Holocaust Denial

[Grave_n_idle]

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

Sure.

But I don't find your 'math' relevant or meaningful.

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.

That's not an argument. It's still not an argument.

That does not explain why denying the holocaust is wrong, and denying evolution or climate change is okay.

[Shofercia]

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?

I didn't say that you expressed it. I said that you didn't say "yes" or "no" in the beginning to a "yes" or "no" question, which, IMHO, showed 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.

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)...

No it wasn't. Again: [they] aren't conducting a rigorous enough analysis of the facts. If you weigh the facts improperly, your analysis isn't going to hold much weight.

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.

And which party's voters deny climate change? Right, the party of big polluters. I'm sorry, I should've said "influenced by", my mistake.

...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?

It's not fine. See, for the examples that you presented, I gave you decent reasons why they made their mistakes. Now, I'm asking you to give me a decent reason for Holocaust Denial, that doesn't include racism or rabid Nationalism along the lines of "Germany's for Germans!"

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

Sure.

But I don't find your 'math' relevant or meaningful.

Look, let's say that A and B get into a car accident. So suffering from car accident would be suffering of A and the suffering of B, right?

Now, let's say that A, B, and a couple thousand of others get into a massive car accident. So, suffering from car accident would be the suffering of A, of B, and of a couple thousand others. Would the collective suffering of A, B, and a couple thousand others not be greater than the suffering of just A and B from the first accident?

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.

That's not an argument. It's still not an argument.

That does not explain why denying the holocaust is wrong, and denying evolution or climate change is okay.

You don't think it's an argument. I do. We have different opinions on the issue. Can you at least accept that, or shall I get Buckley's Quote?

[True Capitalistan]

I can't believe the amount of people who voted yes to this question.

[Distruzio]

Denying the Holocaust is like denying that Stark is the best house - it's stupid and ridiculous, but should still be legal.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Yjafjord]

Denying the Holocaust is like denying that Stark is the best house - it's stupid and ridiculous, but should still be legal.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

IT'S ALMOST AS BAD AS DENYING THE WORLD TREE!
AND YES WE MUST USE THE ROYAL TREE VOICE WHEN TALKING ABOUT IT'S MOST HOLYNESS! IT IS IN MY BOOK AFTER ALL!

[Grave_n_idle]

IMHO, showed your skepticism.

That's fine. You're obviously wrong, as can be ascertained by anyone who actually reads the post, but you're welcome to hold your erroneous belief.

Indeed, that's kind of the point of the thread, isn't it? People holding stupid opinions that are easily refuted by even a superficial examination of the evidence?

The difference is, I'm not trying to legislate away your opinion.

No it wasn't. Again: [they] aren't conducting a rigorous enough analysis of the facts. If you weigh the facts improperly, your analysis isn't going to hold much weight.

Unfortunately, most people rely on printed and filmed material, and attach extra significance to expert testimony. You probably did this yourself (since you admit you weren't there) in forming your opinion.

And which party's voters deny climate change? Right, the party of big polluters. I'm sorry, I should've said "influenced by", my mistake.

I'm not going to hold that one mistake against you when you're making so many.

It's not fine. See, for the examples that you presented, I gave you decent reasons why they made their mistakes. Now, I'm asking you to give me a decent reason for Holocaust Denial, that doesn't include racism or rabid Nationalism along the lines of "Germany's for Germans!"

The reasons don't matter. That's not how free speech works.

Look, let's say that A and B get into a car accident.

Let's not bother. It's a pointless diversion, and I don't care.

You don't think it's an argument. I do.

It's not an argument. It's an appeal to emotion. It's a logical fallacy.

[Shofercia]

IMHO, showed your skepticism.

That's fine. You're obviously wrong, as can be ascertained by anyone who actually reads the post, but you're welcome to hold your erroneous belief.

Indeed, that's kind of the point of the thread, isn't it? People holding stupid opinions that are easily refuted by even a superficial examination of the evidence?

The difference is, I'm not trying to legislate away your opinion.

You fail to see the difference between an opinion about an online post, and someone calling everyone who lived through the Holocaust, and want to say, "I lived and suffered through the Holocaust, never again", liars! Indeed, to you, they're both just opinions. Thankfully, blind people aren't in charge of the Council of Europe.

Damn it Conservatives, why must you be the Corporate Party in America?

No it wasn't. Again: [they] aren't conducting a rigorous enough analysis of the facts. If you weigh the facts improperly, your analysis isn't going to hold much weight.

