Hate-Speech Hypocrites

[mfreak]

Wrong.

You haven't the faintest clue how academic research works. You don't mandate a predetermined answer and fit the facts to arrive at that answer. You go where the facts lead you without preconceived notions.

If you say to someone, "sure, do your research but we know this is the answer so if you come up with a different answer, it means you are a racist", then that's not academic research. A proper academic approach would allow the research to reach its own conclusions without preconceptions and then try to refute the conclusion by pointing out any flaws in the research.

Adhom attacks cant be considered as serious debate points.

I am not defining research here. I have seen evidence of both and come to the conclusion that the holocaust did indeed happen, and that 6 million Jews died. Therefore I KNOW it is true. I am not setting standards for anyone. I am merely saying that if one looks at the facts, they would find what I found, and therefore it is impossible to refute hard evidence. But if someone is going to be intellectually dishonest about it, the only sane reason can be anti-semitism.

Yawn. Spare me.

I have debated various issues including Israel with Zionists who can run circles around most people here, including you, and they don't resort to the anti-Semitism shield. That petty refuge is the hallmark of incompetents who can't debate.

Oh Please. I have seen numerous extremists muslims that can run circles around you, by actually presenting facts about why they are what they are, AND make it sound justified. Your whole debating style is about adhom attacks on people, and conveniently avoiding any questions that you cant answer. That petty refuge is the hallmark of incompetents that cant debate.

I never said Muslims are angels. I already explained how migrant groups have been stigmatized through the ages by unfairly extrapolating the actions of extremist elements to demonize the whole community. I also explained why the law should not enshrine popular bigotry but fight it. I urged you to educate yourself about the history of migration but you are determined to justify Islamophobia by treating it as a special case.

That doesnt answer my question.

I asked you this:

Why is it in Saudi Arabia, western women that travel there (like journalists for example), need to wear a burqa, while in the west Muslims demand that they wear the burqa, even if it is not the local tradition? Why is there a double standard when it comes to muslims then? If you expect to be allowed to follow your culture and be treated equally, shouldnt you extend the same hand to them?

I asked you to explain this double standard first.

There's no point in me wasting any more time going in circles.

Perfect evasive maneuver. But if there is one intellectually honest thing that you have said all this while, it is this. That you have been simply going around in circles, calling everyone racists, bigots and hypocrites, resorting to adhom attacks while not willing to answer any questions about double standards in muslim culture which consequently cause the negative stereotypes (which are the major reasons for the stigma attached to muslims and their culture).

 

[Developereo]

Adhom attacks cant be considered as serious debate points.

Pointing out your ignorance of basic academic research protocol is not an attack. In fact, you just repeated the mistake and wrote that anyone who disagrees with your conclusion is an anti-Semite. I, on the other hand, am neither defending nor denying your conclusions, merely defending the right of others to come to their own conclusions without prejudice.

Your whole debating style is about adhom attacks on people, and conveniently avoiding any questions that you cant answer.

Wrong. I told you that, while Muslim societies do have problems, yet the demonization of Muslims mirrors similar treatment of previous migrant groups and there is nothing unique about Islam. However you refuse to educate yourself and form a comparative study.

Secondly, about personal attacks, I point out specific statements by you where you use the actions of extremists to justify bigotry against all Muslims.

You, on the other hand, just spout knee-jerk OPINIONS that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-Semite. It is sad to witness such desperation. If you call me an anti-Zionist, I will wear that badge proudly.

 

[JayAtl]

I would chalk it down to a poor education system but, since India has a relatively decent school system, we can excuse your reading comprehension to personal problems or just plain intellectual dishonesty.

Here's the phrase you need to wrap your mind around: "I don't agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it". The issue here is not whether the figure is right or wrong, but whether investigating it should be illegal.

Of course, we know you will come up with some roundabout excuse to continue your tantrum, seeing as how you have been unable to write a single post in this thread that is actually salient to the topic.



