"Beat me to death"

Oliver has anyone mentioned that you starting a thread titled "beat me to death" may be considered by some to be too inviting? :D
 
Oliver said:
I should add that the German laws in question are primarily meant to
protect Citizens.

Not to limit freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Everyone here agrees that restrictions on free speech exist.

Everyone here agrees that sometimes it is necessary.

We disagree because we think that hate speech is not always dangerous enough to justify its restriction.

BTW for speech to be slander, it must have a specific target (in America at least). Badmouthing "teh Jews" is too general.
 
Oliver said:
And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the things that I just mentioned.
Click to expand...

Funny that you say that, considering you keep defending the Iranian government's clear anti-semitic rhetoric, especially here, and defended MaGZ' right to post hate propaganda here, here and here.

Even if I don't share MagZ's POV, I actually consider that he once in
a while may have a valid argument - and I challenge him if I suspect
that there is more to what he says.
Click to expand...
Kind of contradictory, isn't it?

You are completely oblivious that these are clearly hate-speech, these are equivalents of Holocaust denial, and yet you refuse one and accept the other.

Although Hitchens in Randfan's link does have a good point, that letting these crackpots speak can only further our resolve and deepen and strengthen our knowledge of the real history, but I don't agree as far as what these people say can also influence fools (useful idiots), and people without proper critical thinking skills, and this can lead to alot of harm, since alot of people can be swayed this way without realizing it, so I can't say I'm a 100% in favor of freedom of speech for these cases. I still think hate speech is nothing more than that, hate speech, it doesn't bring anything constructive to the table. Holocaust deniers I suspect don't really believe what they claim, they just want to incite fear and hatred towards the Jewish people, and that is not constructive, that is not debating, it's simply blind propaganda.

As I said in response to your post:

Their entire claims are based on bigotry and hatred, not fact and reason. They have no point to make but to push their agenda of hate. The only way they could have a point would be by pure luck, like throwing a rock in the sky, they could eventually hit something. This doesn't mean that they are right, or that they have a valid argument.
Click to expand...
But I am also aware that we can't really do anything about it, that freedom of speech either is or isn't, either we have it or we don't, and this is where Hitchens hits the mark, ultimately we have to live with these people, and their hate, but we don't haev to like it, I certainly don't. Freedom of speech is a gift, and a curse.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not contradictory, "Pardalis": "Different place, different Rules".
Anyway, I agree to disagree about that topic. With Guantanamo and
similar speech-limiting rights right around the corner, the arguments
against German hate-speech laws are rather lousy.
 
Oliver said:
How is this a bad law in light of our history? :confused:
Click to expand...
Its a fine law if one assumes that Germans are so uncivilized and barbaric that a few demented loons/neo-Nazis denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities will cause deaths, riots, and destruction. In that case, it is tantamount to incitement.

Are Germans really this uncivilized and barbaric Oliver?

eta: Is another Kristallnacht really a Holocaust denial away from happening again in Germany?
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
With Guantanamo and
similar speech-limiting rights right around the corner, the arguments
against German hate-speech laws are rather lousy.
Click to expand...

1. What does Guantanamo have to do with speech-limiting rights?

2. What speech limiting rights are around the corner?

3. What is a speech-limiting right?
 
WildCat said:
Its a fine law if one assumes that Germans are so uncivilized and barbaric that a few demented loons/neo-Nazis denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities will cause deaths, riots, and destruction. In that case, it is tantamount to incitement.

Are Germans really this uncivilized and barbaric Oliver?

eta: Is another Kristallnacht really a Holocaust denial away from happening again in Germany?
Click to expand...


Yes, according to history, Caucasians are still barbaric - especially in
times when they search for scapegoats. As an American, you should
be familiar with the two-party-scapegoat-mentality.

However: The Reichskristallnacht was the free pass to express all
the anger people had during pretty tough times. So even if the current
status of the society over here surely wouldn't lead to another Reichs-
kristallnacht over night, it could happen again in really tough circumstances.

Now you surely agree that the Reichskristallnacht was a bad thing.
So why would you think that the prevention of such an event would
be even more evil than the event itself?

This sounds ridiculous to me - and I'm sure you understand my point.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
By any fair and objective application of such a law, it would be illegal to disparage the memory of Adolf Hitler.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that, in order for it to be disparagement, it has to be untrue.

So, if somebody made public speeches denouning Hitler as a pedophile, for example... But simply recounting facts for which historical evidence exists, no.

Plus of course you would have to find someone willing to sue - not even the Neo-Nazis are that stupid.
 
Oliver said:
Yes, according to history, Caucasians are still barbaric.
Click to expand...

According to one of your weakest threads ever. Humans can be barbaric. In further news, the society with the more advanced technology usually has the upper hand in history.
 
Oliver said:
Yes, Germany does have extended laws concerning already existing laws
in other western societies, based on historical experiences being made.
What's bad about that in light of what happened over here? :confused:
Click to expand...