Unfortunately, most people rely on printed and filmed material, and attach extra significance to expert testimony. You probably did this yourself (since you admit you weren't there) in forming your opinion.

I'm a professional researcher, so don't ever assume about how I do research, kid. In terms of the Holocaust, I look through writings of the people who survived it, first and foremost, like the Diary of Anne Frank, or Gabe Temkin's, My Just War. After looking through thousands of these, I see patterns that emerge, and then I cross reference my historical knowledge of the time period with said patterns. I've also seen what a death camp looks like, and went through those records. Would you like me to continue the explanation?

And which party's voters deny climate change? Right, the party of big polluters. I'm sorry, I should've said "influenced by", my mistake.

I'm not going to hold that one mistake against you when you're making so many.

You cannot even comprehend collective suffering, or tell the difference between an insult and an opinion. Calling someone who says "I lived through the Holocaust, may it never happen again!" a liar, is an insult.

It's not fine. See, for the examples that you presented, I gave you decent reasons why they made their mistakes. Now, I'm asking you to give me a decent reason for Holocaust Denial, that doesn't include racism or rabid Nationalism along the lines of "Germany's for Germans!"

The reasons don't matter. That's not how free speech works.

You claimed that people could make reasonable mistakes about the Holocaust, because they've made reasonable mistakes about Global Warming. I've shown you how people could make reasonable mistakes about Global Warming. Now, I'm asking you to defend your very own point about how one can make a reasonable mistake about Holocaust Denial. Go ahead, defend it. Or withdraw that bullshit claim of yours.

Look, let's say that A and B get into a car accident.

Let's not bother. It's a pointless diversion, and I don't care.

You're the one who started said diversion, and as soon as I've shown your inability to comprehend collective suffering as a result of event X, you suddenly remembered that it's a diversion.

You don't think it's an argument. I do.

It's not an argument. It's an appeal to emotion. It's a logical fallacy.

Stating 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, in an argument. It's similar to saying that society should punish those who drive drunk, before they actually cause harm to others, because one of them will do so eventually. The only difference is that one type of harm is physical, and the other type of harm is emotional. And in both case, we can pass strict laws that limit the punishment to only those types of harm, i.e. requiring a driver to be drunk in one case, and requiring that the denial be about the Holocaust in another. Thus it makes no logical sense to allow both, unless you think that the slippery slope is the sexiest thing that ever happened, and governments taking away the "rights" of Holocaust Deniers, will suddenly forbid all marches and all demonstrations about other issues; from history, we know that's complete, total, and utter bullshit.

[Eucadian Federation]

This is where I say that this topic needs to be locked.

Also, you need to grow up and drop the argument yeah?

[Grave_n_idle]

You fail to see the difference between an opinion about an online post, and someone calling everyone who lived through the Holocaust, and want to say, "I lived and suffered through the Holocaust, never again", liars! Indeed, to you, they're both just opinions.

They are both just opinions.

Ironically, THAT is not just an opinion.

Thankfully, blind people aren't in charge of the Council of Europe.

Small-minded people, not necessarily blind.

I'm a professional researcher,

This is the internet, where everyone is a researcher, and a soldier, and a lawyer, and a spy.

So, you have to base assessment of such claims on whether or not they are supported in context. And, based on what you've said in this thread, I'm having doubts.

...so don't ever assume about how I do research, kid. In terms of the Holocaust, I look through writings of the people who survived it, first and foremost, like the Diary of Anne Frank, or Gabe Temkin's, My Just War. After looking through thousands of these, I see patterns that emerge, and then I cross reference my historical knowledge of the time period with said patterns. I've also seen what a death camp looks like, and went through those records. Would you like me to continue the explanation?

If you've actually done any of that, that would be good.

Of course, for all I know, you're actually basing your assessment on what your history teacher said when you were 11, and you just sucked it down, all unquestioning. That would certainly explain why you don't seem to grasp concepts about witness testimony and confirmation bias that I would expect and real researcher to understand.

You cannot even comprehend collective suffering, or tell the difference between an insult and an opinion. Calling someone who says "I lived through the Holocaust, may it never happen again!" a liar, is an insult.

Saying 'the holocaust never happened' isn't an insult.

Contrary to the evidence, but not an insult.

You claimed that people could make reasonable mistakes about the Holocaust, because they've made reasonable mistakes about Global Warming. I've shown you how people could make reasonable mistakes about Global Warming. Now, I'm asking you to defend your very own point about how one can make a reasonable mistake about Holocaust Denial. Go ahead, defend it. Or withdraw that bullshit claim of yours.