Uh huh. So more vagueness about "other claims", eh?

I do love watching you dance around since you have NOTHING of substance to bring to the discussion.

P.S. I am still waiting for you to show me where I have denied a single claim related to the Holocaust.

I guess I have to take solitude that you the resident 'Zionist are everywhere' nincompoop.

with obvious ignorance of statements like " I am saying that 9/11 was claimed to be retaliation for America's terrorism, so it wasn't the first shot in the terrorism wars"

Yes- AQ said it was in retaliation and we know you are closeted terrorist sympathizer too... " Hey look sheikh Osama said it- so it makes sense and is true"

 

[Developereo]

I guess I have to take solitude that you the resident 'Zionist are everywhere' nincompoop.

with obvious ignorance of statements like " I am saying that 9/11 was claimed to be retaliation for America's terrorism, so it wasn't the first shot in the terrorism wars"

Yes- AQ said it was in retaliation and we know you are closeted terrorist sympathizer too... " Hey look sheikh Osama said it- so it makes sense and is true"

Oh, how I love your dance of desperation when cornered by your own statements!!!

The OBL statement, which I mentioned, was also reported by the NYT, WSJ and all major Western media. I guess, by your logic, they are also "terrorist sympathizers".

Still waiting for you to show me where I denied the Holocaust...

And I am still waiting for you to make even one single post that actually addresses the topic. What's the matter? Did the Chinese thrash you again?

 

[MilSpec]

@developereo;

Denying Holocaust is crime in some nations, as it is insulting and insensitive to the victims (jewish community);
hence
I believe you want to extend the same to other communities like Muslims in particular.

Hurting religious sentiments of a community is an offense and in this case of cartoon or prophet movie, if islamic sentiment were really hurt, go to the court and fight a case against the guilty , what is the point in burning buses and cars, killing diplomats. There is enough legal protection, if you choose to use it.

"I don't agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it". The issue here is not whether the figure is right or wrong, but whether investigating it should be illegal.

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries, I dont find any specific law which says investigation or research on holocaust is illegal. Please bear in mind; numerous countries who have pushed this legislation were the perpetrators during holocaust and wouldn't like to reminded of their heinous acts in past, this is social norm.

Episodes of history associated with great losses are often used by certain parties employing techniques like denial, gross trivialization or exaggeration to suite their own rhetoric and forward their own agendas. Denial of holocaust law avoids such situations .No one stops you from research; go ahead and conduct your research, there are numerous documentaries made on the same none of them were booked under any offense. But when the intention is to antagonize certain community with denial of a tragic event in history and, in defense all the offenses are brought back into public eyes, there is mutual distrust in the society, especially in countries like Romania, Poland, Germany, former Yugoslavia and successor states. To avoid such situation the denial of halocaust is considered as an offense.

No such protection is needed for religious views and pop culture absurdities like creationism, etc. If you truly feel offended, go to the court. Simple as that!

 

[Developereo]

@sandy,

- there are varying interpretation of what constitutes Holocaust "denial". If someone conducts their own research and comes up with a different figure, are they "denying" an aspect of the official narrative? What if they conclude that Polish casualties exceeded Jewish casualties? Does that constitute Holocaust denial, or is the term only reserved for the claim that the Holocaust never happened at all?

- we all accept the historical background and justification for the legislation. The rationale is "never again", and the question becomes: is it never again for Jews only, or never again for any group of people? Is the lesson of the Holocaust narrowly defined or is there a wider message across the board?

- the double standard is in the burden of proof. For Holocaust speech, the speaker is deemed guilty of racism unless proved otherwise. For other vilification, the speaker is deemed innocent and the burden of proof is on the listener. That shift in burden of proof makes all the difference in discouraging the speech in the first place.

 

[MilSpec]

@sandy,

- there are varying interpretation of what constitutes Holocaust "denial". If someone conducts their own research and comes up with a different figure, are they "denying" an aspect of the official narrative? Does that constitute Holocaust denial, or is the term only reserved for the claim that the Holocaust never happened at all?

