David Irving

[Harry Angstrom]

You don't need to be comprehensive in your posts, you just need to distinguish between the definite and indefinite article. Or not mind when people assume you're just being awkward for the sake of it and roll their eyes instead of engaging with the point

I don't mind at all. It's just you. You don't like your totalitarian view of the world challenged.

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

Without David Irving the coverage of the World War II by historians would have been completely different and most likely very superficial. Whether you like it or not, his work has forced other historians to justify their own work to the nth degree. This can only be good. There are instances where Irving's work has fairly and squarely served to moderate the claims of others, many of whom had vested self interests. Even the likes of Deborah Lipstadt, who has had lengthy personal legal battles with Irving, have vehemently opposed the scandalous imprisonment of Irving or attempts to restrict him practicing history. People should should be bloody grateful the man exists and is dedicated to doing one of the most unliked jobs in history. His work means that in the future when nobody is in living memory of what happened, there is a recorded narrative of the arguments, and people can make their own minds up without thinking anything was gerrymandered or concealed. The more fools try to repress the path of academia the more people of the future are unlikely to believe its conclusions.

Every single History degree course that covers the holocaust in this country will have David Irving as required reading. That is not because every History degree is put together by Nazi sympathizers, it is because his work is an essential part of the academic body of work cover the subject and it absolutely critical to understanding the historiography of the subject.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

I don't mind at all. It's just you. You don't like your totalitarian view of the world challenged.

You asked the question "why is expression of a thought problematic?" I gave examples where this is the case. You said that wasn't the issue. Why'd you ask the question then? I don't believe I was arguing for totalitarianism when I suggested that there should be libel laws and press regulation.

Another example. If someone is going round persuading people not to get vaccinated against diseases, that's not just a case of one person being affected by someone holding a wrong belief. It affects possibly millions of others.

So your question was whether expressing a thought is problematic. I've argued with examples that there are certain circumstances when it is. In what way was I not addressing the point you raised?

 

[Narraback]

Why is expression of a thought problematic?

Really?

Without David Irving the coverage of the World War II by historians would have been completely different and most likely very superficial. Whether you like it or not, his work has forced other historians to justify their own work to the nth degree. This can only be good. There are instances where Irving's work has fairly and squarely served to moderate the claims of others, many of whom had vested self interests. Even the likes of Deborah Lipstadt, who has had lengthy personal legal battles with Irving, have vehemently opposed the scandalous imprisonment of Irving or attempts to restrict him practicing history. People should should be bloody grateful the man exists and is dedicated to doing one of the most unliked jobs in history. His work means that in the future when nobody is in living memory of what happened, there is a recorded narrative of the arguments, and people can make their own minds up without thinking anything was gerrymandered or concealed. The more fools try to repress the path of academia the more people of the future are unlikely to believe its conclusions.

Every single History degree course that covers the holocaust in this country will have David Irving as required reading. That is not because every History degree is put together by Nazi sympathizers, it is because his work is an essential part of the academic body of work cover the subject and it absolutely critical to understanding the historiography of the subject.

Absolute tosh.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

Without David Irving the coverage of the World War II by historians would have been completely different and most likely very superficial. Whether you like it or not, his work has forced other historians to justify their own work to the nth degree. This can only be good. There are instances where Irving's work has fairly and squarely served to moderate the claims of others, many of whom had vested self interests. Even the likes of Deborah Lipstadt, who has had lengthy personal legal battles with Irving, have vehemently opposed the scandalous imprisonment of Irving or attempts to restrict him practicing history. People should should be bloody grateful the man exists and is dedicated to doing one of the most unliked jobs in history. His work means that in the future when nobody is in living memory of what happened, there is a recorded narrative of the arguments, and people can make their own minds up without thinking anything was gerrymandered or concealed. The more fools try to repress the path of academia the more people of the future are unlikely to believe its conclusions.

Every single History degree course that covers the holocaust in this country will have David Irving as required reading. That is not because every History degree is put together by Nazi sympathizers, it is because his work is an essential part of the academic body of work cover the subject and it absolutely critical to understanding the historiography of the subject.

Just for the record I was already in the thread so I'm not following you around.

It may well be the case that Irving's participation in this topic has caused other historians to sharpen up their arguments and evidence. But a better truer understanding of historical events was hardly his intention. It's a bit like trying to give polio credit for Jonas Salk improving the medical industry's development of vaccines.

 

[Metro Man]

Great seminar guys (on semantics)....

 

[Harry Angstrom]

You asked the question "why is expression of a thought problematic?" I gave examples where this is the case. You said that wasn't the issue. Why'd you ask the question then? I don't believe I was arguing for totalitarianism when I suggested that there should be libel laws and press regulation.

Another example. If someone is going round persuading people not to get vaccinated against diseases, that's not just a case of one person being affected by someone holding a wrong belief. It affects possibly millions of others.

So your question was whether expressing a thought is problematic. I've argued with examples that there are certain circumstances when it is. In what way was I not addressing the point you raised?

I asked the question because I wanted to know when a thought would become problematical. A thought, not a malicious lie or an incitement to violence.

I did not say you were arguing for totalitarianism, I said you have a totalitarian view of the world.

