Thread: The Holocaust

^^
They were banned from many occupations, trading and moneylending were considered suitable for the jews, no wonder they became good at it..

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Should the USA hold the european nations responsible to account for those atrocities?

That would be absurd. But the tribes could try to hold the European nations, namely UK and France, responsible, I guess, well, the survivors who hadn't been killed of under US rule later.
Most of the atrocities occured under Us rule, anyway, can't wriggle and twist your way out of this one.

Originally Posted by Lily

To deny the holocaust and use as a reason for the denial, that it was a big lie so the Jews could be given a homeland is ridiculous.

I think everyone agree on this despite the numbers being used for other pro-Israeli (not pro-Jewish) arguments

Originally Posted by Lily

Israel has played into the hands of the anti semetics by being territorial and aggressive, but for thousands of years, they weren't in any way aggressive (except commercially) and where did that get them?

Well, is going from one extreme to the next, the only way to go ?

No, but that seems to be how humans do it, doesn't it?

Look at the political correctness rubbish now. One group or society is treated badly for some time and then to correct it, we go right over the edge and end up with the oppressed, becoming new oppressers (even if unwillingly).

....which is likely why Israel thinks it can get away with apartheid policies and treating non-Jews as subhuman classes of people. The oppressed have become the oppressors.

maybe some kind of national therapy, but how long can we tolerate this ?

Originally Posted by surasak

...I think it's a dangerous role to allow the government to determine what constitutes 'hate.' I'd rather we as a society simply turn a blind ear to such speech and let it die out on its own.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

That's a nice idea, but what about children? Is it ok to teach them that other races are sub-human and deserve to be massacred? Would you be comfortable having your children taught that?

Originally Posted by surasak

Who said anything about teaching?

What's the difference?

Does such a question really deserve a response?

If people are not allowed to teach something or say something to students in a classroom, then by definition the state is limiting the free speech of that teacher.

The government of Canada prosecuted Keegstra for doing just that.

Should teachers be allowed to teach their own personal view of history in the classroom?

That's the question!

I can rephrase it if you like.

Is it limiting free speech if multivariable differential calculus isn't taught in high school? Classrooms are not a forum for political teaching (versus political discussion among students which is within the realm of free speech) and as such I thought the answer to your question was more obvious to you.

I thought it was obvious that teachers don't have the free speech right to talk about personal views while teaching (perhaps Canada is different). At least in the U.S. it's clear they have no right to talk about such nonsense during class hours.

I think that taking a person's right to believe what they want to believe and assuming that teachers have the same right is a bit of a stretch and it's something I never said should be acceptable, did I?

By the way, trying to pull a classic straw man argument on me won't work.

If we say teachers have no right to free speech in a school it doesn't mean they lose their right to believe what they choose to believe outside of school.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

For this he was fired and ulitmately proscecuted and in the process his his right to free speech was denied.

So where do we stop 'free speech'.

What if he had been telling them, that although incest is against the law, it is his opinion that it is fine and that that law, is unjust and curtailing his freedom of speech?

Teachers are in a completely different position than someone just voicing their opinion to equals.

Originally Posted by Lily

What if he had been telling them, that although incest is against the law, it is his opinion that it is fine and that that law, is unjust and curtailing his freedom of speech?

Teachers are in a completely different position than someone just voicing their opinion to equals.

That's a completely silly example; what teacher in their right mind would say that in the classroom? Be sensible!

In any case he might not be fired for that, because in the Charter of Rights teachers have the same rights to free speech as anyone else as long as it does not constitute hate speech. But preaching incest? Ummm, hasn't come up yet, to my knowledge.

Originally Posted by surasak

I think that taking a person's right to believe what they want to believe and assuming that teachers have the same right is a bit of a stretch and it's something I never said should be acceptable, did I?

It wasn't a thought crime!

In Canada you can believe what you like.

But you're not allowed to teach, broadcast or disseminate information that says the Holocaust never happened or was a hoax.

I'm simply trying to address your original point:

Originally Posted by surasak

...I think it's a dangerous role to allow the government to determine what constitutes 'hate.' I'd rather we as a society simply turn a blind ear to such speech and let it die out on its own.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

In Canada you can believe what you like.

But you're not allowed to teach, broadcast or disseminate information that says the Holocaust never happened or was a hoax.

I'm simply trying to address your original point:

Originally Posted by surasak

...I think it's a dangerous role to allow the government to determine what constitutes 'hate.' I'd rather we as a society simply turn a blind ear to such speech and let it die out on its own.

Because when a person is employed (as a teacher is) there are limitations to free speech while on 'company time.' The fact that the government is the employer of the teacher is not relevant.

The question I bring up (and the crux of my argument as a conservative) is like in Germany...where es ist verboten to discuss the Holocaust in a negative way. Free speech dictates that the government cannot unilaterally prohibit a person from discussing a certain topic...though I think it's reasonable for the government to maintain where such speech may not occur (it may not make a blanket ban on the speech simply because it's offensive).

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

That's a completely silly example; what teacher in their right mind would say that in the classroom? Be sensible!

What teacher in his right mind would tell children that some people are not human?

It is not a silly example when we have a political party in the Netherlands running for office on the very same precepts.

It may seem silly to you, but there are organisations which truly believe child love is normal, so it is not outside the realms of possibility that this could happen.
It was merely an example anyway.

Originally Posted by Lily

What teacher in his right mind would tell children that some people are not human?

This kind:

Originally Posted by Lily

It is not a silly example when we have a political party in the Netherlands running for office on the very same precepts.

Do they claim the Holocaust never happened?

Originally Posted by Lily

It may seem silly to you, but there are organisations which truly believe child love is normal, so it is not outside the realms of possibility that this could happen.

Not silly, more like repugnant and depraved. Last time I checked, teachers are not allowed to have sex with children. For good reason. Right?

Right.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Not silly, more like repugnant and depraved. Last time I checked, teachers are not allowed to have sex with children. For good reason. Right?

The point of the argument was not having underage sex, but expressing one's opinion that it should be ok. About as misplaced and offensive as telling a school class the holocaust never happened, IMO.

And who is the guy in the pic, Hootad?

Originally Posted by stroller

The point of the argument was not having underage sex, but expressing one's opinion that it should be ok. About as misplaced and offensive as telling a school class the holocaust never happened, IMO.

Thank you Stroller, that is exactly what I meant. I was not intimating that the teacher would have sex with children, but some people think there is nothing wrong with that. They are quite free to express that opinion in adult company, but not in a schoolroom.

Same with the holocaust.

Originally Posted by stroller

And who is the guy in the pic

Some perv TEFLer no doubt...