Scientific negationism: dogmatism?

[sen-no-sen]

At the beginning of the 12th century the word storm meant in Old French "favorable wind", then became "wind", in order to define in contemporary times the meteorological phenomenon that everyone knows.
Holocaust is indeed a term of religious origin, but it was consecrated in the 20th century as the definition of the mass extermination of a people.
Who speaks of an animal holocaust these days? We speak more readily of animal sacrifice.
The language evolves ... but hey I know that you have a little trouble with evolution!

The Hebrew term Shoah is not trivial and has no place in Republican discourse.
On the religious point of view la Shoah is part of a process of redemption, even of a divine punishment inflicted on the Jewish people following their abandonment of the Torah...
To convince you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHmQPLHqSU0 (from 1'25 "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4MwiAKkoOY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7HEVKiNv5E
Impossible to validate such theses for defenders of secularism!

[Janic]

Holocaust is indeed a term of religious origin, but it was consecrated in the 20th century as the definition of the mass extermination of a people.

In ancient Israel, a religious sacrifice where the victim, an animal, was entirely consumed by fire; the victim thus sacrificed.
 Bloody sacrifice performed for religious purposes.
 All the persecutions, mistreatments and exterminations of which the Jews were the victims by the Nazis between 1939 and 1945. (In this sense, often takes a capital letter.) [→ genocide.]
 Massacre, great destruction of people, things, inspired by an ideology. Larousse
Consecrated (which is also a religious term) I would rather say recovered because being part of a usual language for a France under religious domination for two millennia.

Who speaks of an animal holocaust these days? We speak more readily of animal sacrifice.

it's the same thing! it's just a quantitative notion that separates the two now.
Offering to a deity and, in particular, immolation of victims.
Effort voluntarily produced, penalty voluntarily accepted for a religious purpose of expiation or intercession. Larousse
This is the case with slaughterhouses!
Indeed, this is indeed an extermination (a shoah in Hebrew) of a particular category rather than others (we do not kill cats and dogs for breeding provided)

The language evolves ... but hey I know that you have a little trouble with evolution!

I have no problem with evolution, quite the contrary! My job was (and the rest) based on evolution (ideas, inventive spirit, which successive achievements demonstrate as realistic). It is not applicable to the living! So no evolution of the living since no proof has been provided!

The Hebrew term Shoah is not trivial and has no place in Republican discourse.

This is exactly what I said above. It is and remains only specific to Hebrews.

From a religious point of view the Shoah is part of a process of redemption,

?????
Want to talk about this?
http://shoah-solutionfinale.fr/genphilo.htm
it is only a point of view which is not shared by all the rabbis.

see a divine punishment inflicted on the Jewish people following their abandonment of the Torah ...

There is no divine punishment, it is superstition!
This comes from an inevitable but wrong anthropomorphic interpretation. Indeed, each one, each one is responsible for his choices and acts which carry in themselves their beneficial or negative effects, which merge with the choices of the companies themselves. We are in COP21 which, finally, recalls that it is not the State which is particularly responsible for the situation, but each of us and it is the whole which generates this "punishment" which could be a holocaust planetary.
Otherwise it's like considering that a child who plays with matches and burns himself would be the victim of a punishment from his parents: it's absurd! But the parents' role is to warn that if the child plays with matches, he risks being burned, setting fire to the forest and causing dozens of "innocent" victims; hence the laws of the Torah or our secular / religious laws.

To convince you:
Impossible to validate such theses for defenders of secularism

This kind of character, whom I did not listen to, is entitled to express his point of view as others do for Islamists by confusing them with Daesh! Everyone is responsible for what they say, which is only for themselves as for AIDS!
The truth, if there is any truth, will reveal itself over time: "the truth never triumphs but its adversaries always die"and history bears witness that it may take ages.

[sen-no-sen]

The Hebrew term Shoah is not trivial and has no place in Republican discourse. (Sen-no-sen)

This is exactly what I said above. It is and only remains specific to Hebrews. (Janic)

How do you explain that our secular republican leaders use this term?
(Which brings us back to the reason for the 13/11 attacks).

There is no divine punishment, it's superstition!
This comes from an inevitable but wrong anthropomorphic interpretation. Indeed, each one, each one is responsible for his choices and acts which carry in themselves their beneficial or negative effects, which merge with the choices of the companies themselves.

So you confirm that Sodom et Gomorrah weren't destroyed by God?
Individual responsibility is one thing, and social responsibility another.
However, the first follows the second ...

