The Phora - British 'Holocaust denier' denied entry to New Zealand

FadeTheButcher

08-01-2004, 02:19 PM

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/07/NZ_bigots_310704.html

THE Immigration Service will bar controversial Holocaust revisionist historian David Irving from entering New Zealand following an outcry from Jewish groups. The Immigration Service decided yesterday to refuse Irving entry because of his deportation from Canada in 1992. The decision goes against the opinion of Foreign Minister Phil Goff, right, who said earlier he personally did not believe Irving should be denied entry unless he had serious criminal convictions. "In terms of people expressing views that I vehemently oppose, no, that's a part of a democracy," Goff said.

Irving, branded by his critics as anti-Semitic and a Holocaust denier (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/adjutants/Frentz/Minsk_170841.html), has been planning a two-week tour of New Zealand including a highly publicised speech at the National Press Club in Wellington. His plans have caused an uproar in the Jewish community, which has called on the Government to intervene and ban Irving from entering the country.

But it appears such intervention will not be necessary. A spokeswoman for the Immigration Service, Kathryn O'Sullivan, told The Press yesterday that after reviewing the case the service had decided that Irving would not be allowed to enter New Zealand even though he holds a British passport.

"Mr Irving is not permitted to enter New Zealand under the Immigration Act because people who have been deported from another country are refused entry," O'Sullivan said. "The law doesn't take into account why people have been deported but only the fact that they have been. "At the moment if he tried to board the plane we've got a new system called advanced passenger screening which would detect him when he checked in for his flight."

Jewish Council president David Zwartz said he was relieved to hear of the NZIS decision. "I think it is good that the law is being adhered to." Irving's visit would have caused the Jewish community unnecessary grief, Zwartz said. "Irving's views are offensive and unpleasant to us. We don't need someone here who is propounding very vigorously anti-Jewish views."

Irving was to speak about Hitler and Winston Churchill under the heading "The problems of writing about World War 2 in a free society". He had promised not to talk about the Holocaust, saying on his website that he was not an expert on the subject.

Irving spoke in New Zealand twice during the 1980s and has no serious criminal convictions. But he was convicted (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Germany/docs/Gericht130193.html) of violating a German law making it illegal to deny the existence of the Nazi extermination of Jews and has been deported from Canada (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Canada/index.html). He has also been banned from entering the United States, Italy, South Africa, and, since 1992, Australia (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Australia/index.html), despite fighting four legal battles against the ban. The NZIS's decision saves the Government from having to make a difficult political call on whether to admit Irving. Speaking to The Press before he was aware of the decision, Goff said:

"I have absolutely no time for Irving as a pseudo-historian, but I am not about to advocate censorship of people's attitudes. "At one stage we wouldn't let Mandy Rice Davis into New Zealand and now we laugh at that, and rightly so. There are all sorts of people that will come to this country with views that I strongly disagree with but one should always be reluctant to censor the expression of opinion that we don't like."

Green MP Keith Locke said last night the NZIS decision was a blow to free speech. "His deportation from Canada is irrelevant, unless we have just become a Canadian colony. What next: are we going to ban Salman Rushdie because Iran doesn't like him?"

Irving's only hope is to apply for a special direction from NZIS but O'Sullivan said these were usually granted only on humanitarian grounds. No such application had been made by Irving to date.

Irving, who lost his London home to bankruptcy after losing a libel case (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/index.html) he took against Penguin Books for calling him a Holocaust denier, could not be contacted last night. But on his website Irving says he will travel to New Zealand despite demands from "the usual bigots" that his visit be stopped. Irving says those trying to stop him entering New Zealand are "enemies of the truth" and that local Jewish organisations are members of the US-based Jewish organisation the Anti-Defamation League (http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/ADL/index.html). Irving says he has followed recent events in New Zealand regarding Israel, and comments: "Prime Minister Helen Clark seems to have balls."

PaulDavidHewson

08-01-2004, 07:06 PM

In an attempt to close to Irving debate on this I will say that it's proper according to New Zealand laws to not permit him acces, but the stand the jewish community has taken on this and mixing in this situation is inproper to put it mildly

(they should allow him to use his free speech in order to debate his views with him)

I believe I met you half way in this now. I do agree that they are attempting to pressure the new zealand goverment in not granting him acces, but I do not believe this was nessecary in this case since the New Zealand law was already clear on this.
I'm also not convinced they would have been succesful in inlfuencing the goverment on this.

I've also done some reading on this and in reports it seems the official reason is that he was deported from Canada back then and that automatically excludes him from entering the country.

Freemasons rule the world, not the jews ;P

FadeTheButcher

08-01-2004, 08:36 PM

::Freemasons rule the world, not the jews

The local Jewish community in New Zealand ACTIVELY lobbied the government to prevent David Irving from entering the country, as reported in the above articles. That is not a conspiracy, Spinoza. That is political power being exercised.

::In an attempt to close to Irving debate on this I will say that it's proper according to New Zealand laws to not permit him acces,

Explain to us why he has visited the country before.

:: but the stand the jewish community has taken on this and mixing in this situation is inproper to put it mildly

Why? Because they want to censor people they disagree with? Make criticism of Jews a crime under international law? Take your pick.

::(they should allow him to use his free speech in order to debate his views with him)

Why? That would obviously be 'bad for the Jews'.

::I believe I met you half way in this now. I do agree that they are attempting to pressure the new zealand goverment in not granting him acces, but I do not believe this was nessecary in this case since the New Zealand law was already clear on this.

Why didn't this law keep him out of New Zealand before? After all, he has visited the country on SEVERAL occasions already. The above article pointed out the real reason at work here. Diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Israel are already strained at the moment by the recent passport debacle. Allowing Irving to enter the country would make the matter worse. So barring Irving from entering the country is a sop to the local Jewish community to get them to shut up. The bull**** about not letting deportees enter the country is nothing more than a smokescreen. As the MP pointed out in the above article, its not like this law applied to everyone.

::I'm also not convinced they would have been succesful in inlfuencing the goverment on this.

Why doesn't the New Zealand government prevent Rushdie from entering New Zealand? After all, the Iranians do not like him.

::I've also done some reading on this and in reports it seems the official reason is that he was deported from Canada back then and that automatically excludes him from entering the country.

Yeah. That is the 'official reason'. The U.S. also 'officially' invaded Iraq because it possessed 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'.

cerberus

08-01-2004, 09:04 PM

I think PaulDavid puts it very well and I agree with him on all points made.
As far as David Irving goes , I certainly don't rule out that he knew he would be refused entery.

As far as he being a victim goes , that is what he tried to take from a legal action which he took and which he lost.
He played the "lone man" against "the estiblishment". He is still playing that card.he has said much about the strength and the cost of the legal and research team paid for by the publishing house he took action against.
The man must be a fool if he for a second expected that they would leave a single stone unturned to defend themselves and in the High Court , it costs.

Some years ago I had to go to Court to take an action against an individual , I knew what it would cost me and I paid for it , won and took great pleasure out of the experience.
" Q.C's." are not cheap , likewise Mr. Irving knew this. I believe he knew when by "discovery" all his papers went to the legal team he was up against that he had no chance.
You really have to question what legal advice he took , if any before he jumped in.
No victim to be played , stupid pride would be more like it.
His career was not ruined by anyone other than David Irving .

SR. has he been refused entery to another country / been deported from another ?
It would seem that Mr. irving might have some grounds to appeal if the law has not been applied with an even hand.
The J.C. have shot themselves in the foot , they should have nothing to fear from Mr. Irving , just bring on Jeremy paxman ! :) ;)

PaulDavidHewson

08-01-2004, 09:34 PM

I think Cerberus words hold truth :) I will try to elaborate on it in the following post which is made in reply to Fade.

from an earlier post made by fade:
by Spinoza:
It is a fact howver that the local jewish community rather didn't want him in the country based on his faulty research which was settled in the london court ion the Lipstadt vs. Irving Trial which I quoted from on many occasions in different threads.

quote by fade:
They did not want him to enter the country on the grounds that he is a racist, anti-Jewish, Holocaust denier (e.g., someone they do not like) -- as the above article indicates. The underlined portion of your argument is a stupid little opinion masquerading as a fact.

In the Lipstadt v.s. Irvinf trial it was concluded that his research was indeed faulty and therefor my argument is not a stupid little opnion masqueraded as a fact.
But then again, it was probably a jew ran court wasn't it?

as for fade's most recent post:
The local Jewish community in New Zealand ACTIVELY lobbied the government to prevent David Irving from entering the country, as reported in the above articles. That is not a conspiracy, Spinoza. That is political power being exercised.

Nowhere does it state that the jewish lobby was succesful. There is no law against lobbying against what they are trying to do. that is what is called democracy. It's fully within the boundries of the law.

Explain to us why he has visited the country before.

LMAO. He got banned from Canada in 1992. His earlier visits to New Zealand was in 1986 and in 1987! Someone has not been doing his homework, Fade

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3579707&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=

"22.07.2004
By ANNE BESTON
Historian David Irving is among a group of people now banned from entering New Zealand, but a final decision on his September visit has not been made.

Mr Irving, labelled by a British judge as pro-Nazi, anti-semitic and a Holocaust denier, plans to speak at Wellington's National Press Club during a two-week visit in September.

Jewish organisations have demanded he be refused entry into New Zealand.

Immigration Service spokeswoman Kathryn O'Sullivan said inquiries were being made internationally about Mr Irving and a final decision on whether he came here would be made "in the next few weeks".

"He is a person who has been prohibited from entering or been deported from other countries and we have a right to be concerned about that."

Mr Irving is banned from entering Australia, a decision he has twice challenged in the courts. He said there were no "legal reasons" he could not come to New Zealand.

National Press Club president Peter Isaac said a meeting of the 600-member club would be held to "review the matter" of Mr Irving's planned address.

He would not express a personal opinion on whether Mr Irving should appear.

"The National Press Club cannot deny a platform to somebody because they are controversial and because a large number of the population may believe that they are lying and/or deluded," he said.

Mr Isaac said he could not remember anyone being banned from speaking at the club, whose members range from broadcasters to business people and public relations staff.

In March this year American soul legend James Brown was granted a special visa for a show in Auckland despite a string of convictions which would normally have barred him from performing.

If Mr Irving was travelling on a British passport, he would not necessarily need a visa to enter New Zealand under a "visa waiver" agreement between the two countries. But the Immigration Service is likely to require him to apply for a visa and could then refuse to issue one.

The 66-year-old British historian has visited New Zealand twice, in 1986 and 1987. He is inviting supporters in Australia to fly across the Tasman to hear him speak."

There is still a chance that he is allowed entrance in september. I sincerely hope he is admitted

Why? Because they want to censor people they disagree with? Make criticism of Jews a crime under international law? Take your pick

Any of the above for all I care. I do advocate "shutting-up" nazi's or WN's when they march through the Dutch streets in a lawful protest singing:"Hier marchiert die Waffen-SS".
I do however advocate a civil and open debate on these matters.

Why? That would obviously be 'bad for the Jews'.

free speech and the freedom to excerise freedom in a civil way without hurting others is the only way for an individual to make his own destiny.

If irving is directly or indirectly advocating violence against anyone, in this case the jews, then he should indeed be resticted from speaking his mind. However I do not belief he is doing this and therefor do not agree with the stand the Jewish community has taken on this matter.
But again, nowhere in any of my posts did I advocate the jewish stand on this. I did however state that under New Zealand laws he can indeed be barred.

Why doesn't the New Zealand government prevent Rushdie from entering New Zealand? After all, the Iranians do not like him.

Has Rusdie been deported from Iran?

"Mr Irving is not permitted to enter New Zealand under the Immigration Act because people who have been deported from another country are refused entry," O'Sullivan said.

Yeah. That is the 'official reason'. The U.S. also 'officially' invaded Iraq because it possessed 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'.

Straw man.

btw
Irving has also been banned from entering the United States, Italy, South Africa, and, since 1992, Australia, despite fighting four legal battles against the ban.

FadeTheButcher

08-01-2004, 09:55 PM

::In the Lipstadt v.s. Irvinf trial it was concluded that his research was indeed faulty and therefor my argument is not a stupid little opnion masqueraded as a fact.

In the Lipstadt trial a judge gave his opinion that David Irving's research was faulty.

::But then again, it was probably a jew ran court wasn't it?

Don't put words in my mouth. I would argue that knowledge is intimately connected to power, in the tradition of Foucault.

::Nowhere does it state that the jewish lobby was succesful.

Absence is not evidence of non-existence.

::There is no law against lobbying against what they are trying to do.

They are exercising political power, publically and openly. But that doesn't stop Spinoza from attacking straw man 'conspiracy' arguments.

::that is what is called democracy. It's fully within the boundries of the law.

The term 'feudalism' better describes what is actually going on here, as a special interest group has usurped state sovereignty.

::LMAO. He got banned from Canada in 1992. His earlier visits to New Zealand was in 1986 and in 1987! Someone has not been doing his homework, Fade

He was deported from several countries, Spinoza. Read the above article.

::There is still a chance that he is allowed entrance in september. I sincerely hope he is admitted

Why?

::Any of the above for all I care. I do advocate "shutting-up" nazi's or WN's when they march through the Dutch streets in a lawful protest singing:"Hier marchiert die Waffen-SS".

You simply regurgitate the crap you see television and read in the Jewish press.

::I do however advocate a civil and open debate on these matters.

Well. Tell that to the people rotting in prison because they have offended the sensibilities of the poor Jews.

::free speech is and the freedom to excerise freedom in a civil way without hurting others is the only way for an individual to make his own destiny.

And this of course necessitates a judge to determine who is and who is not hurting others. In other words, one's so-called 'freedom of speech' is contingent upon political power. That is not freedom at all.

::If irving is directly or indirectly advocating violence against anyone, in this case the jews, then he should indeed be resticted from speaking his mind.

I don't believe in 'freedom of speech' period. What 'freedom of speech' actually means is the the monopolization of the discursive means of production by private actors who exclude to their posterity opinions and viewpoints they do not like.

:: However I do not belief he is doing this and therefor do not agree with the stand the Jewish community has taken on this matter.

There are things I would say about the 'Jewish community' that I would best not state publically on this website. :)

::But again, nowhere in any of my posts did I advocate the jewish stand on this. I did however state that under New Zealand laws he can indeed be barred.

I am not in the slightest convinced that the 'official' reason given by the New Zealand gov. is the actual reason why Irving has been barred from visiting the country.

::Has Rusdie been deported from Iran?

He is barred from visiting other countries. He was mentioned by that MP, so I assume he has been deported from somewhere.

::Straw man.

This is not a straw man argument, Spinoza.

::btw Irving has also been banned from entering the United States, Italy, South Africa, and, since 1992, Australia, despite fighting four legal battles against the ban.

Yeah. I wonder why that is.

jonnyofthedead

08-01-2004, 09:59 PM

I have been following this story for over a week now. And no, this is not simply a question of New Zealand having a law prohibiting the entry of deportees. If that were the case, then it would have not taken so much time to determine whether or not he would have been allowed to enter the country.
Would you care to expand on this? Ive just had a (brief) read of his website, and I've seen no indication that an unusually long time was taken in deciding whether or not he should be admitted; indeed, several politicians (including the Prime Minister) have apparently said that he should be allowed in - "I disagree with what you say, but..." etc. etc.

Furthermore, from what little I've read, it would seem you're being rather disingenuous in asking "Why didn't this law keep him out of New Zealand before? After all, he has visited the country on SEVERAL occasions already."
To quote his own site (http://www.fpp.co.uk/newzealand/index.html), he has visited NZ only twice (does that qualify as "several times?"), and both of those times were prior to his deportation from Canada.

FadeTheButcher

08-01-2004, 10:03 PM

::I think PaulDavid puts it very well and I agree with him on all points made.

Why does this not surprise anyone?

::As far as David Irving goes , I certainly don't rule out that he knew he would be refused entery.

Irving has visited New Zealand in the past. He was invited to speak there.

::As far as he being a victim goes , that is what he tried to take from a legal action which he took and which he lost.

Which I would have predicted on the basis of my political model.

::He played the "lone man" against "the estiblishment".

Which was foolish because it gives 'the establishment' some pretense of impartiality when it is thoroughly corrupted by political power at every single level.

::He is still playing that card.he has said much about the strength and the cost of the legal and research team paid for by the publishing house he took action against.

Which publishing house was this, for the record?

::The man must be a fool if he for a second expected that they would leave a single stone unturned to defend themselves and in the High Court , it costs.

I admit. It was foolish of him to file a lawsuit in the British courts, as if such courts are independent of the political context in which they are thoroughly immersed.

::No victim to be played , stupid pride would be more like it.
His career was not ruined by anyone other than David Irving .
Impartial governments do not brand people with scarlet letters.

::SR. has he been refused entery to another country / been deported from another ?

And why was David Irving deported from Canada? On what grounds?

::It would seem that Mr. irving might have some grounds to appeal if the law has not been applied with an even hand.

I would not advise it, as I do not have the slightest iota of faith in objectivity.

FadeTheButcher

08-01-2004, 10:08 PM

::Would you care to expand on this?

I already did. See the article I posted a week ago about this subject.

::Ive just had a (brief) read of his website, and I've seen no indication that an unusually long time was taken in deciding whether or not he should be admitted; indeed, several politicians (including the Prime Minister) have apparently said that he should be allowed in - "I disagree with what you say, but..." etc. etc.

Yes. People say things all the time. That does not imply that what they say reflects their actual feelings about the subject much less the truth. As I pointed out, Tony Blair's government said all sorts of things in the lead up to the Iraq War.

::Furthermore, from what little I've read, it would seem you're being rather disingenuous in asking "Why didn't this law keep him out of New Zealand before? After all, he has visited the country on SEVERAL occasions already."

How so?

::To quote his own site (http://www.fpp.co.uk/newzealand/index.html), he has visited NZ only twice (does that qualify as "several times?"), and both of those times were prior to his deportation from Canada.

Several times, as in more than once. He is also barred from several other countries, as pointed out above, mostly on the grounds that he is what is called a 'Holocaust denier'.

jonnyofthedead

08-01-2004, 10:28 PM

Why doesn't the New Zealand government prevent Rushdie from entering New Zealand? After all, the Iranians do not like him.
A few questions spring to mind:
1. Has Rushdie ever visited (or tried to visit) New Zealand?
2. Has Rushdie ever been deported from any country?

He is also barred from several other countries
More to the point, had he been deported from any country prior to his visits to NZ in the late 80s?

How so?
In that (as far as I know), when last he visited, he had never been deported from any country and thus could not have fallen foul of a law barring the entry of deportees. The answer to your rhetorical question is thus trivial - he was not previously barred from entering because admitting him would not then have been in breach of the law. Admitting him now (without special review) would.

Several times, as in more than once.
Hmmm. From the OED, we have
2. Qualifying a pl. n.: Individually separate; different.
a. Preceded by an adj. of number or plurality.
b. Preceded by the def. article, a possessive, etc.: Each and all of the, these, {dag}one's (etc.) various or different.
c. Without limiting word: A number of different; various, divers, sundry. (Now merged in 4.)
d. In legal use: More than one.

4. As a vague numeral: Of an indefinite (but not large) number exceeding two or three; more than two or three but not very many. (The chief current sense.)
I wasn't aware that this was a court of law, Mr. Butcher.

FadeTheButcher

08-01-2004, 10:31 PM

jonnyofthedead

08-01-2004, 10:40 PM

::A few questions spring to mind:
1. Has Rushdie ever visited (or tried to visit) New Zealand?
2. Has Rushdie ever been deported from any country?

The MP in the above article mentioned Rushdie so I am assuming he did that because Rushdie's circumstances are similiar.
As far as I'm aware, Rushdie was not deported from Iran - he fled. Declaration of a fatwah is not the same as deportation, and I rather doubt NZ law contains any proviso prohibiting the entry of people against whom a fatwah has been declared. What's more, I don't think the ayatollahs wanted Rushdie out of Iran - unless I'm very much mistaken, they're rather keen to get him back.

::I wasn't aware that this was a court of law, Mr. Butcher.
:rolleyes:
See complete response and edit...

PaulDavidHewson

08-01-2004, 10:41 PM

In the Lipstadt trial a judge gave his opinion that David Irving's research was faulty.

Comparing facts, findings and arguments and scientifically comparing them and then comming to a conclusion is not an opinion, Fade.

Don't put words in my mouth. I would argue that knowledge is intimately connected to power, in the tradition of Foucault.

Answer me this then. Did the judge in any way have any connections with any jewish, or jewish sympathising, organisation that actively attempted to influence the judge to settle a postive outcome of the trial in favor of Lipstadt?

Absence is not evidence of non-existence.

Untill you prove otherwise then..One is innocent untill proven guilty.

They are exercising political power, publically and openly. But that doesn't stop Spinoza from attacking straw man 'conspiracy' arguments.

