Holocaust revisionism should be legal

You said; "If you felt offended by my first paragraph then I am sorry but I always look into the past debates to try and grab an idea of who I am debating against when I said "hate and fear" that wasn't directly aimed at you but the debates you have done in the past again this was in no way supposed to offend you so I am sorry." That"s fine, I"m sure I"ll recover. In all truth I am not "offended" by it. I"ve had much worse than that. I just consider it a poor debating tactic to attack the messenger, especially when you open the debate that way. Just as I"m not offended by you trying to drag the debate off topic from the outset. It"s just a poor debating strategy. I"m not remotely offended, I felt the need to tell you though as it gets very boring trying to debate someone if that"s going to be their modus operandi. You"ve apologised though so let"s move on. You said "People do things every day because they believe that action will cause a reaction. To give an example that if someone chooses to garden usually it's for aesthetic reasons or being able to grow food so it may not be anything noticeable but in everything we do we expect something to come out of it in the end. When you said "Falsehoods within history are corrected" it still brings in the original question I asked of "why" as in why do these people want the holocaust to be corrected if this drives them to do research then what do they see happening in the end what shall they receive if they disprove the holocaust"" Well you are right in one regard. Peaceful and non- violent holocaust research and revisionism does bring a reaction. If the person isn"t getting thrown in prison he"s being fire bombed by Jewish extremists (see previous note). Are you suggesting that men and women who do this research actually want to be beaten up and fire bombed by Jewish terrorists? Are you suggesting that maybe they really want to go to prison and that they are so rich they perhaps wish to be financially ruined by punitive and crippling fines? The truth fears NO investigation since the truth can withstand all and any scrutiny. When investigation is met with firebombs and gulags then clearly there is fear toward the investigation. Why do people revise any part of history or science? It"s obvious " they are seeking truth for themselves. They are seeking to do their own research and make up their own mind rather than devolve their thinking and their own mind to others. They are seeking anomalies and falsehoods that have been woven onto the tapestry of history. Example. After WW2 (and for many decades), there was a claim that Jews were turned into soap and lampshades. Even to this very dark, long after both were debunked, there are still those that assume this true. Yet the claims were nothing more than post war Communist propaganda. Without on- going research and investigation then such lies would have remained as "documented facts". That is why one"s own search for objective truth is important and must be an inherent right. Why should this holocaust be the one and only exception to the rule? You said "As much as I love to hear that my argument is redundant I have to disagree because believe it or not this is an emotion fueled subject and I'm not talking about the revisionist I"m talking about the victims. Look there is no way any revisionist can know 100% that the holocaust never happened so the ones you are defending (those who do it in a non-threatening way) still need to make sure no one is getting hurt and that it should still be done in a way that is respectful to everyone and most importantly the Jews who were the biggest victim in the event." Emotions and claims of personal feelings have zero place in the field of objective research and debate. Any victims are long since dead " I doubt their feelings are being hurt by research and people making up their own mind. But even those "victims" that "survived" should not be a barrier to good investigation and questioning. On the contrary " the eye witnesses (sic) should play an active part of any revisionist"s investigation. For the reader (and yourself). Here is a wonderfully made critique of the 1998 holocaust documentary " "The Last Days". This was produced by Spielberg and heralded by himself as his greatest ever work. Spielberg is of course Jewish. His "eye witnesses" include one Irene Zisblatt. Irene claims that she swallowed and defecated diamonds for two years while in a "death camp". She claims that she "escaped the gas chamber" by essentially walking backwards. When one examines the claims of Zisblatt it very soon becomes apparent that Irene Zisblatt is a liar and a fantasist. Yet were it not for the great work of American researcher Eric Hunt, then others would still be believing her ridiculous claims to this day. Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of The Big Lie https://www.youtube.com... You said; "No it is not my position because I do not have a concrete idea of which method was used as I had looked up to see what was used and I found that it was Carbon Monoxide Gas and we can argue over it but that's not what we are here for. When you say moot I"m not sure what you are referencing if you are talking about my argument I was pointing out that existing research was not very clear and appeared to be a bit one sided real researchers cannot be biased and must take on both sides to find what they are looking for and I saw that this report did not do that very well and the arguments are common with revisionist's. I do believe that adults have certain rights to knowledge but this right conflicts with the rights of other so is their right to knowledge more important? No it isn't" Okay. So it"s fair to say that you took on a debate about holocaust researchers and revisionists without having any idea about what the alleged methods were to exterminate these alleged 6 million Jews. What do you think holocaust revisionists do? One of the key areas they research is the alleged methods by which the alleged 6 million Jews were exterminated. What is it you believe the holocaust to be if not made up of three components " that 6 million Jews dying, mostly in supposed gas chambers, and as formal party policy? What else would revisionists research if not those three key areas? For your own record, the official claim is that the bulk were said to be gassed to death with Zyclon B gas and not Carbon Monoxide gas(which was also claimed but is mentioned far less). Zyclon B is hydrogen cyanide. Not Carbon Monoxide. Zyclon B is sometimes called "Prussian Blue" owing to the blue staining that it leaves. I can give you more information if you wish, but how am I able to do so? Because where I am I won"t get the cops bursting through my door at 5am for doing so, I won"t get thrown in prison " holocaust revisionism is not illegal in my country. That is why I am so informed on the technical matters " the science behind it. If I had the threat of prison hanging over me and if information was suppressed (as it is in all those "free" nations I cited in my first post), then I would probably be ignorant on such matters. But it is not a criminal offence here, so I am able to research and inform myself with relative freedom. This is a right that should be extended to every man and women. Incidentally, you might want to look into why Carbon Monoxide was cited in some cases before sort of fading from popularity in this story. Consider the practicalities and efficiency. How practical and efficient do you think it would be to kill six million people in just a few years with Carbon Monoxide? There were claims of second-hand motor oil being used, and let's be generous and assume a mere 40 kg per corpse. At around 0.85 kg/lit, it would take 4.7 million litres of motor oil for every 100,000 bodies. There were othe