David Irving to speak in NUI Galway

P. Breathnach

O'Morris wrote: »

I think freedom is far more important than truth. I'd much rather live in a country in which everyone believed the world was flat than live in a country where people are prevented from expressing their opinions.

Has David Irving been shown to be a liar? What did has he lied about in the past?

Irving is not merely expressing opinions: he is representing untruths as fact. You slide seamlessly between truth and opinion, as if there were no difference. Yes, he has been shown to be a liar. And no, I'm not going to invest time in explaining to you what you could easily ascertain for yourself using Google.

Tawny

I personally think he should be allowed to speak if he wants. If you want to protest... just don't attend. If you don't think he has anything worth saying - don't attend. He isn't someone that should be listened to.... I don't visit hospitals to listen to the delusions of people who are clinically insane, so I won't go to a lecture to listen to someone talk and believe his own crap.

I think the best media coverage of this event would be simply reports that David Irving was invited to attend and, embarrassingly for him, no one else did.

Any protests simply make him into a celebrity, and banning him from speaking does the same thing.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would say good work in getting them. Chomsky in particular is a fascinating speaker.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No Free Speech for Nazis.

Yey! Another slogan!

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The problem with that is that it can be very difficult. To take him on, one needs to be familiar with his work, with other work dealing with those times, and have knowledge of any lies he told about what is in primary sources that he says he has inspected. And then be able to deal with any lies he chooses to tell on the day.

I've heard his arguments and I can assure you that you don't need to be an expert to rip many if not most of them apart.

Truth is more important than free speech.

Who gets to decide what is true then? You? OhNoYouDidn't? No thank you.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And no, I'm not going to invest time in explaining to you what you could easily ascertain for yourself using Google.

You're right, we'll take your word for it then. Oh, wait...

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Which goes back to my original point. There is no actual academic reason for him to be there, rather this is controversy for its own sake. Some jumped up twerp in the debating club is using college funds to invite this guy over to create a name for themselves relying on the fact that misguided 'liberals' will defend this Nazis right to propagandise.

And you don't see the irony of all the controversy people like yourself create?

Pal

Irving is already discredited and doesn't need a platform to invite further rebuttal.

He's had his say.
He had his free speech.
His right to be heard has been exercised.

All he had to offer was dangerous bigoted tripe.
Now he should be told 'on your way airhole'.

Instead what happens, some geniuses in NUI Galway invite him to spew it out again.

Get a grip. There's no defending the stupidity of the invitation IMO.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

And you don't see the irony of all the controversy people like yourself create?

Do you really feel this passion about defending a Nazi's right to lie? Honestly?

Het-Field

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Irving is not merely expressing opinions: he is representing untruths as fact. You slide seamlessly between truth and opinion, as if there were no difference. Yes, he has been shown to be a liar. And no, I'm not going to invest time in explaining to you what you could easily ascertain for yourself using Google.

In recent years Irving has proffered himself as less of a holocaust denier, and more of a holocaust sceptic i.e. he has considered the scale of the atrocity, and Hitler's direct involvement. As I have said, I know the Holocaust happened. I realise that huge numbers were brutally murdered, and I know that Hitler was directly responsible (see his poorly written Manifesto, Mein kampf). However, if people wish to consider the details of the atrocity, then I will not prevent them..nor is it right to prevent them. It is vital that history continues to be examined.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Do you really feel this passion about defending a Nazi's right to lie? Honestly?

If he has lied, why do you care given you have no problem with Noam Chomsky's own inaccuracies and falsehoods.

The more you and others post the more that I feel that this has very little to do with truth or even the Holocaust and more about partisan politics.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have you read any of my posts? Ward Churchill is not a Nazi.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

If he has lied, why do you care given you have no problem with Noam Chomsky's own inaccuracies and falsehoods.

The more you and others post the more that I feel that this has very little to do with truth or even the Holocaust and more about partisan politics.

My problem is he is a Nazi.

Its worrying that you have no problem with that.