I feel no need to defend your bullshit strawman. The point you're strawmanning was already addressed, the strawman is yet another game you're playing.

You're the one who started said diversion,

Actually, no - and I can link to the posts where you started the 'collective suffering' and 'grand scheme of things' bullshit after you were called on your claim that one day of suffering was somehow intrinsically less traumatic than many days.

Stating 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, in an argument.

It's not true. That isn't illogical. You may think it mean, but that's not what 'illogical' means.

The only difference is that one type of harm is physical, and the other type of harm is emotional.

Actually, the difference is that in one case we're talking about real harm, and in the other case, you're talking about maybe someone might get sad.

And in both case, we can pass strict laws that limit the punishment to only those types of harm, i.e. requiring a driver to be drunk in one case, and requiring that the denial be about the Holocaust in another.

Again, there's not yet been even one GOOD argument for why we should ban denial of the holocaust.

Thus it makes no logical sense to allow both, unless you think that the slippery slope is the sexiest thing that ever happened, and governments taking away the "rights" of Holocaust Deniers, will suddenly forbid all marches and all demonstrations about other issues; from history, we know that's complete, total, and utter bullshit.

That... doesn't even make any sense.

See, I think I've worked out where you're going wrong. You think that if we stifle debate about the holocaust, there'll be no more genocides.

I, on the other hand, look at reality - and I see that if you want to reduce teen pregnancy, you have to talk about it. If you want to reduce drug addiction, you have to talk about it.

In the real world, limiting speech about things actually increases the chances they'll happen. This policy of banning holocaust denial actually means another holocaust is MORE likely, not less. And that blood will be on your hands.

[Shofercia]

This is where I say that this topic needs to be locked.

Also, you need to grow up and drop the argument yeah?

A guy arguing for freedom of speech is asking for a topic lock

And telling others to grow up

Damn, this thread's pure comedy!

[Shofercia]

You fail to see the difference between an opinion about an online post, and someone calling everyone who lived through the Holocaust, and want to say, "I lived and suffered through the Holocaust, never again", liars! Indeed, to you, they're both just opinions.

They are both just opinions.

Ironically, THAT is not just an opinion.

The are opinions about different things. It might be A's opinion that B is a complete piece of shit, and it might also be A's opinion that B made a poor post. And yet one of those opinions will get warned for flaming, and the other one won't. THAT is also not just an opinion.

I'm a professional researcher,

This is the internet, where everyone is a researcher, and a soldier, and a lawyer, and a spy.

And if you'd have read further, you'd see my methodology.

So, you have to base assessment of such claims on whether or not they are supported in context. And, based on what you've said in this thread, I'm having doubts.

Just because I'm a professional researcher, doesn't mean that I research every issue under the Sun, or that I can devote at least a month to every issue that I have an opinion on. That's just common sense, which is much less common today!

...so don't ever assume about how I do research, kid. In terms of the Holocaust, I look through writings of the people who survived it, first and foremost, like the Diary of Anne Frank, or Gabe Temkin's, My Just War. After looking through thousands of these, I see patterns that emerge, and then I cross reference my historical knowledge of the time period with said patterns. I've also seen what a death camp looks like, and went through those records. Would you like me to continue the explanation?

If you've actually done any of that, that would be good.

Of course, for all I know, you're actually basing your assessment on what your history teacher said when you were 11, and you just sucked it down, all unquestioning. That would certainly explain why you don't seem to grasp concepts about witness testimony and confirmation bias that I would expect and real researcher to understand.

I know the concepts of witness testimony and confirmation bias. However, witness testimony comes into play if it's a single event, or a short series of events, and why you're bringing that in on a topic that requires months of research is simply beyond me. And even if that's not the case, the sheer sample size that I use negates eyewitness testimony bias.

You cannot even comprehend collective suffering, or tell the difference between an insult and an opinion. Calling someone who says "I lived through the Holocaust, may it never happen again!" a liar, is an insult.

Saying 'the holocaust never happened' isn't an insult.

Contrary to the evidence, but not an insult.

When I say that Holocaust happened, and you say that it didn't happen, you are implying that I'm lying. How are you failing to grasp this basic logic?

You claimed that people could make reasonable mistakes about the Holocaust, because they've made reasonable mistakes about Global Warming. I've shown you how people could make reasonable mistakes about Global Warming. Now, I'm asking you to defend your very own point about how one can make a reasonable mistake about Holocaust Denial. Go ahead, defend it. Or withdraw that bullshit claim of yours.