- we all accept the historical background and justification for the legislation. The rationale is "never again", and the question becomes: is it never again for Jews only, or never again for any group of people? Is the lesson of the Holocaust narrowly defined or is there a wider message across the board?

- the double standard is in the burden of proof. For Holocaust speech, the speaker is deemed guilty of racism unless proved otherwise. For other vilification, the speaker is deemed innocent and the burden of proof is on the listener. That shift in burden of proof makes all the difference in discouraging the speech in the first place.

If someone conducts their own research and comes up with a different figure, are they "denying" an aspect of the official narrative?

I havent come across any author who has conclusively proven that certain individuals who are still alive presumed killed in the camps, where the numbers were intentionally fudged for exagerration. there are inconclusive remarks, and often contradicting referencesto numbers, when examined turns out to be again inconclusive, or without any substance.

what you are saying is trivialization of a piece of legislature, again if any such problem does exist; question the nature of legislature. I am pretty sure if laws like death penalties are often challenged so can be this, if indeed what you say has any substance to it, it should stand up in court.

The happenings of Holocaust and its aftemath shaped the future of the political and social establishments of the countries here in question.

What remains to be answered is why is it so, violence that espouses from islam-insulting events is not renounced or publicly condemned. Why do literate Muslims sympathize with these hooligans.

 

[gambit]

You entire rant consists of OPINIONS, not FACTS.

Come back when you can distinguish the difference between the two.

You ascribe motives to people based on your OPINION, and some individuals, to fabricate a conclusion couched as FACT. By your logic, since we know many of the people who write anti-Islam literature have openly admitted hatred of all Muslims regardless, then we can extrapolate and claim that ANYONE who writes anti-Muslim literature must be similarly motivated.

The irony of your tantrum is that you use the actions of Muslim extremists to justify your hatred of all Muslims. While we are talking opinions, I will venture that, if a poll were taken of Muslims in Western countries, an overwhelming majority would vote for banning these extremist organizations. This is the dark side of freedom of speech. Many of these extremists (Hizb-Tahrir, etc.) are banned in Muslim countries, but they thrive in the West and bring a bad name to all Muslims.

P.S. This discussion is about laws around Holocaust speech, so countries which do not have such laws are irrelevant to the debate. Also, the European history prompting the laws is also known and accepted; it explains but does not change the fact of the double standard, which is the topic of the thread.

Countries that do not have the so called 'Holocaust denial' laws are EQUALLY relevant in this discussion as those that do have such laws. Your attempt to dismiss them indicate a fear of genuine analysis but the point has been made. People will now examine their own perceptions of the European laws and why they came to be.

The double standard that you decried is misconstrued because only two countries -- Israel and Romania -- that specifically mentioned the Holocaust in exact verbiage. Am willing to bet that this is the first time you and other muslims here learned of this detail. This mean your understanding of the issue is less than ideal for discussion.

 

[Developereo]

What remains to be answered is why is it so, violence that espouses from islam-insulting events is not renounced or publicly condemned. Why do literate Muslims sympathize with these hooligans.

I would urge you to see the video whose link I posted earlier in the thread. It shows all the Muslim leaders in Australia condemning the hooligans.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/210797-hate-speech-hypocrites-11.html#post3465073

Am willing to bet that this is the first time you and other muslims here learned of this detail.

Don't go to Vegas.

 

[gambit]

Don't go to Vegas.

If you did know that fact (post 214) you would not have presented such flawed arguments. And I do post from Vegas. My house is in Henderson near the intersection of Warm Springs and Eastern.

The fact that Germany and a few other European countries have so called laws banning Holocaust denial but the rest of the world do not is significant. The Europeans admitted their guilt in the Holocaust and enacted laws -- rightly or wrongly -- partly to protect that atrocious event from being forgotten by later generations, and partly to show the world they were willing to face their shame. On the other side of the world, Japan resisted similar self examination of the atrocities that Imperial Japan committed in Asia and it is only global criticisms that compelled the Japanese to make some concessions.

