"Beat me to death"

And Wolfman. We will see if Töben is extradited or not. I doubt it. So
unless that will actually happen, there is no need to think about it.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Yeah, and on top of that the argument he likes to use in this case is freedom of speech. :boggled:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4084925&postcount=212
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2779880&postcount=138
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3034237&postcount=1676
Click to expand...

Welcome to free speech, UW.

By that I mean that everybody on this planet is free to
speak whatever they want in my opinion. But this alone
is no threat.

If you interpret this being a threat nevertheless, you
should drop your believe in free speech and -expression,
because your argument would be worthless if you believe
in free speech for yourself as long people don't say
anything that bothers you.

And no - Iran *surprise-surprise* doesn't have a long
history of violent, bloody military interventions:

http://www.google.com/search?source=...=Google+Search

So using facts, logic and historical background, it's safe to
say that the US-Government is a bunch of crazy war-horny
MF'ers. Not some people in the ME talking BS.

Unless - of course - you can provide some evidence
that is more convincing than the latest "Woo-mourning".
Click to expand...

I thought laughing dog, but we need some variety here.

:train
 
Pardalis said:
So why the hell do you keep defending Ahmadinejad and MaGZ, if you basically agree with me that what they are doing is inciting hatred against the Jews?
Click to expand...


Yes, it certainly borders inciting hatred in German laws definition, yet
their proposals are rational and in no way anti-semitic. Therefore it
has to be proven if Iran is a threat for Jews or not. Reviewing the facts,
there is no obvious threat other than the fears of fearful people.

Plus, Ahmadinejad isn't spreading his nonsense in Germany since he has
to either break the law in Germany - or provide a Website that is available
in Germany with him being the Author. Under those circumstances was
Töben indicted.

Concerning MagZ: I have hope for him being able to wake up.
Unfortunately, the never-ending attacks won't help to open his
mind. That's a basic psychological fact.
 
Oliver said:
"Last night I went outside after hearing some strange noises coming from outside. I was shocked when I realized what was going on. A heavily burned Jew was lying in front of me and he asked me to beat him to death to stop the pain he was going through."
Click to expand...


Others have pointed out things that seem to render this story implausible, and now I've noticed yet another. The heavily-burned Jew asked to be beaten to death to put him out of his misery. I'd believe someone in such great suffering might ask to be killed, but to ask for a specific method of killing, particularly one that is itself likely to be painful, seems unlikely. If he had the presence of mind to ask to be killed in a specific manner, surely he'd ask for something quicker and less painful, such as having his throat cut.


Oliver said:
I'm not arguing at all, just stating the fact that the Holocaust led to the laws we have regarding hate speech. Plus growing up with those laws, I don't see any difference between similar Libel/Slander laws in other western societies.
Click to expand...


Really? You don't understand the difference between slander/libel, wherein lies are disseminated about specific individuals, causing direct harm to their reputation; and expression of an unpopular political belief which harms no one? I suppose you also don't understand the difference between a tort (which is what slander/libel is treated as) and a crime (which is how Germany treats its thoughtcrimes).
 
Tailgater said:
I thought laughing dog, but we need some variety here.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was a loose statement since my point was the threat factor - that
was the context of the discussion, and being a honest man, you acknowledge
that, don't you?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Others have pointed out things that seem to render this story implausible, and now I've noticed yet another. The heavily-burned Jew asked to be beaten to death to put him out of his misery. I'd believe someone in such great suffering might ask to be killed, but to ask for a specific method of killing, particularly one that is itself likely to be painful, seems unlikely. If he had the presence of mind to ask to be killed in a specific manner, surely he'd ask for something quicker and less painful, such as having his throat cut.

Really? You don't understand the difference between slander/libel, wherein lies are disseminated about specific individuals, causing direct harm to their reputation; and expression of an unpopular political belief which harms no one? I suppose you also don't understand the difference between a tort (which is what slander/libel is treated as) and a crime (which is how Germany treats its thoughtcrimes).
Click to expand...


Read on, we've been there already.
 