There is no reason why they shouldn't excersie it. they are within their rights to do so.

The term 'feudalism' better describes what is actually going on here, as a special interest group has usurped state sovereignty.

You continue to pursue an argument that has no factual viability.

He was deported from several countries, Spinoza. Read the above article.

From which countries was he deported and in which year did this happen, Fade?

Why?

I already explained this extensively.

You simply regurgitate the crap you see television and read in the Jewish press.

false unsustainable assumption. I could argue you are regurgitating the crap you read in WN's soclialist post followed by delusional paranoia just the same.

Well. Tell that to the people rotting in prison because they have offended the sensibilities of the poor Jews.

straw man.

And this of course necessitates a judge to determine who is and who is not hurting others. In other words, one's so-called 'freedom of speech' is contingent upon political power. That is not freedom at all.

Are you an advocate of anarchism now? Sad as it may be, to keep order and still give the people a "sense" of freedom one needs to set guidelines that the majority of a given community can and will adhere too.

You are just argumental about this because it was not in favor of Irving. Had it been in favor of Lipstadt you would probably have been proud of the "Just" outcome of the trial.

There are things I would say about the 'Jewish community' that I would best not state publically on this website.

I'm still looking to join thephora chat on yahoo. Is it still active?

I am not in the slightest convinced that the 'official' reason given by the New Zealand gov. is the actual reason why Irving has been barred from visiting the country.

Why not? Cerberus made a good argument on this as well and given into account New Zealand legislation that was made long before Irving evenw anted to set foot on New Zealand there is no reason to assume otherwise right now.

Can you specify your sense of freedom then?

This is not a straw man argument, Spinoza.

I'm sorry, I meant false analogy.

Yeah. I wonder why that is.

The reasons are clear wheter you and I agree on it or not

PaulDavidHewson

08-01-2004, 10:45 PM

He is barred from visiting other countries. He was mentioned by that MP, so I assume he has been deported from somewhere.

I do not believe he has been deported from any country. Therefor the comparisation with Rushdie is not valid. therefor he is free to visit New Zealand.

don't forget to read my post on the other page. this is just a supplement.

FadeTheButcher

08-01-2004, 11:13 PM

::I do not believe he has been deported from any country. Therefor the comparisation with Rushdie is not valid. therefor he is free to visit New Zealand.

Then why did the MP ever bring up Rushdie in the first place?

::Comparing facts, findings and arguments and scientifically comparing them and then comming to a conclusion is not an opinion, Fade.

This more bull**** because the judge simply give an interpretation (e.g., an opinion) of the evidence that was presented at the trial, which he then ran through his own socially and historically situated frame of reference. There is nothing whatsoever objective above this because it is not a value-free process. This crap about 'facts' and 'scientific comparisons' is nothing but rhetoric that Spinoza is using to attempt to privilege his own position.

::Answer me this then. Did the judge in any way have any connections with any jewish, or jewish sympathising, organisation that actively attempted to influence the judge to settle a postive outcome of the trial in favor of Lipstadt?

The judge was a public official. He was thus intimately bound up in a system of power relations by virtue of holding his office. So it can hardly be argued that this fellow possesses any degree of 'independence'. There is no such thing.

::Untill you prove otherwise then..

Once more, absence is not evidence of non-existence.

::One is innocent untill proven guilty.

This is an old, stupid cliché.

::There is no reason why they shouldn't excersie it.

I don't accept their 'rights' as being legitimate.

::they are within their rights to do so.

Rights are constructs of political power. They can be deconstructed.

::You continue to pursue an argument that has no factual viability.

Spinoza continues to call opinions facts.

::From which countries was he deported and in which year did this happen, Fade?

I dislike being redundant.

::false unsustainable assumption.

See your posts throught this thread.

::I could argue you are regurgitating the crap you read in WN's soclialist post followed by delusional paranoia just the same.

*rollsyes*

There is no such thing as the White Nationalist Socialist Post.

::I already explained this extensively.

I disagree.

::straw man.

Learn the meaning of words before you throw them around.

::Are you an advocate of anarchism now?

I never suggested I was an anarchist. I simply do not believe in stupid little platitudes about 'freedom'.

::Sad as it may be, to keep order and still give the people a "sense" of freedom one needs to set guidelines that the majority of a given community can and will adhere too

Freedom is not contingent upon the views of others, Spinoza. Free people do not ask for permission.

::You are just argumental about this because it was not in favor of Irving.

I believe I made myself perfectly clear. The so-called British judicial system is a farce. I would never have advocated bringing a suit in it in the first place.

::Had it been in favor of Lipstadt you would probably have been proud of the "Just" outcome of the trial.

This actually is a straw man.

::I'm still looking to join thephora chat on yahoo. Is it still active?

Not anymore.

::Why not?

Because I accept Heidegger's argument that being is not something always at hand.

::Cerberus made a good argument on this as well and given into account New Zealand legislation that was made long before Irving evenw anted to set foot on New Zealand there is no reason to assume otherwise right now.

I do not buy into this crap about David Irving being excluded from entering New Zealand simply because he had been deported from another country (for his historical views).

::Can you specify your sense of freedom then?

I don't believe in 'freedom' in the first place.

::I'm sorry, I meant false analogy.

Don't waste our time by throwing around words you do not understand.

::The reasons are clear wheter you and I agree on it or not

Being is never 'very clear', Spinoza.

FadeTheButcher

08-01-2004, 11:17 PM

::As far as I'm aware, Rushdie was not deported from Iran - he fled.

So let me get this straight. New Zealand does not permit anyone who has been deported from another country from entering New Zealand? Is that right? Go on the record on this. Spinoza and cerberus too.

::Declaration of a fatwah is not the same as deportation, and I rather doubt NZ law contains any proviso prohibiting the entry of people against whom a fatwah has been declared. What's more, I don't think the ayatollahs wanted Rushdie out of Iran - unless I'm very much mistaken, they're rather keen to get him back.

Why didn't New Zealand say this a week ago?

FadeTheButcher

08-01-2004, 11:30 PM

Look what I found. Originally from the Jerusalem Post:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/07/NZ_bigots_280704.html

THE New Zealand Jewish Council is urging the New Zealand government to refuse entry to British Holocaust denier David Irving from speaking at the National Press Club in September.

"We hope the government will apply the law and not let him in," said Council president David Zwartz He said Irving's entry into New Zealand would violate the country's immigration act, which does not allow entry to someone who has been barred from another country. Irving is forbidden from entering Australia.

The New Zealand government, Zwartz said, has the power to make an exemption. The Jewish Council hopes to thwart that possibility.

A source from the New Zealand Immigration Service said Irving would most likely be denied entrance due to his controversial past.

Rabbi Shmuel Zionis of Chabad in Auckland told Army Radio Wednesday morning that New Zealand should follow in the footsteps of Australia, Canada, and Germany and close its gates to Irving.

"The community asked one of the ministers to deny him entry to New Zealand, for the same reason he's not allowed to enter several other countries," Rabbi Zionis said.

Several months ago two Israelis were arrested as they attempted to illegally obtain New Zealand passports. New Zealand officials allege that the two were employed by the Israeli Mossad (http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/Mossad/index.html), and diplomatic relations between the two countries have been since strained.http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/std/dings/square.gif

jonnyofthedead

08-01-2004, 11:41 PM

So let me get this straight. New Zealand does not permit anyone who has been deported from another country from entering New Zealand? Is that right? Go on the record on this. Spinoza and cerberus too.
No, that is not right. Going by what is said in the article, New Zealand prohibits the entry of deportees unless they apply for a special direction to the relevant service, in which case their position will receive a more detailed examination. Irving has not, to my knowledge, made such an application. He has, however, been deported from another nation.

Why didn't New Zealand say this a week ago?
Say what - that their law doesn't prohibit the entry of those under a fatwah? Presumably because it's not particularly relevant to the immigration service's treatment of Irving's case here or to the contents of the NZ statute books.

jonnyofthedead

08-01-2004, 11:48 PM

An excerpt from the NZ Immigration Act of 1987:

http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/public/text/1987/se/074se7.html
7. Certain persons not eligible for exemption or permit---(1) Subject
to subsection (3) of this section, no exemption shall apply, and no
permit shall be granted, to any person---

(a) Who, at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this
Act), has been convicted of any offence for which that person
has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 5 years or
more, or for an indeterminate period capable of running for 5
years or more; or

(b) Who, at any time within the preceding 10 years (whether before or
after the commencement of this Act), has been convicted of any
offence for which that person has been sentenced to imprisonment
for a term of 12 months or more, or for an indeterminate period
capable of running for 12 months or more; or

(c) Against whom a removal warrant is in force; or

(d) Who has been deported---
(i) From New Zealand, at any time, under this Act; or
(ii) From New Zealand, at any time within the preceding 5
years, pursuant to section 20 of the Immigration Act 1964
following conviction for an offence against any of the
provisions of that Act except section 22A (1); or
(iii) From New Zealand, at any time, pursuant to an order for
deportation made under section 22 of that Act; or
(iv) From New Zealand, at any time (whether before or after
the commencement of this Act), pursuant to any other enactment,
except section 158 of the Shipping and Seamen Act 1952 (as
repealed by section 151 (1) of this Act); or
(v) From any other country, at any time (whether before or
after the commencement of this Act)

cerberus

08-01-2004, 11:54 PM

Fade,
opinions are not what judgements in court are made on , they are made on facts.
The publisher and DL defence had to prove the facts to get the judgement in their favour.
The Publisher was if I am not mistaken Penquin / Allen lane.
I find it amusing that the man that irving wanteed to call as an expert wittness is now the man he spends so much time rubbishing , one Professor (Sir) Ian Kershaw along with one Professor Richard evans who did no more thn he was paid to do examine and render his expert opinion on the evidence which the research team put together.
Your idea that the judge gave his judgement based on his opinion is wrong , he gave it based on the evidence placed before him from both sides.
One heck of a difference Fade.
BTW a by product of this legal exercise was to provide the statement that irvings denial of the Holocaust was "contaray to the evidence" , now if Irving could prove no holocaust , he would have won his case.
Aka No holocaust , he wins hands down as everything else falls apart.

I digress from the point. ( Sorry).

Why does it not surprise you that I agree with PaulDavid , because he is making good points in what he is saying.
I don't quite see the link between SR and DI. For one thing SR would not go to Iran unless he was clinically insane , if he went there he would only be to glad to be deported rather than decapitated. :p
The absense is not proof of none existance ,are you proving a negative Fade ? ( Is this posible?) :confused:
Nothing wrong with the British justice system . Irving must have thought it good enough .
David Irving did not lose his case because of the legal system , he lost it because he had no reasonable grounds on which to base his action.

PaulDavidHewson

08-02-2004, 12:33 AM

Fade is word playing again. He is deconstructionalist right now and not fade, so he's adhering to it with all the strentgh he's got.
He deconstructing the meaning of words like the word "fact". What he is actually saying in his post is that the words we are using are flawed.

To summerize, the word legal system and human rights are flawed because they are man made inventions that only serve to keep certain people in power and to serve as an excuse for nations to violate others and do not exist to preserve somewhat equal conditions for all without violating ones individuality too much or as in some other nations preserve a certain way of living.
It's also wrong to say that people should not supress each other.
When I say that I'm being a Totalitarian.

Fade does not belief in freedom and is yet advocating beliefs that can only exist because they are man made. Which automatically qualifies as flawed.

So let me get this straight. New Zealand does not permit anyone who has been deported from another country from entering New Zealand? Is that right? Go on the record on this. Spinoza and cerberus too.

Again you show poor reading skills. It has been stated that it is reviewed on a case by case situation. Irving can still be admitted if the circumstances are in his favor.

Also, johnnyofthedead gave a great excerpt, especially the last paragraph is interesting in which it states that...well just read it for yourself. also take note it's from 1987 if you will :)

FadeTheButcher

08-02-2004, 02:05 AM

Spinoza

::Fade is word playing again.

I asked you to tell me what distinguishes facts from opinions, since you so often like to invoke the phrase, in virtually every case, solely for rhetorical purposes.

::He is deconstructionalist right now and not fade, so he's adhering to it with all the strentgh he's got.

I really haven't even begun to get worked up yet in this thread. I am saving that for jonny and NeoNietzsche. This is not to say we won't get a little taste of that in this thread, however.

::He deconstructing the meaning of words like the word "fact".

I don't believe in facts, actually. There are no facts, only interpretations.

::What he is actually saying in his post is that the words we are using are flawed.

Oh. Its much more than that. ;p

::To summerize, the word legal system. . .

See my recent archaeology of Western law in the historiography forum.

::and human rights are flawed because they are man made inventions that only serve to keep certain people in power and to serve as an excuse for nations to violate others and do not exist to preserve somewhat equal conditions for all without violating ones individuality too much or as in some other nations preserve a certain way of living.

What is called 'human rights' today is nothing more than a reified discourse that is convienently used to justify Western imperialism. He is not an enemy of Israel, by George, he is a 'human rights violator'. Human rights is also a totalitarian ideology in that it posits 'truths' that are true for all peoples, irrespective of the differences that exist between them, much less their feelings. You are a human rights advocate. That is why I describe you as a totalitarian. Unlike people like myself, you seek to force your metanarrative upon everyone in this world. You make every single person in this world your business. I don't advocate anything like that.

::It's also wrong to say that people should not supress each other.

You wish to surpress and obliterate the differences that exist between peoples by stripping them of the individuality down to mere humanity. You have no respect for their customs or traditions, much less their culture.

::When I say that I'm being a Totalitarian.

You are a totalitarian. Totalitarians want to force their views upon everyone. That is precisely what you are out to do, which is why I oppose you.

::Fade does not belief in freedom and is yet advocating beliefs that can only exist because they are man made. Which automatically qualifies as flawed.

This is what we call a straw man argument, Spinoza. You have not attacked any argument that I have actually made, but a weaker one of your own creation. 'Freedom' does not exist because language structures thought. You interpret experience through linguistically mediated, historically situated categories. You are not free to jump outside of history. You are not free to jump out of language. You are not free to jump outside the senses either. Thanks for your self-refuting argument though. Impressive, I might add.

::Again you show poor reading skills.

Spinoza again makes a failed attempt to privilege his own position.

::It has been stated that it is reviewed on a case by case situation. Irving can still be admitted if the circumstances are in his favor.

"The New Zealand government, Zwartz said, has the power to make an exemption. The Jewish Council hopes to thwart that possibility.

A source from the New Zealand Immigration Service said Irving would most likely be denied entrance due to his controversial past."

::Also, johnnyofthedead gave a great excerpt, especially the last paragraph is interesting in which it states that...well just read it for yourself. also take note it's from 1987 if you will

I saw that earlier on the internet before I ate dinner. Quite convienent I might add. That is precisely what the Jews hope to ultimately do, that is, to criminalize criticism of Jews as 'anti-Semitism' under international law and have critics of Jews extradited to Israel to be put on trial for thought crimes.

Cerberus

::Fade, opinions are not what judgements in court are made on , they are made on facts.

That's an old wives' tale. Once again. I want to know what specifically distinguishes a 'fact' from an 'opinion'.

::The publisher and DL defence had to prove the facts to get the judgement in their favour.

This is another myth. They didn't 'prove' anything at all. They simply persuaded a judge of their point of view. The Ancients were much more honest about this.

::The Publisher was if I am not mistaken Penquin / Allen lane.

Alright. I will check it out.

::I find it amusing that the man that irving wanteed to call as an expert wittness is now the man he spends so much time rubbishing , one Professor (Sir) Ian Kershaw along with one Professor Richard evans who did no more thn he was paid to do examine and render his expert opinion on the evidence which the research team put together.

I have pointed out to you several times now the lie that Ian Kershaw has told about Hitler's personal life, namely that he did not have a life outside of politics, which was grossly mistaken.

::Your idea that the judge gave his judgement based on his opinion is wrong

That is precisely what he did.

:: he gave it based on the evidence placed before him from both sides.

Which he ran through his own socially and historically situated frame of reference, one that is hardly independent of his own values. I reject the entire notion of value-free judgements as silly.

::One heck of a difference Fade.

Perhaps in rhetorical effect, that's about it.

::BTW a by product of this legal exercise was to provide the statement that irvings denial of the Holocaust was "contaray to the evidence" , now if Irving could prove no holocaust , he would have won his case.

And who decides what is or what is not 'contrary to the evidence'? How do they decide that? Who invested them with the authority to make such decisions? Tell me, specifically, how something is proven independently of the medium of values, independently of the medium of the perspective.

::Aka No holocaust , he wins hands down as everything else falls apart.

As I pointed out before, at the David Irving trial, a judge in the UK rendered his interpretation (e.g., his opinion) of the evidence presented to him at the trial, an opinion that is NOT independent of his own values, much less the context of political power.

::Why does it not surprise you that I agree with PaulDavid , because he is making good points in what he is saying.

Because you hold similiar values and prejudices which structure how you interpret experience. Then you have the audacity to declare such opinions to be 'facts'.

::I don't quite see the link between SR and DI. For one thing SR would not go to Iran unless he was clinically insane , if he went there he would only be to glad to be deported rather than decapitated.

The MP in the above article brought up for a reason. He accused the government of surpressing freedom of speech.

::The absense is not proof of none existance ,are you proving a negative Fade ? ( Is this posible?)

You cannot say something does not exist simply because it is not present at some point in time. In other words, I am arguing that in any given situation, human beings present certain things or aspects of themselves while leaving other aspects absent, or unstated. Thus much of the crap you people call knowledge is actually a state of ignorance.

::Nothing wrong with the British justice system .

Its pretentiousness. That is what is wrong with it.

::Irving must have thought it good enough

He was a fool for that.

::David Irving did not lose his case because of the legal system , he lost it because he had no reasonable grounds on which to base his action

And who decides what are and what are not reasonable grounds? How do they do that? What precisely is reasonable grounds?

jonny

::An excerpt from the NZ Immigration Act of 1987:

Yes, I saw that earlier. I did a Google search earlier and looked it up for myself. But thanks for presented that here anyway.

::No, that is not right. Going by what is said in the article, New Zealand prohibits the entry of deportees unless they apply for a special direction to the relevant service, in which case their position will receive a more detailed examination. Irving has not, to my knowledge, made such an application. He has, however, been deported from another nation.

And who made such an issue out of all of this, jonny? Who made the argument that David Irving should not be allowed to enter New Zealand on account of his immigration status? And why did they lobby the government in the first place? Better yet, why was David Irving ever deported from Canada in the first place?

::Say what - that their law doesn't prohibit the entry of those under a fatwah?

That David Irving could not enter New Zealand on account of his immigration status?

::Presumably because it's not particularly relevant to the immigration service's treatment of Irving's case here or to the contents of the NZ statute books.

Once again, why didn't the Immigration Service simply deny Irving entry a week ago? This has been getting press for over a week now.

FadeTheButcher

08-02-2004, 02:21 AM

This thread is precisely why I don't believe in 'freedom of speech'. And why is that? Its because 'freedom of speech' equals 'private speech' and those who privately own the discursive means of production censor out viewpoints they don't like, in some cases, more effectively and ruthlessly than any government. Those who own the discursive means of production in democratic societies use such institutions to pressure the government to do their bidding because they are the intermediaries between the government and the public. They ultimately set the public agenda. The most disturbing thing about freedom of speech/private speech is that private interests can use their hegemony over the discursive means of production to change the system, to criminalize the speech they don't like, as is now the case with 'hate speech legislation'. In other words, these private interests often have the power to shut the door behind them. There are groups out there, in my view, such as the Jews, who have demonstrated an utter inability to respect 'free speech'. They seek to use 'free speech' to destroy 'free speech', as they are now trying to do, as has been documented on this forum. So this is why I no longer trust people who throw around this phrase. The end result of free speech/private speech is the absolute repudiation of the common good and the long term interests of entire peoples in favour of the short term agendas of private actors, who often have no obligation of concern for anyone else but themselves.

PaulDavidHewson

08-02-2004, 10:16 PM

Then why did the MP ever bring up Rushdie in the first place?

It clearly states deportation from another country. I'm not accountable for other people's mistakes I merely recurgitate the law on this matter.

This more bull**** because the judge simply give an interpretation (e.g., an opinion) of the evidence that was presented at the trial, which he then ran through his own socially and historically situated frame of reference. There is nothing whatsoever objective above this because it is not a value-free process. This crap about 'facts' and 'scientific comparisons' is nothing but rhetoric that Spinoza is using to attempt to privilege his own position.

Load of crap. scientific research was conducted and the findings were published. Are you saying scientific research is not a fact?

The judge was a public official. He was thus intimately bound up in a system of power relations by virtue of holding his office. So it can hardly be argued that this fellow possesses any degree of 'independence'. There is no such thing.

Are you implying the judge indoctrinated and was sub-consciously making a desicion he would have not made would he have lived his life in isolation?

