David Irving arrested in Austria
So there you go -- the point stands. Try again. Long live Rosa Parks.
And you say that without any reference at all to any studies or data at all. Laughable. Try again.
Last edited:
You mistake the point here, and you in fact have avoided the points I made to you.
*sigh*
At no point did I claim that something was ethically "right" merely by virtue of being popular.
Anywhere, therefore, your reply is called making a strawman. (*) Address the points I made.
If you disagree, quote exactly where I am supposed to have committed the fallacy of appeal to popularity, and say exactly how.
_________
(*) Interestingly enough, your accusation also shows the fallacy of a circular argument under the following circumstance: The only logical way you could call what I said an appeal to popularity is if you assume right from the very start that unlimited free speech must ethically and therefore in this argument logically be assumed to be "right" and sacrosanct, but since the entire argument is in fact over whether that is true or not, then you commit the fallacy of a circular argument.
We can agree on that much.
I will add more:
There is no such thing as an objective right.
Many here, including yourself, appear to hold unlimited free speech as sacrosanct, beyond any limitation.
A further addition by some has been the implication that such sacrosanct unlimited free speech is actually allowed in the USA.
My aims here have included showing that in practice that right is always constrained in any case, including in the USA, which has been demonstrated;
that to other people, other rights can supersede the right to free speech;
and that there is no objective reason to make free speech completely sacrosanct.
Since I have been hit during this thread with a whole lot of fallacies, including (heavily repeated) fallacy of appeal to emotion, ad hom's, a really weird contravention of Godwin's Law, etc., I state very clearly I am in favour of as much free speech as humanely possible which does not impact negatively on the human rights of others, human rights as being defined by the usual. Therefore I personally do not have much against the Austrian laws on this (Irving), nor do I have a huge problem with a lack of such a law in say Japan, since the circumstances differ.
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
We seem to be talking past each other, but I'll address this briefly before I leave for vacation:
This is an appeal to popularity. You don't go into the reasons (valid or not) for the reason such laws are adopted, but assert that there is a good reason that they are so "widely accepted." Whether they are widely accepted or not has no bearing on whether they are correct or not. Many people accept them; many people may be wrong.
In short: No. No such assumption is made or needs to be made to point out that the wide acceptance of anything is no evidence regarding whether something is correct/right/true.
Given my past posts on this topic, I am not sure where that appearance came from. Indeed, in my earlier psots I thought I stated that the questions was not whether there are or should be limits on speech, but that the key question appeared to be whether it was a good idea in this particular case.
Yes, I thought I had. I was even more explicit later on in the thread, too. So you appear to be arguing mightily against a position that I did not ever take. I think more speech is generally better than less; that is not a claim that speech is unlimited -- and I took some pains to set that out from the beginning.
Very, very wrong. Go back and read all my posts in this thread.
Your assertion is extremely strange in view of the fact that my very first few posts dealt exactly with the concrete reasons, and my responses to other people dealt concretely with their objections and comments.
In short; you simply repeat your strawman, you refuse to tackle the actual concrete issues, and you seem not to have read most of the thread, and you are simply repeating a huge mistake of yours.
Again, see thread.
A very vague position indeed, and one that does not further the discussion much. I look forward to your actually reading all my posts in this thread. It saves so much repetition.
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
Just as a thought experiment: Suppose Osama bin Laden was on the point of capture, and killed himself. His immediate deputies put out a statement saying that the war with the US was over.
Should you then be able to freely form new al Qaeda cells?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Well, the whole idea of "cells" is a method of organization to aid in taking down a power-structure, so the very fact of creating "cells" would indicate the war was not over. However, if there was enough popular support, I don't see why people couldn't create local al-Qaeda chapters dedicated to achieving the same goals through non-violent means.
Why dabble with hypotheticals when you can simply ask Gerry Adams what it takes to legitimize a terrorist organization? It ain't that complicated.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Stands how? I'd say that the point has been effectively shows to be inaccurate.
I'd also recommend that you re-read the Wiki article that you put so much stock in. Here's a direct quote from the article, taken from a far more reliable source than your 4-5 million claim:
Every single study available online that I've ever been able to find uses Klan membership rolls as the primary source of their statistics. Among the scholarly works by Mecklin, Jackson, and Moore, three of the most quoted, estimates range between 1 million and 8 million nationwide, so clearly even the experts can't agree on the actual numbers; particularly since, as their writings show, the membership rolls frequently included spouses and children of members in their listings.
The numbers used by Wikipedia are based heavily on the work done by Wade and Horn; the latter of which is fairly reliable. But Wade is well known for sensationalizing and overinflation of facts and statistics; and the actual membership numbers quoted appear to be based heavily on Wade and similarly senstionalized works.
If you can find a scholarly source that doesn't use Klan membership rolls as the primary source, I'd be willing to accept your figure; but from my reading, 1-2 million adult members at it's peak is likely to be the most accurate.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Which might be why -- consider this possibility carefully -- I didn't make that point in response to your other posts, but only in repsonse to the post that actually added an appeal to popularity.
We are apparently not comminucating in this thread; I wish you and other luck in moving the topic forward.
You can keep claiming that the moon is made of green cheese, but it doesn't make it so.