We are in COP21 which, finally, recalls that it is not the State which is particularly responsible for the situation, but each of us and it is the whole which generates this "punishment" which could be a holocaust planetary.

The state is responsible in the sense that it endorses the dictates of economism, apart from its latter, are in complete contradiction with respect for the biosphere.
Individuals are responsible for their apathy towards its directives, there is feedback between citizens / consumers and political powers, each using the weaknesses of the other to guarantee the survival of its own contradictions ...

This kind of character, whom I did not listen to, is entitled to express his point of view as others do for Islamists by confusing them with Daesh!

Except that as for this kind of characters represents an ideology that translates into a strong political will, this can change the course of history ... The destabilization of the Middle East is not just a story of oil.

[Obamot]

The Hebrew term Shoah is not trivial and has no place in Republican discourse. (Sen-no-sen)

This is exactly what I said above. It is and only remains specific to Hebrews. (Janic)

How do you explain that our secular republican leaders use this term?
(Which brings us back to the reason for the 13/11 attacks)

My two euro cents: does it bother them because it's a taboo subject?

The use of certain words brings us on the slippery slope of "false revisionism", when precisely a part of those who are taxed "revisionists"they revolt on the denial of the disappearance of"certain groups of victims"- recovery that it would be beneficial to do without distinction of any ethnicity or membership of any social group whatsoever but then in this case, the number of victims would jump to 17 million >>> remarkable work on this subject on Wikipedia - and that what they want to restore the closest count, would be figures which according to them would be incorrect, and this precisely by aiming for a correct balance sheet of victims (which is precisely the opposite of negationism). Nor should they be considered "revisionists", as long as an official and final, undisputed balance sheet has not been established by the international community (at the time, because now it is almost done to within 1 million out of 66 million).

In reality, if we accepted the initial figure of 6 million (of Jews exterminated in the camps), that wouldn't have changed much, that's about it. But that was not the question, it was to fall once and for all on the right figures.

I'm not talking about "false "revisionists, those whose objective is purely and simply to deny the genocide of a given ethnic group to make some sort of demonstration afterwards. Or for "appropriate the dead"which is the purpose of forgery ...

We had already debated these words "holocaust, shoah"and the fact was surely not in the question of negationism (which must be condemned wherever it comes from) only by the fact that these words tend to focus atrocities too much on a given ethnic group and to make it a sort of "privileged victimization" to lead to an amalgamation (such drama = / ≠ to such persecution) which is totally unfair for 60 million victims! (Even if they did not die in the camps, they nevertheless deserve a tribute)

Thus we hear here and there, that those who would be qualified as negationists / revisionists would be accused of wanting to hide all or part of reality. While they (thus falsely considered) on the contrary defend (and have defended) the idea "that a correct count establishes victims, would help precisely to avoid any denial afterwards ". They do not want either, that an ethnic group (compared to another, no matter which one) "appropriate the dead" of the other group, to magnify the reality of the facts and make greater ostentation of this victimization (moreover I believe that there is only one group which instrumentalizes this victimization, look for which ...).

I believe that the discussions around this macabre accounting as much as the use of terms too targeted on a given group, do not really contribute to the construction of peace. But for the dignity of the dead, a proper toll should be called for by ALL survivors and families of the victims - regardless of their differences - and it is only fair that they have done so. And not lead (as has been the case for decades) to the fact that those who demanded a more precise assessment, are instantly classified as "revisionists" (if indeed a generally accepted assessment had never been made at the time? And if indeed the job of "auditor" is a monstrosity that would condemn them to public execration).

What is curious is that those who, through the initial figures possibly erroneous because loaded, would have wanted to increase the count for the "benefit" of a given group to "obtain better visibility" (if at all the case in reality) would then themselves initially also be revisionists (see forgers) ...

Be that as it may, the clumsy instrumentalization of these words (which is not unjustifiable given the initial context, but after a while you have to turn the page) has the unfortunate tendency to contribute to a "self-perpetuating victimization"which is a little experienced as" having to end in a fatality of persecution "(which the facts show that it is not), which it would be well precisely to avoid if the concerned wish to get out of this vicious circle (and to do a fair "work of memory"). Since we see that the affirmation of differences in an ostentatious way, tends to perpetuate the stigma (and to maintain the hatred and the condemnations). This is why some consider that it It would be good to generalize the use of the words in question (or not to use some of them too "identified" with a particular cause), to paradoxically stop focusing hatred on said group. At the same time there are other words in the vocabulary to allow their use to be stopped in order to stop another blamed ambiguity: which would be to discriminate in horror (why the massacre of a human being, could be worse than the massacre of another of a different ethnicity and how does one word devr to differentiate what happened to some, compared to what happened to others ?!)