Once more, absence is not evidence of non-existence.

true, but using the absence of evidence is not a valid counter argument. that would be too simplistic.

This is an old, stupid cliché.

So, one is guilty untill proven innocent or one is nothing or one is both guilty and innocent untill proven guilty?
Nevermind that, you are postmoralist, you don't believe in right or wrong. Yeah I killed him, but damnit he parked on my parking lot!

I don't accept their 'rights' as being legitimate.

Do any rights exist? Being the communalist that you are, why don't you believe in moral guidelines? I would like the note that the law as presently implemented derived from moral guidelines.

Rights are constructs of political power. They can be deconstructed.

And how would the world look after that?

Spinoza continues to call opinions facts.

You continue to pursue an argument that has no statistical reliability and valadility.

I dislike being redundant.

You can't answe it because you know you are wrong on this.

See your posts throught this thread.

It's up to you to prove your own posts, it's not up to me to prove you are right.

There is no such thing as the White Nationalist Socialist Post.

I mean by this wn socialists posts, like in forums and news letters and such.

Learn the meaning of words before you throw them around.

Are you going to rebute, or simply attack word use?

I never suggested I was an anarchist. I simply do not believe in stupid little platitudes about 'freedom'.

you seem to be very unclear about you do believe in

Freedom is not contingent upon the views of others, Spinoza. Free people do not ask for permission.

You are taking the term freedom a bit to literal. One is not alone on the planet, so one needs to take this into account will we as a civilisation stay civilised.

I believe I made myself perfectly clear. The so-called British judicial system is a farce. I would never have advocated bringing a suit in it in the first place.

that is because you knew he would lose. If he had a chance of winning?

This actually is a straw man.

But you would still cheer.

I do not buy into this crap about David Irving being excluded from entering New Zealand simply because he had been deported from another country (for his historical views).

You still didn't prove the opposite and the absence of evidence is not a valid counter argument. I will tell you later on in this post why you still didn't prove it with your more recent posts.

I don't believe in 'freedom' in the first place.

You should live in a totalitarian state for a while and tell us how you felt being there(if you ever get the chance to return)

Don't waste our time by throwing around words you do not understand.

still a fallacy.

Being is never 'very clear', Spinoza.

LOL. no. actually that isn't very clear, fade.

The New Zealand government, Zwartz said, has the power to make an exemption. The Jewish Council hopes to thwart that possibility.

Hopes to thwart. still didn't say that theyw ere succesful

A source from the New Zealand Immigration Service said Irving would most likely be denied entrance due to his controversial past.

"Appeal To Anonymous Authority:
an Appeal To Authority is made, but the authority is not named. For example, "Experts agree that ..", "scientists say .." or even "they say ..". This makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn't know who the experts are. In that case, he may just be spreading a rumor.

The situation is even worse if the arguer admits it's a rumor. "

Who was this fellow who said that, Fade. The cleaner? The receptionist, the director? or someone trying to fire things up?

You wish to surpress and obliterate the differences that exist between peoples by stripping them of the individuality down to mere humanity. You have no respect for their customs or traditions, much less their culture.

false assumption. Nowhere did I sate this. please tell me where I stated this precisly. quote me on it if you will.
I'm not interested in twisted interpretations that suit your own agenda and rhetorics.

What is called 'human rights' today is nothing more than a reified discourse that is convienently used to justify Western imperialism. He is not an enemy of Israel, by George, he is a 'human rights violator'. Human rights is also a totalitarian ideology in that it posits 'truths' that are true for all peoples, irrespective of the differences that exist between them, much less their feelings. You are a human rights advocate. That is why I describe you as a totalitarian. Unlike people like myself, you seek to force your metanarrative upon everyone in this world. You make every single person in this world your business. I don't advocate anything like that.

You are comparing a delusional paranoid meglomanic with me? While I advocate liber-socialistic/democratic pacifism and he is conservative-authoritarian? How one perceives human right and how one sees it implemented cannot be generalised.
I thought you were arguing the matter of interpretations rather extensively, yet you choose once again to twist and twist to fit your own rhetoric. I hope you don't belief your own crap though.

I saw that earlier on the internet before I ate dinner. Quite convienent I might add. That is precisely what the Jews hope to ultimately do, that is, to criminalize criticism of Jews as 'anti-Semitism' under international law and have critics of Jews extradited to Israel to be put on trial for thought crimes.

This law existed before iring wanted to come to new zealand. yet you refuse to adress this argument and return to vague assumptions and generalisations that had nothing to do with the initial argument on which you gave this reply. It's not convenient that law existed, it has nothing to do with convenience. It's also not related to any jewish legislation or jewish inmspiration. It's there for everyone to read.

as for your last post it was a good post to which I agree on some aspects. But I never stated otherwise. I never stated that I agree with the ways jews are handling certain affairs.

FadeTheButcher

08-03-2004, 06:37 AM

:: It clearly states deportation from another country.

It does not follow that David Irving was actually forbidden to enter the country for such reasons. We can only conclude that the Immigration Service has stated that is the case.

:: I'm not accountable for other people's mistakes I merely recurgitate the law on this matter.

Once again, it was the Jewish community that pressured the government of New Zealand to forbid David Irving from entering the country on account of his immigration status. So it can hardly be argued here that the Jewish community did not involve itself in the matter, as you seem to be doing here.

:: Load of crap.

i.e. Spinoza is speechless.

:: scientific research was conducted and the findings were published.

Who conducted the 'scientific research'?

:: Are you saying scientific research is not a fact?

There are no facts, only interpretations.

:: Are you implying the judge indoctrinated and was sub-consciously making a desicion he would have not made would he have lived his life in isolation?

I am arguing that value-free decisions are a myth, that the judge in this trial did not separate his own personal values from the decision he made, that such a notion is impossible.

:: true, but using the absence of evidence is not a valid counter argument.

Sure it is. I agree with Heidegger that being is not something that is simply available. Being is always a mixture of presence and absence, as a Being does not reveal everything about itself in any given situation. More on that in my upcoming riposte to jonny.

:: that would be too simplistic.

It is simplistic to assume that knowledge can be based solely upon presence. That is a form of ignorance, actually.

:: So, one is guilty untill proven innocent or one is nothing or one is both guilty and innocent untill proven guilty?

Not necessarily any of the above.

:: Nevermind that, you are postmoralist, you don't believe in right or wrong.

Don't confuse morality with ethics.

:: Yeah I killed him, but damnit he parked on my parking lot!

Oh well. Its not like I could identify any real reason why Uncle Moshe should continue to exist. :p

:: that is because you knew he would lose. If he had a chance of winning?

I was pretty sure he would lose. I didn't ever believe he had a real chance of winning his case.

:: You are taking the term freedom a bit to literal.

I am not sure I am understanding you here. If you are free to do something, then you don't have to ask for anyone else's permission. If you have to ask for permission, then you are not free at all.

:: One is not alone on the planet, so one needs to take this into account will we as a civilisation stay civilised.

Civilisation is nothing more than living in large urban settlements. Civilisation and culture are not the saem thing.

:: Do any rights exist?

Not naturally. There are merely political constructs derived from authority.

:: Being the communalist that you are, why don't you believe in moral guidelines?

I believe morality is a certain type of narrowminded ethic, so I have rejected morality in favour of a different ethos.

:: I would like the note that the law as presently implemented derived from moral guidelines.

Its more like the law as it is presently implemented is derived from political power which then dresses itself up in the clothes of morality in order to gain legitimacy and submission.

:: And how would the world look after that?

Quite differently from how it looks today. IMO it would be a change for the better.

:: You continue to pursue an argument that has no statistical reliability and valadility.

Now Spinoza equivocates 'facts' with empirical reliability and validity.

::You can't answe it because you know you are wrong on this.

No. I dislike repeating myself. It wastes my time, your time, and the gallery's time.

:: It's up to you to prove your own posts, it's not up to me to prove you are right.

I think we will let the gallery decide this one.

:: I mean by this wn socialists posts, like in forums and news letters and such.

Most of the news articles we post here do not come from White Nationalist websites.

:: Are you going to rebute, or simply attack word use?

I don't see what they is to respond to. You don't know what you are talking about!

:: you seem to be very unclear about you do believe in

There is no freedom from history, language, or the senses.

:: You still didn't prove the opposite and the absence of evidence is not a valid counter argument.

This does not follow. "Proof" is based upon presence, upon observation. The problem with this epistemological model it that is simply unreliable since people conceal things from others. We know very little about why David Irving was not allowed to enter New Zealand. All we have to go on is what the government has told us in a press release. It is not a transparent process.

:: I will tell you later on in this post why you still didn't prove it with your more recent posts.

I reject A.) the fact/opinion binary opposition B.) the objective/subjective binary opposition and C.) the notion that knowledge can be based solely upon presence.

:: You should live in a totalitarian state for a while and tell us how you felt being there(if you ever get the chance to return)

I do live in a totalitarian state called the United States of America.

:: still a fallacy.

Spinoza throws around words he does not understand, again.

:: LOL. no. actually that isn't very clear, fade.

I have made this argument elsewhere. Most people assume that Being is something available, something that can simply be observed, something that one can know by watching people. The problem with this is that people conceal things about themselves and this is highly related to the situation or site they might happen to be at a given point in time.

:: Hopes to thwart. still didn't say that theyw ere succesful

It does not imply that they were not either.

:: Who was this fellow who said that, Fade. The cleaner? The receptionist, the director? or someone trying to fire things up?

That's not an anonymous authority fallacy at all, Spinoza.

:: false assumption. Nowhere did I sate this. please tell me where I stated this precisly. quote me on it if you will.

You suggested just that in the other thread. Actually, you contradicted yourself in the other thread.

:: I'm not interested in twisted interpretations that suit your own agenda and rhetorics.

i.e. Spinoza disapproves of rhetoric only when it suits him.

:: You are comparing a delusional paranoid meglomanic with me?

You are the delusional, paranoid, meglomaniac here. You assert your own moral prejudices to be ahistorical, moral truths applicable to all peoples in all times.

:: While I advocate liber-socialistic/democratic pacifism and he is conservative-authoritarian?

You seek to project your views upon everyone on the world simply because they are of the human species. That is totalitarian.

:: How one perceives human right and how one sees it implemented cannot be generalised.

Why?

:: I thought you were arguing the matter of interpretations rather extensively, yet you choose once again to twist and twist to fit your own rhetoric. I hope you don't belief your own crap though.

I have made myself quite clear.

:: This law existed before iring wanted to come to new zealand.

So what? That does not mean Irving was excluded simply because of the law. That is only what the government has said publically.

:: yet you refuse to adress this argument and return to vague assumptions and generalisations that had nothing to do with the initial argument on which you gave this reply.

I have addressed the argument, several times now. Yes, the law existed previously. Yes, the government has publically stated that Irving was excluded because of the law. I still do not buy into that. I have given reasons for my scepticism, namely, that much of this has gone on in the dark.

:: It's not convenient that law existed, it has nothing to do with convenience.

Sure it is. David Irving has been barred from entering the country. That is much easier than coming out and saying we want to censor David Irving because of the views he holds and because the Jewish community in New Zealand has pressured us to do so.

:: It's also not related to any jewish legislation or jewish inmspiration.

The Jewish community, as the gallery can clearly see, lobbied the government to have David Irving excluded from New Zealand. This is because, fundamentally, they do not like David Irving and wish to censor his views. The stupid law about being deported from an other country (keep in mind Canada deported Irving because of his views) is nothing more than a means. Yet Spinoza continues, over and over, to deny the role the Jewish community of New Zealand has played in all of this, even when they have been publically raising hell for over a week now about this very situation.

:: It's there for everyone to read.

Yes, it is. The Jewish community of New Zealand lobbied the government to exclude Irving from the country. He was excluded on account of his 'controversial past' (e.g., he 'denies the Holocaust')

cerberus

08-04-2004, 12:05 AM

Fade,
If you say that a judge cannot give a decision which is free of his own views does this not put us all in the one boat , yourself included ?
It really says that no-one can be objective and yourown views and values as far as jews are concerned will colour and make invalid anything you have to say on them.
To arrive at these values you are basing them not on anything which may be regarded as factual , merely on what you interpid , which according to your own view may not be relied upon as facts don't exist.
if I showed you a white coluored square and said " this is white , it is a fact , I can prove it " Would you say that I can't say its white , that it might be some other colour , its only my interpitation which says that white is white ?
The Judge would have nothing to gain as far as Publisher or Irving winning and had no vested interest.
Irving lost his case as he had no case to make , anything else is the land of the conspiracy theory.
I had a better answer than this sorted out , but for some reason posting it became impossible, I had to sign in to move between sections and was unable to post a reply , this was the case until several hours ago .

Edana

08-04-2004, 12:41 AM

The Judge would have nothing to gain as far as Publisher or Irving winning and had no vested interest.

LoL, no, only his career and social standing was at stake, and no one would care about such a silly thing as that. :p

Irving lost his case as he had no case to make

Do you even know the case he was trying to make?

FadeTheButcher

08-04-2004, 12:52 AM

cerberus

:: Fade, If you say that a judge cannot give a decision which is free of his own views does this not put us all in the one boat , yourself included ?

I reject both objectivity and the very notion of value-free judgements. So yes, I would argue that my own views are quite obviously influenced by my own personal values and perspective (and many other things too). That goes for everyone else as well. Unlike most people, I have the honesty to admit this.

:: It really says that no-one can be objective and yourown views and values as far as jews are concerned will colour and make invalid anything you have to say on them.

This does not follow, cerberus. Yes, I do reject the entire notion of objectivity. Yes, this means that I cannot say my own views are 'objective'. I have not argued that they are. This does not mean my own views are 'invalid' because they are not 'objective' because you would still be basing 'validity' here on 'objectivity' (which I have discarded).

:: To arrive at these values you are basing them not on anything which may be regarded as factual , merely on what you interpid , which according to your own view may not be relied upon as facts don't exist.

There are no facts, only interpretations. That is my perspective. I do not believe values are based on 'facts' either. Values arise from one's own personal sentiments. People often claim that their own views are based on 'facts' simply for rhetorical purposes in arguments, when they actually arise from more irrational sources.

:: if I showed you a white coluored square and said " this is white , it is a fact , I can prove it " Would you say that I can't say its white , that it might be some other colour , its only my interpitation which says that white is white ?

I would respond by suggesting that you have made an interpretation. You encountered an object which your senses perceive. You then run this experience through your own socially and historically situated frame of reference, your language. In other words, you reduce something unfamiliar to you to something familiar in order to understand it, something you have encountered in the past. This type of understanding is based upon relating some things to other things that seem similiar to you, as well as to things that are obviously quite different. So its not a 'fact' that what you would show me is a 'white, coloured square' because such a judgment necessarily relies upon a certain perspective as well as something the square is not, some Other that throws its distinctiveness into relief.

:: The Judge would have nothing to gain as far as Publisher or Irving winning and had no vested interest.

His personal reputation is a vested interest. If he had ruled against Irving in the trial, then there would have been consequences for doing so.

:: Irving lost his case as he had no case to make , anything else is the land of the conspiracy theory.

This is a non sequitur.

:: I had a better answer than this sorted out , but for some reason posting it became impossible, I had to sign in to move between sections and was unable to post a reply , this was the case until several hours ago

Check your PMs. Several people have had similiar problems.

PaulDavidHewson

08-04-2004, 11:53 PM

I would respond by suggesting that you have made an interpretation. You encountered an object which your senses perceive. You then run this experience through your own socially and historically situated frame of reference, your language. In other words, you reduce something unfamiliar to you to something familiar in order to understand it, something you have encountered in the past. This type of understanding is based upon relating some things to other things that seem similiar to you, as well as to things that are obviously quite different. So its not a 'fact' that what you would show me is a 'white, coloured square' because such a judgment necessarily relies upon a certain perspective as well as something the square is not, some Other that throws its distinctiveness into relief.

This is false. One can see a color that we call white because an object absorbs all colors except the color we call white and that light frequency is the frequency our eyes absorb.
A rose is a rose by any other name!
The fact is that light is diverted under a certain angle and comes back to our eyes. We call it white or we could call it dog****. Fact remains that this is what happened.
Of course there are always exceptions to this rule as for blind people or other seeing impediments. Under "normal" circumstances the above description is a global, but rather specific description of the physics under which light operates.

It does not follow that David Irving was actually forbidden to enter the country for such reasons. We can only conclude that the Immigration Service has stated that is the case.

Under the immigration law it does follow that the law was applied according to notmal procedure. It's not a loophole in the law or far fetched interpretation of the law. It's clearly stated that this is how things are done in New Zealand.

Once again, it was the Jewish community that pressured the government of New Zealand to forbid David Irving from entering the country on account of his immigration status. So it can hardly be argued here that the Jewish community did not involve itself in the matter, as you seem to be doing here.

I think the New Zealand immigration service doesn't need the jewish community to point out the law to them. The jewish community did get itself involved, but nowhere can we conclude that the pressure from the jewish community was actually succesful.

Who conducted the 'scientific research'?

Both Lipstadt and Irving did their own research.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

I will try to answer what a fact makes without doing any reading on it and just analysing it from the top of my head, ok?:
A fact is a universally accepted conclusion based on opinions and interpretations, I think. Thus you can deconstruct and say that all facts are in the end interpretations and opnions. You would then remove a linguistal (sub)category) which eliminates some use of the language or at the very least removes a manner in which one can express yourself to point out a universal truth. This fact as we call it is used in situations in which the interpretations and opninions never differ, no matter what changes under the same circumstances.
example: Water freezes at 0 degrees and beneath celsius. This is never any different here on earth no matter how hard we try. We can say that we interpret this as actually happening, but since everyone here on earth interprets it in the same way we call this interpretation of physics a "fact".
Thus under the above stated arguments we can call certain phenomena a "fact".

I am arguing that value-free decisions are a myth, that the judge in this trial did not separate his own personal values from the decision he made, that such a notion is impossible.

A person can very well base a decision by freeing oneself from personal values for a certain time. People knowlingly make decision every day that hurt them in some way or another. But sometimes it leaves them no choice but to make such a decision.
Sometimes known murders are put free because or errors from the other party. The judge then has no choice but to set the man free. Everyone knows the murder is guilty, but nothing can be done within the limits of the law.

Sure it is. I agree with Heidegger that being is not something that is simply available. Being is always a mixture of presence and absence, as a Being does not reveal everything about itself in any given situation. More on that in my upcoming riposte to jonny.

nonsense, you speak of statistical reliability and valadility. But the "absence is not evidence of non-existence" does mean that you have no statistical reliable and valid data, thus one cannot argue based on those premises. One must be able to point at some form of opinion or interpretation or one could bring in the mystique as a argument.
I've heard you say in other threads that you don't believe in the mystique, it's superstition and such. all religions are based on the argument "absence is not evidence of non-existence".
Debating accepted opinions and interpretations that are statistical valid and reliable, like the subject we are debating does not fall under speculation or the mystique. Which the above stated argument I therefor counter your arguments and hope you will still answer under new arguments.

It is simplistic to assume that knowledge can be based solely upon presence. That is a form of ignorance, actually.

Sounds pretty totalitarian Seclusive Christian to me. You state totalitarian opninions and degenerate into arguments of the mystique. Again I must point out that one cannot argue baed on nothing. One must produce something in order to make a valid statement.

Not necessarily any of the above.

One is considered to be that which is the opinion of the governing body of the nation?

Don't confuse morality with ethics.

So you do believe in right or wrong?

I was pretty sure he would lose. I didn't ever believe he had a real chance of winning his case.

Why not?

I am not sure I am understanding you here. If you are free to do something, then you don't have to ask for anyone else's permission. If you have to ask for permission, then you are not free at all.

One has to consider others around him or her. Some laws are created with pure common sence with the interest to protect both people who live in the same country. Minimal laws that don't really impede you, but protects the other.
Example: It pure common sense that one should not enter another man's house without being invited. If you don't adhere to this than both parties involved could suffer serious life ending consequences which causes even more grief and ultimately leads to disastrous situations hould everyone do this.
In the animal kingdom such laws don't exist on paper, but yet most animals know this one way or another. Men is no different in this case.

Civilisation is nothing more than living in large urban settlements. Civilisation and culture are not the saem thing.

The are nearly inseperatable. One exists because of the other.
My point was however that laws exist to protect sopciety as we know it. Yes alot of alws exist to keep certain persons in power, but not all laws were created for that reason and not all laws abused were designed to be abused.

Not naturally. There are merely political constructs derived from authority.

Can we live without laws, fade?

I believe morality is a certain type of narrowminded ethic, so I have rejected morality in favour of a different ethos.

and what's that?

Its more like the law as it is presently implemented is derived from political power which then dresses itself up in the clothes of morality in order to gain legitimacy and submission.

I think we can close this specifi argument by stating:
We would like the note that the law as presently implemented derived from moral with the intent of prtotecting the citizens from anarchistic behavior(or something like that, have to write this fast, don't have alot of time:)) guidelines and derived from political power which then dresses itself up in the clothes of morality in order to gain legitimacy and submission.