So you think that Germany is special and that nothing bad has ever happened anywhere else? This seems an appropriate place to copy a post I made just recently, that I know you've already seen:
Cuddles said:
Well, to start with, during the holocaust when around 5.3 million Jews were killed, almost twice that number of Slavs were killed.

In Burundi, around 600,000 Hutus and Tutsis were killed in two separate genocides, and hundreds of thousands more were driven out of the country.

In Rwanda, almost 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in just 100 days.

During the 1800s, the Chinese killed something like 10 million people, mainly Muslims and Miao, in three separate genocides.

The Great Irish Famine was almost certainly a direct result of deliberate action by the British, and resulted in between 1-1.5 million deaths and around 1 million emigrations.

The Ottoman empire committed genocide against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks, probably killing around 500,000 of each, although estimates vary from around 300,000 to 1.5 million.

The Soviet Union killed or deported around 500,000 Don Cossacks.

The Soviet Union also deliberately caused severe famine in 1933 by confiscating food supplies in Ukraine and parts of Russia and Kazakhstan, resulting in around 6 million deaths.

During the Bangladesh Liberation war, 3 million people were killed.

The Khmer Rouge killed around 1.7 million people in Cambodia.

In Ethiopia in the 1970s, up to 500,000 people were killed.

In 1860, there were 4 million black slaves in the USA, and plenty more in other countries. As far as I know, no-one knows the total number of black people taken as slaves or the number that died being captured and transported, and we will probably never know. It was a lot.

Details of a lot more examples of genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder can be found here.
Click to expand...

Once again, Jews are not special. Germany is not special. Any claims to the contrary are just plain wrong. There is hardly a country in the world that does not have, at some point in its history, episodes of extreme bigotry, intolerance and violence.

And the thing is, even if Germany were somehow special in its history, your argument still would not make sense. If restricting freedom of speech in a certain way is a good thing, then it would be good everywhere, regardless of local history. What you are effectively arguing is that not only is Germany unique in having oppressed people in the past, but also that the German people are unique in being unable to control themselves and that all people everywhere are extremely stupid and unable to learn from mistakes unless they, or their ancestors, made them personally.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
"Beat me to death"
Click to expand...
Don't have the plane fare necessary to establish arm's length proximity.

Oliver, I am highly skeptical of your claim, that this story was a direct experience of your grandmother. Why? Your past history of dishonesty, inaccuracy, and general BS. (By the way, I've heard this grisly scenario you presented before.)

Thus you pay the price of crying wolf too often, since your grandma may indeed have told you that tale.
 
Chaos said:
I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that, in order for it to be disparagement, it has to be untrue.

So, if somebody made public speeches denouning Hitler as a pedophile, for example... But simply recounting facts for which historical evidence exists, no.
Click to expand...
Wrong example :). From TheAge.au:
It was a tell-all exclusive written by a well-placed insider, the German socialite Karl von Schneider. Among the saucy revelations were Hitler's predilection for "young and naive" women. His first proper relationship, for example, according to the piece, was with a 16-year-old shopgirl named Mitzi, whom he met while walking his dog.
Click to expand...

Chaos said:
Plus of course you would have to find someone willing to sue - not even the Neo-Nazis are that stupid.
Click to expand...
I guess, as a crime, that the public prosecutor had to sue.
 
Oliver said:
In light of the Should the UK extradite Holocaust denier? thread I will tell
you people a story my Grandma is telling me for years now:

My German ancestors lived in White Russia near Odessa during the Nazi-
Regime - and in 1941, the town was occupied by German forces.

My Grandma told me that she never feared anything during her childhood
until this happened:

Across the River they used to live, the occupying Nazi's burned Jews in
mass graves using caustic lime. One day, a neighbor of my Grandmothers
family came to their house and reported this:

"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."

I don't know what happened to this jewish Man [I can only imagine], but
my Grandma told me that at this point, she knew what fear is about.

And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech
is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more
important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the
things that I just mentioned.
Click to expand...

Firstly, who tells a story like that and doesn't explain what they did / didn't do about the man and his pain? That makes your story suspect to me.

Secondly, you do realise, don't you, that words did not burn the man? Freedom of speech is important. I dont' really understand your method for trying to make a point here - what point are you trying to make, exactly?
 
Oliver said:
No, it's not contradictory, "Pardalis": "Different place, different Rules".
Anyway, I agree to disagree about that topic. With Guantanamo and
similar speech-limiting rights right around the corner, the arguments
against German hate-speech laws are rather lousy.
Click to expand...

Again, you're completely missing the point. Did you at least watch the Christopher Hitchens video Randfan has linked to?
 
I'm just wondering why it is that, every time I ask Oliver a question in these threads, he'll respond to everyone else, but ignore me? Again, just in case he somehow missed it, you can find my post here, Oliver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom