Quote:
Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Thinks he more referring to the right to deny the Holocaust happened the way they say it happened (it didn't happen remotely close to what is talked about or what the law protects from being discussed and analyzed.
A jew (IDF service, dual Israeli citizenship) once accused me of being a denier, but when I explained my position he respected it and settled on "so you are just trying to throw water on it". This opened up a HUGE intellectual debate on interpretation of events and the meaning of language, etc.
My friends literally sat around dumbfounded with their mouths hanging open after pouncing on me with the Jew initially screaming "WE GOT A DENIER OMFG A DENIER IS HERE!!!" all riled up and riotous minded (typical Roman Catholic friends. fucking dumbasses) They contributed absolutely nothing while 2 intellectuals went at it. It turns out they didn't even have an educated position on the Holocaust, they were just fucking dogpile pieces of shit.
At the end of it, I respected the Jew a lot. And would NEVER deny the Holocaust. We really built together through the debate and both realized the sharp intellect of the other person. I am no longer friends with any of my Roman Catholic friends who were present in that room, but I am friends with the Jew.
We both respected each others position by the end of it. He coined a new term on the spot "Holocaust Moderate" to describe my rationale and the version of events I provided. As opposed to holocaust denier. I think Holocaust Moderate is where most of us are on it, but the law interprets moderates as deniers and you can face prison time.
|
so what is the position you argued? What are you claiming happened versus what we've read happened?