Quite differently from how it looks today. IMO it would be a change for the better.

You should explain this sometime in a thread. I would like to see how your views would change the world for the best.

Now Spinoza equivocates 'facts' with empirical reliability and validity.

You still didn't reply for the third time. You keep beating around the bush.

No. I dislike repeating myself. It wastes my time, your time, and the gallery's time.

In other words you don't know anymore?

I think we will let the gallery decide this one.

Lol, you try to prove your arguments by pointing at the gallerly? How about you doing some effort to prove yourself
right? YOu cannot, can you?

Most of the news articles we post here do not come from White Nationalist websites.

I never stated that such is the case.

I don't see what they is to respond to. You don't know what you are talking about!

Lol...

There is no freedom from history, language, or the senses.

Is that a fact?

This does not follow. "Proof" is based upon presence, upon observation. The problem with this epistemological model it that is simply unreliable since people conceal things from others. We know very little about why David Irving was not allowed to enter New Zealand. All we have to go on is what the government has told us in a press release. It is not a transparent process.

There is no reason to assume otherwise at this point. I would think it would be transparant if they did succeed and it would be stated somewhere.They have no reason to soft-treat irving.

I do live in a totalitarian state called the United States of America.

Yet you are free to argue and complain?

Spinoza throws around words he does not understand, again.

How about attacking arguments instead of words all the time?

I have made this argument elsewhere. Most people assume that Being is something available, something that can simply be observed, something that one can know by watching people. The problem with this is that people conceal things about themselves and this is highly related to the situation or site they might happen to be at a given point in time.

Manipulation can indeed create a different outcome. Being is not always very clear seems proper, but using this argument as a valid counter arguments in which facts are produced without any reason to assume that facts are hidden is not very proper to do.
I'm using to word facts to save myself some time if you don't mind.

It does not imply that they were not either.

officialy you've got the short end of the stick.

:: Who was this fellow who said that, Fade. The cleaner? The receptionist, the director? or someone trying to fire things up?

That's not an anonymous authority fallacy at all, Spinoza.

Again you refure to attack my argument. The gallerly can see it clearly here. Please adres the argument, fade.

You suggested just that in the other thread. Actually, you contradicted yourself in the other thread.

Your interpretions are not accurate.

i.e. Spinoza disapproves of rhetoric only when it suits him.

No I stated that I disaprove of tiwsting things in order to produce an argument.

You are the delusional, paranoid, meglomaniac here. You assert your own moral prejudices to be ahistorical, moral truths applicable to all peoples in all times.

LOL, you must have had a laugh while writing this, didn't you?:)
I disproved you numerous times on this. see the argument under this one.

:: While I advocate liber-socialistic/democratic pacifism and he is conservative-authoritarian?

You seek to project your views upon everyone on the world simply because they are of the human species. That is totalitarian.

I seek to end suffering throug peaceful ways. History will judge me kindly for this, fade.

:: How one perceives human right and how one sees it implemented cannot be generalised.

Why?

Because we are not equall in thought

:: This law existed before iring wanted to come to new zealand.

So what? That does not mean Irving was excluded simply because of the law. That is only what the government has said publically.

CAn you actually belief what you just stated?

I have addressed the argument, several times now. Yes, the law existed previously. Yes, the government has publically stated that Irving was excluded because of the law. I still do not buy into that. I have given reasons for my scepticism, namely, that much of this has gone on in the dark.

Are you paranoid or pointing me a consipracy theory? Again you return to arguments of the superstitious.

Sure it is. David Irving has been barred from entering the country. That is much easier than coming out and saying we want to censor David Irving because of the views he holds and because the Jewish community in New Zealand has pressured us to do so.

Again, the law is clear on it. If I were barred from Canada because I did certain crimes, i'm sure I would be barred as well.
No reason to assume otherwise

The Jewish community, as the gallery can clearly see, lobbied the government to have David Irving excluded from New Zealand. This is because, fundamentally, they do not like David Irving and wish to censor his views. The stupid law about being deported from an other country (keep in mind Canada deported Irving because of his views) is nothing more than a means. Yet Spinoza continues, over and over, to deny the role the Jewish community of New Zealand has played in all of this, even when they have been publically raising hell for over a week now about this very situation.

I stated clearly that the jewish community did indeed use political pressure to pursuade the goverment. Yet the law was already clear on this and there was no need for the pressure. The jewish community could not keep quiet and suffer embarassement by not speaking out.

Yes, it is. The Jewish community of New Zealand lobbied the government to exclude Irving from the country. He was excluded on account of his 'controversial past' (e.g., he 'denies the Holocaust')

He was barred because he was deported from canada. The reasons for his deportation of Canada have nothing to do with the specifics under which the law ws decided. i.e. If was deported from Canada for entirely different reasons I would be barred according to their laws.

cerberus

08-05-2004, 01:01 AM

Fade,
Based on what you say and define facts as being it would seem that a lot of assessment tools I see on a day to day basis are out the window.
It would seem that based on your views of what is fact I know a lot of sick individuals who can equally argue that their delusions are just interpitations and not a sign that they are ill !
Fade never do a MMSE test . :eek:

From what you say there are no historical facts only interpitations.
We have in interpit facts , how we do so may have more to do with your conclusions than anything else.
Mr. irving had some problems in this respect in that he tried to make the historical evidence fit what he wanted it to say , excluding all else.

How you view the judge and his judgement is opinion coloured by what you based on your own experiences / value system wish to make it.
This is again opinion and perceptual , not factual.

Fade I still get the feeling ( as PDH does) that you are more interested in words than outcomes and when something does not fit you attempt to lose it in word defination and interpitation arguements , which are based around what you would like it to be based on your own values and experiences to date.

"Both Lipstadt and Irving did their own research." ( And it was reviewed by an independent judge , it is your own opinion that he was less than so , your opinion does not prove it as a fact , only that you percieve it to be so.
Your own anti-semetic views no doubt play a part in this).

FadeTheButcher

08-05-2004, 05:42 AM

Spinoza

:: This is false.

Its not false because understanding a 'white, coloured square' necessarily depends upon some sort of antithesis, something a ''white, coloured square' is not, which the object you would describe as a 'white, coloured square' is compared to in order to classify it. In other words, to call something a 'white, coloured square' IS NOT independent of the perspective of the observer. That is basic structuralist linguistics.

:: One can see a color that we call white because an object absorbs all colors except the color we call white and that light frequency is the frequency our eyes absorb.

Actually, colour is an artifact of the brain created from sense data. So colour is hardly independent of the perspective or the senses, Spinoza. Its not a 'fact' at all.

:: A rose is a rose by any other name!

In order to understand what a 'rose' is, one must understand what a 'rose' is not. One must understand what distinguishes a 'rose' from other existents, its differentia specifica. We understand things by their relation to other things, not as any 'thing-in-itself'.

:: The fact is that light is diverted under a certain angle and comes back to our eyes.

That is not a fact at all. It is an interpretation. It is not a fact because one does not understand 'light' as any thing-in-itself, but in relation to what light is not from a given perspective, which serves as a control.

:: We call it white or we could call it dog****.

Metaphors should not be taken literally.

:: Fact remains that this is what happened.

Facts are unmediated, objective knowledge of existence. This is why there are no 'facts' whatsoever: because there is no such thing as unmediated knowledge, because knowledge of anything necessarily requires A.) relating it to something else, which serves as a basis B.) sense data from a given perspective.

:: Of course there are always exceptions to this rule as for blind people or other seeing impediments.

Which demonstrate the fallaciousness of your proposition, as such constructs necessarily rely upon the sensorium of a given perspective.

:: Under the immigration law it does follow that the law was applied according to notmal procedure.

That does not follow at all. As I pointed out before, David Irving's exclusion from New Zealand largely went on behind closed doors. The only thing we have to go on is A.) what has been reported in the press and B.) the statement of the Immigration Service. That is not the whole picture, however.

:: It's not a loophole in the law or far fetched interpretation of the law. It's clearly stated that this is how things are done in New Zealand.

And that is the problem, because what is stated always necessarily depends upon what is unstated, what remains unsaid, or absent.

:: I think the New Zealand immigration service doesn't need the jewish community to point out the law to them.

Yet the Jewish Community DID point that out by LOBBYING the government of New Zealand, by applying political pressure.

:: Both Lipstadt and Irving did their own research.

So Lipstadt's research was 'scientific'? Okay. What is 'scientific research'? Would you call Lipstadt's book a work of 'scientific research'? I can always quote from it.

:: The jewish community did get itself involved, but nowhere can we conclude that the pressure from the jewish community was actually succesful.

We cannot conclude that the Jewish community was unsuccessful either. We can however conclude that the Jewish community actively pressured the government of New Zealand to exclude David Irving from the country on account of his immigration status (e.g., his deportation from Canada for questioning 'The Holocaust).

:: I will try to answer what a fact makes without doing any reading on it and just analysing it from the top of my head, ok?:

Let me guess. Facts are interpretations that Spinoza agrees with. Opinions are interpretations that Spinoza disagrees with, which reflect values other than his own.

:: A fact is a universally accepted conclusion based on opinions and interpretations, I think.

Then you are wrong, because the truth or falsehood of a proposition has nothing to do with what the majority of people think.

:: Thus you can deconstruct and say that all facts are in the end interpretations and opnions.

The notion of unmediated knowledge of existence is a myth. These senses and language actively distort what we call 'knowledge'.

:: You would then remove a linguistal (sub)category) which eliminates some use of the language or at the very least removes a manner in which one can express yourself to point out a universal truth.

The notion that there are universal truths or facts that we discover via observation is itself a historically situated interpretation which did not always exist, in either Europe or elsewhere in the world.

:: This fact as we call it is used in situations in which the interpretations and opninions never differ, no matter what changes under the same circumstances.

This is funny. Many of things you would call facts were considered opinions several generations ago. Likewise, many of the things that would have been called opinions several generations ago are now called facts. This is especially so in the case of morality. Would most Europeans have considered it immoral to discriminate against others on the basis of race several generations ago? If not, why the sudden change? Better yet, how did this change occur?

:: example: Water freezes at 0 degrees and beneath celsius.

These measurements are themselves interpretations.

:: This is never any different here on earth no matter how hard we try.

Water was not understand in the manner it is today several generations ago.

:: We can say that we interpret this as actually happening, but since everyone here on earth interprets it in the same way we call this interpretation of physics a "fact".

People don't always interpret water freezing the same way. Actually, if we delve back into history, we can see radically different explanations for this phenomenon across cultures and within our own culture.

:: A person can very well base a decision by freeing oneself from personal values for a certain time.

This is absolutely false. We make decisions on the basis of values. Values are what enable us to choose certain courses of action over other courses of action. For instance, I have chosen to reply to you rather than to do something else. My values are at work here because they structure how I behave and respond to others.

:: People knowlingly make decision every day that hurt them in some way or another.

That does not suggest that such decisions are value-free judgments. What enabled such people to choose one decision over another decision?

:: But sometimes it leaves them no choice but to make such a decision.

Values are what enable people to make decisions, to take one course of action over other possible courses of action.

:: Sometimes known murders are put free because or errors from the other party.

And why is this? Simple: Because the values of a given society, incorporated into its Constitution, structure how 'justice' is carried out. In this case, a procedural technicality would be elevated over the substance of the law. This is not a universal, ahistorical truth at all. It is a prejudice.

:: The judge then has no choice but to set the man free.

And why is this? It is because he is operating within a network of power relations which structure how 'justice' is carried out.

:: Everyone knows the murder is guilty, but nothing can be done within the limits of the law.

Who establishes the limits of the law in the first place? How do they do that? What purpose do such limits serve? And who, pray tell, benefits?

:: nonsense, you speak of statistical reliability and valadility.

I have argued that there is a flaw with that epistemological model, namely that it ignores absence.

:: But the "absence is not evidence of non-existence" does mean that you have no statistical reliable and valid data, thus one cannot argue based on those premises.

Actually, I can make a devastating argument against that epistemological model. 'Statistics' are based upon observation of beings, yet the problem with such statistics is that the Being of beings is assumed to be something that is simply 'available', that is, something one can infer by observing beings. Yet the Being of beings differs from situation to situation, which is why knowledge cannot simply be based on observation (or presence), as beings hide things about themselves (absence).

For instance, let us suppose I come to the Netherlands and walk past you. You observe me walking past you. But what does that tell you about me? Nothing much, because in such a situation, I would present myself differently than I do in other situations. My racial views would be left absent from such an encounter. In other words, observing me in such a situation would tell you little about me personally, as absence is almost impervious to observation.

:: One must be able to point at some form of opinion or interpretation or one could bring in the mystique as a argument.

Your interpretation is one that privileges presence over absence. You declare the existence of facts on the basis of your observations, yet you are neglecting how human beings who are conscious of being observe hide things about themselves.

:: I've heard you say in other threads that you don't believe in the mystique, it's superstition and such.

You are confusing absence with non-existence now. Absence and non-existence are not the same thing, just as everything that does exist is not necessarily present.

:: all religions are based on the argument "absence is not evidence of non-existence".

I wouldn't make that argument. Instead, I would argue that many religions, such as the one you subscribe to, are based on the argument that presence is synonymous with existence.

:: Debating accepted opinions and interpretations that are statistical valid and reliable, like the subject we are debating does not fall under speculation or the mystique.

Statistics can be interpreted in many ways. Anyone who has taken a statistics class at university should have learned that correlation is not necessarily causation, which is why there are various tests which check for spurious factors. Likewise, if you have ever taken a basic Research Methods course, you should be well aware that the behaviour of humans varies considerable depending upon their consciousness of being observed.

:: Which the above stated argument I therefor counter your arguments and hope you will still answer under new arguments.

You didn't counter my argument at all. You simply asserted that absence and non-existence are the same thing.

:: Sounds pretty totalitarian Seclusive Christian to me.

Not really. Secular Christians are individuals like yourself who deny the existence of God yet retain Christian values, such as humanism.

:: You state totalitarian opninions and degenerate into arguments of the mystique.

No. Totalitarian arguments are metanarratives which seek to subordinate and/or eradicate other narratives and language games by proclaiming universal truths.

:: Again I must point out that one cannot argue baed on nothing.

Absence is not non-existence. One cannot make the argument that presence and existence are one in the same, as something can be absent or hidden yet still exist.

:: One must produce something in order to make a valid statement.

This is false.

:: Why not?

Because I regard the judiciary as being part of the political system.

:: One is considered to be that which is the opinion of the governing body of the nation?

That is the dogma it propagandizes in order to justify its exercise of police power.

:: So you do believe in right or wrong?

Of course, but in a very different sense than you do. For me, right and wrong has nothing to do with morality, which distinguishes between good and evil.

:: One has to consider others around him or her.

Why?

:: Can we live without laws, fade?

Is it possible to live without laws? Sure. Do I think it is desirable? No, I don't.

:: Some laws are created with pure common sence with the interest to protect both people who live in the same country.

Much of what you consider to be 'common sense' today would not have been considered 'common sense' several generations ago. There are also people who would disagree that such laws are made to 'protect' people who live in the same country.

:: Minimal laws that don't really impede you, but protects the other.

If you are free to do something, then you don't need to ask for permission from an authority. If your ability to do something is contingent upon the decisions of others, then you are not really free at all. Laws that are made to protect others by restricting your freedom destroy freedom.

:: Example: It pure common sense that one should not enter another man's house without being invited.

This is actually bourgeoisie sense. Privacy is a rather novel invention in history.

:: If you don't adhere to this than both parties involved could suffer serious life ending consequences which causes even more grief and ultimately leads to disastrous situations hould everyone do this.

That's not common sense.

:: In the animal kingdom such laws don't exist on paper, but yet most animals know this one way or another. Men is no different in this case.

Now you are projecting a human concept upon non-human life.

:: The are nearly inseperatable.

No. They are entirely separable. Civilization is a High Culture in its death phase.

:: One exists because of the other.

Civilization exists because of the High Culture that created it. Civilization is a phase of a High Culture towards the end of its existence. We are very near that end.

:: My point was however that laws exist to protect sopciety as we know it.

I would say that laws exist to advance the interests of those with political power over those who do not possess political power. Hate Crime Legislation is an example of this.

:: Yes alot of alws exist to keep certain persons in power, but not all laws were created for that reason and not all laws abused were designed to be abused.

Laws are created for various reasons, but all laws are derived from authority, from political power.

:: and what's that?

I call it 'postmoralism'.

:: You should explain this sometime in a thread. I would like to see how your views would change the world for the best.

I will try to sum up my argument here as briefly as possible:

Liberalism, the hegemonic discourse within the West, assumes that the best life is the life of an individual who lives in freedom. So in order to maximize this freedom, we should create a neutral system in which no one is favoured over anyone else. Liberals hold that individuals create government in order to escape the state of nature and exchange their natural liberties for guarantees of rights. The purpose of government is to maximize the freedom of the individuals who create it, to protect their rights.

This bizarre way of looking at the world gave rise to what we call 'the left' and 'the right', which had not existed previously. 'Right liberals' who we today call 'conservatives' assume that the greatest threat to the freedom of the individual is government, so in order to protect the freedom of the individual (which is held to be synonymous with 'good') it is necessary to impose restraints upon government, to prevent it from trampling upon individual rights, especially those of an economic nature. 'Right liberals' or conservatives favour greater constraints upon freedom when it comes to social issues and greater independence when it comes to economic issues.

On the other hand, 'left liberals' assume that the greatest threat to the individual is concentrated, private economic power. So in order to maximize the freedom of the individual, one must constrain private economic interests, in particular, multinational corporations. Government and wealth redistribution is the means to this end. The left liberals and right liberals rely upon the same fundamental assumptions, they only have different ways of achieving their ends.

But I am not a liberal, of either the 'left' or 'right' variety. I do not assume that the best life is the life the of the 'free individual'. Far from it. For me, the best life is the beautiful life. The best state is the beautiful state, one composed of beautiful, highly cultured communities which are in turn composed of individuals rooted in the culture and traditions of their communities. The freedom of the individual is not maximized by isolating the individual from his community with 'rights' against his neighbours, but by strengthening his community and his relationship to it.

This is why I reject liberalism. Liberalism, in my view, leads fundamentally to disgusting, hideous, ugly societies of cultureless, miserable, alienated individuals. A community either has the will to preserve itself and does what is necessary to that end or it perishes. That is the way I look upon the liberal nations: as dying nations that are so decadent they cannot even reproduce themselves, nations which are being colonized by foreigners precisely because they are sick. Something is sick when it no longer wants to live. The 'why' receives no answer.

:: You still didn't reply for the third time. You keep beating around the bush.

I did reply to you.

:: In other words you don't know anymore?

I made myself clear. Feel free to reply to my original response.

:: Lol, you try to prove your arguments by pointing at the gallerly? How about you doing some effort to prove yourself right? YOu cannot, can you?

I don't believe in proof. I believe in persuasian, so I defer to the gallery to decide whether or not I have made the stronger argument. The Romans saw things much the same way.

:: Is that a fact?

Nope, an interpretation, a very strong one.

:: I never stated that such is the case.

That is what you suggested in your reply.

:: Yet you are free to argue and complain?

No, I am not. If what goes on here was truly a threat to the existing political order, then I can assure you, this forum would not exist.

:: Again you refure to attack my argument. The gallerly can see it clearly here. Please adres the argument, fade.

Its very simple. Spinoza invoke the logical fallacies but does not understand them. The fellow in the above article obviously knew the identity of his source who was merely speaking on the condition of anonymity, or absence.

:: There is no reason to assume otherwise at this point.

Sure there is. I assume, from a theoretical standpoint, that beings always present themselves in a specific way, a mixture of absence and presence.

:: I would think it would be transparant if they did succeed and it would be stated somewhere.They have no reason to soft-treat irving.

We cannot assume what is present is only what exists.

:: How about attacking arguments instead of words all the time?

Its much easier to knock the foundation out of an argument. It saves one a lot of time, for instance, its easier to cut a drew down by hacking away at its base than by cutting all of its limbs off.

:: Manipulation can indeed create a different outcome. Being is not always very clear seems proper, but using this argument as a valid counter arguments in which facts are produced without any reason to assume that facts are hidden is not very proper to do.

Being is never very clear, because Being is always a mixture of presence and absence. Your epistemological model privilege presence over absence. On the contrary, during Greco-Roman Antiquity, absence was privileged over presence, which was thought to be merely illusory.

:: I'm using to word facts to save myself some time if you don't mind.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

:: officialy you've got the short end of the stick.

No. I have chosen to deconstruct your privileging of presence.

:: Your interpretions are not accurate.

We will let the gallery be the judge of that.

:: LOL, you must have had a laugh while writing this, didn't you?

Sure did. :D

:: I disproved you numerous times on this. see the argument under this one.

