Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

why holocaust denial is illegal?

Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
in some countries, according to wikipedia, it is illegal to deny holocaust happened. but why?

is it not against free thought and freedom of speech? let us say I doubt the evidences and I deny it thus, why I do not have a right to deny it? I believe it happened, I do not doubt it but I am just asking, trying to understand.

one of that countries is France, in france you can caricaturise the most holy person of Muslims as you wish, you are defended by the presidents of the world but you are not allowed to doubt what has been done to jews. is it not inconsistency, contradictory? if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

My main topic is not jews vs muslims comparison or I am not here to defend banning insulting muslims, I am here to ask why a person can not have a right to doubt the event that happened in the past? or, why Apollo missions are allowed to be challenged but not the holocaust?

or why praising Gengis Khan is not a crime? I have watched several movies that are based on 20-21st century events and that praise Gengis Khan.

The only difference I can see between Gengis Khan and Hitler is one tried to prosecute jews specially while the other did not discriminate no one? I think this can be the reason , Hitler was racist that is why it is illegal to doubt something that Hitler is claimed to have done.

Stalin, Gengis Khan, Mao Szedung and others did not discriminate, were not racist. I think I have solved it.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 5:39:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Because of Jews.

No, it's really that simple.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 5:41:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 5:39:57 AM, someloser wrote:
Because of Jews.

No, it's really that simple.
I too think so, last part was something like irony.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 5:45:01 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 5:41:13 AM, Artur wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:39:57 AM, someloser wrote:
Because of Jews.

No, it's really that simple.
I too think so, last part was something like irony.
Yea. There are no laws against denial of any other ethnic genocides (AFAIK).

Why the Holocaust's has such a "special" place in the West is just pretty fvcking obvious.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 7:47:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 5:45:01 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:41:13 AM, Artur wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:39:57 AM, someloser wrote:
Because of Jews.

No, it's really that simple.
I too think so, last part was something like irony.
Yea. There are no laws against denial of any other ethnic genocides (AFAIK).

Why the Holocaust's has such a "special" place in the West is just pretty fvcking obvious.

Meh, I would argue it's because it was in recent history, in the western world, and the fact that a whole world war came out of the Nazi regime as well as historical persecution of Jews in Europe. "Because Jews" isn't really the only reason.

None the less, I find it hypocritcal how countries like Germany claim to have free speech, but they censor and imprison people for expressing certain viewpoints.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 8:28:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 7:47:31 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Meh, I would argue it's because it was in recent history,
Like the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides.

in the western world,
Armenian genocide, Holodomor (which, depending on whose numbers you take, actually had a bigger death toll than the Holocaust).

and the fact that a whole world war came out of the Nazi regime as well as historical persecution of Jews in Europe.
The Nazis are largely regarded as arrant demons due to the Holocaust. Stalin and Zedong killed far more people than Hitler.

"Because Jews" isn't really the only reason.
No, but it is first and foremost. Definitely.

None the less, I find it hypocritcal how countries like Germany claim to have free speech, but they censor and imprison people for expressing certain viewpoints.
Agree.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 12:41:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

Not to be too picky but I think that you started watering down the topic a bit.
Let's get it right, your topic is about denial, not doubting.
In any free society freedom of speech has a fairly broad range of tolerance until it gets to being offensive and quite rightly so.
Yes there have been events as disgusting, if not more than the holocaust however we do not get organised groups decrying their happening.
Holocaust denial has been rife among extreme right-wing groups for some time and had been growing to the extent that some people "with influence" were using it as a tool to push their particular agendas. In common with each case though the result is inciting racial hatred and violence.
It would be counter-productive and wrong for a free society to censure or ban each and everything it deems to be offensive however in this instance it is fully justified.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 9:00:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 12:41:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

Not to be too picky but I think that you started watering down the topic a bit.
Let's get it right, your topic is about denial, not doubting.
In any free society freedom of speech has a fairly broad range of tolerance until it gets to being offensive and quite rightly so.
Yes there have been events as disgusting, if not more than the holocaust however we do not get organised groups decrying their happening.
Holocaust denial has been rife among extreme right-wing groups for some time and had been growing to the extent that some people "with influence" were using it as a tool to push their particular agendas. In common with each case though the result is inciting racial hatred and violence.
It would be counter-productive and wrong for a free society to censure or ban each and everything it deems to be offensive however in this instance it is fully justified.

