Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
nice.
Now dictionary.com is pretty good since they usually also put up legal definitions as well.
quote:
1. So a Holocaust is great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
Was the loss of life by fire?
Exactly how many lives is classified as extensive? 3? 5? 25? 100?
How about 911? That would be classified as a holocaust too right?
Nope nothing conclusive there.
quote:
a. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II
Holocaust is genocide but only in the case of world war 2 europeon Jews?
So holocaust only applies to Jews and some others? What others?
Who exactly are europeon Jews?
quote:
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.
Holocaust is a sacrificial offering?
Who practiced this form of sacrifice?
quote:
Usage Note: Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the massive destruction of humans by other humans.
How much mass is massive? 3? 5? 25? 100?
So if you machine gunned down a bunch of people it would be a holocaust?
So what happened to massacre? Slaughter? Did we need holocaust to replace them for some reason?
Who is chartered to make it secure? The government?
quote:
Ninety-nine percent of the Usage Panel accepts the use of holocaust in the phrase nuclear holocaust.
What panel? Who elected them the final arbiters of the meaning? I never got to vote them in!
quote:
But because of its associations with genocide, people may object to extended applications of holocaust.
So now there is controversy over linking it to genocide!
Hmmm.....
so people do not agree that its a genocide but we will call it one anyway?
People usually object when definitions are extended such that red becomes blue.
So what is it?
quote:
When the word is used to refer to death brought about by natural causes, the percentage of the Panel accepting drops sharply.
Ok so natural causes is off the table.
quote:
This suggests that other figurative usages such as the huge losses in the Savings and Loan holocaust may be viewed as overblown or in poor taste.
Oh so there is a limit and now we are going to establish the meaning of a word by "good taste" or "poor taste" as the proper measuring stick?
Its ok to use figurative words if they approve them all other words not with standing! Hmmm....
quote:
Word History: Totality of destruction has been central to the meaning of holocaust since it first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century, used in reference to the biblical sacrifice in which a male animal was wholly burnt on the altar in worship of God. Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston ("that which is completely burnt"), which was a translation of Hebrew 'lâ (literally "that which goes up," that is, in smoke). In this sense of "burnt sacrifice," holocaust is still used in some versions of the Bible.
So Holocaust is also a religious ceremonial rite of sacrifice to God?
It "still is used" today as a "wholey burnt offering".
So that is another standing definition to be considered.
Let me get the logic in line here.
Its called a sacrifice, so;
They must be completely burned (to ash) so they are of no use to the one making the sacrifice.
Smoke rises to the heavens. (up to God)
Artwork has shown this has extended to human immolation.
quote:
In the 20th century holocaust has taken on a variety of figurative meanings, summarizing the effects of war, rioting, storms, epidemic diseases, and even economic failures.
So in the 20th century we enter into the new world of anything goes? You have entered the twilight zone? We control the vertical, we control the horizontal.
So anything goes now?
Misapplied words as a figure of speech is now the standard for linguistically, syntactical, grammatically correct language? Just beam me up scotty?
quote:
but the phrase the Holocaust did not become established until the late 1950s.
ah so someone tag named it then?
quote:
Most of these usages arose after World War II, but it is unclear whether they permitted or resulted from the use of holocaust in reference to the mass murder of European Jews and others by the Nazis.
so they do not even know where how the word came to be applied to the presumed jewish genocide?
quote:
but the phrase ha-ô'â ("the catastrophe") became established only after World War II.
Yes Shoah, in fact several rabbis were very unhappy that someone labeled it a holocaust instead of a shoah.
quote:
Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.[1]
So Jewish genocide is now a fact?
quote:
the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.[2][3][4]
Oh yeh thats where the other guy admitted not only that they lied but that they knew they lied, therefore they intended to lie.
quote:
Scholars use the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies.[6] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[7]
so then as long as it is not a predetermined condition people are revisionists.
But isnt the presumption that it is a genocide and that it is a holocaust a predetermined condition?
They, someone has the right to label based on whatever standards they choose wanting as they may be and when someone ups that bar they are in denial?
quote:
Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[8] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[9] conspiracy theory.[10]
Who made this consideration and who authorized them to be the final judge and arbiter?
quote:
Scholars consider this to be misleading, since the methods of Holocaust denial differ from those of legitimate historical revision.[6] Legitimate historical revisionism is explained in a resolution adopted by the Duke University History Department, November 8, 1991, and reprinted in Duke Chronicle, November 13, 1991 in response to an advertisement produced by Bradley R Smith's Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust:
That historians are constantly engaged in historical revision is certainly correct; however, what historians do is very different from this advertisement. Historical revision of major events ... is not concerned with the actuality of these events; rather, it concerns their historical interpretation – their causes and consequences generally.[11]
Ok so Duke university gets the final say so for the world on who is a denier and who is a revisionist.
Oh I see so since the event was labeled a holocaust that they do not even know the origins of or who labeled it does not matter because Historical revision of major events ... is not concerned with the actuality of these events; and is off limits to discussion and revision.
My my aint that special? That is the same shit they did with 911 when the created a commission and chartered nist to determine the initial cause of the "collapse", hence nist was required only to document how the metal failed and all support structure metal fails the same way in a collapse regardless of what caused it.
The irony
quote:
With the main features of the Holocaust clearly visible to all but the willfully blind, historians have turned their attention to aspects of the story for which the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous.
which is literally all of it as you all will soon see! :)
nothing like a neutral definition! objection yer unner leading!
quote:
In contrast, the Holocaust denial movement bases its approach on the predetermined idea that the Holocaust, as understood by mainstream historiography, did not occur.[7] Sometimes referred to as "negationism", from the French term négationnisme introduced by Henry Rousso,[13] Holocaust deniers attempt to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. Koenraad Elst writes:
Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity, the Nazi genocide on the Jews in 1941–45, also known as the holocaust (Greek: complete burning) or the Shoah (Hebrew: disaster). Negationism is mostly identified with the effort at re-writing history in such a way that the fact of the Holocaust is omitted.[14]
Ok so a holocaust denier then has a predetermined position that the holocaust did not occur.
How is that different from the predetermined position that it did occur?
Hence my demand for a definition so we start out on the right foot here.
An addition problem is of course that we have like what 5 definitions for holocaust the one that was determined to be the one best suited for ww2 is in dispute by those who call themselves authoritative experts.
So that pretty much leaves us with nothing at all.
Now you can take every one of those points I have made and comment on them so in the end we can determine which if any definition most applies and WHO we should be applying that since we know arabs are not included.
I made a lot of statements meant as rebuttal, hence they require counter rebuttal if you want their version to stick untarnished.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 1/26/2013 1:43:53 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: is holacaust denial antisemitic? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread