Wrong Planet.

[punkdrew]

I don't agree with what IlluSionS667 is saying. I am also against the idea of reporting him to an ISP or any authority. People havehad unpopular and/or wrong ideas for centuries, if not longer, without the perceived need to report anyone to anybody. Free and open debate is one of the things that gives civilization its strength.

[punkdrew]

Oh, and since we all seem to be answering this question: I'm not Jewish, but I have many friends and relatives who are. And my sister converted when she married her husband.

[odeon]

Let me ask you a question : if it is so evident that there truely was a genocide, then why fight Holocaust Revisionism with laws rather than debate? Why must Holocaust revisionists be defamed and their arguments distorted by their critics? Why is the fate of the Jews during WW2 the ONLY historical event for which special censorship laws are created?

Because you can (and do) still hurt those that survived the Nazi genocide, as well as their relatives, and because it is not an abstract exercise, to be taken lightly by neo Nazis such as yourself. The world should never be allowed to forget.

I've had enough of you. I will report you to your ISP, as this discussion is a public one and you are deliberately breaking the laws of your country. In the meanwhile, fel free to continue. I'm sure your ISP will appreciate any material you can provide.

Oh, and btw, for the record: I'm not Jewish.

You are running the risk of martyring him here, don't do it. Those laws are also very unfair imo, and are counterproductive in combating extremism.

I don't give a shit, Hadron. I'm serious about stopping this sort of behaviour when I see it. It's not some abstract game about free speech and combative debate on a spazzie web site, it's about millions of people dead (and not only Jews, mind you) because of people like him, people that seem to think that what happened was THEIR OWN FAULT. I have to admit; that comment, more than the rest of his bullshit, made me go through the roof.

Let me present to you with a hypothetical: Let's say that one night, strangers attacked your family. Let's say they looted your house, they raped your sister and your mum, and then killed them. And your dad, and the family dog, and your nan who happened to be visiting. After being raped, of course. And then they attacked you and told you that you've had it coming, that it was your own fault that your family is now lying there, in their own blood, dead. But before they got to finish you off, they were interrupted and had to flee, and you survived. Badly hurt, sure, but you survived to tell the tale.

And they were caught and put to trial and convicted, but years later, you happened across articles where people said that yes, it's a sad story, what happened, but only one died. That one was your sister, and she died of syphilis. Nobody else died, though, not your mum or your dad or anyone else, because they weren't there; in fact, there was some statistics to prove that your dad and your nan never even existed.

And some of these articles would also say that the people in jail were in fact heroes trying to defend their property and their values, and it was you who stole what was theirs, not the other way around.

How would you feel?

[odeon]

How could any member have reported him to his ISP? Any member can't see his IP, so any member doesn't know what ISP he has...

True.

[Al Swearegen]

There is truth in what you say Odeon. I also consider this very simply. Is what he is saying legal or not. If it is not then fine the ISP won't do anything. If he is doing something wrong, he should know better and cop to what's wrong.
I know for example if I choose to look up porn on my computer that may be viewed as distasteful by some. Sure it is not illegal but some may not want to hear about it, or share it. If though I was to get a lot of child pornography (can't believe people make that shit) then I would be breaking the law. It is no good me saying "I know it is against the law but I am just expressing myself differently. Or have slightly more of an open mind to this sort of thing.

[IlluSionS667]

I don't agree with what IlluSionS667 is saying. I am also against the idea of reporting him to an ISP or any authority. People havehad unpopular and/or wrong ideas for centuries, if not longer, without the perceived need to report anyone to anybody. Free and open debate is one of the things that gives civilization its strength.

That's an attitude I can respect 

Oh, and since we all seem to be answering this question: I'm not Jewish, but I have many friends and relatives who are. And my sister converted when she married her husband.

One of my best MSN friends actually was a Jewish girl from Chicago. She'd taken distance from Jewish culture, though, and declared herself a pagan of Germanic-Russian descent. It is not Jewish etnicity I have a problem with but Jewish culture.

I don't give a shit, Hadron. I'm serious about stopping this sort of behaviour when I see it.

I'm only defending the objective truth here, which you prefer to ignore.

It's not some abstract game about free speech and combative debate on a spazzie web site, it's about millions of people dead (and not only Jews, mind you) because of people like him, people that seem to think that what happened was THEIR OWN FAULT.

This is about the factuality of certain historical claims and nothing else.

Let me present to you with a hypothetical: Let's say that one night, strangers attacked your family. Let's say they looted your house, they raped your sister and your mum, and then killed them. And your dad, and the family dog, and your nan who happened to be visiting. After being raped, of course. And then they attacked you and told you that you've had it coming, that it was your own fault that your family is now lying there, in their own blood, dead. But before they got to finish you off, they were interrupted and had to flee, and you survived. Badly hurt, sure, but you survived to tell the tale.

And they were caught and put to trial and convicted, but years later, you happened across articles where people said that yes, it's a sad story, what happened, but only one died. That one was your sister, and she died of syphilis. Nobody else died, though, not your mum or your dad or anyone else, because they weren't there; in fact, there was some statistics to prove that your dad and your nan never even existed.

And some of these articles would also say that the people in jail were in fact heroes trying to defend their property and their values, and it was you who stole what was theirs, not the other way around.

How would you feel?

There are always two sides of a coin. If Holocaust revisionists are right (and I know they are), then many people have suffered a great deal (death, inprisonment, loss of civil rights, etc) because they or their loved ones were injustly accused of involvement in a genocidal program. How would you feel if you were one of them?

Truth should be the only criterium. No historical event should be spared from a thorough analysis, especially one that is so politically sensitive... and if the status quo appears to be false, then everyone has the right to know.

There is truth in what you say Odeon. I also consider this very simply. Is what he is saying legal or not. If it is not then fine the ISP won't do anything. If he is doing something wrong, he should know better and cop to what's wrong.

Internet legislation is quite complicated and hard to enforce for various reasons. Nevertheless, I believe the laws of this forum's server apply to what's been said on this forum. If my views are legal in the country where this forum's server is at, then there should be no problem.

Still, it is utterly hypocritical of Odeon to behave the way he does. Either he supports free speech or he doesn't. You can't support free speech save for a few opinions, since it's those opinions that actually deserve the most protection. Non-controversial speech is never an issue anyway.

And then again, the issue is one of historical truth. It is not about politics or anything else. People should stop censoring the search for historical truth because some people might feel bad about it, since that doesn't make a statement any less true or false.

[Christopher McCandless]

Let me ask you a question : if it is so evident that there truely was a genocide, then why fight Holocaust Revisionism with laws rather than debate? Why must Holocaust revisionists be defamed and their arguments distorted by their critics? Why is the fate of the Jews during WW2 the ONLY historical event for which special censorship laws are created?

Because you can (and do) still hurt those that survived the Nazi genocide, as well as their relatives, and because it is not an abstract exercise, to be taken lightly by neo Nazis such as yourself. The world should never be allowed to forget.

I've had enough of you. I will report you to your ISP, as this discussion is a public one and you are deliberately breaking the laws of your country. In the meanwhile, fel free to continue. I'm sure your ISP will appreciate any material you can provide.

Oh, and btw, for the record: I'm not Jewish.

You are running the risk of martyring him here, don't do it. Those laws are also very unfair imo, and are counterproductive in combating extremism.

I don't give a shit, Hadron. I'm serious about stopping this sort of behaviour when I see it. It's not some abstract game about free speech and combative debate on a spazzie web site, it's about millions of people dead (and not only Jews, mind you) because of people like him, people that seem to think that what happened was THEIR OWN FAULT. I have to admit; that comment, more than the rest of his bullshit, made me go through the roof.

The idea of the state being the arbiter of truth is more scary. Its a very slippery slope, and there are countless countries where we can see the fruits of that. Like in your example below for instance, where similar things happen because someone spoke out against the "truths" held in that state. Yes you may find this guy's views repugnant, but you are at risk of aligning yourself with the same fascists he associates himself with.

