Should/could denial of evolution be a criminal offence?

[Bishadi]

Woaaahh - incoherent

What was incoherant? Perhaps that the news contradicts what you thought you knew?

and a holocaust denier! A true winning combo...

i dont deny the existence


i didn't live in it, did you?


If i said, "i dont believe genesis, that Eve was born for the rib of adam", would that mean blaspheme to you? Meaning, i will tell you right here that i dont believe in genesis' creationary BS that a religious wingnut believe is from GOD but if i show material evidence that jews declared war on germany before germany declared war on anyone, i am called a 'denier'................


funny how bigotry works!

 

[Spindrift]

funny how bigotry works!

No. Sad maybe, but definitely not funny.

 

[Mirrorglass]

This would be an utterly horrendous precedent. Imagine that conservatives came into power a few years later and used this as a basis to make it a crime to deny the resurrection of Jesus or something.

Nobody would expect that.

 

[maggot9779]

Ofcourse not.

I don't even think holocaust denial should be a ciminal offence.

 

[brodski]

I don't think so. I think that the only reason to make holocaust denial a crime is that it's so very offensive to some people. I'm willing to listen to if other reasons are suggested though.

The reason that some states outlaw Holocaust denial in some forms is not because it's offensive it's because most of the groups which perpetuate Holocaust denial take the position that "the Holocaust never happened, but wouldn't it be great if it did", the laws are an attempt to stop those groups gaining legitimacy and power.

If enough influential people hold Holocaust denialist views there is a risk that similar atrocities could be committed in the future more easily. Evolution will happen whether people believe in it or not so the views are not equivalent.

I personally don't think that banning Holocaust denial is an appropriate or effective policy, but the fact that holocaust denial is offensive is not the reason that some states ban it.

 

[madurobob]

Nobody would expect that.

I hope I laughed at that for the reason you intended.

 

[Bishadi]

No. Sad maybe, but definitely not funny.

i apologize as you are correct bigotry is not funny!


and to deny evolution is a far worse atrocity than denying the biased opinion of ww2 as being about juws

 

[Bishadi]

The reason that some states outlaw Holocaust denial in some forms is not because it's offensive it's because most of the groups which perpetuate Holocaust denial take the position that "the Holocaust never happened, but wouldn't it be great if it did", the laws are an attempt to stop those groups gaining legitimacy and power.

If enough influential people hold Holocaust denialist views there is a risk that similar atrocities could be committed in the future more easily.

like what?

what do them laws do but underwrite sympathy for many who commit the very atrocities RIGHT NOW? What is gaza but a 1.3 million soul concentration camp? What is occupying jeruselem but an atrocity against the global community?

Evolution will happen whether people believe in it or not so the views are not equivalent.

i agree

I personally don't think that banning Holocaust denial is an appropriate or effective policy, but the fact that holocaust denial is offensive is not the reason that some states ban it.

ww2 occurred. Holocaust IS just an opinion!

 

[Ziggurat]

Woaaahh - incoherent and a holocaust denier! A true winning combo...

I'm not sure he's an actual denier, I think he's just antisemitic.

But you're quite correct about him being incoherent.

Edit: oops, I spoke too soon. He just revealed himself to be a Holocaust denier.

 

[Elizabeth I]

what do them laws do but underwrite sympathy for many who commit the very atrocities RIGHT NOW? What is gaza but a 1.3 million soul concentration camp? What is occupying jeruselem but an atrocity against the global community?

So what is happening now makes it okay that millions were killed in the 1930s and 1940s?

 

[Mirrorglass]

I hope I laughed at that for the reason you intended.

If not, then we shall make you understand.

 

[Spindrift]

i apologize as you are correct bigotry is not funny!

Apology accepted.

and to deny evolution is a far worse atrocity than denying the biased opinion of ww2 as being about juws

Bigotry noted.

 

[rwguinn]

i'm sorry, i have to say this is a little bit silly and a little bit really, really dangerous - the idea of thought crimes always makes my skin crawl. I don't even like the hate crimes statutes for that reason.

ftfy

 

[Loss Leader]

i show material evidence that jews declared war on germany before germany declared war on anyone, i am called a 'denier'!

