R
R_not
Guest
Even our own NYTimes reported that by June/July 1942 already 1 million Jews have been killed. They don’t mention on this link the number of non-Jews that were killed.
Why Can't Anyone Have A Different Opinion About The Holocaust?
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
What case? I think you missed part of the conversation. I was addressing whether or not Bishop Williamson said he didn’t think there were any gas chambers. That is all. That* was* the Williamson interview.
I gave the link to the interview for the sake of putting to rest the discussion of what he said and did not say.
R
R_not
Guest
Sorry, yes I misunderstood you.
What case? I think you missed part of the conversation. I was addressing whether or not Bishop Williamson said he didn’t think there were any gas chambers. That is all. That* was* the Williamson interview.
I gave the link to the interview for the sake of putting to rest the discussion of what he said and did not say.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Indeed.
I have a question of my own that I’d like to pose to everyone: Do you think that a lot of people pay too much attention to Holocaust deniers (and Holocaust questioners), and actually empower them?
G
GKC
Guest
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
I have good news for you, you don’t have to worry about this any more-your poppa provided an answer to this question this month:
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI said:
found here
Simply put, Catholics don’t have the option of a different opinion on this topic. The Pope has condemned those who still insist on doing so. As for Non-Catholics, he likely condemns them as well for such a belief, but doesn’t have the authority to enforce it.
S
sedonaman
Guest
They are already empowered.
This idea of there never being a holocaust not only is an attack on truth, it is an attempt to make truth whatever you want it to be – a dangerous notion.
Whenever someone is condemned for having an absurd idea, his first reaction is something like, “You are denying me my right to free speech.” This takes the form, “denying me my academic freedom” in the academy. Catholic League president Bill Donohue had a few choice things to say about it during the Ward Churchill flap:
“Higher education does not exist so that all ideas can be exchanged freely – that can be done in a bar. Its purpose is the pursuit of truth.”
and …
"Universities were not founded to promote freedom of speech, but to pursue truth. The pursuit of the truth, of course, is contingent on free speech as a means towards that end. But it is precisely because speech at a university is conditional that it cannot be absolute. For example, speech which unarguably does not facilitate the pursuit of truth, or which is by all rational measures demonstrably false, should not be given a platform at any institution of higher education. That is why circus entertainers are not asked to perform on college campuses, nor are spokesmen from the Flat Earth Society invited to speak.”
Although we are not an institution of higher learning, when we speak, it should be in pursuit of truth.
I have not been able to p(name removed by moderator)oint its origin, but there is a phenomenon that I have dubbed facetiously, “Sedonaman’s Third Law of Social Studies,” patterned after Newton’s Third Law of Motion which states, “For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.” Similar to Newton’s Law, my Third Law says, “For every opinion, there is an equal but opposite opinion.”
Now [not so obviously] not all opinions are equal, but you would think even the most absurd are, given the weight they are accorded in our institutions, especially the academy, the government, and Big Leftist Media. The academy even came up with a name for it: Polylogism [lit. “many logics”] which really should be called “polytruth” when you examine it.
Polylogism is the belief that different people or groups have different forms of logic. Since logic is the art of non-contradiction, polylogism can have only two possible meanings. Either reality is different for each group, or logic is a loose term for method of acquiring knowledge. The latter, though, is not how it is used. Those speaking of polylogism state that the conclusions from the different logics are different. This means that although they both claim to be methods of acquiring knowledge, the truth of the knowledge is different for different groups. This can mean only that reality is different for the different groups. Perhaps you have heard someone who disagrees with you say, “Well, this may be true for you but it’s not true for me” and is the reason you want to reply, “You don’t know what the word ‘true’ means.”
But there’s a deeper objection. On what basis does the polylogist claim that polylogism is true? If all truth is a cultural construction of some sort, then this would apply to the truth of polylogism, which means that if it is true, it is true only for the culture of polylogists (whatever that is). To say that polylogism is true for everyone would make it a universal truth. This won’t work because polylogism says there are no universal truths or logical norms. In other words, to a logical mind, polylogism is self-refuting.
Hence, polylogism is an absurd idea. It hides behind a more realistic idea, though. People can acquire knowledge in different ways. There are various methods one can use in approaching truth. Some of these methods are legitimate while others are not. Polylogism pretends to encompass the legitimate methods by claiming different cultures are more prone to using particular methods.
This is just camouflage. Polylogism is nothing but social subjectivism. It claims that knowledge is whatever you want it to be, but applies it to groups. Cultures, tribes, or races are the deciders of truth, and reality conforms to their views. What’s true for a Greek philosopher is not true for an Eastern philosopher. This does not mean that the two believe different things [or reached different conclusions]. It means that the two are both right, even though they contradict one another. It is a denial of the Law of Identity.
Most of all, polylogism fails its own test. It claims that there are no universal truths, yet it claims that it is a universal truth.
Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.
Ref: solohq.com/Objectivism101/Irrational_Polylogism.shtml and lewrockwell.com/yates/yates62.html .
While everyone may be entitled to his opinion, that entitlement doesn’t make everyone right, something often forgotten, especially by the academy, the government, and Big Leftist Media, which all seem to depend evermore on controversy in lieu of truth for their livelihoods.
S
Soutane
Guest
AND reductionism which is an insult to those who died AND their descendants who would not even EXIST had Hitler and his fellow Germans won the war.THERE WOULD NOT BE A JEW LEFT ALIVE TODAY.
S
Soutane
Guest
He doesn’t have a problem-but I think he’s quickly losing patience with someone who appears wilfully obstinate in the face of overwhelming evidence.
G
GKC
Guest
S
Soutane
Guest
The Jews were a RACE who were targeted for extermination much like and with as much compassion as one would have COCKROACHES exterminated in one’s kitchen,except the kitchen here is THE WORLD.
Zyklon B was an INSECTICIDE.
They were the ONLY race thus targeted by the Nazis.There was no OFFICIAL policy of a final solution for Catholics,Poles,Protestants,Muslims,Athiests,French,Canadians,Americans or ANYONE ELSE based specifically on RACE.That is why what happened to the Jews is so unique.There have been other holocausts based on ethnicity such as the Rwandan massacre of the Tutsis or the Turkish massacre of the Armenians.
Zyklon B was an INSECTICIDE.
They were the ONLY race thus targeted by the Nazis.There was no OFFICIAL policy of a final solution for Catholics,Poles,Protestants,Muslims,Athiests,French,Canadians,Americans or ANYONE ELSE based specifically on RACE.That is why what happened to the Jews is so unique.There have been other holocausts based on ethnicity such as the Rwandan massacre of the Tutsis or the Turkish massacre of the Armenians.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Personally, I do not like to discuss the Holocost without talking about those Jews killed by Stalin.
He made HItler look minor league
He made HItler look minor league
S
Soutane
Guest
I agree,BUT he did not have a policy of absolute extermination aka The Final Solution.There were plenty of Jews in positions opf power within the murderous Stalinist regime.He was an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY butcher.
G
GKC
Guest
R
ralphinal
Guest
Excellent point. He killed something on the order of 60 million, I think. Crazy numbers like that.
I wonder had Germany NOT supported Japan after Pearl Harbor, and been happy with just Europe, not attacking the USSR or even Great Britton, how long it would have been before the truth was known.
G
GKC
Guest
Different substance, different time.Isn’t that French for “same poop, different pile”?
GKC
- Status