2 ms·

> Why the difference? Because even if there are "Stalin deniers", their numbers are not remotely large enough to have an appreciable effect. > Evolution I di

> 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.
  - tomp 11y ago
    > No, you did not understand, but i frankly do not care to discuss the finer points of the scientific process here. Fair enough. But I'm interested in that, so if you happen to know of any resources (blog posts, articles, ...) that discuss this, I'd be happy to read them.
PerfectDlite 11y ago
> Because even if there are "Stalin deniers", their numbers are not remotely large enough to have an appreciable effect. Just look at Russia. They're glorifying Stalin now and their effect in Europe... is showing.

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.
- tomp 11y ago
  > No, you did not understand, but i frankly do not care to discuss the finer points of the scientific process here. Fair enough. But I'm interested in that, so if you happen to know of any resources (blog posts, articles, ...) that discuss this, I'd be happy to read them.

PerfectDlite 11y ago

> Because even if there are "Stalin deniers", their numbers are not remotely large enough to have an appreciable effect. Just look at Russia. They're glorifying Stalin now and their effect in Europe... is showing.