4 ms·

It is not equivalent. Holocaust victims have described things that actually happened to them or their families, they are claiming things as historic fact. It is

It is not equivalent. Holocaust victims have described things that actually happened to them or their families, they are claiming things as historic fact. It is absolutely possible, and very cruel, to call them liars. Scientists advocating the theory of evolution are 100% aware that it is a theory. The word itself includes an understanding and acknowledgement of it not being fact, but a theory. Unless you try to claim them believing in their theory is a lie, you cannot call them liars, since they are not proposing facts. Further, you ignore the part about the effects it has on the audience. Making other people believe that jews and other holocaust victims have successfully perpetrated a lie about "their race" across decades, makes them more likely to be radicalized and thus more likely to lash out against "others". Do note how in Germany even today fire-bombings against residences of foreigners and particularly refugees occur particularly in the german regions with higher-than-average occurences of neo nazis. Oh, lest i forget: > it's illegal to even discuss it Paragraph?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tomp 11y ago
> Holocaust victims have described things that actually happened to them or their families, they are claiming things as historic fact. It is absolutely possible, and very cruel, to call them liars. Ok, let's use a different example then. It's not illegal to say that Stalin was a good man than never harmed anyone, even though it's incredibly wrong (Stalin killed possibly even more people than Hitler), and equally disrespectful (assuming that at least some of the Stalin's victims or their relatives survived). Why the difference? > Scientists advocating the theory of evolution are 100% aware that it is a theory Wow. I wouldn't think that as someone who objects denying the holocaust would use exactly the most stupid argument used by those who deny evolution. It's called a theory not because scientists don't think evolution is a fact, but because it's an explanation of how things happen. Evolution is a fact, to the same extent that gravity is a fact (i.e. the prediction than an apple will fall down if your release it) - it might be wrong e.g. if we live in the Matrix, but then all of the reality is "wrong". Even with gravity, you have gravity (things fall) and the theory of gravity (a longer explanation why things fall). Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"?
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  > Why the difference? Because even if there are "Stalin deniers", their numbers are not remotely large enough to have an appreciable effect. > Evolution I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree. Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. > Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"? Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust?
  - tomp 11y ago
    > I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree. Just to be clear, you disagree with a fact that follows from very simple assumptions just by applying a few very simple steps of logical reasoning, yet you accept as dogmatic (i.e. authorative) truth a historical (i.e. unrepeatable and illogical) fact that you never witnessed yourself and that many people claim is false? Interesting. Edit: Or, maybe you don't disagree that evolution is happening, just that it happened (i.e. that the current species were created by evolution)? I guess that's the other option, which would be less inconsistent with logic. > Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. Well, given that holocaust denial is legal in the US, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fact that it's unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. > Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust? I don't know, but why don't you check Wikipedia (a more raliable source) instead of relying on me (a completely unreliable, potentially lying, source)?
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      > Just to be clear, [...] No, you did not understand, but i frankly do not care to discuss the finer points of the scientific process here. > Well, given that holocaust denial is legal in the US, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fact that it's unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. In the US? Unlikely, i agree. In Germany? It is still actively doing so. Source: I have german ex neo nazis among my acquaintances, by way of living in the same town; and an active german neo nazi in my extended family. > why don't you You made the claim. I doubt it. I leave it up to the claimant to invest the time to support it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tomp 11y ago

> Holocaust victims have described things that actually happened to them or their families, they are claiming things as historic fact. It is absolutely possible, and very cruel, to call them liars. Ok, let's use a different example then. It's not illegal to say that Stalin was a good man than never harmed anyone, even though it's incredibly wrong (Stalin killed possibly even more people than Hitler), and equally disrespectful (assuming that at least some of the Stalin's victims or their relatives survived). Why the difference? > Scientists advocating the theory of evolution are 100% aware that it is a theory Wow. I wouldn't think that as someone who objects denying the holocaust would use exactly the most stupid argument used by those who deny evolution. It's called a theory not because scientists don't think evolution is a fact, but because it's an explanation of how things happen. Evolution is a fact, to the same extent that gravity is a fact (i.e. the prediction than an apple will fall down if your release it) - it might be wrong e.g. if we live in the Matrix, but then all of the reality is "wrong". Even with gravity, you have gravity (things fall) and the theory of gravity (a longer explanation why things fall). Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"?

Mithaldu 11y ago
> Why the difference? Because even if there are "Stalin deniers", their numbers are not remotely large enough to have an appreciable effect. > Evolution I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree. Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. > Edit: I'm not sure what you're asking with "Paragraph?"... Do you mean "Source?"? Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust?
- tomp 11y ago
  > I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree. Just to be clear, you disagree with a fact that follows from very simple assumptions just by applying a few very simple steps of logical reasoning, yet you accept as dogmatic (i.e. authorative) truth a historical (i.e. unrepeatable and illogical) fact that you never witnessed yourself and that many people claim is false? Interesting. Edit: Or, maybe you don't disagree that evolution is happening, just that it happened (i.e. that the current species were created by evolution)? I guess that's the other option, which would be less inconsistent with logic. > Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. Well, given that holocaust denial is legal in the US, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fact that it's unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. > Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust? I don't know, but why don't you check Wikipedia (a more raliable source) instead of relying on me (a completely unreliable, potentially lying, source)?
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    > Just to be clear, [...] No, you did not understand, but i frankly do not care to discuss the finer points of the scientific process here. > Well, given that holocaust denial is legal in the US, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a fact that it's unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people. In the US? Unlikely, i agree. In Germany? It is still actively doing so. Source: I have german ex neo nazis among my acquaintances, by way of living in the same town; and an active german neo nazi in my extended family. > why don't you You made the claim. I doubt it. I leave it up to the claimant to invest the time to support it.