Offense can not be given. Only taken
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 9:02:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
in some countries, according to wikipedia, it is illegal to deny holocaust happened. but why?

is it not against free thought and freedom of speech? let us say I doubt the evidences and I deny it thus, why I do not have a right to deny it? I believe it happened, I do not doubt it but I am just asking, trying to understand.

one of that countries is France, in france you can caricaturise the most holy person of Muslims as you wish, you are defended by the presidents of the world but you are not allowed to doubt what has been done to jews. is it not inconsistency, contradictory? if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

My main topic is not jews vs muslims comparison or I am not here to defend banning insulting muslims, I am here to ask why a person can not have a right to doubt the event that happened in the past? or, why Apollo missions are allowed to be challenged but not the holocaust?

or why praising Gengis Khan is not a crime? I have watched several movies that are based on 20-21st century events and that praise Gengis Khan.

The only difference I can see between Gengis Khan and Hitler is one tried to prosecute jews specially while the other did not discriminate no one? I think this can be the reason , Hitler was racist that is why it is illegal to doubt something that Hitler is claimed to have done.

Stalin, Gengis Khan, Mao Szedung and others did not discriminate, were not racist. I think I have solved it.

In Germany, holocaust denial is illegal because they do not want a large group of individuals spreading information/misinformation about the Holocaust, in order to keep a nationalist regime from rising again.

It's mainly because their nation was the perpetrator of the Holocaust and thus they feel great shame for the act.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Otto_Hasenkamp
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 9:26:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
If people actually start sharing the jewish lies of the holocaust, a new national socialist movement might rise and actually deport jews somewhere and rid them of their economical positions.
If that happens, important american organizations would fall to chaos since most of their economic executives are jews (Disney, Hollywood, ABC, GMA, World News Tonight, Paramount, CBS, Warner, CNN, NBC, MCA and many more are examples of organizations controlled by mostly jews) and most first world countries don't want that. The only way out of that was to fabricate false propaganda agaisnt nazis, making them seem like the most evil people on the world, and creating the state of Israel.
Capitalism crushed probably the biggest chance we've had at a national socialist utopia just so jews keep producing entertainment, driving the media and managing international monetary organizations.
"Vor uns liegt Deutschland, in uns marschiert Deutschland, und hinter uns, kommt Deutschland!"
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 12:20:51 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
In Germany, holocaust denial is illegal because they do not want a large group of individuals spreading information/misinformation about the Holocaust, in order to keep a nationalist regime from rising again.

It's mainly because their nation was the perpetrator of the Holocaust and thus they feel great shame for the act.
while it seems to be rational reason, I appreciate, which may be true I think it is not the only event that could have caused nationalists to shine again, if this was the reason every and any action done by Germany in the past would have been banned, or am I wrong? I agree, this is the most recent one and the best one for nationalists to start with but if they were waiting for the moment, they could have done by other events of Germany, do you think they too are banned?

as for the second part, if that was the case, I think they would have tried to cover it, deny it like Turkey does now.

and one more problem with this assumption of yours is it is not as you think, in Japan contemporary governmant is not condemned, their actions are not prohibited to be talked about, they even visit the shrunks their contemporary officials are buried yet their country did not return to that government type as you say Germany would have become.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 9:27:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
in some countries, according to wikipedia, it is illegal to deny holocaust happened. but why?

is it not against free thought and freedom of speech? let us say I doubt the evidences and I deny it thus, why I do not have a right to deny it? I believe it happened, I do not doubt it but I am just asking, trying to understand.

one of that countries is France, in france you can caricaturise the most holy person of Muslims as you wish, you are defended by the presidents of the world but you are not allowed to doubt what has been done to jews. is it not inconsistency, contradictory? if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

My main topic is not jews vs muslims comparison or I am not here to defend banning insulting muslims, I am here to ask why a person can not have a right to doubt the event that happened in the past? or, why Apollo missions are allowed to be challenged but not the holocaust?

or why praising Gengis Khan is not a crime? I have watched several movies that are based on 20-21st century events and that praise Gengis Khan.