Comparing Irving to Chomsky? Get a grip.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zynks

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Truth is more important than free speech.

And who decides what the truth is? Would you mind explaining the process?

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't. The issue here is that he has done so as a Nazi to help the Nazi cause.

You can play semantics all day long, you are defending the 'right' of a Nazi to propagandise.

OhNoYouDidn't

Zynks wrote: »

And who decides what the truth is? Would you mind explaining the process?

Generally when you get fired from your job over falseifying documents, have every expert in the field call you a liar and end up in jail for it, thats a good start to the 'process'.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

My problem is he is a Nazi.

Repeatedly you and others have given reasons such as his alleged falsification of data as why he should be censored. Now you're admitting that the problem is simply that he's supposedly is a proponent of an ideology you oppose.

In short, you've been lying throughout this discussion.

Perhaps someone should ban you here. After all, is the truth not more important than free speech?

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You can play semantics all day long, you are defending the 'right' of a Nazi to propagandise.

There's no playing with semantics here; he's pointing out that you have contradicted yourself quite clearly.

Pal

This thread has gone to pot.

You're all putting forward rubbish arguments based on idealistics to have some pseudo halfwit Nazi aoplogist talk the same fabricated crap in Galway that he's been trotting out for years and nobody cares about any more (except the German authorities who want him extradited).

Jeeze. Common sense people.

Enough.

The Corinthian

Zynks wrote: »

And who decides what the truth is? Would you mind explaining the process?

It's a very goodthinkwise process.

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've heard his arguments and I can assure you that you don't need to be an expert to rip many if not most of them apart.

Many, most? What about all?

Who gets to decide what is true then? You? OhNoYouDidn't? No thank you.

Kindly note that I did not proffer myself as an arbiter of truth, nor did I suggest that Irving be refused an opportunity to speak. What I proposed was that somebody well-prepared to challenge what he says should also be heard.

You're right, we'll take your word for it then. Oh, wait...

Again, you distort my position. I suggested that O'Morris (and, by implication, anybody else with an interest in the matter) could research the matter.

Distorting my position in order to express disagreement with me is doing me a wrong.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

Repeatedly you and others have given reasons such as his alleged falsification of data as why he should be censored. Now you're admitting that the problem is simply that he's supposedly is a proponent of an ideology you oppose.

In short, you've been lying throughout this discussion.

Perhaps someone should ban you here. After all, is the truth not more important than free speech?

You really are an old fashioned gurrier. I have gone from a moron to a liar and now you are calling for me to be banned.

I have made clear all through this thread that I object to him getting to speak because he is a committed Nazi.

A discussion broke out about the validity of his views, in which his lies were mentioned.

If that is too complicated for you, you have my sympathy.

If you really feel that a Nazi's right to speak what we know to be lies, organise a counter demo, lets see who gets more out.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's no playing with semantics here; he's pointing out that you have contradicted yourself quite clearly.

How?

My objection is that he is a Nazi who is being trotted out to create a ruction. Like Ollie Reid was on Parkinson or Wogan, guaranteed carnage to increase ratings.

The fact he is an exposed liar is incidental.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Generally when you get fired from your job over falseifying documents, have every expert in the field call you a liar and end up in jail for it, thats a good start to the 'process'.

He didnt end up in jail for being a "liar". He ended up in jail as a result of he PC brigade in Austria, who are attempting to make amends, in a silly and stupid way. People like Deborah Lipstadh, who had beaten Irving in a libel case even spoke against his imprisonment, despite her utter contempt for the man.

However, as has been articulated by a former poster, it is clearly the ideology you hold which is preventing you from giving a cogent argument against Irving speaking. I can guarantee you that there will be an expert to counter Irivng's arguments, otherwise it wouldnt be a debate.