I feel no need to defend your bullshit strawman. The point you're strawmanning was already addressed, the strawman is yet another game you're playing.

Your quote:

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

I went on to provide logical reasons why that would happen in the case of the 7000 year old Earth, and the case of Global Warming. I then asked you to provide a logical reason why that would happen in the case of Holocaust Denial. You dodged that question harder than Ann Coulter dodges facts.

Stating 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, in an argument.

It's not true. That isn't illogical. You may think it mean, but that's not what 'illogical' means.

How's it not illogical?

The only difference is that one type of harm is physical, and the other type of harm is emotional.

Actually, the difference is that in one case we're talking about real harm, and in the other case, you're talking about maybe someone might get sad.

Do you live in this reality, or the next one?

And in both case, we can pass strict laws that limit the punishment to only those types of harm, i.e. requiring a driver to be drunk in one case, and requiring that the denial be about the Holocaust in another.

Again, there's not yet been even one GOOD argument for why we should ban denial of the holocaust.

And if you keep on masterfully breaking up posts, you'll never be able to comprehend anything.

That... doesn't even make any sense.

See, I think I've worked out where you're going wrong. You think that if we stifle debate about the holocaust, there'll be no more genocides.

I, on the other hand, look at reality - and I see that if you want to reduce teen pregnancy, you have to talk about it. If you want to reduce drug addiction, you have to talk about it.

In the real world, limiting speech about things actually increases the chances they'll happen. This policy of banning holocaust denial actually means another holocaust is MORE likely, not less. And that blood will be on your hands.

Have you any idea how epically your analogy just failed? Probably not, let me explain: I'm ok with talking about the Holocaust. I want to discuss why it happened, what events led to it, why we must study it, how we can prevent it, etc. That's fine! What I'm not ok with, is denying the Holocaust. To use your analogy, we wouldn't have to talk about teen pregnancy or drug addiction; nope, to properly use your analogy, we would have to deny that teen pregnancy and drug addiction exist. It's called Banning of Holocaust Denial; it's not called Banning Talking About Holocaust. You can say that "at least a million Jews were killed in the Holocaust," and talk about it all you want, that's fine!

So Gravely Idle, tell me, does denying the existence of teen pregnancy and drug abuse actually help pregnant teens and drug abusers? And if you think that's the case, then it's time for your "reality" to actually become realistic.

[The Grey Wolf]

I can't believe the amount of people who voted yes to this question.

How long have you been on the internet?

[Brocwika]

I can't believe the amount of people who voted yes to this question.

Probably voted by JIDF.

[Coccygia]

I suppose that technically it should be legal. Somehow, the idea of it being illegal, at least in Germany, fails to bother me at all.

[Grave_n_idle]

THAT is also not just an opinion.

Ah, so you do understand what an opinion is. We should be able to move forward from this, yes?

And if you'd have read further, you'd see my methodology.

I've seen plenty of your methodology.

Just because I'm a professional researcher, doesn't mean that I research every issue under the Sun, or that I can devote at least a month to every issue that I have an opinion on. That's just common sense, which is much less common today!

Ah, finally you say something I can agree with.

This is looking good, you've made two agreeable comments, perhaps things are looking up.

I know the concepts of witness testimony and confirmation bias. However, witness testimony comes into play if it's a single event, or a short series of events, and why you're bringing that in on a topic that requires months of research is simply beyond me. And even if that's not the case, the sheer sample size that I use negates eyewitness testimony bias.

And... just like that, my hopes are dashed.

A 'researcher' who doesn't understand how perception colours evidence.

I thought it was too much to hope for. Still, at least maybe the 'opinion' thing will still hold.

When I say that Holocaust happened, and you say that it didn't happen, you are implying that I'm lying. How are you failing to grasp this basic logic?

And... no. That one falls, too. And you were doing so well.

See, that's why they are called 'opinions' - because they are a matter of opinion.

By your 'logic' every time any two people disagree, they are EACH calling the other a liar, and both are insulting one another.

It's obviously a bullshit way to interpret the harsh reality that people can simply have different opinions.

Worse - you want to legislate based on it. That's what's so monstrous about it.

I went on to provide logical reasons why that would happen in the case of the 7000 year old Earth, and the case of Global Warming. I then asked you to provide a logical reason why that would happen in the case of Holocaust Denial. You dodged that question harder than Ann Coulter dodges facts.

Actually, I quite clearly pointed out that the reasons don't matter, because that's not what free speech hinges on.

Hell, even in the case of holocaust denial - it's illegal (some places) regardless of reasons. Even when we deal in the arena where your fallacious argument is accepted, reasons are STILL irrelevant.

