Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Argument in Holocaust Denial: The Differences Between Historical Casuistry and Denial Casuistry

Argument in Holocaust Denial: The Differences Between Historical Casuistry and Denial Casuistry This essay examines casuistry as it works in argumentative processes and effects. Instead of dismissing all casuistic practices as inherently evil, it is important to study casuistry's functioning for two reasons: casuistry is a necessary and inevitable feature of language and casuistry is effective. I argue that there are good and malign forms of casuistic reasoning and I distinguish between them by comparing and contrasting historical casuistry with the practice of Holocaust denial. In particular, I examine the libel suit brought by Holocaust denier David Irving against Penguin Publishers and Deborah Lipstadt. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Argumentation and Advocacy Taylor & Francis

Argument in Holocaust Denial: The Differences Between Historical Casuistry and Denial Casuistry

Wright, Jaime
Argumentation and Advocacy , Volume 43 (2): 14 – Sep 1, 2006
Download PDF

Argument in Holocaust Denial: The Differences Between Historical Casuistry and Denial Casuistry

Abstract

This essay examines casuistry as it works in argumentative processes and effects. Instead of dismissing all casuistic practices as inherently evil, it is important to study casuistry's functioning for two reasons: casuistry is a necessary and inevitable feature of language and casuistry is effective. I argue that there are good and malign forms of casuistic reasoning and I distinguish between them by comparing and contrasting historical casuistry with the practice of Holocaust denial. In...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/argument-in-holocaust-denial-the-differences-between-historical-leTZr0Jcwq
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2006 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2576-8476
eISSN
1051-1431
DOI
10.1080/00028533.2006.11821662
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This essay examines casuistry as it works in argumentative processes and effects. Instead of dismissing all casuistic practices as inherently evil, it is important to study casuistry's functioning for two reasons: casuistry is a necessary and inevitable feature of language and casuistry is effective. I argue that there are good and malign forms of casuistic reasoning and I distinguish between them by comparing and contrasting historical casuistry with the practice of Holocaust denial. In particular, I examine the libel suit brought by Holocaust denier David Irving against Penguin Publishers and Deborah Lipstadt.

Journal

Argumentation and Advocacy – Taylor & Francis

Published: Sep 1, 2006

Keywords: casuistry; argument; rhetoric; history; Holocaust denial

References

  • “The Effects of Truth: Re-Presentations of the Past and Imagining of Community.”
  • “Where There are No Rules or Systems to Guide Us: Argument from Example in a Hermeneutic Rhetoric.”
  • “The Rhetorical Situation.”
  • “The Rhetorical Construction of History.”
  • “The Rhetorics of the Past: History, Argument, and Collective Memory.”
  • “Canadian Civil Liberties, Holocaust Denial, and the Zundel Trials.”
  • “Holocaust Denial Debates: The Symbolic Significance of Irving v. Penguin & Lipstadt.”
  • “Rhetoric, History, and Collective Memory: Decoding the Goldhagen Debates.”
  • “Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit//transcripts//Closing_Address.Irving.”
  • “Postmodern Casuistry and Intertextuality: The Case of Henry James and the Analogical Imagination.”
  • “Humanitarian Intervention, Altruism, and the Limits of Casuistry.”
  • “Gnawing At History: The Rhetoric of Holocaust Denial.”
  • “Specified Principalism: What is It, and Does It Really Resolve Cases Better Than Casuistry?”