I specify that this reflection has nothing to do with the facts produced (that any manipulation must be excluded in this regard, this is only an open substantive discussion). It would be unheard of and shameful to deny the genocide of populations during the Second World War, regardless of their origin. No more than that should justify an endless perpetuation of the victimization which could result from it, and which is then used as justification to perpetrate new ill-treatment, even crimes linked in particular to territorial expansion (based on the same pretexts and others safe drifts.)

A necessary assessment of victims must not become a symbol of persecution and then serve as justification, otherwise it results in the application of a kind of Talion law from which one can never get out (even if it is possibly the aim pursued ).

Conclusion:

"There is one thing more terrible than slander: it is the truth"

[Janic]

How do you explain that our secular republican leaders use this term?

They are the ones who can answer it, not me. I simply note that even taken in a "secular" way that does not detach them from their origin. Thus a Catholic can tell an anti-religious that he is using THEIR baby to qualify his secularism. From where these examples: of the calendar year AFTER JC, of ​​the beginning of this one (January being previously the 11 month of the year) decided by them also, of Sunday (even taken from the paganism of the worshipers of the sun) imposed at the Council of Trent, etc ... in fact, the anti-religious submitting to Catholic systems that they do not deny, they just secularized them like the Soviet model too and even if France is one of the pillars of the atheism, Catholicism remains dominant (which has nothing to do, confusion is often made, with baptized and practicing in the churches) and, at first glance, the number of our leaders are believers like Chirac, de Gaulle or Jospin who did not hide it besides.

Quote:
There is no divine punishment, it is superstition!
This comes from an inevitable but wrong anthropomorphic interpretation. Indeed, each one, each one is responsible for his choices and acts which carry in themselves their beneficial or negative effects, which merge with the choices of the companies themselves.


So you confirm that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed by God?
Not in the sense that atheism wants to make believe!
When a person is infected, our surgeons remove the sick part (cancers among others, the appendix, the gallbladder, a lung, a kidney. So there is destruction by necessity of survival of the whole. If it’s a surgeon who does it, we praise him, if it’s god we despise him for his lack of humanity. We should tune the violins! This is only the tip of the iceberg, But I do not take dotted exegesis courses: you must study the texts carefully to grasp their spiritual meaning.
Individual responsibility is one thing, and social responsibility another.
However, the first follows the second ...
They model each other, it's the chicken or the egg! But in reality the chicken and the egg!
Quote:
We are in COP21 which, finally, recalls that it is not the State which is particularly responsible for the situation, but each of us and it is the whole which generates this "punishment" which could be a holocaust planetary.


The state is responsible in the sense that it endorses the dictates of economism, apart from the latter are in complete contradiction with respect for the biosphere.
Individuals are responsible for their apathies towards its directives, there is feedback between citizens / consumers and political powers, each using the weaknesses of the other to guarantee the survival of its own contradictions ...
What I also highlighted above!
Quote:
This kind of character, whom I did not listen to, is entitled to express his point of view as others do for Islamists by confusing them with Daesh!
Except that when these kind of characters represent an ideology that translates into a strong political will, it can change the course of history ... The destabilization of the Middle East is not just a story of oil.
We live in a world that works according to this system that we all adopt consciously or not.
Armed with their conviction of being right to condemn an ​​adulterous woman, the right-thinking society which thought it was the wicked one, asks Jesus "what does the law say?" In order to trap him. What does he answer, and we should meditate on it at length: "let the one of you who has never sinned throw the first stone at him" (important point because the first thrower bore all the responsibility for this act of death, knowing that every false witness had to undergo the same fate, there too one should be inspired by it) and what follows? from the OLDEST to the youngest everyone withdrew.