Your PC views, and your belief that Nazis should be silenced will continue to make a martyr out of Irving, Barrett, Le Pen, Nick Griffin and the likes. Their lectures have not caused an upsurge in support for the far right. With the exception of a few council seats, the BNP hold no power in British Politics, while there is not one member of Irish representative structures who would subscribe to this rubbish. It is the the counterfeit views of both you and Irving which gives rise to both sides wishingto silence each other.

You are very wrong in this case.

P. Breathnach

Zynks wrote: »

And who decides what the truth is? Would you mind explaining the process?

It's the work of all who are involved in philosophic thought, and is an ongoing process. It would take too long to explain.

At a relatively simplistic level, it can be easier to decide what constitutes a lie, and a lie in inimical to truth.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Many, most? What about all?

In fairness some of them would require a knowledge of military history from that period far in excess of what your average person is likely to have.

The problem with Irving isn't that he fabricates evidence, it's that he grabs small pieces of evidence, interprets them and then reinterprets vast swathes of other evidence based on this one small piece. It's really not good historical work and this is pretty much why he has no credibility left in the profession, but to refute it requires a person to know the area in a fair amount of detail.


The main issue that I have is that the attempts to silence this man gives him credibility in the eyes of certain distasteful groups. If his work was simply ignored as fanciful biased wishful thinking he'd have far less of an impact. If you want to boost the power of any dissident group, just try to silence them etc.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Kindly note that I did not proffer myself as an arbiter of truth, nor did I suggest that Irving be refused an opportunity to speak. What I proposed was that somebody well-prepared to challenge what he says should also be heard.

Then you would not oppose that he be forced to publicly defend his views against suitably qualified academics in open and public debate?

Again, you distort my position. I suggested that O'Morris (and, by implication, anybody else with an interest in the matter) could research the matter.

The flaw in such an argument is that if 'truth' is more important than free speech then you cannot research the matter. Correction, you can research the matter only so far as you are allowed, with material that would support an official (a.k.a. 'truth') view, but that's about it.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You really are an old fashioned gurrier. I have gone from a moron to a liar and now you are calling for me to be banned.

Well you have lied. You gave a number of reasons as to why he should be censored, of which being a (alleged) Nazi was only one. Eventually, you admitted (in the face of your own double standards) that it really was because he is a (alleged) Nazi. Everything else was irrelevant.

And that is a deception, a falsehood - a lie.

As to banning you, it's tongue in cheek, but would be ironic justice. If 'truth' is more important than free speech for you, and given you have had no problem twisting that truth, your right to free speech should be revoked by your own ethical code.

If you really feel that a Nazi's right to speak what we know to be lies, organise a counter demo, lets see who gets more out.

But what happens if the revolution starts while we're all busy at another demo?

The Corinthian

nesf wrote: »

The main issue that I have is that the attempts to silence this man gives him credibility in the eyes of certain distasteful groups.

This is actually the point although it is very easy to just fall into the trap of debating endlessly and pointlessly with a bunch of middle class kids who still think that the proletarian revolution is round the corner.

The controversy in banning him causes more harm than letting him speak. Other than those aforementioned groups, it causes unaligned people to sympathize with him and to suspect that they are being lied to.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well you have lied. You gave a number of reasons as to why he should be censored, of which being a (alleged) Nazi was only one. Eventually, you admitted (in the face of your own double standards) that it really was because he is a (alleged) Nazi. Everything else was irrelevant.

And that is a deception, a falsehood - a lie.

I, from the start, was unambigious in that I oppose his right to free speech on the basis he is a Nazi. No alleged.

Calling people a liar is a serious thing to do, especially seeing as you have deliberatly misinterpreted more than one poster on thit topic.

I'm bored 'debating' with you. If you feel defending Nazi's is that important, its your concience.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I, from the start, was unambigious in that I oppose his right to free speech on the basis he is a Nazi. No alleged.

Calling people a liar is a serious thing to do, especially seeing as you have deliberatly misinterpreted more than one poster on thit topic.

I'm bored 'debating' with you. If you feel defending Nazi's is that important, its your concience.

Toys out of the pram time, I see.