Oliver said:
Yes, it certainly borders inciting hatred in German laws definition
Click to expand...

And the fact that he's a head of state doesn't bother you?

yet their proposals are rational and in no way anti-semitic.
Click to expand...
You haven't read it correctly, go back to the thread about it where Ziggurat and I are still waiting for you to answer our questions.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124149&page=8

Plus, Ahmadinejad isn't spreading his nonsense in Germany
Click to expand...
What difference does that make? He is spreading his hatred everywhere else.

Concerning MagZ: I have hope for him being able to wake up.
Unfortunately, the never-ending attacks won't help to open his
mind. That's a basic psychological fact.
Click to expand...
You're not answering the question, why do you defend his hate-speech?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was a loose statement since my point was the threat factor - that
was the context of the discussion, and being a honest man, you acknowledge
that, don't you?
Click to expand...

Not following you. If I am, this is what you are saying.

A. Man from Australia with website available in Germany=threat

B. Iranian president leading the ME movement in Holocaust Denial=no threat


Oliver said:
Yes, it certainly borders inciting hatred in German laws definition, yet
their proposals are rational and in no way anti-semitic. Therefore it
has to be proven if Iran is a threat for Jews or not. Reviewing the facts,
there is no obvious threat other than the fears of fearful people.
Click to expand...

What?

You mean like the German government fears websites and video games?
 
Pardalis said:
And the fact that he's a head of state doesn't bother you?

You haven't read it correctly, go back to the thread about it where Ziggurat and I are still waiting for you to answer our questions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4092853

What difference does that make? He is spreading his hatred everywhere else.

You're not answering the question, why do you defend his hate-speech?
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't bother me - if there is no threat.

Please cite his hatred - and please do that in the Iran-thread since
it's all about Ahmadinejad, Iran and the imaginary threat. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Tailgater said:
Not following you. If I am, this is what you are saying.

A. Man from Australia with website available in Germany=threat

B. Iranian president leading the ME movement in Holocaust Denial=no threat

What?

You mean like the German government fears websites and video games?
Click to expand...


Where did I say that Töben is a threat? :confused:

And why don't you ask the German Government about their fears?
Or google a little-bit since you just provided evidence that you're
capable to complete such tasks.
 
Pardalis said:
So is your argument that Holocaust denial and hate-speech are a bad thing only when their author poses a direct and imminent threat?
Click to expand...


Actually, yes. That would be the wisest definition of the laws here. On
the other Hand, Töben broke the existing law, if you or me like it or not.

Personally I really don't care about his fate. Nor would I care if
Ahmadinejad would "vanish" over night. :)
 
Oliver said:
Where did I say that Töben is a threat? :confused:

And why don't you ask the German Government about their fears?
Or google a little-bit since you just provided evidence that you're
capable to complete such tasks.
Click to expand...

Oliver said:
Just like the German laws are trying to prevent a "panicking crowd".
Same threat, different circumstances. No?
Click to expand...

Want more?
 
Are you saying that if Ahmadinejad told his Holocaust denial crap in Germany he would be then a threat, and should be censored and imprisoned, but everywhere else it's OK, that he wouldn't be a threat in any other country for doing the same thing?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
So is your argument that Holocaust denial and hate-speech are a bad thing only when their author poses a direct and imminent threat?
Click to expand...

Oliver said:
Actually, yes. That would be the wisest definition of the laws here.
Click to expand...


So hate speech isn't about the speech at all, but about the actual threat posed by the people who happen to speak ... ???
Wouldn't that threat then exist before they indulge in hate speech?
 
Pardalis said:
Are you saying that if Ahmadinejad told his Holocaust denial crap in Germany he would be then a threat, and should be censored and imprisoned, but everywhere else it's OK?
Click to expand...


No, as long he's the president thingy, he most probably could say
those things in Germany. It's called diplomatic immunity, if you heard
about that.
 
chillzero said:
So hate speech isn't about the speech at all, but about the actual threat posed by the people who happen to speak ... ???
Wouldn't that threat then exist before they indulge in hate speech?
Click to expand...

Make an example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom