Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Ban on maverick historian overturned
Holocaust denial is rather mad so making it illegal just gives it credibility. Irving is however an extremely knowledgeable historian (he was the only historian who immediately picked the fake Kujau "Hitler Diaries" as fake) so he rattles people. I am pretty certain that his holocaust denial is just a "stir", a publicity stunt. A few years ago, he referred to the color of his car as "n*gger brown", and if that is not a stir, I don't know what would be. He is a classic stirrer. He would seem to subscribe to the view that there is no such thing as bad publicity
Holocaust denier David Irving has won a surprise victory in a German court - thanks to the EU - that allows him entry into the country next year after overturning a ban that ran for another decade.
Irving, 74, has written a series of books about the Third Reich denying the historical evidence for the Holocaust of more than six million Jews during WW2.
A Munich court convicted and fined him in 1993 on a charge of insulting the memory of the dead after he disputed that the gas chambers at Auschwitz killed hundreds of thousands of Jews.
He told a group of right-wingers in 1993 that the Polish government built the chambers after the war to 'show tourists.' The Munich court imposed the entry ban at the same time as he was fined.
Irving applied last year for re-entry, but German authorities replied that he remained banned until 2022.
The administrative tribunal rejected this on Friday, ruling that this ban could not be upheld under European Union rules of free movement. This states: 'The free movement of persons is a fundamental right guaranteed to European Union EU citizens by the Treaties.
Source
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Time for all collage speech code to be struck down as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Is it ever okay to lie? How can the truth prevail if it is not defended against falsehood?
There can be nearly infinite falsehoods for every truth. For example, for the question, "Who won the World Series in 2012?", there is only one true answer: The San Francisco Giants won it in 4 games. But someone could claim that any other team won, or even made up teams that won, or changed the number of games won, etc.
How can those nearly infinite falsehoods be prevented from drowning out the truth without burying those falsehoods when they're discovered to be false?
David Irving may be an "extremely knowledgeable" historian; but if he's willing to push something so obviously untrue, he's certainly not a "credible" one.
In the United States, such "denial" would be Constitutionally protected speech under the 1st amendment. Our rights of free speech do not guarantee that we will like what others say, nor does it require us to listen to what others say. But it gives them just as much right to say what they want to say as we have.
Was it Henry Ford who said "History is bunkum" or words to that effect?
History - whether distant or recent (like so-called "News") is open to a lot of interpretation. The frequently provided views of our apparently "resident religious historian" (Luke) should also be subjected to normal careful analysis.
The frequently provided views of our apparently "resident religious historian" (Luke) should also be subjected to normal careful analysis.
Yes they should. When I make a claim about a historical or scientific fact, you should check its veracity. On the other hand, refusal to do so due to bigotry or prejudice (as is so often the case with my personal stalker) is not careful analysis.
The president of the US lies every time he opens his mouth. Unfortunely nearly half of our populace is brain dead and still believe him. Lies are dangerous and cause great harm.
And the same goes for the scientific community. An honest examination of certain scientific claims, for example evolution, reveal that they amount to speculation or a best-guess based on observed evidence. Just because evidence exists that happens to fit into a speculative theory does not prove that said event actually happened. In fairness, scientific claims need to go under the same scrutiny that we put religious claims.
Religious claims are often attributed to "faith" in favor of empirical evidence, but when you drill down to the basics of the scientific method, you realize that ultimately, observation is limited by our human limitations and perceptions, and also ultimately requires faith.
So 11:43, according to your argument, how does religious "faith" fare any better than scientific "faith" (which at least has a lot of empirical evidence to back it up - which religion doesn't).
Luke is vain enough to think he has a "personal stalker", and that nobody bothers to check the veracity of his religious claims, which are mostly creationist in nature, and already debunked many times.
veracity
If you're christian then perhaps you might not use that word Luke.
It is derived from the name of Saturn's Daughter Veritas. Whether Saturn and Satan are the same or even evil might be answered by others.
Saturn Himself has be said to be represented by the 6 pointed star use by the jews and the also the 6 sided black cube worn as tefillin.
Veritas of "Truth" is elusive and hides in a well. From whom does she hide ?
http://www.123rf.com/photo_2348479_ottawa-ontario-canada-veritas-statue.html
veracity
Kooky conspiracy theories need not apply.
As for: Luke is vain enough to think he has a "personal stalker", and that nobody bothers to check the veracity of his religious claims,
That claim is simple to check. Just go back through past comments. Or just start right here, because this is yet another perfect example of exactly what I was talking about, attacks pointedly directed at me (in the past it's sometimes even when I haven't said anything), especially simple gainsaying of my points without a shred of argument or evidence to back it up.
In other words, Anonymous acts just like John Cleese in this bit.
Anon 4:26 AM, it doesn't. And that's the point. Yet Science is revered because it ties a tiny amount of empirical evidence to grand speculation. You are quick to claim creationism being false and debunked, yet you yourself cling to scientific theory and conjecture that, in the end, requires just as much faith as the Creationist's viewpoint.
requires just as much faith as the Creationist's viewpoint.
I would disagree with that slightly. The more we learn about our universe (that it had a beginning) and how life actually works, the more unreasonable materialism and scientism gets.
