Holocaust Denial

[Scorpions on the moon]

First, I know that Holocaust happened.

Were you there?

Fuck, even if he was there, there's no way of being certain that the external world is really the actual world. How anyone can claim anything with 100% epistemic certainty is unclear.

[Eucadian Federation]

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?

I LOL'd at this really loud.. haha oops.

[Orcoa]

It should not be illegal but it does give me the right to either break their opinions in debate

Or punch them in their mouths....both are positives for me so its a win win for everybody

Well....not for the Holocaust denial guys

[Benuty]

This little thing called "Democide" happens to be quite real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Thing is, irrespective of what certain "historians" say, we don't actually believe that you can kill someone until the sperm meets the egg.

I don't see why it's special. Some people deny the holocaust, some deny global climate change, some deny evolution. They're equally stupid and unsupportable positions, but only one of them is socially unacceptable.

Is there a difference between calling a straight person a Fag, and a gay person, a Fag? Is there a difference between calling a white guy, a Nigger, and a black person, a Nigger? If you believe that there's no difference, we have nothing to discuss. If you believe that there is a difference, all you have to do is to simply analogize. Holocaust Denial is only banned where it was actually committed.

Ignoring, of course, the fact that Stalin spent day and night with a check board of all the names of people in the Ukraine, putting a check by random names he didn't like to have them executed.

Genocide is about people, not about locations. Otherwise, the US should be sued for the "Genocides" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. See the difference?

I hear the weather is quite fine in the cambodian rural areas this time of year.

[Red Centurion Legionaries]

Well, I personally don't think that it is wrong to voice your opinion, right?

[Eucadian Federation]

Well, I personally don't think that it is wrong to voice your opinion, right?

Wow. You and just about 4 other people realize this point!

OPINION!

[Shofercia]

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.

I've already explained the difference between Holocaust Denial and Global Warming Denial. You claimed that my explanation was based on emotion. Logos, Pathos, and Ethos are all part of an argument. You need Logic, Emotion, and Ethics. I stated that it's illogical to cause further harm to some people who already suffered through the Holocaust, over an issue that won't contribute jack shit to society. On the other hand, Global Warming is a problem that everyone faces, not just members of ethnicity X. That was my differentiation. It's too emotional for you to accept. I get that.

Not what you were actually arguing,

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

Nope. I'll just inform you that the World doesn't revolve around you. It revolves around you and others. Hence, it cannot be, all about you.

...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?

You aren't the only Jewish survivor. It might be partially about you, but it's not all about you.

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'.

Telling a Holocaust survivor that the Holocaust didn't exist is spitting on the memory, or do you disagree with that as well?

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.

What am I avoiding?

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.

No, it's not. I gave a specific reason, and repeated it numerous times, see the top of this post for my most recent repetition.

[Shofercia]

First, I know that Holocaust happened.

Were you there?

Are you seriously going to fucking argue this bullshit? Seriously? I had more respect for you than that. I don't anymore. What's next, are we all in the Matrix, and only Neo can save us?

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?

A hypocrite putting words in my mouth is something that I have to clear up.

[Shofercia]

Well, I personally don't think that it is wrong to voice your opinion, right?

Wow. You and just about 4 other people realize this point!

OPINION!

Except those who deny the Holocaust actually argue that it's a fact that the Holocaust didn't take place, not just their opinion.

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?

[quote="Shofercia";p="15018907"]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.


Ain't it amazing what you can accomplish by reading the clarification? Also, this phrase, wiped off all the excrement, did you come up with that all by yourself?

[Scorpions on the moon]

Are you seriously going to fucking argue this bullshit? Seriously? I had more respect for you than that. I don't anymore. What's next, are we all in the Matrix, and only Neo can save us?

That's just the thing. When people use reason and logic, you respond with outrage and emotion. It's typical of everything you've said here.

A hypocrite putting words in my mouth is something that I have to clear up.

I agree that I'm a hypocrite, but that only means the both of us were fucking with words.

I didn't put anything in your mouth. You have made it clear that you think nobody sincerely thinks the holocaust didn't happened. So, where's your evidence?

[Distruzio]

I've no problem with it.

[Grave_n_idle]

I've already explained the difference between Holocaust Denial and Global Warming Denial. You claimed that my explanation was based on emotion.