There is nothing wrong with people campaigning against mass vaccination if they wish to do so. It is up to others to counter this.

Really?



Absolute tosh.

Yes, really. I assumed that in a liberal democracy you can express views that may not be palatable to the vast majority. It's shows that we are in pretty good shape.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

I asked the question because I wanted to know when a thought would become problematical. A thought, not a malicious lie or an incitement to violence.

I did not say you were arguing for totalitarianism, I said you have a totalitarian view of the world.

There is nothing wrong with people campaigning against mass vaccination if they wish to do so. It is up to others to counter this.



Yes, really. I assumed that in a liberal democracy you can express views that may not be palatable to the vast majority. It's shows that we are in pretty good shape.

Before you introduce more contrary horseshit into the discussion, do you acknowledge that there are instances when expression of a thought is harmful?

 

[Harry Angstrom]

Before you introduce more contrary horseshit into the discussion, do you acknowledge that there are instances when expression of a thought is harmful?

Of course there are. Telling a lass that she has eaten enough and shouldn't have a pudding is one.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

Of course there are. Telling a lass that she has eaten enough and shouldn't have a pudding is one.

So all the other stuff about saying I have a totalitarian point of view and how a response to the exact question you asked was somehow changing the subject, that sort of needlessly took things off topic, didn't it?

 

[Fossildog]

Before you introduce more contrary horseshit into the discussion, do you acknowledge that there are instances when expression of a thought is harmful?

Your lack of self-awareness is really quite astounding

 

[Harry Angstrom]

So all the other stuff about saying I have a totalitarian point of view and how a response to the exact question you asked was somehow changing the subject, that sort of needlessly took things off topic, didn't it?

No. It didn't. There was an awful lot implied in that

 

[Cockney Mackem]

No. It didn't. There was an awful lot implied in that

All of which you went on to justify in the two pages that followed it

 

[Harry Angstrom]

All of which you went on to justify in the two pages that followed it

You shouldn't be allowed to say that. It's hurtful.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

You shouldn't be allowed to say that. It's hurtful.

So when I cite specific instances in which making a statement is problematic, in response to you asking whether anyone making any statement is problematic, you're going to pretend it was me generalising not you?

 

[Harry Angstrom]

So when I cite specific instances in which making a statement is problematic, in response to you asking whether anyone making any statement is problematic, you're going to pretend it was me generalising not you?

The debate was regarding thoughts being banned, I was questioning whether any thoughts should be banned. I expected, incorrectly, that my point would have been read within the context of the debate.

You responded with a . I should not have interpreted that in the way I did. Your was not for the reason I thought.

 

[Narraback]

The debate was regarding thoughts being banned, I was questioning whether any thoughts should be banned. I expected, incorrectly, that my point would have been read within the context of the debate.

You responded with a . I should not have interpreted that in the way I did. Your was not for the reason I thought.

My initial response was that thinking something is fine. Expressing those opinions may be problematic.

I'd put Irving in jail for being a twat.

 

[GingerNick]

whats the point of going to treblinka..the nazis tried to hide everything..so theres nowt left but memorials

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

Just for the record I was already in the thread so I'm not following you around.

It may well be the case that Irving's participation in this topic has caused other historians to sharpen up their arguments and evidence. But a better truer understanding of historical events was hardly his intention. It's a bit like trying to give polio credit for Jonas Salk improving the medical industry's development of vaccines.

I do not think Irving's intention makes any difference. The value is in what is presented, whatever it may be. When you are presenting your ideas and work in the academic domain, it is picked apart on an academic basis, and part of that process is the stripping of the influence of intention by the cold analysis of what is presented. Just as Irving's work has been picked apart and pushed things forward, so has the historical work done by prominent figures, particularly from within Jewish circles, some of which has been demonstrated to have weak foundations by academics with no obvious bias.

You might not like the conclusions Irving has reached, but whatever you do, in the free world people have to reach their own conclusions and they always will reach their own conclusion, and some will always reach conclusions that may seem unpalatable. The quality of the academia tends to influence how much flexibility there is to spin a tale that might not quite match up with what happened. This is why the argument of restriction of debate to prevent so called bad ideas and influence getting out does not work for me. There will always be some people who are of a Nazi outlook, but due to the strength of the history, it is unlikely that the majority of people are going to have that outlook.

Absolute tosh.

I think you are illustrating my point here. Imagine you are asked to critique one of Irving's works, and your assessment amounts to 'Absolute tosh'. That does nothing but undermine your own point of view. You can not take things for granted in history. There are no short cuts, it is hard work. You have to look at the arguments presents and carefully critique and take them apart. 'Absolute tosh' just makes people think "This guy has got no argument to come back with".

 

[Harry Angstrom]

My initial response was that thinking something is fine. Expressing those opinions may be problematic.

I'd put Irving in jail for being a twat.

Why, because people may not like them?

I think you are illustrating my point here. Imagine you are asked to critique one of Irving's works, and your assessment amounts to 'Absolute tosh'. That does nothing but undermine your own point of view. You can not take things for granted in history. There are no short cuts, it is hard work. You have to look at the arguments presents and carefully critique and take them apart. 'Absolute tosh' just makes people think "This guy has got no argument to come back with".

What if it was absolute tosh?