The differences are indicative of the characters of each people and it also tells us that just as the Japanese went to great lengths in refusal to face what one generation of Japanese did, it was equally intellectually brutal for the Europeans for what they did that contradicts so many other principles that they believed in when they enacted these 'Holocaust denial' laws. It means they did not do it out of the blue. It took deliberation among their thinkers and politicians and finally their respective peoples.

Buddy...I have been to your part of the world and am not talking about Australia. Am talking about the part to which you owe your religious indoctrination that made you what you are. Over there, being Jew-friendly is an oddity. Over here, being a Jew-hater is an oddity. The muslims colluded with the Nazis in the event called the Holocaust and how many muslim dominated country have laws banning 'Holocaust denial'? I think none but DO correct me if I am wrong. But assume that I am correct and that no muslim countries have laws protecting the Holocaust, is it because they are paragons of democratic virtues, particularly of the freedom of speech?

Ain't that a laugh riot -- a muslim country that honors the freedom of speech ?

So let us see...Germany made possible the Holocaust and is shamed of it, so much so that the Germans enacted a law that at least indirectly protected the event. Japan made possible a smaller scale of an Asian Holocaust and made little effort to confront that shameful past.

The muslims follows the Japanese path but we see the muslims make hue and cry about the Germans, the French, and the Brits about their so called laws banning Holocaust denial. Incongruent does not begin to describe adequately the scene. The muslims want the freedom to challenge the proven historical event called 'the Holocaust' while at the same time busy selling the world the fraud called 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as gospel truth.

And you call the Europeans 'hypocrites'?

 

[MilSpec]

I would urge you to see the video whose link I posted earlier in the thread. It shows all the Muslim leaders in Australia condemning the hooligans.

what about the arab world, oic, pakistan, etc.?????

 

[mfreak]

what about the arab world, oic, pakistan, etc.?????

There is no use debating with him.

According to him - Everyone who says anything anti-Islam (even if it is just Islam critical) is a racist,bigot and a hypocrite. Further he tries to draw parallels between holocaust denial and speech critical of Islam.

He absolves muslims of all responsibility and he wants them to be accepted for what they are, wherever they immigrate to. But muslims themselves have a culture of intolerance and bigotry, and if you point that out and ask pointed questions - he will call it incompetent debate or racism.

Or he will shift the goalpost repeatedly, and say "We are talking about free speech laws". But what is considered free speech depends to a large extent on how people perceive whatever is being spoken about. And that depends on social perspectives that people hold (who mostly think Islam is superstitious, backward and ridiculous to be blunt) , but he wont agree.

He is just another anti-semitic, extremist muslim who will keep arguing in circles, never accept his faults but blame everyone else. He is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to the point, that it is pointless arguing with him.

Oh and another one of those techniques he uses is to tell you how awesome he is, and how he has seen and debated the best in the world, in a bid to convey that he is "superior" while trying to hide the fact that he really doesnt have evidence to prove the contrary. Just a waste of time.

 

[500]

Another whining thread. Once again:

There are plenty Holocaust denial videos on youtube.
There are plenty anti Jewish videos on youtube.
There are plenty anti Israel videos on youtube.

No one runs amok because of this, no one bans youtube because of this.

 

[MilSpec]

Five bucks says that if three parallel movies are made today derogatory to moses, jesus , muhhamad, only muslims world will go beserk, wont mention hindus/buddhists as koran itself is insulting to idol worshippers and still doesn't draw any flak from hindus/buddhists.

 

[Developereo]

The fact that Germany and a few other European countries have so called laws banning Holocaust denial

That was the topic of the thread which you have assiduously avoided by deflecting the topic elsewhere.

We know you CANNOT defend the double standard, so your predictable Islamophobic rant is amusing and entertaining but, like the rest of your blabbering, ultimately irrelevant.