Holocaust Denial

[Shofercia]

Genocide is a "tad" more traumatic than surviving a single hellish day. Really not that hard to comprehend.

So far, you have not provided a valid argument. To be frank, you're speaking out of your ass.

What part of "That's their opinion" do you not understand? Get that through your thick skull. You're not going to be able to change it no matter how hard you debate it or evidence you give them. You might shut them up, but you won't fully change their views on it.

Just gtfo.

You're arguing for free speech, and telling me to GTFO

[Scorpions on the moon]

People genuinely believe that the holocaust didn't happen. Don't act as if everyone who denies the holocaust is doing so because they have some conscious desire to piss off other people. Not everybody who disagrees with you is some type of psychopath. Are these beliefs rational? Probably not, but offensive and irrational beliefs are tolerated every day. It's part of living in a free society.

We live in a world of billions of people. Everyone is going to end up holding an opinion that offends a group of people. There are no rational reasons to suppress these opinions other than outrage and arguments from emotion.

You don't have to be a psychopath to be an excellent troll, nor did I ever say that everyone who disagreed with me is a psychopath, but I see that you are simply incapable of posting without the use of strawmen.

Additionally, I'm not calling for the censure of all free speech; I'm limiting it to Genocidal Events, that clearly were Genocidal Events. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If one is allowed to deny every single Genocide that happened, then what's to stop them from advocating for another Genocide?

Your little paragraph heavily implies that the only reason for denying the holocaust is to piss everyone off. My response is that, just because somebody holds an unpopular position, it does not mean they're doing it just to troll. The logical implication is that denying the holocaust means you're just trying to piss people off. You think that the holocaust happened, so logically, you think that everyone who disagrees with you must be trying to anger people. I used the term psychopath in a way that denotes a person who lacks empathy. It's a simple logical exercise. 1: Denying the holocaust is done just to anger people . 2: You think the holocaust happened. 3: People who don't think the holocaust happened disagree with you. 4: Therefore, everyone who disagrees with you is a psychopath, as I defined it. Sure, the use of the word psychopath is not the common use, but this doesn't really matter. The point is that you hold the delusional belief that you can't be a rational person who denies the holocaust. No, everyone who disagrees me with must be doing it troll! There's no way somebody could have a different opinion than me! But sadly, there are people who seriously think the holocaust didn't happen. Not all of them are trolls, and saying otherwise is a massive disconnect from reality. I don't really give a fuck if you didn't explicitly state that everyone who disagrees with you is trolling, but that's pretty much all you can get from your post.

Are you really going to go down the slippery slope argument? Do you really think that having half of a half of a percentage of people denying the holocaust is going to lead to some type of genocide? How this makes any sense is beyond my understanding.

[Shofercia]

Genocide is a "tad" more traumatic than surviving a single hellish day.

What a ridiculously cruel thing to say.

I can see why you're in favour of legal sanctions on free speech, now... because without them, you, yourself, say things like that.

Surviving a single hellish day is less traumatic than surviving many hellish days. That's just stating a fact. Granted, I could've phrased it better, but facts are facts.

[Eucadian Federation]

So far, you have not provided a valid argument. To be frank, you're speaking out of your ass.

What part of "That's their opinion" do you not understand? Get that through your thick skull. You're not going to be able to change it no matter how hard you debate it or evidence you give them. You might shut them up, but you won't fully change their views on it.

Just gtfo.

You're arguing for free speech, and telling me to GTFO

Yeah I am telling you the GTFO because you're just commenting just to comment. You have no more valid points anymore.

[Scorpions on the moon]

So far, you have not provided a valid argument. To be frank, you're speaking out of your ass.

What part of "That's their opinion" do you not understand? Get that through your thick skull. You're not going to be able to change it no matter how hard you debate it or evidence you give them. You might shut them up, but you won't fully change their views on it.

Just gtfo.

You're arguing for free speech, and telling me to GTFO

Is he forcing you? No, he's simply expressing his opinion that you're an annoying person who should leave the thread.

[New Sapienta]

So far, you have not provided a valid argument. To be frank, you're speaking out of your ass.

What part of "That's their opinion" do you not understand? Get that through your thick skull. You're not going to be able to change it no matter how hard you debate it or evidence you give them. You might shut them up, but you won't fully change their views on it.

Just gtfo.

You're arguing for free speech, and telling me to GTFO

That part of free speech.

You can tell someone to GTFO, doesn't mean they have too.

[Scorpions on the moon]

What a ridiculously cruel thing to say.

I can see why you're in favour of legal sanctions on free speech, now... because without them, you, yourself, say things like that.

Surviving a single hellish day is less traumatic than surviving many hellish days. That's just stating a fact. Granted, I could've phrased it better, but facts are facts.

No, that's not a fact at all. One can easily derive more suffering from a single day than another person who suffered for many days.

[Shofercia]

You don't have to be a psychopath to be an excellent troll, nor did I ever say that everyone who disagreed with me is a psychopath, but I see that you are simply incapable of posting without the use of strawmen.

Additionally, I'm not calling for the censure of all free speech; I'm limiting it to Genocidal Events, that clearly were Genocidal Events. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If one is allowed to deny every single Genocide that happened, then what's to stop them from advocating for another Genocide?

Your little paragraph heavily implies that the only reason for denying the holocaust is to piss everyone off. My response is that, just because somebody holds an unpopular position, it does not mean they're doing it just to troll. The logical implication is that denying the holocaust means you're just trying to piss people off. You think that the holocaust happened, so logically, you think that everyone who disagrees with you must be trying to anger people. I used the term psychopath in a way that denotes a person who lacks empathy. It's a simple logical exercise. 1: Denying the holocaust is done just to anger people . 2: You think the holocaust happened. 3: People who don't think the holocaust happened disagree with you. 4: Therefore, everyone who disagrees with you is a psychopath, as I defined it. Sure, the use of the word psychopath is not the common use, but this doesn't really matter. The point is that you hold the delusional belief that you can't be a rational person who denies the holocaust. No, everyone who disagrees me with must be doing it troll! There's no way somebody could have a different opinion than me! But sadly, there are people who seriously think the holocaust didn't happen. Not all of them are trolls, and saying otherwise is a massive disconnect from reality. I don't really give a fuck if you didn't explicitly state that everyone who disagrees with you is trolling, but that's pretty much all you can get from your post.

Are you really going to go down the slippery slope argument? Do you really think that having half of a half of a percentage of people denying the holocaust is going to lead to some type of genocide? How this makes any sense is beyond my understanding.

First, I know that Holocaust happened. Thinking and knowing are two different things. Second, one can be a rabid racist, and still be quite empathetic to his race, but not to those who were killed off by Hitler, and thus, not be a psychopath. So your simple exercise is an utter failure. Additionally, you're making an absolutely phenomenal logical gaffe when it comes to generalizing. Even if your example was somehow correct, which it ain't, someone thinking that all Holocaust Deniers are psychopaths does not, in any way, shape or form, equate to that same someone thinking that everyone who disagrees with him is a psychopath. That is a gap in logic that's so tremendous, that it cannot simply be filled.

[Shofercia]

You're arguing for free speech, and telling me to GTFO

Yeah I am telling you the GTFO because you're just commenting just to comment. You have no more valid points anymore.

Assuming that's true, which it isn't, should everyone who has no more valid points to make, GTFO in your book?

[Shofercia]

Surviving a single hellish day is less traumatic than surviving many hellish days. That's just stating a fact. Granted, I could've phrased it better, but facts are facts.

No, that's not a fact at all. One can easily derive more suffering from a single day than another person who suffered for many days.

I stated that in the context of 9/11 vs the Holocaust, pointing out that the Holocaust is more traumatic than 9/11, in the grand scheme of things.

You're arguing for free speech, and telling me to GTFO

Is he forcing you? No, he's simply expressing his opinion that you're an annoying person who should leave the thread.

If I annoy you so, why do you bother responding with posts that lack logic?

[Eucadian Federation]

No, that's not a fact at all. One can easily derive more suffering from a single day than another person who suffered for many days.

I stated that in the context of 9/11 vs the Holocaust, pointing out that the Holocaust is more traumatic than 9/11, in the grand scheme of things.

Is he forcing you? No, he's simply expressing his opinion that you're an annoying person who should leave the thread.

If I annoy you so, why do you bother responding with posts that lack logic?

Hypocrisy.

[Shofercia]

I stated that in the context of 9/11 vs the Holocaust, pointing out that the Holocaust is more traumatic than 9/11, in the grand scheme of things.




If I annoy you so, why do you bother responding with posts that lack logic?

Hypocrisy.

A superb response that clearly rebuts the points made /sarcasm

[Scorpions on the moon]

Your little paragraph heavily implies that the only reason for denying the holocaust is to piss everyone off. My response is that, just because somebody holds an unpopular position, it does not mean they're doing it just to troll. The logical implication is that denying the holocaust means you're just trying to piss people off. You think that the holocaust happened, so logically, you think that everyone who disagrees with you must be trying to anger people. I used the term psychopath in a way that denotes a person who lacks empathy. It's a simple logical exercise. 1: Denying the holocaust is done just to anger people . 2: You think the holocaust happened. 3: People who don't think the holocaust happened disagree with you. 4: Therefore, everyone who disagrees with you is a psychopath, as I defined it. Sure, the use of the word psychopath is not the common use, but this doesn't really matter. The point is that you hold the delusional belief that you can't be a rational person who denies the holocaust. No, everyone who disagrees me with must be doing it troll! There's no way somebody could have a different opinion than me! But sadly, there are people who seriously think the holocaust didn't happen. Not all of them are trolls, and saying otherwise is a massive disconnect from reality. I don't really give a fuck if you didn't explicitly state that everyone who disagrees with you is trolling, but that's pretty much all you can get from your post.

Are you really going to go down the slippery slope argument? Do you really think that having half of a half of a percentage of people denying the holocaust is going to lead to some type of genocide? How this makes any sense is beyond my understanding.

First, I know that Holocaust happened. Thinking and knowing are two different things. Second, one can be a rabid racist, and still be quite empathetic to his race, but not to those who were killed off by Hitler, and thus, not be a psychopath. So your simple exercise is an utter failure. Additionally, you're making an absolutely phenomenal logical gaffe when it comes to generalizing. Even if your example was somehow correct, which it ain't, someone thinking that all Holocaust Deniers are psychopaths does not, in any way, shape or form, equate to that same someone thinking that everyone who disagrees with him is a psychopath. That is a gap in logic that's so tremendous, that it cannot simply be filled.

I used ''think'' to describe the mental state of accepting ''the holocaust happened'' as a true proposition. From that, you think the holocaust happened. If you don't like my definitions, fine...whatever, but I'm not interested in semantics.

You seem to equate ''lacking empathy'' with ''no empathy'', and that's the problem. You can have empathy for your race and hate the Jews, but still lack empathy. Lacking empathy just means that there's some standard of empathy that you don't meet up to. It does not mean that you have no empathy at all. Lack just implies a shortage of something.

You're just toying with words again, and failing to employ the principle of charity. Obviously, I mean ''everyone who disagrees with you in this regard''. I just don't type that out because I trust my audience to be smart enough to figure these things out for themselves. But I see that my optimism has been cruelly exploited by Shofercia so he can score some debate points.

[Scorpions on the moon]

I stated that in the context of 9/11 vs the Holocaust, pointing out that the Holocaust is more traumatic than 9/11, in the grand scheme of things.

That's still not a fact. Trauma is a psychological state. Somebody who lost a parent/child/friend on 9/11 can consider that one single day to be more traumatic than the holocaust times a bajillion. That's the nature of psychology.

If I annoy you so, why do you bother responding with posts that lack logic?

Me? You think you're irritating me? When did I say that? I tend to think that the words HIS opinion mean I'm talking about someone else's thoughts.

[Shofercia]

First, I know that Holocaust happened. Thinking and knowing are two different things. Second, one can be a rabid racist, and still be quite empathetic to his race, but not to those who were killed off by Hitler, and thus, not be a psychopath. So your simple exercise is an utter failure. Additionally, you're making an absolutely phenomenal logical gaffe when it comes to generalizing. Even if your example was somehow correct, which it ain't, someone thinking that all Holocaust Deniers are psychopaths does not, in any way, shape or form, equate to that same someone thinking that everyone who disagrees with him is a psychopath. That is a gap in logic that's so tremendous, that it cannot simply be filled.

I used ''think'' to describe the mental state of accepting ''the holocaust happened'' as a true proposition. From that, you think the holocaust happened. If you don't like my definitions, fine...whatever, but I'm not interested in semantics.

You seem to equate ''lacking empathy'' with ''no empathy'', and that's the problem. You can have empathy for your race and hate the Jews, but still lack empathy. Lacking empathy just means that there's some standard of empathy that you don't meet up to. It does not mean that you have no empathy at all. Lack just implies a shortage of something.

You're just toying with words again, and failing to employ the principle of charity. Obviously, I mean ''everyone who disagrees with you in this regard''. I just don't type that out because I trust my audience to be smart enough to figure these things out for themselves. But I see that my optimism has been cruelly exploited by Shofercia so he can score some debate points.

You claimed that I think that those who disagree with me are psychopaths. I called out your bullshit claim. So now, you backtracked quite nicely. Additionally, you changed the meaning of the word psychopath, so please don't try and claim about how your optimism is cruelly exploited. A psychopath is: http://crime.about.com/od/serial/a/psychopaths.htm

incapable of normal emotions such as love, generally react without considering the consequences of their actions

You cannot simply be a psychopath towards the Jews, and a perfectly normal guy towards others, since, if you're a psychopath, you are incapable of emotions. So yes, if you're going to redefine terms to suit your needs, or use uncommon definitions for some terms, I am going to call you out for not being specific enough. I thought that was a given. You tried putting words in my mouth, and you're shocked that I won't lay down and take it nicely?

[Shofercia]

I stated that in the context of 9/11 vs the Holocaust, pointing out that the Holocaust is more traumatic than 9/11, in the grand scheme of things.

That's still not a fact. Trauma is a psychological state. Somebody who lost a parent/child/friend on 9/11 can consider that one single day to be more traumatic than the holocaust times a bajillion. That's the nature of psychology.

Did you miss this part: in the grand scheme of things?

If I annoy you so, why do you bother responding with posts that lack logic?

Me? You think you're irritating me? When did I say that? I tend to think that the words HIS opinion mean I'm talking about someone else's thoughts.

He never said that I annoyed him. That was your assumption. You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about me, and thus far, you've been phenomenally wrong.

[Scorpions on the moon]

I used ''think'' to describe the mental state of accepting ''the holocaust happened'' as a true proposition. From that, you think the holocaust happened. If you don't like my definitions, fine...whatever, but I'm not interested in semantics.

You seem to equate ''lacking empathy'' with ''no empathy'', and that's the problem. You can have empathy for your race and hate the Jews, but still lack empathy. Lacking empathy just means that there's some standard of empathy that you don't meet up to. It does not mean that you have no empathy at all. Lack just implies a shortage of something.

You're just toying with words again, and failing to employ the principle of charity. Obviously, I mean ''everyone who disagrees with you in this regard''. I just don't type that out because I trust my audience to be smart enough to figure these things out for themselves. But I see that my optimism has been cruelly exploited by Shofercia so he can score some debate points.

You claimed that I think that those who disagree with me are psychopaths. I called out your bullshit claim. So now, you backtracked quite nicely. Additionally, you changed the meaning of the word psychopath, so please don't try and claim about how your optimism is cruelly exploited. A psychopath is: http://crime.about.com/od/serial/a/psychopaths.htm

incapable of normal emotions such as love, generally react without considering the consequences of their actions

You cannot simply be a psychopath towards the Jews, and a perfectly normal guy towards others, since, if you're a psychopath, you are incapable of emotions. So yes, if you're going to redefine terms to suit your needs, or use uncommon definitions for some terms, I am going to call you out for not being specific enough. I thought that was a given. You tried putting words in my mouth, and you're shocked that I won't lay down and take it nicely?

Wait...

you actually devoted an entire post to repeat what I have already said--that I was using psychopath in a rhetorical and flashy, rather than a technical, way?

What a waste of time. I feel kind of bad.