You have not proven anything. Instead, you have simply made a very unpersuasive argument.

:: CAn you actually belief what you just stated?

Yes, actually I can. Usually, what the government tells the public is deemed to be of less importance than what the government does not tell the public.

:: Because we are not equall in thought

Equality exists only at the abstract level, in terms of ideas. In reality, there is nothing but difference.

:: Are you paranoid or pointing me a consipracy theory?

Taboos are not conspiracies, Spinoza.

:: Again you return to arguments of the superstitious.

This is false. I am not simply so narrowminded that I assume presence and existence are synonymous.

:: Again, the law is clear on it.

No, actually it isn't. That is why we have people called judges who interpret the law. :P

:: If I were barred from Canada because I did certain crimes, i'm sure I would be barred as well. No reason to assume otherwise

This does not follow. We do have a clear reason to assume otherwise, the pressure the Jewish community of New Zealand publically put upon the government.

:: I stated clearly that the jewish community did indeed use political pressure to pursuade the goverment.

Yes, they did.

:: Yet the law was already clear on this and there was no need for the pressure.

This is contradicted by the statement of the Jewish community in New Zealand itself. It was always possible that the gov. of New Zealand could make an exception.

:: The jewish community could not keep quiet and suffer embarassement by not speaking out.

Perhaps the Jewish community was successful in having Irving excluded from the country. Perhaps this tripe about 'applying the law' is simply more convienent for the Jewish community. After all, if the public knew that the Jewish community was censoring people they do not like, this might cause anti-Semitism, which would 'not be good for the Jews'.

:: He was barred because he was deported from canada.

Correction: That is what the Immigration Service said he was barred for. He was deported from Canada because Canada did not like his views about 'The Holocaust.

:: The reasons for his deportation of Canada have nothing to do with the specifics under which the law ws decided.

This does not follow.

:: i.e. If was deported from Canada for entirely different reasons I would be barred according to their laws.

This does not follow either.

FadeTheButcher

08-05-2004, 05:55 AM

cerberus

:: Fade, Based on what you say and define facts as being it would seem that a lot of assessment tools I see on a day to day basis are out the window.

Yes.

:: It would seem that based on your views of what is fact I know a lot of sick individuals who can equally argue that their delusions are just interpitations and not a sign that they are ill ! Fade never do a MMSE test.

I did not suggest that all interpretations were equal, only that unmediated, objective knowledge of existence does not exist.

:: From what you say there are no historical facts only interpitations.

That is correct but allow me to add to that: the dominant historical interpretations have much to do with sets of power relations.

:: We have in interpit facts , how we do so may have more to do with your conclusions than anything else.

Not really. I have rejected the discourse of facts period, for the epistemological reasons I outlined above, not necessarily because of 'The Holocaust', which is in no way immune to that criticism.

:: Mr. irving had some problems in this respect in that he tried to make the historical evidence fit what he wanted it to say , excluding all else.

All historians do that because their values and perspectives colour how they present the material they interpret, as well as what information they deem to be significant as opposed to what they deem to be insignificant.

:: How you view the judge and his judgement is opinion coloured by what you based on your own experiences / value system wish to make it.

My interpretation of this case is highly coloured by my theoretical views about epistemology and political power. I am highly indebted to Martin Heidegger and Michel Foucault in this respect.

:: This is again opinion and perceptual , not factual.

Facts exist only in name.

:: Fade I still get the feeling ( as PDH does) that you are more interested in words than outcomes and when something does not fit you attempt to lose it in word defination and interpitation arguements , which are based around what you would like it to be based on your own values and experiences to date.

Its much more likely, actually, that my interpretation of 'The Holocaust' is coloured by the theoretical views I have outlined above which I similiarly apply in other arguments. 'The Holocaust' is simply an outstanding example of a discourse that was created to advance the interests of a specific group, the Jews, over others, as Norman Finkelstein has shown. Foucault called this 'power/knowledge'.

:: "Both Lipstadt and Irving did their own research." ( And it was reviewed by an independent judge , it is your own opinion that he was less than so , your opinion does not prove it as a fact , only that you percieve it to be so.
Your own anti-semetic views no doubt play a part in this).

1.) There are no 'facts' in the first place.
2.) There is no such thing as an 'independent' judge. That is a myth, as this person is connected to the British political system.
3.) The research of both Irving and Lipstadt is coloured by their own values.
4.) I don't believe in 'proof' either, only persuasion.
5.) Your own philo-Semitic views no doubt play a role in your interpretation of 'The Holocaust'.

P.S. Check out the new thread I have started, 'The Holocaust Industry'. Good debate guys. I have enjoyed it.

jonnyofthedead

08-05-2004, 06:37 AM

And who made such an issue out of all of this, jonny? Who made the argument that David Irving should not be allowed to enter New Zealand on account of his immigration status? And why did they lobby the government in the first place? Better yet, why was David Irving ever deported from Canada in the first place?
Is it relevant? Given the contents of the act, to admit Irving would be to break NZ law, would it not? Assuming laws are to be abided by, Irving can thus not be admitted.

Once again, why didn't the Immigration Service simply deny Irving entry a week ago? This has been getting press for over a week now.
I'm not sure that they didn't - their position a week ago is absent from the NZ Herald article, is it not? Furthermore, had Irving attempted to get a visa or otherwise secure entry to NZ at that point? If not, your question is trivial and much akin to "if murder is illegal, why was Dahmer not arrested as a ten-year old?" Dahmer wasn't arrested then because he'd not broken the law; the NZ immigration service would have said nothing about Irving because absent any attempt to enter the country on his part, he wouldn't have been in breach of the law.

FadeTheButcher

08-05-2004, 06:53 AM

:: Is it relevant?

Perhaps.

:: Given the contents of the act, to admit Irving would be to break NZ law, would it not?

Not necessarily. The reason why the Jewish community lobbied the government in the first place (as noted above) was that there was a possibility he might be allowed into the country.

:: Assuming laws are to be abided by, Irving can thus not be admitted.

Once again, I will point out that the activism on the part of the Jewish community was due to the possibility the Immigration Service might have made an exception for Irving.

:: I'm not sure that they didn't - their position a week ago is absent from the NZ Herald article, is it not?

No. The Immigration Service made their decision about a week after the story began to get international press. I reported it when it first came across the wires, as I was following the story.

:: Furthermore, had Irving attempted to get a visa or otherwise secure entry to NZ at that point?

I believe New Zealand is part of the British Commonwealth. Irving mentioned something about being allowed entry to the country because he is a British citizen. I suspect there is some sort of difference here with respect to the immigration laws.

:: If not, your question is trivial and much akin to "if murder is illegal, why was Dahmer not arrested as a ten-year old?"

This turns on whether or not citizens of the British Commonwealth are treated equally under NZ law with respect to migration.

:: Dahmer wasn't arrested then because he'd not broken the law; the NZ immigration service would have said nothing about Irving because absent any attempt to enter the country on his part, he wouldn't have been in breach of the law.

Jeffrey Dahmer has nothing logically to do with David Irving's exclusion from New Zealand.

cerberus

08-05-2004, 11:20 AM

Fade,
Again what you describe the holocaust to have ben and what you percieve the role of the Judge to have been ( based on the outcome) are again only your own opinions based on your own value system and , reasoning and perceptions.
Your own value sytem you will not compromise as it will cause you some discomfort , you evlove and change your views ever so slightly to accomodate your own position. Who can say according to your logic that all perceptions are not equal , who can say that my " delusion" or "hallunication" is not actual or a fact given that the assesment tools are " out the window".
This may sem silly fade but I am only taking you own points then they are redundant , its all or nothing , you cannot be selective.
What I do is based on fact , you say fact and objectivity do not exist , in my line of work they have to or all reason and reality is lost.
Its all or nothing Fade , no cherry picking or changing of the playing field.
Historical fact is no different , and a legal judgement is based on what can be proven , based on the evidence placed before the court.
Now you cannot argue that there was a lot of evidence and fact placed before the court. Irving lost as he was selective led by his own views and influences (as you say you are ) which allowed him to assert beliefs which he held to be true knowing that he had set aside evidnce which was contrary to what he saying ( He cherry picked history to prove his own points. In short opinions).
When I reflected to you the assesment tools ( to assess cognitive ability , depressive ratings, etc) you say , these based on your perceptions are "out the window" .
No doubt you would not be seen to be unwell , but your arguement does not travel well and is not a constant , its unique to you and when applied to others does not hold water. It cannot be generally applied to support your own view of order as it makes general assumptions which are only opinions.
You cannot disprove or prove anything to be true as its all down to perception ( based on who is writing what) , given that fact and objectivity do not exist.
Given that this is true the lady I attempted to interview yesterday who hear voices coming from the walls may have been quite well , becuse she percieved them as being so and could not does not make her wrong and me right , it has to be a constant Fade , it will only be so if it is so.
Your arguement fails as so much is down to the individual , if its all perception based and we are guided by this alone and are to exclude fact and objectivity.( Which you say do not exist).

As far as Irving getting into New Zealand , the Jews interest did lobby , just as the Zundel interest have lobbied , both have the right to do so and I don't deny them that right, be it in Canada or New Zealand.
PDH makes good point inthat we assume that they had success , we don't actually know if they did but you assume they.

FadeTheButcher

08-05-2004, 08:02 PM

cerberus

:: Fade, Again what you describe the holocaust to have ben and what you percieve the role of the Judge to have been ( based on the outcome) are again only your own opinions based on your own value system and , reasoning and perceptions.

Here we go again with the same fact/opinion binary opposition that I discarded above. No, cerberus. It is not an 'opinion' that there are no value-free judgments. Yet that is not a 'fact' either. Its a strong interpretation that I can support with a lot of evidence. Likewise, my interpretation is based in large part upon my own values, reasoning, and perceptions but that is not entirely the case, as I have drawn on many other sources. The same could be said for anyone else, including yourself.

:: Your own value sytem you will not compromise as it will cause you some discomfort , you evlove and change your views ever so slightly to accomodate your own position.

My epistemological views have nothing to do with 'The Holocaust', as such. They come from my interest in Heidegger and Foucault's philosophy. 'The Holocaust' simply gives me an excellent example in which to apply them.

:: Who can say according to your logic that all perceptions are not equal , who can say that my " delusion" or "hallunication" is not actual or a fact given that the assesment tools are " out the window".

cerberus demonstrates the slippery slope fallacy to the gallery. If we discard the fact/opinion binary opposition, then lo, all interpretations will be equal! My argument does not imply that at all. It simply suggests that unmediated objective knowledge of existence does not exist, that has never existed, yet many people have bought into the illusion that this is so.

:: This may sem silly fade but I am only taking you own points then they are redundant , its all or nothing , you cannot be selective.

We are nothing but selective. Our values and perspective determine are what we use to distinguish what we believe to be significant from what is deemed insignificant.

:: What I do is based on fact , you say fact and objectivity do not exist , in my line of work they have to or all reason and reality is lost.

What you call facts are merely interpretations that you have chosen to privilege over other interpretations for various reasons. Your argument is not based on 'facts' or 'objectivity' at all. Your own values and perspective have everything to do with the arguments you have made on this board. You simply use the language of 'facts' and 'objectivity' for rhetorical purposes, in a silly attempt to give your argument greater authority before others.

:: Its all or nothing Fade , no cherry picking or changing of the playing field.

This is what we call a false dilemma.

:: Historical fact is no different , and a legal judgement is based on what can be proven , based on the evidence placed before the court.

Legal judgments are not based upon what is 'proven' at all, but instead, what some jury or judge has been persuaded to be the case, for some reason or another. That is precisely why the Romans were so interested in rhetoric. There are no 'historical facts' either. There are no facts, only interpretations. That is why what we call 'historical facts' are constantly evolving.

:: Now you cannot argue that there was a lot of evidence and fact placed before the court.

I can argue that 'evidence' can be interpreted in all sorts of ways and that the structure of the British legal system determined what could be presented as 'evidence' as opposed to what could not be presented.

:: Irving lost as he was selective led by his own views and influences (as you say you are ) which allowed him to assert beliefs which he held to be true knowing that he had set aside evidnce which was contrary to what he saying ( He cherry picked history to prove his own points. In short opinions).

Every single historian on the face of the earth, David Irving amongst them, selects out evidence on the basis of their own values and perspective. Interpretations are then created on the basis of this evidence and argued persuasively before others. That is just as true for David Irving as it is for anyone else, yet cerberus would try to mislead the gallery into believing that is not the case.

:: When I reflected to you the assesment tools ( to assess cognitive ability , depressive ratings, etc) you say , these based on your perceptions are "out the window" .

Your 'assessment tools' are nothing rhetoric which you use to privilege some interpretations over others. Your application of them is most certainly not independent of your own values either.

:: No doubt you would not be seen to be unwell , but your arguement does not travel well and is not a constant , its unique to you and when applied to others does not hold water.

I can easily apply my argument to others. I have done so throughout this thread. My deconstruction of 'objective knowledge' is actually widely accepted in the social sciences.

:: It cannot be generally applied to support your own view of order as it makes general assumptions which are only opinions.

cerberus again makes my point for me. He labels interpretations that he does not like 'opinions' whereas interpretations that reflect his own values are labeled 'facts'. The sole purpose of cerberus' use of this type of language is to advance his own perspective, in this argument, with greater rhetorical force. This is precisely why these labels have lost whatever meaning they were once assumed to have.

:: You cannot disprove or prove anything to be true as its all down to perception ( based on who is writing what) , given that fact and objectivity do not exist.

Much of what is called 'proof' by people is actually just more persuasive from some given perspective, for various reasons. I don't assume that the historical discipline operates independently of the context of political power either.

:: Given that this is true the lady I attempted to interview yesterday who hear voices coming from the walls may have been quite well , becuse she percieved them as being so and could not does not make her wrong and me right , it has to be a constant Fade , it will only be so if it is so.

Don't throw this conversation off-topic.

:: Your arguement fails as so much is down to the individual , if its all perception based and we are guided by this alone and are to exclude fact and objectivity.( Which you say do not exist).

I am convinced we are guided by the will to power. This is why people like you constantly dress your own interpretations up as 'facts' and denounce the interpretations of others as 'opinions'. Your goal is solely to increase your power in the argument.

:: As far as Irving getting into New Zealand , the Jews interest did lobby , just as the Zundel interest have lobbied , both have the right to do so and I don't deny them that right, be it in Canada or New Zealand.

If the Jewish community of New Zealand came out and took responsibility for excluding Irving from New Zealand, then you and Paul would most likely deny that too on account of your philo-Semitism.

:: PDH makes good point inthat we assume that they had success , we don't actually know if they did but you assume they.

We don't know they did not succeed. It would be in their interests to deny this, as to acknowledge they are responsible for censoring views they do not like might led to anti-Semitism. And that, as they say, would be 'bad for the Jews'.

cerberus

08-05-2004, 09:25 PM

Fade,
I was not throwing the topic of track , just saying that if I take your logic to the extreme this is where it ends.
The tools I referred to have to be sound and are strictly marked so as to be objective, its controlled and scientific.Opinions don't come ito it.

I can see the direction you are coming from when you prefer to speak of interpitations rather than facts , but if you entered any court room as a lawyer and said this is what i intend view things and present my case I sooner or later would think the Judge would call time and say " stick to the facts of the case not how you think they should be intertiped".
If your view is followed my lady can be quite correct when she says the voices in the wall are talking to her , now this might sound odd but its as odd as saying there are no facts , nothing can be proved , its all a matter of how your percieve it to be.
In Irvings case expert witnessess did provide an expert opinion to interpit the facts as presented by both parties nothing ground breaking here , you would perhaps forget this fade in that its facts which are interpited and clarified to the satifaction of both sides , the prurpose of which is to estiblish fact and to discount false interpitation and opinion.
At the end it is fact which matters and the correct interpitation of the facts, interpitation can also be wrong and prejudiced it is the professional application by a Judge which ensures this does not occur.
It hinges not only on the Judge but the legal taems to ensure that this occurs. Your idea that the judge was swayed by his own values is wrong.
Life Fade does not work like that , you know this and so do I .
( No lecture ) .

Your views on British legal system is based on opinion and a prejudiced one at , any judge in any system will say "no" if the evidence presented does not have a bearing on the case , or for instance that it was not disclosed to the other side , e.g. no-one can pull the rabbit from the hat.

I don't agree with you Fade when you say there are no facts and nothing in life is objective and that everything is down to interpitation alone.
You say all historians are selective in what they use , I say this is not the case , that is the difference between a profesional and a rank ameteur.
As far as David Irving and New Zealand goes he has been denied entery , there was a group of people saying he should not be allowed in , they had a right to say so , they did , they asked the imigration dept. to mak a decision , they did .
This was based on New Zealand law , case over.
In Canada people are making representations on behalf of Ernest Zundel , they have a right to do so , no problem.
Enforce your right to lobby on his behalf , again no problem.
Who said I was pro-jewish ?

FadeTheButcher

08-05-2004, 09:59 PM

:: Enforce your right to lobby on his behalf , again no problem.

I don't believe in rights. I believe in responsibilities and privileges.

:: Who said I was pro-jewish ?

You are pro-Jewish.

:: This was based on New Zealand law , case over.

:: No. The Immigration Service has said publically this was based on New Zealand law. That's all.

:: In Canada people are making representations on behalf of Ernest Zundel , they have a right to do so , no problem.

Not really. Several friends of mine have been persecuted by Canadian law enforcement for the views they hold. This bull**** about 'rights' is a farce.

:: I don't agree with you Fade when you say there are no facts and nothing in life is objective and that everything is down to interpitation alone.

Well. That's your perspective. I will continue to make my case: that there is no such thing as unmediated, objective knowledge of existence.

:: You say all historians are selective in what they use , I say this is not the case , that is the difference between a profesional and a rank ameteur.

This is a superstition. These so-called 'professionals' are just as influenced by their own values as 'amateurs'. Their own values determine what material they choose to present to the public as opposed to which material they leave absent.

:: As far as David Irving and New Zealand goes he has been denied entery , there was a group of people saying he should not be allowed in , they had a right to say so , they did , they asked the imigration dept. to mak a decision , they did .

There was a group of Jews in New Zealand who wish to censor views they do not like. So they lobbied the government of New Zealand to have David Irving excluded from the country on the grounds of his immigration status. David Irving was ultimately excluded from the country. The official reason given was David Irving's immigration status. It is possible that this is the case. It is also possible that the government of New Zealand succumbed to pressure from Jewish special interest groups.

:: Your views on British legal system is based on opinion and a prejudiced one at

This is false. I can demonstrate that the British legal system operates within the context of political power. There are no such thing as 'independent' judges either. No judge makes decisions independent of his own values.

:: . . .any judge in any system will say "no" if the evidence presented does not have a bearing on the case

And who decides what evidence 'does not have a bearing on the case'? On what grounds are such decisions made? Who decides what those grounds are?

:: or for instance that it was not disclosed to the other side , e.g. no-one can pull the rabbit from the hat.

Why have such a rule in the first place? Once again, who decides what the rules that govern the submission of evidence are to be?

:: Fade, I was not throwing the topic of track , just saying that if I take your logic to the extreme this is where it ends.

That is a non sequitur, cerberus. If you want to lecture myself and the gallery on the subject of logic, do not make irrational arguments.

:: The tools I referred to have to be sound and are strictly marked so as to be objective, its controlled and scientific.Opinions don't come ito it.

This is a myth. There is no such thing as 'objectivity' in the first place. That is because it is impossible for anyone to escape the boundries of A.) language B.) the senses and C.) the perspective. One cannot escape outside of such mediums to check one's conclusions.

:: I can see the direction you are coming from when you prefer to speak of interpitations rather than facts , but if you entered any court room as a lawyer . . .

And how many courtrooms have you been in? I have been in quite a few, as I have taken several legal classes, one just this past summer. There is actually a notorious dispute within amongst jurists as to how written documents are to be interpreted. There are several specific schools that deal with just this, actually.

:: and said this is what i intend view things and present my case I sooner or later would think the Judge would call time and say " stick to the facts of the case not how you think they should be intertiped".

You think this. You think that. You intend this. This may or may not happen. You gives interpretations and guesses and then try to pass off such interpretations as 'scientific facts' (whatever those are). That is what is so dishonest about your argument: its pretentiousness.

:: If your view is followed my lady can be quite correct when she says the voices in the wall are talking to her , now this might sound odd but its as odd as saying there are no facts , nothing can be proved , its all a matter of how your percieve it to be.

cerberus introduces a red herring into this debate to distract the attention of the gallery. This lady that you know has nothing logically to do with David Irving, much less the incident we are discussing in this thread.

:: In Irvings case expert witnessess did provide an expert opinion to interpit the facts

And who are 'expert witnesses'? Who decides what constitutes an 'expert witness'? This varies from place to place.

:: . .as presented by both parties nothing ground breaking here. . .