How's it not illogical?

Because it's not illogical. It isn't not-logical. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

And if you keep on masterfully breaking up posts, you'll never be able to comprehend anything.

The reason I can't comprehend your posts is because they are incomprehensible.'

I simply do not accept the things you demand as axiomatic. I do not accept that it's okay to make things illegal because someone might get sad. I do not accept that it's illogical to deny the holocaust just because it might make someone sad. I don not accept that it's an insult to have a different opinion.

Basically, I don't accept any of your axioms, because they are bullshit.

Have you any idea how epically your analogy just failed?

It wasn't an analogy.

Apparently, we can add 'analogy' to the list of words you don't understand.

We'll be able to write a kind of anti-dictionary, if this continues.

Probably not, let me explain: I'm ok with talking about the Holocaust. I want to discuss why it happened, what events led to it, why we must study it, how we can prevent it, etc. That's fine! What I'm not ok with, is denying the Holocaust.

Tough shit. People have different opinions. People will still believe it or they won't.

You just believe they should be punished by law for saying what they believe.

Which is hypocritical, at best. And totalitarian at worst.

[Eucadian Federation]

This is where I say that this topic needs to be locked.

Also, you need to grow up and drop the argument yeah?

A guy arguing for freedom of speech is asking for a topic lock

And telling others to grow up

Damn, this thread's pure comedy!

Once again you have failed to realize that it is my OPINION.

You are stubborn aren't you?

[Grave_n_idle]

A guy arguing for freedom of speech is asking for a topic lock

And telling others to grow up

Damn, this thread's pure comedy!

Once again you have failed to realize that it is my OPINION.

You are stubborn aren't you?

Shofercia apparently only has time for their own opinions.

All others should be illegal.

[Eucadian Federation]

Once again you have failed to realize that it is my OPINION.

You are stubborn aren't you?

Shofercia apparently only has time for their own opinions.

All others should be illegal.

I guess so. Whoa guys, don't argue with him. You aren't going to win...

He's being quite the... "T" word

[Aequalitia]

I suppose that technically it should be legal. Somehow, the idea of it being illegal, at least in Germany, fails to bother me at all.

It must be illegal, simple because it would be very disrespectful and even opening the door for more extreme-right-wing parties to have attention and maybe even can grow.

[Benuty]

I can't believe the amount of people who voted yes to this question.

Probably voted by JIDF.

The Jihadist Islamic Defense Force?

[New Conway]

If you are going to make denial illegal, then you should first have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it happened and have the facts 100% correct beyond dispute. Since the work required to do that would be unfeasible, were just gonna have to live with free speech.

[Eucadian Federation]

If you are going to make denial illegal, then you should first have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it happened and have the facts 100% correct beyond dispute. Since the work required to do that would be unfeasible, were just gonna have to live with free speech.

Bump

[Aequalitia]

If you are going to make denial illegal, then you should first have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it happened and have the facts 100% correct beyond dispute. Since the work required to do that would be unfeasible, were just gonna have to live with free speech.

The holocaust did happens in WW-II. That is a 100% fact!

[Karketh]

To deny the Holocaust is more of a moral issue than a legal issue.


That being said, I see reasons for saying it should be legal or shouldn't.

Illegal
Pros
You pretty much are able to get all the misinterpretations about the Holocaust cast down the drain.

Cons
It leads to a dangerous road, much like how for a good amount of time (and still) American History teaches Columbus to be the first of the Europeans to discover the Americas, even though we now know that it was truly a Viking Family. We don't know everything about the Holocaust, and likely never will. It's a dangerous road that can just skew the issue more.

Legal
Pros
It doesn't infringe on any form of free speech.

Cons
It skews the issue so much, beyond that it gives way for many vocal groups to actively campaign against people of Jewish/Gypsy ancestry. The K.K.K. didn't start as a violent organization, it evolved (or rather devolved) into it. It could be disastrous.

In truth, neither can fully be said without a shadow of doubt looming, and I don't think there really should be a "It's legal" or "Illegal", because again, it's a moral standpoint. But, just as a quick tidbit, I personally find it interesting that many countries that say it's illegal to deny the Holocaust, say nothing about the Armenian Genocide that the Ottoman Empire committed.

[Scorpions on the moon]

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

Charity is not the same thing as the principle of charity. If you actually knew what the principle of charity was, you would realize this.

Also, stop being a hypocrite, hypocrite.

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

Now that you've gotten some rest, read the text you were replying to again, and say something relevant.