And your appeal to emotion is a fallacy I'm not tempted to indulge.

Logos, Pathos, and Ethos are all part of an argument. You need Logic, Emotion, and Ethics.

No, I need logic.

I stated that it's illogical to cause further harm to some people who already suffered through the Holocaust, over an issue that won't contribute jack shit to society.

That's not illogical.

Unpleasant, perhaps - but that's not the same thing.

On the other hand, Global Warming is a problem that everyone faces, not just members of ethnicity X. That was my differentiation.

Logically, then... denying global warming is more of an issue than denying the holocaust.

After all, no one is going to die of the holocaust any more, and it only affected a few people in comparison.

You aren't the only Jewish survivor. It might be partially about you, but it's not all about you.

So who exactly is this law you're arguing for supposed to be protecting? I don't want your protection.

Telling a Holocaust survivor that the Holocaust didn't exist is spitting on the memory, or do you disagree with that as well?

Of course I disagree with that as well, it's more of your emotional bullshit.

What am I avoiding?

You said: "Some speech is juvenile, even if it's free. Deal with it". I am dealing with it.

You're saying it should be illegal - thus you are AVOIDING dealing with it.

No, it's not. I gave a specific reason, and repeated it numerous times, see the top of this post for my most recent repetition.

Actually, having reviewed what you typed at the start of that post - you made a more compelling argument for banning Climate Change denial than for banning holocaust denial.

You haven't made a single good argument as to why banning free speech about the holocaust is okay, but someone saying 'evolution never happened' shouldn't be held to the same standard.

[Grave_n_idle]

Are you seriously going to fucking argue this bullshit? Seriously? I had more respect for you than that. I don't anymore. What's next, are we all in the Matrix, and only Neo can save us?

I notice you didn't answer an incredibly simple, incredibly straight-forward question.

You said you "know" - were you there?

[Shofercia]

Are you seriously going to fucking argue this bullshit? Seriously? I had more respect for you than that. I don't anymore. What's next, are we all in the Matrix, and only Neo can save us?

That's just the thing. When people use reason and logic, you respond with outrage and emotion. It's typical of everything you've said here.

Saying that someone doesn't know that x event happened, because they weren't there, isn't using reason and logic. It's bullshit. So I called it out.

A hypocrite putting words in my mouth is something that I have to clear up.

I agree that I'm a hypocrite, but that only means the both of us were fucking with words.

I didn't put anything in your mouth. You have made it clear that you think nobody sincerely thinks the holocaust happened. So, where's your evidence?

I wasn't fucking with words, you were, and I called you out on it. And you claimed that I think that those who disagree with are psychopaths, which is bullshit. Also, I think plenty of people sincerely think that the Holocaust happened, and I'm one of them!

[Shofercia]

Are you seriously going to fucking argue this bullshit? Seriously? I had more respect for you than that. I don't anymore. What's next, are we all in the Matrix, and only Neo can save us?

I notice you didn't answer an incredibly simple, incredibly straight-forward question.

You said you "know" - were you there?

I wasn't there. However, I also know that the Blackhawks are playing the Bruins in the Stanley Cup Finals. And guess what? I'm also neither in Boston, nor in Chicago!

[Grave_n_idle]

Ain't it amazing what you can accomplish by reading the clarification?

I already addressed the nonsense of discussing human suffering in terms of the 'grand scheme of things' in a different post.

You keep inventing these arbitrary axioms, like you expect everyone to agree with them... but not everyone is as vitriolic about this subject.

I don't agree that one person suffering for one day must be inherently and intrinsically less traumatic than suffering for multiple days - and I base that on experiences I've had with returning vets, emergency service workers, and peace officers.

Everything seems to suggest it's simply not true. One person in one of the towers on 9/11, watching 3000 people they knew die, could easily have been more traumatised than a random person in the holocaust.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

Hate speech? Thats entirely different than skepticism over a historical event.

It's not "skepticism," it's denial that a well-documented event actually happened.

implying that every single time they changed the number of people means the even was documented 100%

[Scorpions on the moon]

Saying that someone doesn't know that x event happened, because they weren't there, isn't using reason and logic. It's bullshit. So I called it out.

You called it out by waving your arms around and making a joke about the Matrix.

I wasn't fucking with words, you were, and I called you out on it.

Watch this: we both were. Whooo! I can make bare assertions without evidence tooooooo!

And you claimed that I think that those who disagree with are psychopaths, which is bullshit. Also, I think plenty of people sincerely think that the Holocaust happened, and I'm one of them!

This is another example of how you fail to employ the principle of charity, which means that you should address the strongest form of what your opponent says. Obviously, I meant to say ''didn't happen'', but I wrote otherwise because I'm tired as shit. You fucking knew that too, Chauffercia.

Now that we're done with the games, what evidence do you actually have?

[Grave_n_idle]

I notice you didn't answer an incredibly simple, incredibly straight-forward question.

You said you "know" - were you there?

I wasn't there.

So when you say you 'know', what you mean is that you've either studied some of the evidence, or you've been told about it - and you believed all you read or were told.

It's entirely possible that someone could be easily as rigourous as you, and come to the opposite conclusion.

That's the problem with claiming you 'know' something you've never actually witnessed - your opinion is only as valid as that of the next guy to look at the evidence.

[Scorpions on the moon]

I notice you didn't answer an incredibly simple, incredibly straight-forward question.

You said you "know" - were you there?

I wasn't there. However, I also know that the Blackhawks are playing the Bruins in the Stanley Cup Finals. And guess what? I'm also neither in Boston, nor in Chicago!

You don't know. It's just probably true.

It's called the problem of induction.

[Eucadian Federation]

Except those who deny the Holocaust actually argue that it's a fact that the Holocaust didn't take place, not just their opinion.

No. That's opinion there ya retard.

[Shofercia]

Ain't it amazing what you can accomplish by reading the clarification?

I already addressed the nonsense of discussing human suffering in terms of the 'grand scheme of things' in a different post.

You keep inventing these arbitrary axioms, like you expect everyone to agree with them... but not everyone is as vitriolic about this subject.

I don't agree that one person suffering for one day must be inherently and intrinsically less traumatic than suffering for multiple days - and I base that on experiences I've had with returning vets, emergency service workers, and peace officers.

Everything seems to suggest it's simply not true. One person in one of the towers on 9/11, watching 3000 people they knew die, could easily have been more traumatised than a random person in the holocaust.

That's why I added the line in the grand scheme of things, as in overall suffering. Not just limited to individuals.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

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.

I've already explained the difference between Holocaust Denial and Global Warming Denial. You claimed that my explanation was based on emotion. Logos, Pathos, and Ethos are all part of an argument. You need Logic, Emotion, and Ethics. I stated that it's illogical to cause further harm to some people who already suffered through the Holocaust, over an issue that won't contribute jack shit to society. On the other hand, Global Warming is a problem that everyone faces, not just members of ethnicity X. That was my differentiation. It's too emotional for you to accept. I get that.

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

Nope. I'll just inform you that the World doesn't revolve around you. It revolves around you and others. Hence, it cannot be, 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?

You aren't the only Jewish survivor. It might be partially about you, but it's not all about you.

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

Telling a Holocaust survivor that the Holocaust didn't exist is spitting on the memory, or do you disagree with that as well?

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

What am I avoiding?

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.

No, it's not. I gave a specific reason, and repeated it numerous times, see the top of this post for my most recent repetition.

yeah but repatition without evidence (other than wikipedia, we all know that is abotu as biased as patriotic americans) makes you seem like a troll.

[Themiclesia]

-I can't bear this thread coming up every day on 'view your posts,' so post deleted.-

[Grave_n_idle]

I already addressed the nonsense of discussing human suffering in terms of the 'grand scheme of things' in a different post.

You keep inventing these arbitrary axioms, like you expect everyone to agree with them... but not everyone is as vitriolic about this subject.

I don't agree that one person suffering for one day must be inherently and intrinsically less traumatic than suffering for multiple days - and I base that on experiences I've had with returning vets, emergency service workers, and peace officers.

Everything seems to suggest it's simply not true. One person in one of the towers on 9/11, watching 3000 people they knew die, could easily have been more traumatised than a random person in the holocaust.

That's why I added the line in the grand scheme of things, as in overall suffering. Not just limited to individuals.

There is no suffering in the grand scheme of things.

In 'the grand scheme of things', the holocaust was bodycounts and dates and locations.

If you ignore individual suffering, it's meaningless.