Holocaust Denial

norsefire, i am guessing but i assume i spend more of my day looking into the psychological and social factors which effect people than you do and the more study i do the less i belive that:
a) we have a choice in anything
b) that "justice" works
c) that its the criminals fault

the more study i do the harder it is to see crime as anything other than a mental illness which needs treatment. you wouldnt blame someone suffering a sizure if they lost control of a car and ran someone down and you cant blame people for how there mind is built either.

even sociopaths are deserving of empathy because thats exactly what seperates us from them, the second we lose our empathy for ANYONE we become them. Besides which they are useful alive in a way they arnt dead and there is always the chance that we can find a cure

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

he he, the 21 century?

and they ask why it is illegal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Slander and Libel are both against the law. You're insulting every dead person in the holocaust by saying they never lived, that they never existed. Every single death that came out of the region might as well have no memorial...they have no graves... Delegitimizing them as human living beings who died is an insult. Especially for those of who are related to them, who hear the stories handed down from our grandparents. Hearing the old man are your local shul who comes in and speaks silently with a tear in his eye about how tragic seeing 1000's of bodies piled upon each other. He saw them with his own eyes, you call him and every other survivor a liar. And essentially say that my relatives never actually existed...that my grandfathers parents didn't completely die because they never existed. That my grgrandfather, well he came over on a boat at 9 years old for no reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not that i disagree with you but i suggest you look at the "what would you do if your underaged daughter was raped"

dont you think doubting a rape victom causes just as much trauma on an indervidual level yet not only do some people find it acceptable to do even once the facts are established (or worse blame the victom) but the courts have to treat them as if they are lying until they can PROVE they are telling the truth

 

Because of the brevity of your statements, it's difficult to really understand how you would handle various scenarios with violent behavior resulting in either mental or physical damages to another person or the instance and scale of damage to property.

I agree with the basic statement you've made in "c" above, however, we would have to discuss specifics about "a" and "b".

I'm new here in this forum. Some are very strict about off topic (thread ripping), posts. Would it be appropriate for me to start a thread on your discussion points and then offer a link to that thread within this one?

 

Yes, but if the man was proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. Continuing to harass him is still wrong.

Also; the woman needs to be questioned in accuracy. If she's proven to be legitimate after much deliberation and research, it's cruel to continue to call her a liar.


In this case, there is photographic, written documents, eye-witness, and you could even exume the bodies. The court is out of session on this.

 

i apologise for that, that post is something norsefire and i have been fighting about over any number of threads so i didnt need to be specific for him because he already knows what im talking about

however im quite willing to go through it for you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

in a, i was refering to something we get taught in sociology and health psychology constantly. that is that people dont evolve in a vacume, now i dont think my lecturer would take it as far as im begining to and tiassa here doesnt like the idea easier but it goes like this:

we were having a lecture on the biopsychosocial theory of health and the lecturer argued that the psycho shouldnt be there because everything is either biological (ie nature) or social (your enviroment, nurture). this is a compelling argument because when you think about it even base values dont come naturally, they evolve from the various influances you have as you grow up. No one is born a red neck, a socialist, a sociopath ect. If you take the sociopath as an example the condition means they have no empathy for other people, now there are two ways this could possably occure. Biologically as they grow there ceribral cortex (the part of the brain which deals with morals and impulse control) could not develop properly or could be damaged by a blow to the head, a tumor or someother organic cause (technically not all there are strictly nature but you get the piture) OR they could have been damaged due to there social influances like sexual or other abuses, neglect ect as they are growing up such that they have no atachment to other humans and there for see them as nothing but tools or it could be a combination of these like a genetic predisposition to an underveloped CC and sexual abuse which causes the disorder

This disorder then causes the behavors like sadisum ect which lead to a sadistic serial killer. Is this the persons fault or is the cause the disorder or disease?


on my second point about justice, its well known that prision and punishments dont work. in fact they tend to escolate a persons criminal behavors as they futher resent what sociaty has done to them and they are broken and trained inside. The mental health system isnt perfect but has a much higher treatment success rate than prision does, hense my desire to abolish the criminal justice system and move into a system of mental health treatments. Also i dont like how under the current systems detention is limited to a specific time frame, if you take a sociopath it takes YEARS of intensive theorpy to treat them if it even works and so releace should be based on treatment and risk to the community rather than either "never to be releaced" or a set time frame

further more in the case of the DP, not only do inocents get caught up in it and killed but for the guilty sociaty loses a resorce to study and test treatments on (i dont mean that in the nazi way just for your infomation). how are we going to develop methods of finding potentual serial killers and treating them BEFORE they offend if as soon as we know we have a serial killer we excute them. They are a valuable resorce for sociaty

