Holocaust Denial

[Shofercia]

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 didn't realize that you could tell what I do with my arms by the text that I type. Oh wait, you can't!

SI 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

Yes, you're quite the expert on that.

SAnd 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?

Actually, no, I didn't know that. I'm not a mind reader, and I really suck at reading the minds of hypocrites.

[Grave_n_idle]

It should not be made illegal.

As the Holocaust is true enough, every sane person will know that those who deny truth in the face thereof are insane.

Like global climate change, and evolution, and the fact that teen brains are ill-equipped for consent.

Boy, are we gonna have to arrest or institutionalise a lot of people.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

It should not be made illegal.

As the Holocaust is true enough, every sane person will know that those who deny truth in the face thereof are insane.

Also, it opens up lots of unwelcome precedents. If it were illegal to deny the existence of the Holocaust, can it be illegal to deny the existence of some deity? Is it illegal to deny the existence of the Expulsion of Jews in the 1290s? Is it illegal to deny the existence of Israel? Is it illegal to deny the existence of liberty?

... that makes no sense...

[Yjafjord]

this thread has proved that no thread about this things will ever end civilly...

[Shofercia]

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.

Know - to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty

I perceive, as a fact, that Blackhawks are playing against the Bruins. I apprehend that clearly, and with certainty.

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.

Am I arguing that it's a fact? No, I'm arguing that they're pretending that it's a fact, when it's actually not a fact. You're the one yelling OPINION at every post, like a damn monkey or something. And yet, our posts contain both, opinions and facts. Not everything is an opinion. 2+2=4 is a fact.

[Shofercia]

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.

So now you're arguing that collective suffering is meaningless?

[Grave_n_idle]

this thread has proved that no thread about this things will ever end civilly...

I don't think that's true. It's certainly possible to have a civil debate about the issues involved.

The difficulty in making such a debate happen, unfortunately, is that too many people find the issue too emotional.

[Shofercia]

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.

Do you genuinely believe that someone can conduct a rigorous study on the Holocaust, and claim that it didn't take place? Is this your genuine belief?

[Shofercia]

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.

What evidence would you like?

[Scorpions on the moon]

I didn't realize that you could tell what I do with my arms by the text that I type. Oh wait, you can't!

Sure I can.

Yes, you're quite the expert on that.

I was just following the example you set in the previous post.

Actually, no, I didn't know that. I'm not a mind reader, and I really suck at reading the minds of hypocrites.

You can't make rational assumptions, such as ''Hmm, maybe he meant to say the thing he's been saying to me in every other post?"'.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

So now you're arguing that collective suffering is meaningless?

Yes. Of course. 'Collective suffering' is absolutely meaningless - you do not suffer just because I suffer. When I had a death in my family, you didn't care - because 'collective suffering' is just the statistical averaging of individual suffering.

It's a mathematical statistic, nothing more.

And that's the problem with phrases like 'collective suffering' and 'the grand scheme of things' - they are meaningless in a debate about how people actually feel - because how people actually feel is an intensely personal experience - not an average.

[Scorpions on the moon]

Know - to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty

I perceive, as a fact, that Blackhawks are playing against the Bruins. I apprehend that clearly, and with certainty.

So you're going to repeat yourself and ignore the whole problem of induction thingy, which directly relates to everything you just said?

[Shofercia]

I didn't realize that you could tell what I do with my arms by the text that I type. Oh wait, you can't!

Sure I can.

No, not really.

Actually, no, I didn't know that. I'm not a mind reader, and I really suck at reading the minds of hypocrites.

You can't make rational assumptions, such as ''Hmm, maybe he meant to say the thing he's been saying to me in every other post?"'.

I certainly can. However you're not the only one who's tired, and when debating hypocrites, I don't really care about charity.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do you genuinely believe that someone can conduct a rigorous study on the Holocaust, and claim that it didn't take place? Is this your genuine belief?

I find it hard to believe they WOULD, but of course they COULD.

People look at all the evidence of billions of years of existence of the earth... and deny that the world is yet 7000 years old.

People look at all the evidence of global climate change, and still deny it.

Can someone look at the evidence for the holocaust and still deny it? Of course they could.

In all these cases, I find it hard to believe someone WOULD disbelieve the evidence - but simply acknowledging reality has forced me to realise millions of people WILL disbelieve the evidence.


Study some psychology - it's actually not all that surprising.

[Shofercia]

So now you're arguing that collective suffering is meaningless?

Yes. Of course. 'Collective suffering' is absolutely meaningless - you do not suffer just because I suffer. When I had a death in my family, you didn't care - because 'collective suffering' is just the statistical averaging of individual suffering.

It's a mathematical statistic, nothing more.

And that's the problem with phrases like 'collective suffering' and 'the grand scheme of things' - they are meaningless in a debate about how people actually feel - because how people actually feel is an intensely personal experience - not an average.

Collective suffering is a combination of individual suffering due to an event. You agree that there's individual suffering, right? Well let's say that individuals A, B & C suffered due to event X. Thus the collective suffering of event X would be the combination of the individual suffering of A, B & C.

[Shofercia]

Know - to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty

I perceive, as a fact, that Blackhawks are playing against the Bruins. I apprehend that clearly, and with certainty.

So you're going to repeat yourself and ignore the whole problem of induction thingy, which directly relates to everything you just said?

I'm going to use the definitions that I know, not ones that you want to use when "fucking with words". BTW, those are your words, not mine.

[Scorpions on the moon]

No, not really.

What? Are you telling me that my powers aren't real, and that's all just in my imagination? You can't tell me you disagree with my opinions! It hurts me and all of my fellow superheros feelings.

I think you needa go to jail now, Chauffercia.

I certainly can. However you're not the only one who's tired, and when debating hypocrites, I don't really care about charity.

Ponder this.

Hypocrisy is stating that somebody did something wrong, when you have done such a thing.

You have, at some point, said something hypocritical.

Therefore, you are being a hypocrite right now.

[Scorpions on the moon]

So you're going to repeat yourself and ignore the whole problem of induction thingy, which directly relates to everything you just said?

I'm going to use the definitions that I know, not ones that you want to use when "fucking with words". BTW, those are your words, not mine.

None of that post had anything to do with the definition of the word ''know'', but rather the problems with knowing things certainly.

You should get some rest.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes. Of course. 'Collective suffering' is absolutely meaningless - you do not suffer just because I suffer. When I had a death in my family, you didn't care - because 'collective suffering' is just the statistical averaging of individual suffering.

It's a mathematical statistic, nothing more.

And that's the problem with phrases like 'collective suffering' and 'the grand scheme of things' - they are meaningless in a debate about how people actually feel - because how people actually feel is an intensely personal experience - not an average.

Collective suffering is a combination of individual suffering due to an event. You agree that there's individual suffering, right? Well let's say that individuals A, B & C suffered due to event X. Thus the collective suffering of event X would be the combination of the individual suffering of A, B & C.

I don't even know what point you think you're making, any more.

I don't care about you claiming that you can make a group of suffering people, and express their suffering as a sum or average, or whatever it is you think you're doing.

I don't even see how it relates to the issue... which I'm beginning to think is the reason why you're noodling around with A, B & C rather than addressing the actual issue.

[Freiheit Reich]

Freedom of speech is highly valuable. Banning holocaust denial because it makes a few people uncomfortable leads to a slippery slope where next you won't be allowed to say anything negative about a nation's government policies.

The key is to educate the population on what happened during the holocaust so people that deny it will be shunned.

[Grave_n_idle]

Freedom of speech is highly valuable. Banning holocaust denial because it makes a few people uncomfortable leads to a slippery slope where next you won't be allowed to say anything negative about a nation's government policies.

Free speech shouldn't be determined on whether it makes a few people uncomfortable. Or a lot of people uncomfortable. Or ALL the people uncomfortable.

If there are going to be limitations on free speech, they need to be based on more than just 'it makes me sad'.

[Eucadian Federation]

Yes. Of course. 'Collective suffering' is absolutely meaningless - you do not suffer just because I suffer. When I had a death in my family, you didn't care - because 'collective suffering' is just the statistical averaging of individual suffering.

It's a mathematical statistic, nothing more.

And that's the problem with phrases like 'collective suffering' and 'the grand scheme of things' - they are meaningless in a debate about how people actually feel - because how people actually feel is an intensely personal experience - not an average.

Collective suffering is a combination of individual suffering due to an event. You agree that there's individual suffering, right? Well let's say that individuals A, B & C suffered due to event X. Thus the collective suffering of event X would be the combination of the individual suffering of A, B & C.

It's all fun in games until someone brings in some math.

[Shofercia]

Do you genuinely believe that someone can conduct a rigorous study on the Holocaust, and claim that it didn't take place? Is this your genuine belief?

I find it hard to believe they WOULD, but of course they COULD.