The only difference I can see between Gengis Khan and Hitler is one tried to prosecute jews specially while the other did not discriminate no one? I think this can be the reason , Hitler was racist that is why it is illegal to doubt something that Hitler is claimed to have done.

Stalin, Gengis Khan, Mao Szedung and others did not discriminate, were not racist. I think I have solved it.

Sorry to say, but most countries don't have freedom of speech. Thankfully, currently, the country I live in still does for the most part (US). I wouldn't be surprised if that changes in the future.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 11:09:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 9:00:15 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/26/2016 12:41:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

Not to be too picky but I think that you started watering down the topic a bit.
Let's get it right, your topic is about denial, not doubting.
In any free society freedom of speech has a fairly broad range of tolerance until it gets to being offensive and quite rightly so.
Yes there have been events as disgusting, if not more than the holocaust however we do not get organised groups decrying their happening.
Holocaust denial has been rife among extreme right-wing groups for some time and had been growing to the extent that some people "with influence" were using it as a tool to push their particular agendas. In common with each case though the result is inciting racial hatred and violence.
It would be counter-productive and wrong for a free society to censure or ban each and everything it deems to be offensive however in this instance it is fully justified.

Offense can not be given. Only taken
Completely wrong. Although it may be that offence can be taken it certainly can be given, by the very nature of the word itself.
Are you trying to say that a gang of skinheads walking down the street wearing swastikas, one arm outstretched shouting out anti-semitic slogans can only be "taken" as offensive?
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 1:18:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 11:09:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:00:15 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/26/2016 12:41:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

Not to be too picky but I think that you started watering down the topic a bit.
Let's get it right, your topic is about denial, not doubting.
In any free society freedom of speech has a fairly broad range of tolerance until it gets to being offensive and quite rightly so.
Yes there have been events as disgusting, if not more than the holocaust however we do not get organised groups decrying their happening.
Holocaust denial has been rife among extreme right-wing groups for some time and had been growing to the extent that some people "with influence" were using it as a tool to push their particular agendas. In common with each case though the result is inciting racial hatred and violence.
It would be counter-productive and wrong for a free society to censure or ban each and everything it deems to be offensive however in this instance it is fully justified.

Offense can not be given. Only taken
Completely wrong. Although it may be that offence can be taken it certainly can be given, by the very nature of the word itself.
Are you trying to say that a gang of skinheads walking down the street wearing swastikas, one arm outstretched shouting out anti-semitic slogans can only be "taken" as offensive?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*cking what."
[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]"
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 2:22:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 1:18:42 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/27/2016 11:09:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:00:15 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/26/2016 12:41:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

Not to be too picky but I think that you started watering down the topic a bit.
Let's get it right, your topic is about denial, not doubting.
In any free society freedom of speech has a fairly broad range of tolerance until it gets to being offensive and quite rightly so.
Yes there have been events as disgusting, if not more than the holocaust however we do not get organised groups decrying their happening.
Holocaust denial has been rife among extreme right-wing groups for some time and had been growing to the extent that some people "with influence" were using it as a tool to push their particular agendas. In common with each case though the result is inciting racial hatred and violence.
It would be counter-productive and wrong for a free society to censure or ban each and everything it deems to be offensive however in this instance it is fully justified.

Offense can not be given. Only taken
Completely wrong. Although it may be that offence can be taken it certainly can be given, by the very nature of the word itself.
Are you trying to say that a gang of skinheads walking down the street wearing swastikas, one arm outstretched shouting out anti-semitic slogans can only be "taken" as offensive?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*cking what."
[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]"

Your thinking is distorted and extreme to say the least.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 3:55:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 2:22:09 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/27/2016 1:18:42 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/27/2016 11:09:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:00:15 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/26/2016 12:41:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

Not to be too picky but I think that you started watering down the topic a bit.
Let's get it right, your topic is about denial, not doubting.
In any free society freedom of speech has a fairly broad range of tolerance until it gets to being offensive and quite rightly so.
Yes there have been events as disgusting, if not more than the holocaust however we do not get organised groups decrying their happening.
Holocaust denial has been rife among extreme right-wing groups for some time and had been growing to the extent that some people "with influence" were using it as a tool to push their particular agendas. In common with each case though the result is inciting racial hatred and violence.
It would be counter-productive and wrong for a free society to censure or ban each and everything it deems to be offensive however in this instance it is fully justified.

Offense can not be given. Only taken
Completely wrong. Although it may be that offence can be taken it certainly can be given, by the very nature of the word itself.
Are you trying to say that a gang of skinheads walking down the street wearing swastikas, one arm outstretched shouting out anti-semitic slogans can only be "taken" as offensive?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*cking what."
[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]"

Your thinking is distorted and extreme to say the least.

Distorted and extreme, eh? Care to elaborate?
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 10:56:06 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 3:55:09 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/27/2016 2:22:09 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/27/2016 1:18:42 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/27/2016 11:09:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:00:15 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/26/2016 12:41:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

Not to be too picky but I think that you started watering down the topic a bit.
Let's get it right, your topic is about denial, not doubting.
In any free society freedom of speech has a fairly broad range of tolerance until it gets to being offensive and quite rightly so.
Yes there have been events as disgusting, if not more than the holocaust however we do not get organised groups decrying their happening.
Holocaust denial has been rife among extreme right-wing groups for some time and had been growing to the extent that some people "with influence" were using it as a tool to push their particular agendas. In common with each case though the result is inciting racial hatred and violence.
It would be counter-productive and wrong for a free society to censure or ban each and everything it deems to be offensive however in this instance it is fully justified.

Offense can not be given. Only taken
Completely wrong. Although it may be that offence can be taken it certainly can be given, by the very nature of the word itself.
Are you trying to say that a gang of skinheads walking down the street wearing swastikas, one arm outstretched shouting out anti-semitic slogans can only be "taken" as offensive?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*cking what."
[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]"

Your thinking is distorted and extreme to say the least.

Distorted and extreme, eh? Care to elaborate?

Yes, it is incorrect and absurd to assert that offence cannot be given.
The example of skinheads that I gave is "giving" offence in the eyes of moderate thinking people.
Your reference from Stephen Fry is aimed at generic, trivial instances. Why do you not ask him whether he would apply the same dictum to a gang of neo-nazi skinheads?
Therefore, your thinking is distorted and extreme to say the least.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 3:35:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 10:56:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:55:09 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/27/2016 2:22:09 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/27/2016 1:18:42 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/27/2016 11:09:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:00:15 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/26/2016 12:41:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

Not to be too picky but I think that you started watering down the topic a bit.
Let's get it right, your topic is about denial, not doubting.
In any free society freedom of speech has a fairly broad range of tolerance until it gets to being offensive and quite rightly so.
Yes there have been events as disgusting, if not more than the holocaust however we do not get organised groups decrying their happening.
Holocaust denial has been rife among extreme right-wing groups for some time and had been growing to the extent that some people "with influence" were using it as a tool to push their particular agendas. In common with each case though the result is inciting racial hatred and violence.
It would be counter-productive and wrong for a free society to censure or ban each and everything it deems to be offensive however in this instance it is fully justified.

Offense can not be given. Only taken
Completely wrong. Although it may be that offence can be taken it certainly can be given, by the very nature of the word itself.
Are you trying to say that a gang of skinheads walking down the street wearing swastikas, one arm outstretched shouting out anti-semitic slogans can only be "taken" as offensive?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*cking what."
[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]"

Your thinking is distorted and extreme to say the least.

Distorted and extreme, eh? Care to elaborate?