So, exactly how many Germans did the Jews exterminate?

Why are you using the words "declared war" to mean two separate things. As regards Germany, you are using it to mean one nation stating an intention of physically fighting another. As regards Jews, you are using it to mean one group of people advocating against the policies of a government.

By 1933, the anti-semetic policies of Nazi Germany were already pretty evident. Hitler's own book made all that clear. If Jews were to "declare war" by boycotting German goods, hadn't Germany already declared war on the Jews by, you know, blaming us for all of the evil in the world?

 

[brodski]

I'm sorry, I have to say this is a little bit silly and a little bit dangerous - the idea of thought crimes always makes my skin crawl. I don't even like the hate crimes statutes for that reason.

Hate crimes are no different from any other crime in that motivation can make an act which is already criminal into a more serious crime, indeed motivation can turn otherwise legal acts into crimes, look at any crime which has a description which contains the words "with intent". The difference between manslaughter and murder is a "thoughtcrime", the difference between attempted murder and what may be no crime at all, is a "thoughtcrime".

What makes "hate crime" legislation specifically different enough to make your skin crawl?

 

[Beerina]

What are you proposing here? Thought police?

You don't have to listen to BS but if you are going to try to suppress it then you will just make the BS appear more legitimate. (The BS suppressor must have something to hide).

In Freakonomics (or maybe the sequel Superfreakonomics, I forget) the authors delve into how one guy almost single-handedly eviscerated the KKK from a truly vicious organization into little more than a good ol' boy's club over several decades, largely by touting and exposing their rituals and beliefs and so on so people could just laugh at it.

This is the exact opposite of forcible suppression, and it works.

Forcible suppression of ideas...hasn't worked out so well, historically. Indeed, as in the KKK or the opponents of evolution, authorizing the government to censor will probably bite you in the ass rather than help you -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Ziggurat]

What makes "hate crime" legislation specifically different enough to make your skin crawl?

Well, for one, the discretion that it gives prosecutors to prosecute a crime according to subjective can lead to abuse. Now, prosecutors always have some discretion, but in the case of hate crimes, that discretion can get coupled to identity politics, which can make things messy in ways which may not favor actual justice being done.

But perhaps more importantly, at least in the US, hate crime legislation is often a mechanism for changing jurisdiction for the prosecution of a crime from a more local to a broader level. So for example the feds can get involved in crimes which would normally simply be local matters. If you believe in the idea that local government is generally preferable to national government, that's a minus.

Now, there's a damn good reason that change of jurisdiction was implemented in the first place: hate crime laws were originally a way for the feds to step in to prosecute crimes that the local governments were intentionally failing to prosecute because of racism. The feds couldn't prosecute the original crimes since they have no authority to enforce local laws, so new crimes had to be created in order for the feds to have the legal ability to step in. Those crimes were originally tailored fairly narrowly to try to only cover those crimes the local governments were likely to refuse to prosecute.

But while this approach was quite understandable given the restrictions that our federal system of government has, it was never a perfect solution. The original problem is now mostly absent, but instead of shrinking, hate crime legislation did what so many aspects of government did: it grew instead. It started to cover more crimes, not fewer. And to justify this, rather than pointing to the original purpose (the failure of local government), new reasons are now given. But it's not clear that these new reasons really justify such jurisdictional shifts anymore. And that, alone, is cause for concern. If nothing else, such legislation can smack of bureaucratic over-reach.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Holocaust IS just an opinion!

No, it's not. Even if you are a denier (and it's starting to look like you are), then it's not a matter of opinion.

I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. That doesn't make the conspiracy theory an opinion. It means I think the idea is false.

 

[Vorticity]

Nobody would expect that.

"I see what you did there..."

 

[Bishadi]

So what is happening now makes it okay that millions were killed in the 1930s and 1940s?

about 60 million died throughout wwii.

but the sick part is, 1.3 million are in a concentration camp (gaza) right now!