Personal tools
 
Views

Talk:Debate: Criminalization of Holocaust denial

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 23:30, 9 July 2009 (edit)
DharmaLion (Talk | contribs)
(does this article proceed from the presumption that the Holocaust happened or does it leave room for debate as to whether it happened or not?)
← Previous diff
Current revision (16:39, 17 May 2011) (edit)
England4ever (Talk | contribs)
(Anonymous comment)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +''Click on the "+" tab above to add a comment. Join us on [http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19125768640&ref=search&sid=1402695.3804486936..1 Facebook] for broader community discussion.''
 +
 +==Anonymous comment ==
 +
I'm a bit confused by the following statement in the "Background and Context": '''It is assumed in this article that the Holocaust occurred and that Nazi government of Germany...'''. This is because further down there is a section entitled '''Do facts indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Holocaust occurred?''' where the underlying question of whether the Holocaust occurred is addressed. Most of the article does seem to take the well-accepted position that the Holocaust occurred and that this debate is between those who accept that the Holocaust happened but differ as to whether Holocaust denial is merely incorrect or also criminal. However this one section '''Do facts indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Holocaust occurred?''' seems to make a debate as to whether the Holocaust happened at all fair game. So I'm confused.--[[User:DharmaLion|DharmaLion]] 18:30, 9 July 2009 (CDT) I'm a bit confused by the following statement in the "Background and Context": '''It is assumed in this article that the Holocaust occurred and that Nazi government of Germany...'''. This is because further down there is a section entitled '''Do facts indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Holocaust occurred?''' where the underlying question of whether the Holocaust occurred is addressed. Most of the article does seem to take the well-accepted position that the Holocaust occurred and that this debate is between those who accept that the Holocaust happened but differ as to whether Holocaust denial is merely incorrect or also criminal. However this one section '''Do facts indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Holocaust occurred?''' seems to make a debate as to whether the Holocaust happened at all fair game. So I'm confused.--[[User:DharmaLion|DharmaLion]] 18:30, 9 July 2009 (CDT)
 +
 +I reckon that the final section is irrelevant to the debate. The argument is about whether holocaust denial should be allowed, not whether it is true or false. The con side of the debate contradict themselves as they support holocaust denial itself in the last section but reject it earlier, saying only that they think that it shouldn't be banned. In view of this, the section should be removed. If the seemingly anti-semitic editor who filled in the con side of the final section really wants to argue this case, he should start a whole new debate for this.--[[User:England4ever]]

Current revision

Click on the "+" tab above to add a comment. Join us on Facebook for broader community discussion.

Anonymous comment

I'm a bit confused by the following statement in the "Background and Context": It is assumed in this article that the Holocaust occurred and that Nazi government of Germany.... This is because further down there is a section entitled Do facts indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Holocaust occurred? where the underlying question of whether the Holocaust occurred is addressed. Most of the article does seem to take the well-accepted position that the Holocaust occurred and that this debate is between those who accept that the Holocaust happened but differ as to whether Holocaust denial is merely incorrect or also criminal. However this one section Do facts indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Holocaust occurred? seems to make a debate as to whether the Holocaust happened at all fair game. So I'm confused.--DharmaLion 18:30, 9 July 2009 (CDT)

I reckon that the final section is irrelevant to the debate. The argument is about whether holocaust denial should be allowed, not whether it is true or false. The con side of the debate contradict themselves as they support holocaust denial itself in the last section but reject it earlier, saying only that they think that it shouldn't be banned. In view of this, the section should be removed. If the seemingly anti-semitic editor who filled in the con side of the final section really wants to argue this case, he should start a whole new debate for this.--User:England4ever

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.