The values of both parties, their respective goals, determine which material the present in the trial.

:: you would perhaps forget this fade in that its facts which are interpited and clarified to the satifaction of both sides , the prurpose of which is to estiblish fact and to discount false interpitation and opinion.

There are no facts in the first place. The two parties simply discuss the matter until they are persuaded to adopt a conclusion that serves as a jumping off point for further discussion.

:: At the end it is fact which matters and the correct interpitation of the facts

There is no correct interpretation in-itself. That does not exist. There are only various perspectives and interpretations that are made on the basis of them.

:: interpitation can also be wrong and prejudiced it is the professional application by a Judge which ensures this does not occur.

This is a myth. There is no such thing as an 'unprejudiced' interpretation, as such interpretations necessarily depend upon one's own socially and historically situated frame of reference.

:: It hinges not only on the Judge but the legal taems to ensure that this occurs.

It does not occur. There is no such thing as unprejudiced interpretations. Prejudice is necessary to attach greater weight to one interpretation as opposed to any other.

:: Your idea that the judge was swayed by his own values is wrong.

Without values, the judge would not have been able to make any decision whatsoever. He would be utterly paralysed, unable to choose one course of action over any other.

:: Life Fade does not work like that , you know this and so do I . ( No lecture ) .

We both do not know this at all. Life is will to power. That is what we are witnessing here: cerberus trying to pass off interpretations as acts in order to give greater rhetorical weight to his own argument.

"In some remote corner . . . of the universe there was once a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. It was the most arrogant and mendacious moment of 'universal history'. . ."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

Edana

08-05-2004, 10:30 PM

Modern society is awash in some stupid conception that victimhood is a virtue and power is bad. Of course, this allows people to manipulate (and thus gain power) based on some phony image of victimhood.

PaulDavidHewson

08-05-2004, 10:32 PM

Some people are less cultured than others too. A specialist experiences a symphony in entirely different terms than a layman, Spinoza. As Aristotle pointed out, virtue is its own reward.

These so-called 'professionals' are just as influenced by their own values as 'amateurs'. Their own values determine what material they choose to present to the public as opposed to which material they leave absent.

Fade, can you do the twist?

"In some remote corner . . . of the universe there was once a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. It was the most arrogant and mendacious moment of 'universal history'. . ."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

I didn't know we lived on a star?

FadeTheButcher

08-05-2004, 10:54 PM

:: I didn't know we lived on a star?

As usual, you miss the point.

:: Fade, can you do the twist?

I never suggested that the views of specialists or professionals are entirely arbitrary. I have simply argued that they are not objective, that they are not independent of their own values.

PaulDavidHewson

08-05-2004, 11:21 PM

As usual, you miss the point.

:P

I never suggested that the views of specialists or professionals are entirely arbitrary. I have simply argued that they are not objective, that they are not independent of their own values.

Fade, you don't think you are sometimes contradicting yourself then?

I will reply today or tommorow to your other reply of course.

clever animals invented knowledge

I would like to point out that you counter argued an argument of mine in which I compared animals to humans when it comes to inherent defense of one's lair or territory, yet this does not refrain you from using a quote in which humans are catagorised as animals

PaulDavidHewson

08-05-2004, 11:27 PM

If the Jewish community of New Zealand came out and took responsibility for excluding Irving from New Zealand, then you and Paul would most likely deny that too on account of your philo-Semitism.

false assumption. I would actually applaud them for being so frank.
Also please note that there are NO REPORTS whatsoever of jewish organisation in New Zealand denying the fact that they are trying to exclude Mr. Irving. I think this is rather important to realise.

FadeTheButcher

08-05-2004, 11:28 PM

:: Fade, you don't think you are sometimes contradicting yourself then?

No. I am not contradicting myself. You simply do not understand my argument which others seem to grasp.

:: I will reply today or tommorow to your other reply of course.

I still have to reply to the the other threads. Expect that reply very soon.

:: I would like to point out that you counter argued an argument of mine in which I compared animals to humans when it comes to inherent defense of one's lair or territory, yet this does not refrain you from using a quote in which humans are catagorised as animals

Humans are animals, but not the sort of animals you make them out to be. You have missed the point once again.

PaulDavidHewson

08-06-2004, 01:44 AM

Its not false because understanding a 'white, coloured square' necessarily depends upon some sort of antithesis, something a ''white, coloured square' is not, which the object you would describe as a 'white, coloured square' is compared to in order to classify it. In other words, to call something a 'white, coloured square' IS NOT independent of the perspective of the observer. That is basic structuralist linguistics.

Actually, colour is an artifact of the brain created from sense data. So colour is hardly independent of the perspective or the senses, Spinoza. Its not a 'fact' at all.

[/quote]In order to understand what a 'rose' is, one must understand what a 'rose' is not. One must understand what distinguishes a 'rose' from other existents, its differentia specifica. We understand things by their relation to other things, not as any 'thing-in-itself'.[/quote]

[/quote]That is not a fact at all. It is an interpretation. It is not a fact because one does not understand 'light' as any thing-in-itself, but in relation to what light is not from a given perspective, which serves as a control.[/quote]

Facts are unmediated, objective knowledge of existence. This is why there are no 'facts' whatsoever: because there is no such thing as unmediated knowledge, because knowledge of anything necessarily requires A.) relating it to something else, which serves as a basis B.) sense data from a given perspective.

Which demonstrate the fallaciousness of your proposition, as such constructs necessarily rely upon the sensorium of a given perspective.

I've been struggeling with this concept for quite some time now and decided that I will read up on it and give my views on it on another time when I have more indepth knowledge on it.(that is to say if I don't agree with it, if I agree with it expect another reply of course).
The reason it is difficult for me to grasp it because one has to let go of certain concepts which has serverd as a foundation of perceiving things for ones entire life. Another reason is because I have to translate a rather complex abtract concept into a rather complex abstract concept in dutch.
Can you point me out some online reading material on this, if you have any names of books it would be good as well for I would probably order it from the internet if it really contains the information I seek to understand the concept you brought forth.
The content of your arguments become more clear the more I read on it. Yet attempting to escape linguistics when expressing oneself is rather distancing for one could endlessly argue the opposite based on that model.

That does not follow at all. As I pointed out before, David Irving's exclusion from New Zealand largely went on behind closed doors. The only thing we have to go on is A.) what has been reported in the press and B.) the statement of the Immigration Service. That is not the whole picture, however.

It still would be mere speculation based on predujices.

And that is the problem, because what is stated always necessarily depends upon what is unstated, what remains unsaid, or absent.

What do you believe is the "real" reason behind that certain piece of legislation, Fade?

Yet the Jewish Community DID point that out by LOBBYING the government of New Zealand, by applying political pressure.

They obviously did this to save themselves the embarresement when he would be allowed in and they wouldn't have said anything and to get some attention onto Mr. Irving for his beliefs.

So Lipstadt's research was 'scientific'? Okay. What is 'scientific research'? Would you call Lipstadt's book a work of 'scientific research'? I can always quote from it.

They both performed research in order to produce a historically researched document.

We cannot conclude that the Jewish community was unsuccessful either. We can however conclude that the Jewish community actively pressured the government of New Zealand to exclude David Irving from the country on account of his immigration status (e.g., his deportation from Canada for questioning 'The Holocaust).

the reasons for deporting Irving from canada can be found here:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Canada/FDCIfile/EICReport271092.html

I clearly states the reasons for Irving's deportation. For the Canadian goverment these reasons were enough to deport him. New Zealand can withing the confines of their law exclude him to enter. YOu say they actively "pressured" the goverment while this is also speculation. Nowhere did it state they pressured the goverment. Of course you will counter argue this by stating that I prefer the presence over absence.

Report under Section 27
of the Immigration Act

Document no. N901600501
OFF file no 5133-24-9377
Client ID 2817-6161

To: Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration
From: Jack Avery

In accordance with the Immigration Act, I have to report that:

David Irving born 24 Mar 1938 in England

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is a person in Canada, other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, described in:
Paragraph 27(2)(A)

A person who, if he/she were applying for entry, would not or might not be granted entry by reason of being a member or the inadmissible class described in:
Paragraph 19(1)(d)(i) :

Persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will commit one or more offences punishable by way of indictment under any Act of parliament.
this report is based on information in my possession as follows:

That David Irving

has been convicted in Munich, Germany District Court on may 5, 1992, of slander concomitant with the disparagement of the memory of deceased persons, pursuant to the German Criminal Code, section 1, 2 and 52, an offence that would constitute an offence in Canada, namely public incitement of hatred as defined in section 319(2) of the Criminal code.
has been invited to Canada by the Canadian free speech league
has spoken at public rallies denying holocaust took place.
has planned a speaking tour in Canada with stops in Victoria, Calgary, Kitchener, Hamilton, Toronto, and Ottawa.
Dated at ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 27 Oct 1992

signed by Immigration Officer ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYMENT AND
IMMIGRATION CANADA

HEADQUARTERS USE ONLY
Report under section 27
of the immigration act

Document no. N901599893 OFF file no 5133-24-9377
Client ID 2817-6161

To: deputy minister of employment and immigration
From: Jack Avery

In accordance with the immigration act, I have to report that:

David Irving born 24 Mar 1938 in England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is a person in Canada other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident,

described in:

Paragraph 27(2)(a):

A person who, if he/she were applying for entry, would not or might not be granted entry by reason of being a member of the inadmissible class Described in:
paragraph 19(2)(a):

Persons who have been convicted of an offence outside Canada that would constitute an offence that may be punishable by way of indictment under any other act of parliament and for which a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years may be imposed,
This report is based on information in my possession as follows:

that David Irving was convicted in Munich, Germany, district court, on May 5, 1992, of slander concomitant with the disparagement of the memory of deceased persons, pursuant to the German criminal code, sections 1, 2, and 52, an offence that would constitute an offence in Canada, namely public incitement of hatred as defined in section 319(2) of the criminal code and for which a maximum term of imprisonment not exceeding two years may be imposed.

Dated at: ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... on 27 Oct 1992

Immigration officer: ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

Let me guess. Facts are interpretations that Spinoza agrees with. Opinions are interpretations that Spinoza disagrees with, which reflect values other than his own.

Nope.

Then you are wrong, because the truth or falsehood of a proposition has nothing to do with what the majority of people think.

I will read up on it for the expantion of my own knowledge. But I will argue that all humans can and do sometimes come to the same conclusion. This is what people call facts. It's a mere shortening for a concept that you are trying to explain.
The conlcusion does not have to be lasting. it can be temporarily.

The notion of unmediated knowledge of existence is a myth. These senses and language actively distort what we call 'knowledge'.

To get it straight, you are arguing that one can find a different use of a certain object than what it was intended by it's creator when that person would have lived under totalily different circumstances than the other, correct?

This is funny. Many of things you would call facts were considered opinions several generations ago. Likewise, many of the things that would have been called opinions several generations ago are now called facts. This is especially so in the case of morality. Would most Europeans have considered it immoral to discriminate against others on the basis of race several generations ago? If not, why the sudden change? Better yet, how did this change occur?

Alright. This change led from the belief that certain groups have "better" lives than others. Yes that is all matter of perspective.

These measurements are themselves interpretations.

water does change from it's state under certain conditions, right?

Water was not understand in the manner it is today several generations ago.

Yet, the observation that water changes it's state under certain conditions has been around since the beginning, has it not?

People don't always interpret water freezing the same way. Actually, if we delve back into history, we can see radically different explanations for this phenomenon across cultures and within our own culture.

Yet again, everyone would perceive that water somehow changes. The reasons for this are not important. Important is that it does happen.

So our debate did change a certain perspective for you then?

[quote]I wouldn't make that argument. Instead, I would argue that many religions, such as the one you subscribe to, are based on the argument that presence is synonymous with existence.

You wouldn't, but many would.

Not really. Secular Christians are individuals like yourself who deny the existence of God yet retain Christian values, such as humanism.

I will not refrain from foregoing Humanitarism in some way. I still believe in alleviating on's grief merely because I feel it's right to do so. I believe Joy in life is important for me as for others.

That is the dogma it propagandizes in order to justify its exercise of police power.

true, yet not rudimentary in some cases.

Of course, but in a very different sense than you do. For me, right and wrong has nothing to do with morality, which distinguishes between good and evil.

How do you specify right or wrong?

Why?

survival could be a reason.

Is it possible to live without laws? Sure. Do I think it is desirable? No, I don't.

Theoretically we could live without laws I agree, but to construct some sort of society laws are absolutely nesscesary.

Much of what you consider to be 'common sense' today would not have been considered 'common sense' several generations ago. There are also people who would disagree that such laws are made to 'protect' people who live in the same country.

I said some laws, not all laws. there are laws specified for the reasons I stated.

This is actually bourgeoisie sense. Privacy is a rather novel invention in history.

territorial behavior on the other hand is not.

That's not common sense.

In today's society this is what happens though.

Now you are projecting a human concept upon non-human life.

Is that flawed? Can we not argue that all animals have to eat and breath, just like humans? Even more, Humans are animals.

No. They are entirely separable. Civilization is a High Culture in its death phase.

How would high culture come to exist without civilisation?

I would say that laws exist to advance the interests of those with political power over those who do not possess political power. Hate Crime Legislation is an example of this.

Would you argue this is always the case? why?

Laws are created for various reasons, but all laws are derived from authority, from political power.

of course, never disputed that.

On the other hand, 'left liberals' assume that the greatest threat to the individual is concentrated, private economic power. So in order to maximize the freedom of the individual, one must constrain private economic interests, in particular, multinational corporations. Government and wealth redistribution is the means to this end. The left liberals and right liberals rely upon the same fundamental assumptions, they only have different ways of achieving their ends.

govermental control of private owned cooperations does sound like something you could agree with since it would strenghten the ties to the community.

But I am not a liberal, of either the 'left' or 'right' variety. I do not assume that the best life is the life the of the 'free individual'. Far from it. For me, the best life is the beautiful life. The best state is the beautiful state, one composed of beautiful, highly cultured communities which are in turn composed of individuals rooted in the culture and traditions of their communities. The freedom of the individual is not maximized by isolating the individual from his community with 'rights' against his neighbours, but by strengthening his community and his relationship to it.

How would economics be present in your model? for example privitasation.

A community either has the will to preserve itself and does what is necessary to that end or it perishes.

like what?

That is the way I look upon the liberal nations: as dying nations that are so decadent they cannot even reproduce themselves, nations which are being colonized by foreigners precisely because they are sick. Something is sick when it no longer wants to live. The 'why' receives no answer.

The need for getting offpsring has indeed be eliminated by the wealth the people have except for the fact that values of the culture command the people to have children. take away this concept adn the need for reproduction would be eliminated.

Nope, an interpretation, a very strong one.

who decides wheter or not it's a strong argument?

No, I am not. If what goes on here was truly a threat to the existing political order, then I can assure you, this forum would not exist.

this is true.

Its very simple. Spinoza invoke the logical fallacies but does not understand them. The fellow in the above article obviously knew the identity of his source who was merely speaking on the condition of anonymity, or absence.

I could argue propoganda argument under the argument of absence of proof is not the non-existance of proof.

We cannot assume what is present is only what exists.

Your method of debating makes it very difficult or impossible to disprove. Same goes the other way around of course.

Its much easier to knock the foundation out of an argument. It saves one a lot of time, for instance, its easier to cut a drew down by hacking away at its base than by cutting all of its limbs off.

yet it does not grant insight, nor does it give way to counter the other person's view.

Sure did.

we both did then

This is false. I am not simply so narrowminded that I assume presence and existence are synonymous.

Yet it's easier to debate what's present. Also makes things much easier when thinking of political concepts.

This does not follow. We do have a clear reason to assume otherwise, the pressure the Jewish community of New Zealand publically put upon the government.

I cannot but prefer the presence over absence in this case. Then fact that the pressure was public indicates for me that there is no need for behind closed doors conferences.

This is contradicted by the statement of the Jewish community in New Zealand itself. It was always possible that the gov. of New Zealand could make an exception.

Could yes, but the specifics under which exceptions are made differ from the conditions under which Mr. Irving attempts to enter. Still Mr. Irving has a chance, we'll have to wait for the outcome of that.

Perhaps the Jewish community was successful in having Irving excluded from the country. Perhaps this tripe about 'applying the law' is simply more convienent for the Jewish community. After all, if the public knew that the Jewish community was censoring people they do not like, this might cause anti-Semitism, which would 'not be good for the Jews'.

yes under the argument of equality of presence and absence this would be correct. Yet your intepretations and assumptions show signs of bias and predujicsm.
It's difficult to debate with you on this matter, for you knock away my arguments with "The Model of Neutral-Inclusivity"(is that correct?) but on the other hand advocate opinions that are far from neutral.

Correction: That is what the Immigration Service said he was barred for. He was deported from Canada because Canada did not like his views about 'The Holocaust.

the official reasons are stated above.

This does not follow either.

What i'm saying is that I would be barred from NZ aswell were I too be deported from Canada, be it for entirely different resons.

As you have well noticed I have forgone many arguments in favor of first reading up on it and a certain unability to counter argue based on the argument you use. The reason I cannot counter your model is because I have to little knowledge of it and must rely on the information you supply on hand.
For what i've read your model holds truth and I can somewhat understand what you mean.

I must also note that you sometimes bring forth arguments that knock over the word use of my arguments but don't always counter the content of my arguments. Do you reckognise this, if so why do you favor of doing so?

I will give you that you have given me much to think off. I am man enough to admit this to the entire gallery.

An intersting site regarding "THE REALNESS OF FACTS, MODES AND NORMS" is http://www.trinp.org/

cerberus

08-06-2004, 01:58 AM

Fade,
I have been in several court rooms , don't really like to be there and hope never have to be again.
Your own libe of logic would not last in court,you would be told not to waste the courts time and when you tell the Judge you are incapiable of rendering a Judgement which is not coloured by your own values , you would be held in contempt. That is how the real world works Fade.
Now as to lecturing , I was not lecturing , I rarely lecture but believe me if I did you would know about it ;)
Iam have said ti before fade i am enither pro , nor anti -Jewish.
Your conviction that i am pro-jewish is a reflection of your own value system.
( part of which must be if you are not with us you must be against us.)
I prefer to stand with someone when they are right and part from them when they are wrong.
I believe in rights , but with rights come responsibilities.
Yes judges are humans , and humans do err. I refer you again to the "two QC's" both of which will be quick to jump on any such mistakes , like wise the right of appeal will safe guard any errors.
If it has been felt that a Judge has made a mistake , the decision can be reviewed , it occasioanlly happens and errors of judgement have been corrected.

Your views on the integrety of professional historians perhaps reflects your displeasure of their findings which are at odds with your own " perceptitions" of what history should be.
This does make them wrong nor does it paint them as you portray them to be.
In your reply you reflected a finding of the irving action , only it was D.I. who did this. ( Coloured by what he wanted history to be.).
there are rules regarding evidence , if you had been attentive when in court or in class you would be aware of them and not have to say who made such rules at this stage.
Who decides who an expert witness is , again I refer you to your legal classes and your time spent as an observer inthe legal system.
I would suggest that an expert wittness is one who has both experience and a recognised qualification.
No red herring fade , like the " Dalmer " , introduced by DPH you can resort to concrete thinking when it suits you to dismiss a point and to be suitably abstract at others.
No facts.
fade look at it this way a traffic acidnet , two cars , both damaged.
Accidents do not just occur , they are caused. There may be mitigating circumstances . eg a wet road , but there are facts , and these will determine responsibility.
I drive into the back of your car and cause $1,500 worth of damage. When we get out you will say 2 You drove into the bnack of my car"
If I were to answer " Do you think is a fact "
" You say "Yes"
And I answer " It is my interpitation that I did not drive into your car"
How do you answer ? " Quite right , there are no fcats only interpitations , will we each pay our own damages ?"
If its not a constant fade you cannot enforce it , just like my little old lady who was clearly hallunicating.
I did not say a Judge was without values , you are putting words in my mouth.
What I said was a Judge is a professioanl legal person , they are not prone to making judgements based on bringing their own feelings into matters.
No Fade in your own reasoning you want to play both poacher and game keeper.

PaulDavidHewson

08-06-2004, 02:10 AM

fade look at it this way a traffic acidnet , two cars , both damaged.
Accidents do not just occur , they are caused. There may be mitigating circumstances . eg a wet road , but there are facts , and these will determine responsibility.
I drive into the back of your car and cause $1,500 worth of damage. When we get out you will say 2 You drove into the bnack of my car"
If I were to answer " Do you think is a fact "
" You say "Yes"
And I answer " It is my interpitation that I did not drive into your car"
How do you answer ? " Quite right , there are no fcats only interpitations , will we each pay our own damages ?"
If its not a constant fade you cannot enforce it , just like my little old lady who was clearly hallunicating.