C relates specifically to a but goes further, sometimes it doesnt have to do with mental illness but rather desperation. for instance theft because its the only way to feed your family, you know its wrong, there for you dont have a mental illness but its still something that is forced on you by sociaty. This can be the case for most crimes and the pressures forcing you dont just have to be finantial. This is why we have blackmail laws for example

 

As long as you insult a few people in it, take an emotional line for or against creationism, deny the holocaust and claim everyone who doesn't think like you is a government spook trying to discredit your views on 911 and the Virgin birth, then you should be OK.

Welcome to the forum.

 

There has to be some restrictions on what a person can say.
***
Picture this classic: A person decides they would like to scream "FIRE" at the top of their lungs in a crowded theater. It causes a panic and many people die as a result of the persons false alert.
***
Should that type of action be addressed by the leaders of a society and declared as a forbidden type of verbal action?

Would forbidding that type of verbal action save people from suffering physical harm and death?

Would forbidding that type of verbal action prevent future damage to other people in the case of lost wages or quality of life, resulting from an inability to work or enjoy full mobility as a result of damage to a person caused by the verbal actions of another person?

These results have happened in the past. The causes were as I described. Laws restricting that type of verbal action have been made in almost every country on the planet.

Are you saying that verbal censorship of this type should be disallowed?

Imagine the consequences of total, unconditional verbal freedom. Humans are far from perfect creatures. The harm that would result from total verbal freedom would be huge and impossible for any society to condone.

If that damage or potential for damage is not condoned and in fact restricted, then that is verbal censorship. That is the absence of total verbal freedom.

Free speech cannot exist in society. It would create havoc.

Therefore, limitations have to be adopted in regards to any persons ability to say certain things in certain conditions.

Those limitations must be set by trusted and just representatives of society unless a computerized polling technique were adopted that allowed for voting on each instance by each member of a given society.

In some manner, those representatives would have to be chosen to fill that position.

Their rulings would have to be set with consequences resulting from actions denying those rulings.

Those consequences would have to be either in the form of some type of social counseling appropriate to the specific instance or by a structure of penalties that will be enforced.

If the consequences were social modification, and I personally believe that would be the most beneficial to all societies in the long run, then a supporting structure would have to be put in place that would accomplish that end result.

In the world today, there is not a single society that practices that method. All societies in place at this moment have systems of punishment and set laws that restrict free will of humans.

That will change, but not in the next many centuries. Humans are still pretty damn simple.

We're getting better. I do wish it would be faster.

Sorry, I rambled a bit there, but I do hope it was coherent.

 

Thank you for the welcome and the laugh.

Nat

 

Free Speech: the right to express an opinion in public without being restrained or censored.
("en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free speech")

Shouting "FIRE!" because you are bored and enjoy mayhem is not an opinion. You have missed the point spectacularly.

 

Free speech isn't just the tightly defined "wiktionary" definition you've supplied. It involves much, much more than just expressing an opinion. You've picked one definition from a source that happens to agree with your opinion. How about supplying one from a legal text? Perhaps one from a State Supreme Court or even one discussed in a Federal Supreme Court decision?

I didn't miss anything. You're avoiding the full picture.

Broaden the parameters of your search to include the information I mentioned above.

Do you think it should be legal for a person to express their opinion regardless of the situation? Picture this; A person attends a public meeting in a town meeting hall. That person happens to think that the Mayors wife likes to take it up the ass and raises his hand, gets recognized and states that opinion in front of the entire assembly, children included. He then states his opinion that if each child were disemboweled, their guts and bodies cooked to medium rare and eaten, it would make for a fine supper. It's clearly his opinion and according to you should be allowed?

No. That's not how life works. My example is an exaggeration of events, but shows how "Free Speech" as defined by your wikki whatever definition is pure bull. Total unrestrained allowance to say anything involving an opinion cannot be allowed in any society.

In my above example, that persons statement of opinion could cause real and permanent harm to other people who have heard him state his opinion. That harm is protected against by law. If you think not, then try it in the setting I give as an example. You'll be arrested, confined in a jail and placed into the legal system. Rightly so.