Also, you seem to have mix-matched your points in a rather embarrassing way. When I said ''my optimism has been exploited'', it was in reference to another point about the logical exercise, not the definition of psychopath. But whatever, I don't really care.

[Grave_n_idle]

Keep repeating that dear.

I have to, because you keep failing to make an argument.

Hell, I'm not even asking a difficult question - why is some denial in the face of overwhelming evidence okay, but some should be outlawed, according to you?

And emotional responses are not an answer. And 'waah, it's insulting' isn't an answer.

Not what you were actually arguing,

Wow. You really are going to tell me what i think.

...nor was that what I was actually responding to. My point was that it's not all about you.

Except it is, isn't it?

Aren't we Jewish survivors the exact people this IS all about?

How exactly are you protecting with your laws, if it isn't people like me?

So spitting on the memory of Holocaust survivors isn't insulting to you?

More emotive bullshit. Try using neutral phrases like 'denying the history' rather than 'spitting on the memory'.

And no - no more than any other denial of facts with evidence.

I quoted the definition from dictionary.com.

I didn't say you didn't quote it. I said you didn't understand it.

Some speech is juvenile, even if it's free. Deal with it.

I am dealing with it. You're the one who is trying to avoid dealing with it.

I was referring to a specific event. It's not just denial of some random things.

It is just the denial of some random things. You're arbitrarily saying that one (or more - you seem unclear) specific thing should be illegal to deny - but not other things. That's hypocrisy.

[Scorpions on the moon]

Did you miss this part: in the grand scheme of things?

I read it just fine, actually. I'm a literate individual who reads at a decent level. It doesn't at all take away from the fact that trauma is subjective. Was the holocaust objectively more damaging in terms of economics or human life? Sure, but trauma is something else entirely.

He never said that I annoyed him. That was your assumption. You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about me, and thus far, you've been phenomenally wrong.

What assumption did I make about you? If anything, I made an assumption about the other poster, which was a reasonable assumption. You're obviously annoying a person when they tell you to get the fuck out and say that you're contributing nothing to a thread.

[Grave_n_idle]

What a ridiculously cruel thing to say.

I can see why you're in favour of legal sanctions on free speech, now... because without them, you, yourself, say things like that.

Surviving a single hellish day is less traumatic than surviving many hellish days. That's just stating a fact. Granted, I could've phrased it better, but facts are facts.

I didn't realise you had a hierarchy of suffering that everyone has to adhere to.

What exactly do you base this scale on, once you've wiped off all the excrement from dragging it out of your ass?

[Shofercia]

everyone who disagrees with you is a psychopath, as I defined it. Sure, the use of the word psychopath is not the common use, but this doesn't really matter.

You're just toying with words again

Those two posts say something about you. They say that you're a hypocrite. In the first post, you opt for an uncommon use of an offensive word, and say that it doesn't matter, thus toying with the word in your own attempt to score debate points. In the second post, you accuse others of toying with words. That's hypocrisy coming from you, Scorpions on the moon, and there's no denying it.

[Grave_n_idle]

First, I know that Holocaust happened.

Were you there?

[Yjafjord]

to a point, yes.

it should be legal for civil debates, but once it starts going into hate speech then it crosses the line and should be illegal

also, you guys should stop fighting like that up there, to me you ALL look like you are unwilling to admit that anyone but you has at least a point.

[Scorpions on the moon]

everyone who disagrees with you is a psychopath, as I defined it. Sure, the use of the word psychopath is not the common use, but this doesn't really matter.

You're just toying with words again

Those two posts say something about you. They say that you're a hypocrite. In the first post, you opt for an uncommon use of an offensive word, and say that it doesn't matter, thus toying with the word in your own attempt to score debate points. In the second post, you accuse others of toying with words. That's hypocrisy coming from you, Scorpions on the moon, and there's no denying it.

I'm a hypocrite. Yipee.

Now we can discuss something important?

[Grave_n_idle]

I stated that in the context of 9/11 vs the Holocaust, pointing out that the Holocaust is more traumatic than 9/11, in the grand scheme of things.

In the 'grand scheme of thing' the holocaust is just statistics.

If you're going to ignore the individual suffering of individuals, then all you're talking about is statistics - and statistics should never be a protected class of speech.