the lie of a non truth?

Maybe it should be a truth of a lie that isn’t a non truth?

WTF?

Say a given information is contested. say a history is being contested as to what and how stuff actually happened. There might be a narrative that places a person in a given context while they were very obviously not, yes?

Like an alibi?

Could be.. Say some people say there wasn’t a holocaust. The reason the idea seems so abusive and repulsive is that there is such an overwhelming evidence the holocaust has happened that any contention has to do with its murderous nittygritty – and ignoring that is an attempt to contempt unutterable deaths.. However, it isn’t the same when the question might be the history of germany, right?

..as in the questionably?

Is it not the the question assumes there is a question of germany?

Within that assumption, we can get all sort of ideas.. however, now lets consider, what if a person does not consider having multiple idea, narratives and sequences which might link to a german history – as a possibility?

Like, when a person denies the armenian holocaust as a non narrative in a turkish history?

Is it not an obscene position to have?

Denying the armenian holocaust?

I’d say obcene.. However, what happens when the examples, the discourse is not regarding life and death, but of more gray areas?

Are questions of truth and lies different when concerning gray areas?

What about german history.. Is it cool to link german immigration to north america and the choking of native american people..?

Is it cool to link german involvement as people, as a group of people, or as a political entity – germany?

Is it cool to link the slow holocaust of native americans with germany more than with britain, spain, or other european countries?

Exactly.. but now lets imagine someone denying all these questions exist.. Lets imagine someone saying the fact that many europeans brought un intended diseases to america, means the whole question of european involvement in the deaths of natives is just irrelevant and should be treated as not existent.. Is it correct to claim that such a person is lying by claiming the other views are not within the discourse – while using a certain truth – ie the disease issue?