LOL quite excellent Cerberus

It's indeed true that fade resorts to the abstract when lacking material proof.
This is the only way he can uphold his anti-semitism.
He cannot prove for a fact that the jews are reposnsilbe for this and that, thus resorting to the absence of presence argument.

Yet, clinically speaking fade's model does hold truth and scientifically speaking it's not flawed to perceive things that way, but when dealing with everyday issues it only serves as a contingent for when all fails.

He utilises the logical fallacy arguments in the same way from time to time. He argued this himself by stating that's easier to knock over the foundation rather than disproving the content.

I do however have to applaud for Fade in the way he uses his three methods, for he can technically speaking defend himself in every scenario if i'm not mistaking.

PaulDavidHewson

08-06-2004, 02:43 AM

as an extra add-on :)

I say that all jews are actually nazi's. This is my opinion of course.I may not be able to prove this prove this, but then again absence is not non-existence is it?
(actually I don't believe in proof since it all relies upon interpretations and this proof comes forth from historicaly indoctrinated use of language based on values which are intemately tied to the system which specifies when something is called proof. that same system is flawed of course since a system depensd on political power which individuals use to keep themselves in power through linguistal use. The reason they stay in power is because of teh jew controlled media which is also responsible for making Irving a holocaust denier)

sorry Fade ;)

No. I am not contradicting myself. You simply do not understand my argument which others seem to grasp.

Your beliefs do contradict on some occasion. Also you often attempt to take advantage of your readers ignorace by using predujicial/biased/propoganda language, combined logical fallacies and the "method of neutrality" to give weight to your arguments.
I can point out where you attempt to do so if you want me to.

FadeTheButcher

08-06-2004, 03:27 AM

:: I've been struggeling with this concept for quite some time now and decided that I will read up on it and give my views on it on another time when I have more indepth knowledge on it. .(that is to say if I don't agree with it, if I agree with it expect another reply of course).

Its very simple, Spinoza. The *world* as it appears to you does not reflect what you would call the *world* as its actually exists. It IS NOT transparent. Instead, it is a creation of your brain from data it takes from your senses. In order to make sense of your experience, you run such experience through the categories imparted to you by your language (which you learned at some point in time) stored in your memory. THIS is why there is no such thing as *objective knowledge*, because such *objective knowledge* IS NOT independent of A.) the senses B.) the perspective C.) language D.) history and E.) values (amongst other things).

That is the argument. I HAVE NOT argued that all interpretations are equal, that interpretations are entirely arbitrary. I HAVE argued that there is no such thing as *objective knowledge* (e.g., facts) because of the reasons outlined above. There is no way to escape the above (the senses, language, history et al) to check one's conclusions. We don't understand 'things-in-themselves'. We only understand things by relating them to other things which they are not, which throw the distinctiveness of the thing you are trying to understand into relief (e.g., one cannot understand 'whiteness' without understanding 'nonwhiteness').

:: The reason it is difficult for me to grasp it because one has to let go of certain concepts which has serverd as a foundation of perceiving things for ones entire life.

These concepts HAVE NOT always existed. Likewise, the erroneous interpretations made through applying such a methodology are themselves historically and socially situated (e.g., the are the product of a certain type of culture in a certain point in its history).

:: Another reason is because I have to translate a rather complex abtract concept into a rather complex abstract concept in dutch.

Alright. I will try to lay it all out for you in elementary terms.

1.) Facts do not exist.
2.) This is because facts are understood to be unmediated, objective knowledge of existence.
3.) This argument does not hold because there is no such thing as unmediated knowledge.
4.) Because knowledge of anything presupposes A.) the senses B.) the perspective C.) socially and historically situated linguistic categories D.) values which enable decisions.

:: Can you point me out some online reading material on this, if you have any names of books it would be good as well for I would probably order it from the internet if it really contains the information I seek to understand the concept you brought forth.

Check out Paul Rabinow's The Foucault Reader for starters. If you are up to it, then you should check out Martin Heidegger's Being and Time. Those should put you off to a good start.

:: The content of your arguments become more clear the more I read on it.

Well, that's good to hear. The point I am making is that knowledge is not something we discover, but something we create. Knowledge is a symbolic interpretation of existence. For instance, a map does not literally represent the places it signifies. It only does so indirectly. The map is not something out there. We create it.

:: Yet attempting to escape linguistics when expressing oneself is rather distancing for one could endlessly argue the opposite based on that model.

Not really. The point I am making here is that you are taking the categories provided to you by your language for granted, as something innocuous. These are the categories that allow you to make sense of your experience. Yet these categories come from somewhere. They are imparted to you by others. Much of what is called 'original thought' is merely repeating these categories. Even more troubling, these categories are our inheritance from past ages when thinking was not so clear.

:: It still would be mere speculation based on predujices.

Its not 'mere speculation'. It is a logical deduction from the theory that Being is always a mixture of presence and absence. The problem with the epistemological model you are using is that it associates Being with presence. This neglects absence, which is often of far more importance.

So lets apply this theory to this given situation. In this case, all we have to go on is what has been A.) reported in the media and B.) told to us by the IS. The problem with this is that everything the media and the IS have told us has another side: what they have chosen not to present to us.

:: What do you believe is the "real" reason behind that certain piece of legislation, Fade?

I am not sure what is the 'real' reason behind the legislation. As I said before, the creation of such legislation is not a transparent process. There is much we do not know and cannot verify.

:: They obviously did this to save themselves the embarresement when he would be allowed in and they wouldn't have said anything and to get some attention onto Mr. Irving for his beliefs.

Their aim was to silence David Irving. This was because they do not like his views. His views are perceived to be 'bad for the Jews'. This was the motive that led them to lobby the government to exclude him from New Zealand, not concern for the immigration laws of NZ (in light of their quite different reaction to the passport scandal).

:: They both performed research in order to produce a historically researched document.

I would say that they both performed the research in order to advance what they both perceive to be their own goals.

:: the reasons for deporting Irving from canada can be found here:

From Irving's website:

"Canadian Immigration Trumps up a charge against David Irving (but it won't wash, as the German "conviction" has to have an exact parallel under Canadian law -- and it does not)."

:: I clearly states the reasons for Irving's deportation.

i.e. the Canadian government censors views it does not like.

:: For the Canadian goverment these reasons were enough to deport him. New Zealand can withing the confines of their law exclude him to enter.

I am not so much interested in why New Zealand has such laws as I am interested in how they are used. In this case, it is obvious to me that the laws of New Zealand have been used to justify, albeit indirectly, the censorship of unpopular views. An analagous situation would be how the tax code in America has been used by the IRS at the behest of various Presidents to persecute their enemies.

:: YOu say they actively "pressured" the goverment while this is also speculation.

The article was quite clear about that point.

:: Nope.

Alright then. I will start collecting data with regards to your posts, how you throw around the words 'facts' and 'opinion's which will serve as variables.

:: I will read up on it for the expantion of my own knowledge. But I will argue that all humans can and do sometimes come to the same conclusion. This is what people call facts. It's a mere shortening for a concept that you are trying to explain. The conlcusion does not have to be lasting. it can be temporarily.

Let me help you out:

Argumentum ad numerum (http://<b>argumentum%20ad%20numerum</b>)

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum). It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum

:: To get it straight, you are arguing that one can find a different use of a certain object than what it was intended by it's creator when that person would have lived under totalily different circumstances than the other, correct?

Somewhat. I am not sure if you are coming at this from the same angle I am here though. Sure. The meaning of words and concepts change all the time.

:: Alright. This change led from the belief that certain groups have "better" lives than others. Yes that is all matter of perspective.

Perhaps there was a change in the composition of elites after the Second World War. Maybe this new elite redefined what is considered 'mainstream' and 'legitimate' in order to best advance their own interests.

:: water does change from it's state under certain conditions, right?

Water is a linguistic concept, the properties of which change from time to time.

:: Yet, the observation that water changes it's state under certain conditions has been around since the beginning, has it not?

No. Ancient cultures had very different interpretations of what we would call 'water' today. For instance, in pre-Christian Germanic Europe, water was considered to be a divine element, which is why it was so often used in ordeals. The accused would often be hogtied and thrown into streams. The theory that operated here was that water, being a divine element, would not accept guilty individuals who would float. The innocent, being uncorrupted, were expected to sink. Guilt or innocence was decided on this basis.

:: Yet again, everyone would perceive that water somehow changes.

This is false. In Ancient Greece, presence was considered to be merely illusory. Humans were thought to be part of an unchanging natural order.

:: The reasons for this are not important. Important is that it does happen.

This is a socially and historically situated perspective. As I pointed out to you, it would not have been unusual for the Ancient Greeks to deny that water changes.

:: So our debate did change a certain perspective for you then?

No. I have made the same argument previously with jonny.

:: You wouldn't, but many would.

So what?

Argumentum ad numerum (http://<b>argumentum%20ad%20numerum</b>)

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum). It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum

:: I will not refrain from foregoing Humanitarism in some way.

Humanitarianism comes from the more sophisticated Christian theory that all humans possess inate value because they were made in God's image.

:: I still believe in alleviating on's grief merely because I feel it's right to do so.

And why do you feel it is the right thing to do? You see. You really don't know why. You are a degenerate Christian who lives in a degenerate Christian society. You have forgotten that this comes from the Christian ethic of unconditional love.

:: I believe Joy in life is important for me as for others.

Why do you believe this? Better yet, who would have had such notions several thousand years ago?

:: true, yet not rudimentary in some cases.

Its a mystification.

:: How do you specify right or wrong?

I deduce right and wrong from what I consider to be my goals. 'Right' is what strengthens us, what increases our power. 'Wrong' is that which weakens us, which paralyzes and inhibits us from advancing our interests. I don't believe in transcendental right and wrong.

:: survival could be a reason.

There are peoples and individuals who do not want to survive.

:: Theoretically we could live without laws I agree, but to construct some sort of society laws are absolutely nesscesary.

There was a time when Europeans more or less lived without laws and in terror. I am aware of what life was like during such centuries, how artificial our surroundings are.

:: I said some laws, not all laws. there are laws specified for the reasons I stated.

Laws are made for various reasons. All laws are derived from authority however. Authority, not morality, decides.

:: territorial behavior on the other hand is not.

This is also an artifact of Western modernity.

:: In today's society this is what happens though.

The dispute is one over the historicity of 'common sense'.

:: Is that flawed?

Yes. There is an important difference between humans and other animals. Humans are conscious of their consciousness.

:: Can we not argue that all animals have to eat and breath, just like humans? Even more, Humans are animals.

Humans are animals. There is a great amount of difference within this category, however. That is the point.

:: How would high culture come to exist without civilisation?

High Culture precedes the civilization phase. Civilizations (enormous human settlements) are made possible by the highly complicated cultural forms worked out in rural and spiritual phrase of the culture that precedes it. As I said before, civilization is an era of decline, when cultural-men disintegrate back into mere humanity. The huge urban settlements ultimately sap the life out of the civilization which is unable to reproduce itself. This is how it dies.

:: govermental control of private owned cooperations does sound like something you could agree with since it would strenghten the ties to the community.

I would agree that the private interests of multinational corporations should be subordinated to the common good of the communities they do business in. Economics should never be an end-in-itself, as it is in our culture.

:: How would economics be present in your model? for example privitasation.

In our society, economics is an end in itself. Art is simply a means to economic ends. It is used mostly in advertising to peddle products to consumers. In my model, precisely the opposite would be the case. The end would be art, not economics. The economy would be subordinated to cultural aims.

:: Would you argue this is always the case? why?

Yes. Authority decides.

:: like what?

Like our own society. It is ceasing to exist as a result of A.) colonisation by aliens and B.) negative birthrates. This only seems to concern a very few people, like myself and the people who post on this website. That speaks volumes about how sick the society we live in has become: when we actually debate the continued existence of our own culture and people.

Just think about this for a second. In our society, those who actually DO CARE about the future of our culture and people are mercilessly slandered and persecuted. NO ONE is more hated in our culture than those (e.g., 'racists') who would defend it from those who want to do it harm. On the other hand, those who trivialize, relativize, and despise everything about Western Civilisation are held to upstanding individuals worthy of acclaim and admiration.

:: The need for getting offpsring has indeed be eliminated by the wealth the people have except for the fact that values of the culture command the people to have children. take away this concept adn the need for reproduction would be eliminated.

Such an event is not unprecedented at all. For instance, there was massive depopulation caused by negative birthrates towards the end of the Western Roman Empire.

:: who decides wheter or not it's a strong argument?

The gallery.

:: I could argue propoganda argument under the argument of absence of proof is not the non-existance of proof.

You are not coming through clear here in English.

:: Yet it's easier to debate what's present. Also makes things much easier when thinking of political concepts.

What is absent, that remains the mystery. This is why I consider absence to be more interesting than presence.

:: I cannot but prefer the presence over absence in this case. Then fact that the pressure was public indicates for me that there is no need for behind closed doors conferences.

Explain why the individuals in the above article were allowed to enter the country whereas Irving was excluded.

:: Your method of debating makes it very difficult or impossible to disprove. Same goes the other way around of course.

I have done away with that epistemological model entirely.

:: yet it does not grant insight, nor does it give way to counter the other person's view.

Sure it does. By analyzing the concepts one uses to make one's interpretation one can show the distorting effect of such concepts.

:: Could yes, but the specifics under which exceptions are made differ from the conditions under which Mr. Irving attempts to enter. Still Mr. Irving has a chance, we'll have to wait for the outcome of that.

The above article has shed greater light upon the subject.

:: yes under the argument of equality of presence and absence this would be correct. Yet your intepretations and assumptions show signs of bias and predujicsm.

It is a logical deduction from the model I am using.

:: It's difficult to debate with you on this matter, for you knock away my arguments with "The Model of Neutral-Inclusivity"(is that correct?) but on the other hand advocate opinions that are far from neutral.

I have tried to dispel this notion of neutrality throughout this thread. At no point have I suggested that my own perspective is in anyway neutral.

:: the official reasons are stated above.

Yet they do not explain why the above individuals were allowed to enter.

:: What i'm saying is that I would be barred from NZ aswell were I too be deported from Canada, be it for entirely different resons.

You could always be allowed to enter too, like the several dozen individuals who were allowed to enter NZ but should have been excluded under its laws.

FadeTheButcher

08-06-2004, 03:31 AM

:: Nowhere did it state they pressured the goverment. Of course you will counter argue this by stating that I prefer the presence over absence.

Absence is not non-existence, Spinoza. Observe:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/08/NZ_bigots_040804.html

'Banned' visitors allowed into NZ

By COLIN ESPINER

THE Immigration Service approved 34 visits to New Zealand last year by people automatically banned under the same law being used by the Government to halt the visit of historian David Irving.

Prime Minister Helen Clark has blocked the visit of the controversial Holocaust revisionist on the grounds that the Immigration Act bars entry to anyone previously deported from another country. "It's not their (Immigration Service) decision," Miss Clark said on Monday [Aug 2]. "The way our law is written if he has been deported from another country he is automatically denied entry to New Zealand.

"It would take a special positive direction to give him entry and that I imagine would have to come up to the level of a minister and I would be astonished if the minister allowed him entry," she said.

Information obtained from the service yesterday shows that 81 people were denied entry to New Zealand under Section 7 of the Immigration Act in the year to July. The section deals with visitors with criminal convictions, deportation orders, or a history of drug possession.

This section is being used to ban Irving, who was deported from Canada (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Canada/index.html) 13 years ago and has a minor conviction (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Germany/docs/Conviction170791.html) for breaching a German law designed to clamp down on neo-Nazi groups.

But in the same period, 34 visits by people banned under Section 7 were subsequently approved on appeal to the service - none of which went to the Immigration Minister Paul Swain.

Service spokeswoman Kathryn O'Sullivan said the service itself had dealt with all of the applications for special directions under Section 7.

Just six were declined, and five were withdrawn. The service declined to consider 18 applications. Section 7 of the Immigration Act allows ministerial intervention for any reason the Government sees fit.

FadeTheButcher

08-06-2004, 04:49 AM

:: as an extra add-on I say that all jews are actually nazi's.

Alright.

:: This is my opinion of course.I may not be able to prove this prove this, but then again absence is not non-existence is it?

Absence is not evidence of non-existence. Yet the political beliefs of Jews are not entirely absent.

:: Your beliefs do contradict on some occasion.

As I stated, you simply are not grasping my argument.

:: Also you often attempt to take advantage of your readers ignorace by using predujicial/biased/propoganda language, combined logical fallacies and the "method of neutrality" to give weight to your arguments.

I have not suggested that my own views are independent of my own values and prejudices. I have been quite clear on that. Furthermore, I have not suggested that my own arguments are 'neutral' or 'objective' either, despite your claim that is the case. I do use the logical fallacies to point out to you the errors you are making in your reasoning, for your benefit and for the gallery's benefit.

:: I can point out where you attempt to do so if you want me to.

Do that.

Edana

08-06-2004, 05:26 AM

This is how the Jewish press reported to themselves:

(JTA) - Holocaust denier plans New Zealand visit

New Zealand's Jewish community is taking steps to block a visit by Holocaust denier David Irving. Irving said that in addition to giving speeches, he plans to spend time at the National Archives researching a book on Winston Churchill. David Zwartz, president of the New Zealand Jewish Council, wrote to the country's ethnic affairs minister asking him to block the visit.

LINK (http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2004/07/22/news/world/aaa.txt)

FadeTheButcher

08-06-2004, 05:30 AM

:: Fade, I have been in several court rooms , don't really like to be there and hope never have to be again.

The notion that the court room is analagous to a scientific research lab should come as a surprise to many of the lawyers I know, those who engage, first and foremost, in rhetorical/psychological contests.

:: Your own libe of logic would not last in court,you would be told not to waste the courts time and when you tell the Judge you are incapiable of rendering a Judgement which is not coloured by your own values , you would be held in contempt. That is how the real world works Fade.

No, cerberus. That is not how the 'real world' works at all. That is how the judicial system of a specific culture works (supposedly!), which is hardly true for all cultures across history, even our own. The judicial system operates quite differently today than it did in the past. Well, not really (more like in theory).

:: Now as to lecturing , I was not lecturing , I rarely lecture but believe me if I did you would know about it

Want to discuss Western legal theory prior to the 12th century? I am up to it. I just did some research about this very subject, actually.

:: I am have said ti before fade i am enither pro , nor anti -Jewish.

cerberus (an philo-Semitic apologist for the Jews) pretends here to adopt a standpoint of 'neutrality', once again, for the sole purpose of trying to mislead the gallery with a rhetorical device. I will let the gallery decide this matter for themselves. cerberus' posts are available to anyone who cares to read them.

:: Your conviction that i am pro-jewish is a reflection of your own value system.

My conviction that you are pro-Jewish reflects my observation of your behaviour here at this forum. I would say there are many others here who have came to precisely the same conclusion.

:: ( part of which must be if you are not with us you must be against us.)

I have not made that argument, cerberus. I have made my judgment by observing the themes you constantly harp on here at this forum.

:: I prefer to stand with someone when they are right and part from them when they are wrong.

i.e. people are right when they reflect cerberus' own philo-Semitic values. They are wrong when they do not. cerberus made it quite clear in the other thread that he interpreted WW2 in moral terms. I shall remind the gallery of that here.

:: I believe in rights , but with rights come responsibilities.

Okay. What rights do you believe in? Better yet, where did this entire discourse about 'rights' come from in the first place?

:: Yes judges are humans , and humans do err.

How is this possible, cerberus?

:: I refer you again to the "two QC's" both of which will be quick to jump on any such mistakes , like wise the right of appeal will safe guard any errors.

That's a nice theory. That is about all it is.

:: If it has been felt that a Judge has made a mistake , the decision can be reviewed , it occasioanlly happens and errors of judgement have been corrected.

See above.

:: Your views on the integrety of professional historians perhaps reflects your displeasure of their findings which are at odds with your own " perceptitions" of what history should be.

No. My views of the integrity of 'professional historians' is actually widespread within the discipline of historiography. See Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography (2004) by Aviezer Tucker for yet another recent example.

:: This does make them wrong nor does it paint them as you portray them to be.

"The positivist model of knowledge was debated around the saem period. In historiography, this debate focused on Hempel's covering law model of explanation, discussed in the previous chapter. Some philosophers and historians claimed that scientific historiography is impossible for epistemic or metaphysical reasons and hence the positivist analysis of historiography is misleading in elevating a chimerical fantasy to the level of a prescriptive ideal. During the sixties, the received positivist model of science crashed. Consequently, Idealist and other philosophers lost interest in proving that historiography cannot be a science at lest in its positivist sense, and analytic philosophers gradually lost interest in proving that the positivist model is applicable to historiography."

Aviezer Tucker, Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.209

:: In your reply you reflected a finding of the irving action , only it was D.I. who did this. ( Coloured by what he wanted history to be.).

Alright. I want you to answer the following to questions:

1.) Do the values of historians colour how they present their material?
2.) Does Deborah Lipstadt's values manifest themselves in her book?
3.) Does Ian Kershaw's values manifest themselves in his books?

