you to leave, and Im certainly not obliged to publish Raul Hilbergs bibliography here. The evidence exists; it is cited in multiple books by multiple historians; Raul Hilberg is considered the primus inter pares among them.

You dont get to announce that there is no evidence when there are library shelves full of books that cite the evidence. No of course I dont happen to have the entire archives of the Third Reich on my hard drive, ready to be downloaded here; it does not follow and it is not the case that therefore the evidence does not exist. Peter Wakefield Sault ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm Said: Ophelia presents a URL leading to Some detail on Irvings falsifications. What we find at the URL are the personal opinions of one Richard J. Evans, of whom I have never heard. That is not evidence of anything except the fact that Mr Evans holds the expressed opinions. Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm Said: Ophelia prattles on: The evidence exists So present it.

Rose , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm Said: Peter: please prove to me that you exist. Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm Said: Richard Evans nicely summed up why David Irving is such an unattractive prospect as a debate opponent, in his court testimony at the trial (you know, the one that Irving lost so resoundingly when his falsifications were exposed by a real historian).

Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about.

It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of historian to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.

Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as historical writer instead. http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/evans/6 Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm Said: Rose gets accusatory: you are a holocaust denier What is your evidence for that?

Rose , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said: Peter, your words: Frankly, I would rather see Germar Rudolf debate the Holocaust enlightenment side but, of course, Germar Rudolf languishes in a German prison convicted of the crime of holding the wrong opinion. That in itself is an admission that the Holocaust industry hasnt got a leg to stand on. Surely this is the terminology of a holocaust denier?

And you still havent proven to me that you exist. Ophelia Benson ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said: Oh for Christs sake – youve never heard of Richard Evans – yet here you are flapping your jaws. Richard Evans is a Cambridge historian. He was hired by the defense as an expert witness, to examine Irvings work, which he found to be full of falsifications of the evidence. Those arent just his personal opinions, you berk, thats sworn court testimony! If you dont even know who Richard Evans is, you have no clue what youre talking about.

Learn something about the trial at the very least before you offer worthless opinions on all this. Peter Wakefield Sault ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said: Ophelia presents the long-winded opinions of Richard J. Evans, for which I see no supporting evidence. It would seem that Evans is the falsifier unless he chose somewhere else to deal with particular points of David Irvings writings rather than presenting generalized ad hominems.

Julian Baggini , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said: Ophelia gets it spot on again: There is no bowing out here; Julian has been invited; he can say yes or no; he is certainly not required or obligated to accept; an invitation is not a mandate or a conscription. This is not a playground, where if someone challenges you to a fight, youre a chicken if you say no.

Paul Hutton , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm Said: Peter Out of curiousity, what would it mean to you if someone could prove (beyond doubt) that six million jewish people died at the hands of the Nazis?

How would you respond?

Would you think it a bad thing?

Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm Said: Of course he did. Explore the rest of the site. Do a little work. Look up the trial. As I said, this isnt opinions, its sworn testimony. So long; I have better things to do than argue with someone who doesnt know the most basic facts. Peter Wakefield Sault , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm Said: Rose asks Surely this is the terminology of a holocaust denier?

So, according to you, Rose, for someone to complain about the existence of thought crimes is for that person to be a holocaust denier – and thereby guilty of thought crimes. Rose gets seriously philosophical: And you still havent proven to me that you exist. I dont exist. Peter Wakefield Sault ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm Said: Ophelia says its sworn testimony Thank you, Ophelia. Sworn testimony is not prima facie evidence of anything. Moreover, since Irving was not on trial he has no been convicted of anything and especially not on the basis of anyones expert opinion. Rose , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm Said: No it wasnt about the thought crime: it was about referring to the holocaust ENLIGHTENMENT side.

Of course a holocaust denier would think they were on the holocaust enlightenment side, and would think there was a need for holocaust enlightenment. My point about whether you can prove your existence was that it sounds as ridiculous to claim there is no evidence for the holocaust as it is to claim that oneself does not exist. Peter Wakefield Sault ,

on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm Said: Rose opines it sounds as ridiculous to claim there is no evidence for the holocaust as it is to claim that oneself does not exist. Unless you can present some evidence what other reasonable assumption can anyone make except that you do not have any and are presenting the holocaust as an article of religious faith?

Ophelia Benson , on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm Said: Not gone quite yet,