IOW, you made an accusation, failed to back it up when challenged, failed to address the very clear refutations I made to you, you then failed to address questions made directly to you, and now you prefer to cut and run. This makes your behanviour disingenous and dishonest. Impressed I'm not.
No doubt others are more interested in actual discussion and tackling the issues.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Likewise.
As I have pointed out on other threads, I am about to leave for a week long vacation. Those plans were made long before being forced into ignoble retreat by your implacable, unanswerable logic.
I mean, dear sweet Jesu: I have tried to remain polite during this exchange, but this last self-congratulatory blast of hot air takes the absolute cake. You have continually misrepresented my position (while simultaneously crying strawman at the top of your lungs), engaged in name-calling against just about everyone instead of answering the points being made, and either cannot comprehend the points being made or disingenuously cling to your claimed misunderstanding, regardless.
There is no point in trying to communicate with you. I commend my above answers to your accusations to the others reading this and will allow them to decide whether I "failed to back . . . up" my point -- but all they have to do is look at the post I quoted.
I know this is going to take a while to sink in, but constantly declaring victory at the top of your lungs and congratulating yourself on how much smarter you are than all of the other posters does not equate to making "clear refutations."
Hopefully so -- though why they would remain in this thread may remain a mystery for the ages.
Cry me a river. You could have said that in this thread, instead you chose to dishonestly attempt a weak strawman, then run away, and now pathetically you come back again, not to actually address points, but only to salvage your ego.
Come back when you can actually learn some proper logic, and when you're honest enough to address points and make arguments. Your ego is not worth the effort.
Sounds a bit absurd to me....
quote:
Nazi apologist finds his works in Austrian prison
Luke Harding in Berlin
Friday December 2, 2005
The Guardian
Austria's authorities were facing acute embarrassment yesterday after it emerged that the controversial historian David Irving had discovered two of his books inside the prison where he was held last month. Irving stumbled across copies of Hitler's War and Schlacht im Eismeer (Battle in the Arctic Sea) while browsing through the 6,400-volume library of Graz's prison, where he was taken after his arrest three weeks ago.
A delighted Irving asked warders if he could sign his own works. They agreed. Irving then wrote the following dedication: "Hi - I'm the unknown prisoner. I send my greetings to all the other unknown prisoners in this house."
Yesterday Josef Adam, the head of Graz prison, told the Guardian he had no idea how the works of a leading Nazi apologist had ended up on his shelves. "It's incredible. I've looked at the index cards. His books have only been taken out four or five times over the past 20 years. Most of our prisoners prefer reading thrillers or encyclopedias. They like the pictures." The library had withdrawn the books from circulation, Mr Adam said.
Irving, who is barred from Austria, was detained near Graz after slipping into the country to address a meeting of rightwing students. He faces charges of denying the Holocaust. After spending a week on remand in Graz Irving was transferred to a prison in Vienna. The book found in the library, Hitler's War, makes clear Irving's discredited view that Hitler knew little or nothing about the murder of Jews. His two books were published in the 1980s.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/austria/article/0,,1655992,00.html#article_continue
quote:
Nazi apologist finds his works in Austrian prison
Luke Harding in Berlin
Friday December 2, 2005
The Guardian
Austria's authorities were facing acute embarrassment yesterday after it emerged that the controversial historian David Irving had discovered two of his books inside the prison where he was held last month. Irving stumbled across copies of Hitler's War and Schlacht im Eismeer (Battle in the Arctic Sea) while browsing through the 6,400-volume library of Graz's prison, where he was taken after his arrest three weeks ago.
A delighted Irving asked warders if he could sign his own works. They agreed. Irving then wrote the following dedication: "Hi - I'm the unknown prisoner. I send my greetings to all the other unknown prisoners in this house."
Yesterday Josef Adam, the head of Graz prison, told the Guardian he had no idea how the works of a leading Nazi apologist had ended up on his shelves. "It's incredible. I've looked at the index cards. His books have only been taken out four or five times over the past 20 years. Most of our prisoners prefer reading thrillers or encyclopedias. They like the pictures." The library had withdrawn the books from circulation, Mr Adam said.
Irving, who is barred from Austria, was detained near Graz after slipping into the country to address a meeting of rightwing students. He faces charges of denying the Holocaust. After spending a week on remand in Graz Irving was transferred to a prison in Vienna. The book found in the library, Hitler's War, makes clear Irving's discredited view that Hitler knew little or nothing about the murder of Jews. His two books were published in the 1980s.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/austria/article/0,,1655992,00.html#article_continue
The Holocaust was a deed of the Catholic Church primarily.
Hitler was Catholic, yes, and the pope behaved shamefully, but between that and blaming the Catholic Church primarily is a long haul. It was primarily the fault of the Germans and their collaborators, and in particular--though by no means exclusively--the fault of the Nazis. For example, Italy and Spain, both staunchly Catholic countries and Hitler's allies, treated their jews much better--comparatively, at least--than Germany did.
Hitler was Catholic, yes, and the pope behaved shamefully, but between that and blaming the Catholic Church primarily is a long haul. It was primarily the fault of the Germans and their collaborators, and in particular--though by no means exclusively--the fault of the Nazis. For example, Italy and Spain, both staunchly Catholic countries and Hitler's allies, treated their jews much better--comparatively, at least--than Germany did.
An interesting article on the subject:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=7011&issue=2005-12-03
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=7011&issue=2005-12-03