For example, you've probably heard that 98% of our DNA is the same as chimpanzees. What they didn't tell you was that number was 98% of DNA where the function was known (basically protein templates). The rest was considered "junk DNA" which was leftovers from the "evolutionary process". About 3 years ago I learned that this number had dropped to about 75%. And just recently, the ENCODE project discovered the functions of more than 80% of the remaining DNA. The evolutionary theory of "junk DNA" has now been savaged by new discoveries and is on its way to the junkheap of history.
Over at Discover Magazine, Tom Gingeras, a senior scientist affiliated with ENCODE, states that "Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function":
According to ENCODE's analysis, 80 percent of the genome has a "biochemical function". More on exactly what this means later, but the key point is: It's not "junk". Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA probably has a function, and many solid examples have recently come to light. But, many maintained that much of these sequences were, indeed, junk. ENCODE says otherwise. "Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more," says Tom Gingeras, one of the study's many senior scientists.
The Discover Magazine article further explains that the rest of the 20% of the genome is likely to have function as well:
And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."
There's a reason one of my favorite books has the title, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
God is everything that we do not know. God is getting smaller every day.
Luke (like other Creationists) uses the common tactic of trying to overwhelm the reader or listener (especially if they are not well educated in science) with a mass of apparent data that purports to undermine current scientific thinking, no matter whether such opinions are backed by good scientific evidence, or whether such scientists may have received Nobel prizes for their serious work. Luke and fellow creationists just think they can bypass scientific evidence by word-games and reference to interpretations of ancient middle-eastern texts.
However much as Luke and his fellow crationists try to pick holes in current scientific thinking, doesn't by default justify their own religious views. Even using Luke's arguments "God" could just be an evil-minded space alien who's devised a sick extinction game with this planet (and there's plenty of justification for that!!)
The psychology behind popular religion is pretty obvious!
re: 4:38
There he goes again; still stalking and simplistic contradicting. What's the matter, troll? Afraid to do the hard mental work required to actually examine the evidence?
Someone here is blinded by belief.
uses the common tactic of trying to overwhelm the reader or listener (especially if they are not well educated in science) with a mass of apparent data
It seems to me that telling readers that they're too stupid to understand the presented information or do their own research to check on the claims probably isn't the best of debate tactics.
data that purports to undermine current scientific thinking, no matter whether such opinions are backed by good scientific evidence,
Pardon me, but that's how the scientific method works! A scientist first develops a hypothesis based on observations, then gathers more data based on experimentation or other valid means. That data then either supports the hypothesis, causes the hypothesis to be changed, or causes it to be discarded. After sufficient testing, the hypothesis becomes a theory. But even once it's a officially a theory, new data can still have exactly the same effect on it; upholding, modifying, or destroying the theory.
For example, Einstein's discoveries modified some of Newton's theories even though they had stood for centuries and are still close enough to be useful today.
In the scientific realm, any theory is always open to being revised or discarded should new discoveries make such a move necessary.
So why are you arguing against the scientific method?
http://buddyhuggins.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/sheriff-saturn-satan-and-666-true-law.html#.UJRQOVJCOuI
For Luke. An excellent summary of the import of the 6 pointed Star.
Study the Western Mystery Tradition for more.
While the New Testament is a 'nice' book, it appears to have created a herd of Lambs fit only for shearing and slaughter at the will of the other.
I suspect that your Jesus would not have advocated War against the other for this "Israel" as the foundations of Israel were to be constructed of the immutable Truth and not Lies and the Blood and Bones of innocent others.
Luke as usual twists things round to make the opponents' (scientific) arguments seem like his own and then accuse the opponent of promtoting the opposite view - a perverse but very common tactic of creationists.
I note Luke has never denied being a Creationist!! So we really needn't bother to wade through any more of his prolixity, or bore ourselves with the specious links!
we really needn't bother to wade through any more of his prolixity, or bore ourselves with the specious links!
Gee, whatever happened to, "The frequently provided views of our apparently "resident religious historian" (Luke) should also be subjected to normal careful analysis"? This is precisely the kind of extreme skepticism, prejudice, and bigotry I described in the 5:35 AM comment. It's not rational analysis. It's certainly not applying the scientific method.
Luke's comments become even more weird. Now he's promoting the scientific process about evidence before conclusion, yet his religious views promote the conclusion before the evidence (ie. trying to shoehorn or distort scientific evidence to fit pre-conceived religious notions).
The Creationists have a totally literal interpretation of ancient literature that's ended up in some edited translation in Luke's version of the Bible (whatever one that it) - albeit that the authors of the biblical texts in question may well have been using allegorical or poetic language all or most of the time.
Somebody please help me out here.
4:18's responses are bizarrely disconnected from my arguments. He seems to be claiming that I'm wrong because I'm not arguing for the position I am arguing for. Or something…
Am I somehow being unclear about my position? (Check all the evidence honestly. Rejecting evidence because you don't like the conclusion it leads to is dishonest.) Could Blogger be putting my comments through a really, really bad English—>Chinese—>Navaho—>English translator? Did a Babel Fish get caught in a Cone of Silence leading to a total breakdown of meaning in the Universe? Something else?
One thing is clear, if 4:18's "monkey chattering into Dragon Dictate" responses are what it takes to be an atheist, my case for theism is only getting stronger.
I'm not surprised Luke is confused, having such a self-contradictory religion!
Post a Comment