People look at all the evidence of billions of years of existence of the earth... and deny that the world is yet 7000 years old.

People look at all the evidence of global climate change, and still deny it.

Can someone look at the evidence for the holocaust and still deny it? Of course they could.

In all these cases, I find it hard to believe someone WOULD disbelieve the evidence - but simply acknowledging reality has forced me to realise millions of people WILL disbelieve the evidence.


Study some psychology - it's actually not all that surprising.

It was a simple, "yes" or "no" question. The very fact that you started off, not with a "yes" or "no", but with a rather large explanation, shows your skepticism. BTW, those who deny global climate change, don't look at all of the evidence. In fact, denial of some evidence is key to an argument against global climate change. Ergo, they're not being rigorous enough. In terms of the 7,000 year old Earth argument, those who genuinely believe that, believe that God created the Earth 7000 years ago. And God is eternal, meaning that He can take billion year old rocks, and cobble them together into a planet, making the whole evidence of billions of years of existence, pointless. Thus in both cases, those who genuinely believe it, ignore certain type of evidence, and thus, aren't conducting a rigorous enough analysis of the facts.

Now, in terms of Global Warming, those who deny it are usually sponsored by big polluters, which is fine, as long as we know who funds that bullshit. In terms of the 7000 year old Earth argument, those who have that, have a different philosophy about God, which is perfectly fine, for the most part. In terms Denying the Holocaust, who's behind it? What belief are they holding?

[Shofercia]

I certainly can. However you're not the only one who's tired, and when debating hypocrites, I don't really care about charity.

Ponder this.

Hypocrisy is stating that somebody did something wrong, when you have done such a thing.

You have, at some point, said something hypocritical.

Therefore, you are being a hypocrite right now.

It's hilarious how you're perfectly ok with being a hypocrite, and yet, demanding that others give you charity. You're hilarious dude.

I'm going to use the definitions that I know, not ones that you want to use when "fucking with words". BTW, those are your words, not mine.

None of that post had anything to do with the definition of the word ''know'', but rather the problems with knowing things certainly.

You should get some rest.

The definitions that I'm using, I know, with certainty, that those are the ones used by dictionary.com, because the screen is right in front of me.

Collective suffering is a combination of individual suffering due to an event. You agree that there's individual suffering, right? Well let's say that individuals A, B & C suffered due to event X. Thus the collective suffering of event X would be the combination of the individual suffering of A, B & C.

I don't even know what point you think you're making, any more.

I don't care about you claiming that you can make a group of suffering people, and express their suffering as a sum or average, or whatever it is you think you're doing.

I don't even see how it relates to the issue... which I'm beginning to think is the reason why you're noodling around with A, B & C rather than addressing the actual issue.

Can't handle simple math? Also, I've already addressed the actual issue:

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.

[Grave_n_idle]

It was a simple, "yes" or "no" question. The very fact that you started off, not with a "yes" or "no", but with a rather large explanation, shows your skepticism.

I didn't express any skepticism.

Was the post too long for you to read all the way through?

BTW, those who deny global climate change, don't look at all of the evidence. In fact, denial of some evidence is key to an argument against global climate change. Ergo, they're not being rigorous enough. In terms of the 7,000 year old Earth argument, those who genuinely believe that, believe that God created the Earth 7000 years ago. And God is eternal, meaning that He can take billion year old rocks, and cobble them together into a planet, making the whole evidence of billions of years of existence, pointless. Thus in both cases, those who genuinely believe it, ignore certain type of evidence, and thus, aren't conducting a rigorous enough analysis of the facts.

Everyone weighs evidence.

That doesn't mean they didn't know it existed (although that does happen) or didn't look at it (although that does happen, too), or that they ignored it (although that certainly happens) - they can know about it, look at it, and not ignore it and STILL arrive at different answers...

But... I know you already know that, because you actually get to that part next (meaning this whole section of your rant was a waste of time)...

Now, in terms of Global Warming, those who deny it are usually sponsored by big polluters,

Well, no - very few of them are 'sponsored by big polluters'. Most people that deny global climate change are just regular voters - and it splits heavily down party lines.

...which is fine, as long as we know who funds that bullshit. In terms of the 7000 year old Earth argument, those who have that, have a different philosophy about God, which is perfectly fine, for the most part. In terms Denying the Holocaust, who's behind it? What belief are they holding?

Exactly - see, you already KNOW about things like confirmation bias. You already KNOW that two people can read the exact same piece of evidence and come to contradictory conclusions.

So why have you been wasting time for the last couple of pages?