[pedrodelavega]

to dispute something, it is not enough to refer to Wikipedia which is not a scientific document.

cf links on the cited pages:

The Durban Declaration is a document signed by more than 5000 doctors and scientists, including eleven Nobel laureates, in the 2000s, stating that HIV is the cause of AIDS1. This statement follows the contestation of the responsibility for HIV in AIDS by certain people, in particular the South African president at the time, Thabo Mbeki. The Declaration was published in the journal Nature for the International AIDS Conference in 2000, held in Durban, South Africa.
The statement states that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is clear, comprehensive and unequivocal.
To sign the document, it was necessary to have a doctorate, an MD or equivalent, and, to avoid conflicts of interest, scientists who worked for commercial companies were not authorized to sign.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9claration_de_Durban

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 015a0.html

However, the majority of the scientific community considers that the elements demonstrating the causality between HIV and AIDS are conclusive, and rejects these theories, which are, for her, Holocaust denial and essentially based on pseudo-scientific arguments and conspiracy theories.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contestat ... ns_le_sida

The contradictory debate on the climate cannot be satisfied with points of view for or against, but must be based on serious and independent studies. However, it is increasingly rare as researchers of all kinds are remunerated directly or not by powerful economic systems.

In the climate debate precisely, the broadest international scientific consensus which is widely disseminated in the media (see IPCC), is that the planet is heating up too quickly because of human activity and that our consumption must be limited. of GHGs, conclusions which run counter to the interests of "powerful economic systems".

[Obamot]

The contradictory debate on the climate cannot be satisfied with points of view for or against, but must be based on serious and independent studies. However, it is increasingly rare as researchers of all kinds are remunerated directly or not by powerful economic systems.

In the climate debate precisely, the broadest international scientific consensus which is widely disseminated in the media (see IPCC), is that the planet is heating up too quickly because of human activity and that our consumption must be limited. of GHGs, conclusions which run counter to the interests of "powerful economic systems".

This is not the question. The question is, what is the scientific reality on this? Negationism would be to deny this reality (as far as we know it and that it is reliable)! Clearly the concentration of what you call "a scientific consensus" is in too few hands, and more in the hands of an elite who refuses to share the data of its work with other researchers! This de facto prevents any negationism.

You have a funny idea of ​​the definition of this word: "political consensus"everyone should call it data confiscation instead!
So we should stop sowing confusion (whatever the reason.)
In any case, "added warming" to natural warming is not even enough to sell us nuke: too late!

to dispute something, it is not enough to refer to Wikipedia which is not a scientific document.

cf links on the cited pages:

The Durban Declaration is Wikipédro_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/

And if you stopped turning people into nonsense, who tell you credible arguments in support - that we cannot blindly trust Wikipedia - to then serve them a text, on this same subject, from .... Wikipedia.
And if you stopped behaving like an ostrich but as a responsible adult.
What if you stopped poking fun at the heads of the people you answer.
And if you therefore stopped playing troll, you don't seem to touch it!

[sen-no-sen]

Pedrodelavega salary. Janic, the battle of wikipedists at the top!

Janic you write:

When a person is infected, our surgeons remove the sick part (cancers among others, the appendix, the gallbladder, a lung, a kidney. So there is destruction by necessity of survival of the whole. If a surgeon does it, we rent it, if it's god we despise him for his lack of humanity. The violins should be tuned! This is only the visible part of the iceberg, But I will not do dotted exegesis courses: you must study the texts carefully to grasp their spiritual meaning.

After the watchmaking God, the surgeon God!
To speak of the humanity of God is proof that the said divinity came from the human imagination.
Weird that God has not wiped out the Islamic State ... Maybe he is outsourcing via the coalition?

[Exnihiloest]

In the climate debate precisely, the broadest international scientific consensus which is widely disseminated in the media (see IPCC), is that the planet is heating up too quickly because of human activity and that our consumption must be limited. of GHGs, conclusions which run counter to the interests of "powerful economic systems".

This is not the question. The question is, what is the scientific reality on this. Holocaust denial would be to deny this reality

It is not a scientific "consensus". This is the only opinion of the IPCC, which fires the skeptical scientists of its group, while keeping the names in its lists to inflate these so-called supporters of the consensus and bluff the gogos! For years the "dissidents" having left the IPCC had great difficulty in being struck off the lists.

...
And if you stopped deliberately sowing confusion ...
And if you stopped behaving like an ostrich but as a responsible adult.
What if you stopped poking fun at the heads of the people you answer.
And if you therefore stopped playing troll, you don't seem to touch it!

What if you showed intelligence, modesty, maturity, friendliness and tolerance?

[Obamot]

What if you showed intelligence, modesty, maturity, friendliness and tolerance?

The Dupont-Dupont continue to troll: the denial of anthroporechaufism has not yet won! >>>

For years dissidents who have left the IPCC have had great difficulty getting struck off the lists.

What do they unlock the "Aristotelian pseudo-scientists". After such a Lego of infantilism, Wikipedia I would avoid ...