If you don't see that, then I suggest that it's YOU that is spectacularly missing the point. Spoken words must be tempered with consideration for the time and place in which those opinions are expressed. The occasions in which a person states their opinions in a place or at a time that is inappropriate to the occasion have to be governed by rules. Those rules are the laws that govern the welfare of society. You cannot dismiss them because you feel you should be allowed to say your opinion regardless of circumstances.

 

There are restrictions. When it offends someone personally or does that person harm then it is worthy of restriction.

I had this same discussion regarding public nudity with uber liberals a long time ago. They all had specific criteria for when it offended them but it takes awhile to get it out of them. So basically they are all FOS. The bottom line is that either you are for it or your against it, you cannot be for something just because it suits you at the time and say screw everyone else.

 

Yes, of course it should be allowed. It appears to be your opinion that such an action would be inappropriate, if not actually reprhensible. That is merely your opinion.

Another opinion that might be expressed, to control what is and is not said in a public place, would be "women are mere chattels and so expressing the vile and despicable opinion that they are due respect and fair and equal treatment is an affront to decent society and no one should be allowed to make such statements in public."

So if you object to control in the second case - and I make the not unreasonable presumption that you would object to it - I do not see why you would be in favour of control in the first case. The only argument you can muster is that people should not be allowed to speak in favour of cannibalism, but that they should be allowed to speak in favour of equality for women. The difference between the two is a difference of opinion.

Finis.

 

Every society has restrictions in place that cover what I've said. Those restrictions are developed via a consensus of opinion within that society. It exists. It's in place and is practiced.

What you suggest is fantasy. It doesn't exist, won't exist and anyone who ever disobeys societies rules in that regard will always be disciplined by the leaders of that society.

"Yes, of course it should be allowed."

No, it shouldn't. It isn't, and never will be.

You cannot show me a single instance in the history of the world where that example is allowed in any society.

There are examples of that type of idiocy being prosecuted by members of societies throughout history.

Rules of society are made by consensus of opinion. Your example above would be soundly defeated in ANY consensus of opinion gathered by vote among ANY society. It's outrageous and would be recognised as such, as would be the example I gave.

"It appears to be your opinion that such an action would be inappropriate, if not actually reprehensible. That is merely your opinion."

Not at all. It's an opinion shared by the majority of the society I live in. That's why the LAWS of my society prevent anyone from actually saying something like that in the situation I described. Like I said, and you tried to ignore; try it sometime. You'll be arrested. It's against the law. You may wish to change that law, but you never will.

Your argument is pointless. It's fantasy.

 

The Oxford Concise English Dictionary defines 'free speech' thus:

free speech. n. the right to express opinions freely.

Here in England the The Oxford Concise Dictionary is an important and much-referred to dictionary. Countdown, for example, have used it pretty much religiously for over 20 years. Or do you still I am being too selective with my sources?

What societal norms dictate and what the law punishes are two very different things.
Most people would think your example was mentally ill, and as long as he didn't carry out any of his suggestions, I see no reason why he should be thrown in prison. Others are more than welcome to STRONGLY disagree with him and throw insults his way as part of their right to free opinion too. In the end he would be drowned out by the majority, who quite rightly don't agree with his views. He would then be shunned by the entire community.
As for your 'try it' suggestion, this is another instance in which you have missed the point. Holocaust Denial in some countries is illegal, therefore so is free speech. This thread is disagreeing with the law.

However, ultimately your example is irrelevant. In the context of Holocaust Denial (which is the subject of this thread) free speech means freedom to express political/historical/ethical/religious views. Libel and slander belong to a slightly different topic, which involves issues like fair comment.

 

In case you hadn't noticed the discussion revolved around what should be, not around what is. I offered you a logical (sensuo stricto) analysis of why your argument against totally free speech was flawed. You appear to be incapable of refuting that argument.

You then proceed to emote great gobbets of indignation against ..... well against what exactly? It is very difficult to tell. In the midst of your hysteria you obeserve "It's outrageous and would be recognised as such, as would be the example I gave." I take it from this that you believe that no one would ever say that women were mere chattels with no rights.
You no very little of the role of women throughout much of recorded history in many of the world's civilisations. This was exactly how they were treated and viewed. The consensus opinion of society that you think so important was exactly that: women are dirt.
It was because of the courage of individuals and group, men and women, to speak out against this consensus opinion that we now enjoy a somewhat more enlightened attitude.

NMG, you need to get an education in history and in logic. Until then try not to clog up the thread with nonsense.

 

...

 

...

 

I believe it is as it should be right now. You don't. I won't change my stance and I seriously doubt you will either.

The discussion between you and I is pointless.