:: there are rules regarding evidence . . .

And these came from where?

:: . . . if you had been attentive when in court or in class you would be aware of them and not have to say who made such rules at this stage.

Once again, where do the rules come from cerberus? Btw, I am well aware of where they come from. I want to see if YOU know.

:: Who decides who an expert witness is , again I refer you to your legal classes and your time spent as an observer inthe legal system.

Who decides? AUTHORITY DECIDES.

:: I would suggest that an expert wittness is one who has both experience and a recognised qualification.

Yet someone has to decide whether a given individual has 'experience' and a 'recognised qualification', someone invested with authority.

:: No red herring fade

Yes, it is a red herring, for it has nothing logically to do with this debate.

::. . like the " Dalmer " , introduced by DPH you can resort to concrete thinking when it suits you to dismiss a point and to be suitably abstract at others. No facts.

You know. Eskimos really have nothing to do with this debate either, but lets discuss eskimos, dinosaurs, and Pluto anyway. :rolleyes:

:: fade look at it this way a traffic acidnet , two cars , both damaged.

This is not a traffic accident, cerberus.

*sigh*

Here we go again, drifting further and further off-topic.

:: Accidents do not just occur , they are caused.

This is another naive theory which I will deal with specifically in the Philosophy forum, as if youth causes old age.

:: There may be mitigating circumstances . eg a wet road , but there are facts , and these will determine responsibility.

These are not 'facts' at all. They are interpretations that one makes from a given vantagepoint.

:: I drive into the back of your car and cause $1,500 worth of damage.

There is no such thing as objective value.

:: When we get out you will say 2 You drove into the bnack of my car"
If I were to answer " Do you think is a fact "" You say "Yes"

I don't know why you are putting words into my mouth. Once again, cerberus is carrying on a conversation with himself.

:: And I answer " It is my interpitation that I did not drive into your car"How do you answer ?

I answer that you are mistaken.

:: " Quite right , there are no fcats only interpitations , will we each pay our own damages ?"

Here cerberus sets up a straw man and knocks it over. I have not argued that all interpretations are equal because facts do not exist.

:: If its not a constant fade you cannot enforce it , just like my little old lady who was clearly hallunicating.

Well. To be frank, you are the one who seems to be hallucinating here, suggesting that unmediated knowledge of existence is possible.

:: I did not say a Judge was without values , you are putting words in my mouth.

You argued that his decision was made independently from his values. I emphatically disagree. Indeed, Carl Schmitt has destroyed this theory of law.

:: What I said was a Judge is a professioanl legal person , they are not prone to making judgements based on bringing their own feelings into matters.

This is an old positivist myth.

:: No Fade in your own reasoning you want to play both poacher and game keeper.

cerberus makes a tu quoque argument.

FadeTheButcher

08-06-2004, 05:39 AM

@Edana

According to Spinoza, we do not have 'material proof' that this is the case.

@Spinoza

:: LOL quite excellent Cerberus

Car accidents have no logical relationship to David Irving's exclusion from New Zealand, Spinoza.

:: It's indeed true that fade resorts to the abstract when lacking material proof. This is the only way he can uphold his anti-semitism.

Its all a CONSPIRACY. LOFR the idea that the Jews censor organize themselves politically to censor views they do not like is ABSURD and FANATICAL. Indeed, it is only something STUPID nazis and anti-semites who irrationally hate the Jews believe. :rolleyes:

"New Zealand's Jewish community is taking steps to block a visit by Holocaust denier David Irving."

:: He cannot prove for a fact that the jews are reposnsilbe for this and that, thus resorting to the absence of presence argument.

Spinoza's argument is basically the non sequitur that we can infer David Irving was excluded from NZ on the basis of NZ's immigration laws simply because the government of NZ has said so.

:: Yet, clinically speaking fade's model does hold truth and scientifically speaking it's not flawed to perceive things that way, but when dealing with everyday issues it only serves as a contingent for when all fails.

It is ILLOGICAL to assume absence is non-existence, Spinoza. Something can be hidden or concealed yet still exist.

:: He utilises the logical fallacy arguments in the same way from time to time.

I point out the errors in your reasoning so that you may learn to make better arguments in the future. You only started to use the logical fallacies after you came here, actually.

:: He argued this himself by stating that's easier to knock over the foundation rather than disproving the content.

*sigh*

One can invalidate a consequent by undermining its antecedent.

FadeTheButcher

08-06-2004, 08:34 AM

Holocaust denier is likely to test immigration ruling

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/08/NZ_bigots_020804.html

By TRACY WATKINS

HOLOCAUST denier David Irving appears set to test an Immigration Service ruling barring him entry after announcing he intends to proceed with a visit to speak in New Zealand.

But his prospects could be bleak, after Prime Minister Helen Clark (right) indicated that any political decision about his right to enter would be influenced by the actions of other "like-minded" countries. "If he's been deported from other like-minded countries or denied entry to other like-minded countries that could carry a heavy weight with any New Zealand Government thinking."

Irving is calling the refusal to let him enter the work of the "traditional enemies of free speech (http://www.fpp.co.uk/menus/traditionals.html)" and says on his website that moves by the Jewish community to gag him have caused "outrage in New Zealand".

Immigration officials confirmed on Friday that Irving was not eligible to enter New Zealand because he had been deported from other countries.

Irving was scheduled to speak (http://www.focal.org/speaks) to the National Press Club in Wellington next month and also intends using his visit for research on a book about Winston Churchill (http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Churchill/index.html). He said at the weekend that he intended to honour the invitation to speak in New Zealand.

"I know exactly what the legal position is and I will be in New Zealand on the time and date that I've specified," he told National Radio.

The Jewish community has welcomed Immigration's decision, saying Irving is "well known for his anti-Jewish writings and activities . . . and an active Holocaust denier".

But free-speech advocates say Irving should be allowed to express an opinion. His books are widely available here and his internet site is easily accessible.

The National Press Club has said that people should be able to make up their own minds about Irving's views. The Immigration Service has said that Irving's only chance of entry would be to seek a "special direction". In most cases, that is dealt with by the Immigration Service but in some instances it can be referred to the immigration minister.http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/std/dings/square.gif

©Copyright 2004

FadeTheButcher

08-06-2004, 08:37 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1091416715122

Government officials in Jerusalem expressed satisfaction at New Zealand's decision to refuse Holocaust denier David Irving entry to the country, saying that granting Irving passage would have been viewed in Israel and elsewhere as an act of revenge for the recent passport scandal.

Officials said this message was passed on by New Zealand's Jewish leadership to senior officials in the New Zealand government at a recent ceremony at the cemetery where Jewish graves were desecrated two weeks ago.

The message was delivered after New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and Foreign Minister Phil Goff initially said there is no need to deny Irving entry into the country. Goff was quoted as saying there is no reason not to allow him into New Zealand unless he carried out serious crimes.

Irving was invited to give a lecture in September to the National Press Club in Wellington.

"We are glad that wiser counsel prevailed," one Israeli government official said.

Israelis Uriel Kelman and Eli Cara were sentenced to six months in jail and fined $100,000 last month for trying to fraudulently obtain a New Zealand passport. New Zealand is convinced the two were Mossad agents, and the incident has cast a heavy cloud over Israel-New Zealand relations.

The New Zealand Immigration Service said over the weekend that Irving would be prohibited from entering New Zealand because he had been deported from another country.

The New Zealand Herald quoted Immigration Service spokesman Kathryn O'Sullivan as saying that "Under the Immigration Act people who have been deported from another country are refused entry." The Immigration Service said that if Irving wished to enter New Zealand he would have to put in a special request, but that these are usually only reserved for humanitarian reasons. Irving was expelled from Canada in 1992, and has also been denied entry to Germany and Australia.

The New Zealand Herald quoted Irving as saying he still plans to visit New Zealand. The paper quoted an e-mail from Irving in which he wrote, "My information provided by London travel authorities when I purchased air tickets to New Zealand four months ago is that as a UK citizen I have automatic right of entry for six months."

"I know exactly what the legal position is and I will be in New Zealand on the time and date that I've specified. I received a very nice invitation from New Zealanders to come and speak and I will honor that invitation," he told New Zealand's National Radio.

New Zealand Green MP Keith Locke blasted the decision, and criticized the Immigration Service for not upholding freedom of speech.

Variations on this freedom-of-speech argument on Irving's behalf were repeated in three editorials in New Zealand newspapers that criticized the Immigration Service's decision. The Southland Times wrote in an editorial that the decision by the Immigration Service "appears to be one of the law rather than the entreaties of Jewish groups. He has been deported from Canada and, on that basis alone, falls foul of New Zealand's Immigration Act, which simply refuses entry to people who have been deported from another country. That smacks of a worrying tendency for New Zealand lawmakers to let other countries do our thinking for us."

The newspaper quoted Green MP Locke as saying that not letting him into New Zealand because Canada deported him is similar to "banning Salman Rushdie because Iran does not like him." Then the newspaper – in an allusion to the passport scandal – added, "Mr. Irving himself can be forgiven for the snarkiness of his own preferred comparison: at least, he said, he would not be traveling on a quadriplegic's stolen passport and wearing a balaclava and dark glasses."

Dr. Brandt

08-06-2004, 08:53 AM

Then the newspaper – in an allusion to the passport scandal – added, "Mr. Irving himself can be forgiven for the snarkiness of his own preferred comparison: at least, he said, he would not be traveling on a quadriplegic's stolen passport and wearing a balaclava and dark glasses."

LOL! Hilarious!

cerberus

08-06-2004, 01:14 PM

Fade ,
I was surprised that you had to ask who decides who might be regarded an expert or what rules govern evidence.
I might be able to take a good photograph but does this make me an expert ?
Yes I do and can easily check , my brother in-law is a "Legal Eagle" , he is in court at least 1-2 days per week. ( And is more than welcome to it !)
My main aim in life is to stay out of court and away from the legal guys. :)
12th century law , of no interest to me at all , sorry.

The example of the car crash was only an example which you ignored.
BTW if there is no such thing as objective value , give me the $1500 . :D

Fade I am not Pro- Jewish , just anti- what they went through and anti- the political and racist system which visited the misery upon them.

This does not make me "Pro-Jewish" , nor am I "Anti-Jewish".

Your own mindset will always present you with the "Pro" or "Anti" choice , you can't accept that anyone can be neutral were Jews are concerned.
To you Jews are very important , I just sense that you cannot acept that they are not be so to others.

Judges are human they can make mistakes , that much is obvious , any QC doing his job will be alert for any threat to the clients interests , its what he is paid to do.
They too have to put their own values and views in their pockets. ( Doctors have to do the same , it can be done , takes a degree of disicpline but it can be done).
Fade , as far as "harping on" goes , you will note that I may reply but don't make repeated posts about or place links to "Jewish" related questions.
You must ( along with others) sell your green house if you intend to throw stones :)

Rights. Good question , I replied to a point you made when you said " I do not believe in rights".
"U. E." , I was more interested in your saying that there are only interpiditations and no facts.
Must go , work calls.

FadeTheButcher

08-07-2004, 09:38 PM

cerberus, I shall reply to your response when I get back from the mall. It looks like we are going over the same ground here. In other news . . .

David Irving comments:

NOW here's a strange occurrence. On Tuesday morning, August 3, I received an email from Michael Vance (Michael.Vance@press.co.nz), an editor of The Press, the leading newspaper of Christchurch, New Zealand, asking me to write an article in these terms: "We are seeking a piece from you outlining why you should be allowed to visit New Zealand - 1500 words would be ideal and we would pay [...] ... The Press is published in Christchurch and circulates to all the South Island. Yours sincerely, Michael Vance, Associate editor"

The fee offered was not fat, but what the hell. I said yes and submitted within four or five hours the article on the left.

Thud. Ooof. Silence. Not announced, not acknowledged, and not published. I wonder how often that happens to one of the Traditional Enemy who submits an Op-Ed piece to, say, The Los Angeles Times, even an uncommissioned one (but this one was commissioned).

In a breach of editorial etiquette, Vance not only failed to publish, he has ignored several requests from me since then even to acknowledge the article. I am beginning to worry for him. He seems to have fallen off the end of the Earth.

I do hope that nothing has happened to this brave associate editor of the South Island's leading newspaper?

"Rather than let me in, Canberra changed the law"

By David Irving

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/08/NZ_bigots_DI_responds.html

THIS is not a controversy of my own making. I gave notice of my coming to New Zealand on my website last year. I have friends in New Zealand, and scores of Australians have also expressed to me an interest in flying over the Tasman to meet me again. As of this morning, ninety-one have pre-registered and asked for more details.

In April or May I wrote to the New Zealand archives about permission to use the papers of Peter Fraser, the wartime premier. I purchased back in May the Qantas tickets that will take me from Los Angeles to Auckland next month. I had made no actual speaking plans, and fixed no locations, until I received an invitation from the National Press Club in Wellington to speak. I had no idea there would be this knee-jerk reaction, this sudden flare-up in parts of the New Zealand community.

I suspect that had it not been for the trial of the two alleged Mossad (http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/Mossad/index.html) agents in the passport fraud case, and the precipitous flight to Israel (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/07/NZ_230704_4thMan.html) of the Kiwi accused of being their accomplice, none of this would have occurred. Like the gravestones (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-eur/2004/jul/16/071603658.html) outrage, making a fuss about my visit provides a useful distraction for New Zealanders from the grim business of what the Mossad may have been up to in their back yard.

The small NZ Jewish community is not a body that I had intended visiting, speaking to, or indeed even speaking about.

I had been assured by the London travel agents I have dealt with for nearly fifty years that "any British Passport holder with the right of abode in the UK is entitled to travel into New Zealand visa free for a stay of 6 months." Two weeks ago they confirmed this. Which was as I thought.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/std/dings/squaregrey.gif BUT then, I was once wrong about Australia too. I had visited that country twice, seen my Churchill biography's first volume sweep to the top of the Sydney Morning Herald best-sellers -- and then I was banned (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Australia/index.html). I fought four legal actions, won two and lost two.

The Full Federal Court court admonished Canberra that the ban on me was illegal. Rather than let me in, Canberra changed the immigration law.

It gets worse. One of my five daughters has married an Australian; she lives in Brisbane, is an Australian citizen and civil servant: I have an automatic "next of kin" right to enter, right?

Wrong -- John Howard has announced that they will change that law too, if necessary. He knows which side his party's bread is buttered.

So how is it with New Zealand? I have visited New Zealand peacefully before, caused no riots, broken no laws. "Nobody died," as they now say in England, comparing others with Tony Blair and his more egregious misdemeanours. I have a clean criminal record; have had a clean driving licence for fifty years; and I don't smoke, I've never done drugs, and I don't commit any of the other solecisms upon which modern society frowns. But NZ, it turns out, is a tough country to get into (unless, it seems, you use the stolen identity of a quadruple paraplegic and wear dark glasses). I have read in the newspapers -- in other words it is still rather wooly and unofficial -- that some mid-level immigration official has defined that I "can" be barred from the country because I have "been deported."

DeportedThat is true: twelve years ago, in 1992, under very dark and mysterious circumstances, I found myself being paraded before the media across three thousand miles of Canada (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Canada/index.html) from Vancouver to Ontario, tried there by an immigration court (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Canada/Legal/NiagFallsAdjudication.html) for three weeks on a pretext, and bundled out of the country on the floor of an Air Canada plane.

I managed to hold a pen in my manacled hands, as a small statement of protest. After all, I am a writer, and how many writers are subjected to this kind of thing?

I would like some journalist one day to ask that mid-level NZ Immigration official -- the one who says I "can" be barred: "How many people (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/08/NZ_bigots_040804.html) has your service actually barred recently on the grounds that they have 'been deported' elsewhere?" Or is it just me?

Suppose some friendly country's fine journalist is deported from Iran for writing about their uranium-enrichment plants: Barred from New Zealand now? BBC journalists are constantly being deported, for instance from a certain Middle East country, because of BBC reporting about Palestine: if they want to holiday in New Zealand, are they going to find themselves tossed onto the floor at the Heathrow check-in counter, trussed and handcuffed and dumped on the sidewalk outside?

Of course not. Thinking people may even regard what such journalists write as being that much more reliable, as they are willing to go the extra mile, even if it offends national or other vested interests, when they want to find out and publish the truth. Which brings us to the crunch point: I fancy I hear that mid-level immigration official say, that's a different story: the BBC guy was writing views of which we approve; this David Irving guy doesn't, he's a denier.

A denier

Well, actually he isn't that either. I deny it.

It all began in 1990 when I said in a public meeting in Munich (http://www.fpp.co.uk/speeches/Weinheim030900.html), Germany (alright, it was in a huge beerhall), that the "gas chamber they show to the tourists in Auschwitz concentration camp is a fake, built after the war."

Under Germany (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Germany/docs/index.html)'s current laws, I was fined DM.30,000 (around $25,000) for that one remark, and in 1993 permanently excluded (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Germany/docs/Ausweisung091193.html) from Germany: which caused my enemies much glee, as most of my sources, archives, and publishers are there.

That ban is illegal under United Nations human rights treaties, under the Helsinki Accords, and under European law, but what the hell: I can live without the Germans. I have of course abided by the ban -- even though the Polish Government admitted in 1995 (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Conan.html#fake) that the building in question, the one shown to the tourists, was erected by the Polish communist authorities in 1948, three years after the war ended. But it was used to justify the proceedings in Canada. So effectively you are allowing Germany to decide who can visit New Zealand and speak to audiences there -- a privilege most of us would consider Germany to have forfeited consequent on the events of 1939-1945.

PoisonousIn her 1996 book Denying the Holocaust, American scholar Deborah Lipstadt called me the most dangerous of "their" opponents. She called me a "Holocaust denier." It is a poisonous label, like "paedophile," and I fought back.

From January to April 2000 I fought a historic three-month libel action (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/index.html) in London, at great personal expense, to shake off that easy smear. The defendants, funded (as they admitted) by Stephen Spielberg (http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial3/3sat.html) and all the usual media oligarchs, poured around ten million NZ dollars into the London High Court to defend themselves. Ten million. If it was that obvious, they could have done the job in a day at a fraction of the cost.

In the end I lost. Loser pays all, that's the rule in the UK. My Mayfair home of 38 years was seized and sold, along with my library and research archives and everything that I and my family owned. But I don't regret having fought back.

I would do it again. I had to act as a litigant in person, as I could not afford the million-dollar fees that the great libel counsel charge. One of them, the late great George Carman QC, told his son that he thought on the evidence that I should have won.

For three months I was outnumbered in that court room, forty to one: forty barristers, lawyers, solicitors, historians, graduate students, assistants, and the rest, on one side of the courtroom, and myself on the other.

The other side have already produced six books on the Lipstadt Trial (including four written by their expert witnesses who swore on oath (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Pelt/testifies250100.html), when I cross examined them as to their neutrality, that they were not planning to write such books) and two films, and I hear that HBO are making a film too, with Anthony Hopkins, "Hannibal Lecter," playing myself.

I HAVE never written either a book or article about what they call the Holocaust. Anybody who has read my books knows what I have written on the Jewish tragedy of WW2, and what my position is: Much of the popular version of events is true, horribly so; about some of it we are entitled to be sceptical; and some of it is just plain made up.

A historian can't, or at least he shouldn't, ignore that, if he's going to do his job right: and few experts in my field have denied my qualities as an historian. Even Sir Charles Gray, the judge in the libel action, whose words against me (http://www.fpp.co.uk/trial/judgment/index.html) are quoted with such profligacy by my opponents, also stated emphatically in his 333-page judgment that my knowledge of World War II is "unparalleled (http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/judgment/extract1.html)".

In my Hitler and Goebbels biographies I gave full details of the anti-Jewish atrocities committed by the Nazis, in fact fuller than most accounts (and, by the way, just try to buy my books in any NZ high-street bookstore, and then read again where David Zwartz says, as he does in a letter to an American professor this morning, that my books, tapes, and videos "are available to anyone who wishes to access them, so there is no question of suppressing his [my] ideas.")

That is why the "denier" taunt is so offensive to me. It is a poisonous label, and Zwartz and his ilk fling it around at will to silence their more dangerous critics, and the skeptics, who are then robbed of any means of defence by the bans, deportations, and other devices which the puzzled New Zealanders are now seeing being deployed in their own country.

New Zealanders should say, If Mr Irving is free to visit the whole of Africa, South America, Asia, the United States (where I now commute, research, and live six months of every year) and Russia, why is he being kept from us and we from him?

Even Nelson Mandela's South Africa has lifted the ban imposed on my speaking there, stating that it had been imposed by "the discredited outgoing apartheid regime." If a small community despises me, they do not have to come and hear me. They can build a wall and retreat behind it until I am gone. I am not interested in them. In fact I am not going to be saying anything about them or their history at all.