Yes, it is incorrect and absurd to assert that offence cannot be given.
The example of skinheads that I gave is "giving" offence in the eyes of moderate thinking people.
Your reference from Stephen Fry is aimed at generic, trivial instances. Why do you not ask him whether he would apply the same dictum to a gang of neo-nazi skinheads?
Therefore, your thinking is distorted and extreme to say the least.

Are you an anti free speech type? Or are you the type to claim that you believe in freedom of speech, except when someone's feelings get hurt?
If you believe in freedom of speech, that means that you believe everyone has a right to express themselves as they wish and spread and idea they wish, regardless of whether or not you agree with it?
I fall into the latter camp. You can label my opinion as distorted and extreme, but from my position, the liberty position, your opinion is distorted and extreme. Your position is authorianian. Your position is for control.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 11:24:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 3:35:26 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/28/2016 10:56:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:55:09 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/27/2016 2:22:09 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/27/2016 1:18:42 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/27/2016 11:09:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:00:15 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/26/2016 12:41:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
if DOUBTING something is illegal, how can insulting, caricaturing someone can be freedom of speech?

Not to be too picky but I think that you started watering down the topic a bit.
Let's get it right, your topic is about denial, not doubting.
In any free society freedom of speech has a fairly broad range of tolerance until it gets to being offensive and quite rightly so.
Yes there have been events as disgusting, if not more than the holocaust however we do not get organised groups decrying their happening.
Holocaust denial has been rife among extreme right-wing groups for some time and had been growing to the extent that some people "with influence" were using it as a tool to push their particular agendas. In common with each case though the result is inciting racial hatred and violence.
It would be counter-productive and wrong for a free society to censure or ban each and everything it deems to be offensive however in this instance it is fully justified.

Offense can not be given. Only taken
Completely wrong. Although it may be that offence can be taken it certainly can be given, by the very nature of the word itself.
Are you trying to say that a gang of skinheads walking down the street wearing swastikas, one arm outstretched shouting out anti-semitic slogans can only be "taken" as offensive?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*cking what."
[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]"

Your thinking is distorted and extreme to say the least.

Distorted and extreme, eh? Care to elaborate?

Yes, it is incorrect and absurd to assert that offence cannot be given.
The example of skinheads that I gave is "giving" offence in the eyes of moderate thinking people.
Your reference from Stephen Fry is aimed at generic, trivial instances. Why do you not ask him whether he would apply the same dictum to a gang of neo-nazi skinheads?
Therefore, your thinking is distorted and extreme to say the least.

Are you an anti free speech type? Or are you the type to claim that you believe in freedom of speech, except when someone's feelings get hurt?
If you believe in freedom of speech, that means that you believe everyone has a right to express themselves as they wish and spread and idea they wish, regardless of whether or not you agree with it?
I fall into the latter camp. You can label my opinion as distorted and extreme, but from my position, the liberty position, your opinion is distorted and extreme. Your position is authorianian. Your position is for control.

Since you feel at liberty to express your views, I would be interested to know, what is your view on holocaust denial and the neo-nazi culture?
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 3:39:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
in some countries, according to wikipedia, it is illegal to deny holocaust happened. but why?

It is for two reasons. 1, the holocaust was exaggerated and used by Jews for various reasons (look up what holo-caust means, compare the number of Jews in Europe at the time to the number claimed to have been killed).

2. Germans were a very tribal and domineering people, and there was fear they would pull the same thing again (ww1, ww2).

I'm not a historian, don't take my word for it.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 12:57:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/30/2016 3:39:27 AM, capob wrote:
At 7/26/2016 5:35:55 AM, Artur wrote:
in some countries, according to wikipedia, it is illegal to deny holocaust happened. but why?

It is for two reasons. 1, the holocaust was exaggerated and used by Jews for various reasons (look up what holo-caust means, compare the number of Jews in Europe at the time to the number claimed to have been killed).

2. Germans were a very tribal and domineering people, and there was fear they would pull the same thing again (ww1, ww2).

I'm not a historian, don't take my word for it.

Nobody in their right mind would ever take your bigoted word for it.