Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Comments for: "David Irving recants"
This post is provided as a forum for comments for the Left2Right post:
David Irving recants
posted on 02/21/2006What a disaster. The notorious Holocaust denier now says that he was wrong to claim that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. His recantation came in an Austrian court shortly before he was sentenced to 3 years in prison...
Please see disclaimers before posting comments.
# posted by Bret @ 4:00 PM 
It would be good to see the claim that his recanting under force is more likely to spread disbelief than his spreading lies. Perhaps all that is necessary for that is for me to scroll down the left2right page, and I will do that shortly. But it seems to me this argument relies on the assumption that the author is right about the free speech issue. I disagree with the author, I see no problem with very tightly defined speech restrictions on certain issues. My reaction to the story of his recanting is 'Good.' I take his recanting as part of an apology/reparation, and that he is obligated to do so. Does he mean it? I don't care so much. It would never enter my mind that this casts doubt on whether the Holocaust occurred. My reaction is that this is appropriate because we know without doubt that it occurred, and the only motivation for this is to drum up the kind of racism which led to it in the first place. I don't always respond to government flexing its muscle on matters epistemic this way, but the Holocaust is a special case.
So I would like to konw why I am wrong, and why I am abnormal. I think the only people who will react the way you claim are 1. people already disposed to doubt the Holocaust (anti-Semites) and 2. People who go in for a hardcore defense of free speech rights, and base it on the claim that the best situation vis a vis speech is a completely open one, because truth will win out in the end, and because of this government intrusion should always make you suspicious of the truth of the claim.
(disclaimer; this is in no way a moral comparison of Velleman to Anti-Semites. I was trying to make clear that the reasons, and so moral status, each has are completely different)
If like me you think that the empirical and moral claims embedded in 2 are false, then you don't really have a reason to be suscipicious in this case. Perhaps I am showing a bad habit, maybe despite this being a relatively special case I should be more suscpicious of government involvement because it pays to be general suspicious. But I think I know enough to recognize the exceptions. What I don't understand is why I am wrong, or why most people aren't like me.
Post a Comment
So I would like to konw why I am wrong, and why I am abnormal. I think the only people who will react the way you claim are 1. people already disposed to doubt the Holocaust (anti-Semites) and 2. People who go in for a hardcore defense of free speech rights, and base it on the claim that the best situation vis a vis speech is a completely open one, because truth will win out in the end, and because of this government intrusion should always make you suspicious of the truth of the claim.
(disclaimer; this is in no way a moral comparison of Velleman to Anti-Semites. I was trying to make clear that the reasons, and so moral status, each has are completely different)
If like me you think that the empirical and moral claims embedded in 2 are false, then you don't really have a reason to be suscipicious in this case. Perhaps I am showing a bad habit, maybe despite this being a relatively special case I should be more suscpicious of government involvement because it pays to be general suspicious. But I think I know enough to recognize the exceptions. What I don't understand is why I am wrong, or why most people aren't like me.
<< Home