Let me present to you with a hypothetical: Let's say that one night, strangers attacked your family. Let's say they looted your house, they raped your sister and your mum, and then killed them. And your dad, and the family dog, and your nan who happened to be visiting. After being raped, of course. And then they attacked you and told you that you've had it coming, that it was your own fault that your family is now lying there, in their own blood, dead. But before they got to finish you off, they were interrupted and had to flee, and you survived. Badly hurt, sure, but you survived to tell the tale.

And they were caught and put to trial and convicted, but years later, you happened across articles where people said that yes, it's a sad story, what happened, but only one died. That one was your sister, and she died of syphilis. Nobody else died, though, not your mum or your dad or anyone else, because they weren't there; in fact, there was some statistics to prove that your dad and your nan never even existed.

And some of these articles would also say that the people in jail were in fact heroes trying to defend their property and their values, and it was you who stole what was theirs, not the other way around.

How would you feel?

Its horrible to say the least. But personally I would like them to have their views aired so I can challenge them. The last thing I would want to do is give them a nice courtroom so they can spread their bigotry, at taxpayers expense.

But let us now move onto another example. Lets say one of your kids was misquoted or misconstrued and got charged with something like this. How would you feel? Thats the other edge of this law you are invoking, and believe me this sort of crap can happen. Quite a lot of aspies have got in trouble over "Political Correctness", which is the nasty slope that this law is on.

Though finally I would like to say that Illusion has a family too. If this went to trial, do you think what you are doing is fair on them?

[odeon]

The difference between your hypothetical and mine is that mine happened, only on a far larger scale than what I described. Whether or not you agree with the laws in effect in Belgium or elsewhere, they are not in place to silence free thinkers, they are there to protect the rights of groups who have suffered more than most, but also to prevent another genocide to take place, which to me is a reasonably noble cause and certainly more important than the right of a few kooks to distort historical events.

Here's what Wikipedia says re the Belgian Holocaust denial law:

In the past, adversaries of the law have argued that this law restricts the freedom of expression, which is a basic human right. In a decision of 24 June 2003, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) stated that "denying or minimising the Holocaust must be seen as one of the acutest forms of racial slandering and incentives to hatred towards the Jews. The negation or the revision of historical facts of this type call into question the values which found the fight against racism and anti-semitism and is likely to seriously disturb law and order. Attacks against the rights of others of this kind are incompatible with democracy and human rights and their authors incontestably have aims that are prohibited by article 17 of the Convention." The court conludes that in application of article 17 of the ECHR, the plaintiff can't appeal to the protection of article 10 ECHR, insofar that he wants to use the freedom of expression to dispute crimes against humanity.[6]

[IlluSionS667]

It's not just that I have family. I'm actually a nice person once you get to know me. My views may be controversial, but I treat people with respect regardless of their political views, their religious views, their ethnic background, their sexual preference, etc.

Sure I don't believe in multi-culturalism, but as an Aspie I'm actually one of the few people in my company to actively seek contact with the foreigners out there because I instinctively look for the outsiders wherever I go. As such, I've had very positive contacts with a Pakistani man, a Thai man, a Turkish woman and a Ghanese man.

Sure I think that homosexuality is a perversity of nature, that doesn't take away that one of my best friends is a lesbian borderliner.

Sure I strongly object to Jewish culture, but I don't think the Israeli I had professional contact with some time ago could have seen the slightest indication of that, as I treated him no differently from anyone else.

What I notice, is that those who complain the loudest about my views and who accuse me of bigotry, intolerance or whatever they can think of are often the least tolerant themselves, as they only tolerate those who agree with their basic ideological principles.



Having said that, historical truth should be a matter of debate among historians and not politicians. For decades, Holocaust revisionists are shunned from debate, see their views distorted by the media and see their reputation smeared. Some have been threatened, physically attacked and thrown in jail. And yet, we are supposed to believe that THESE PEOPLE who do nothing but look for historical truth are the bad guys?!?  

[odeon]

Though finally I would like to say that Illusion has a family too. If this went to trial, do you think what you are doing is fair on them?

I don't know about him, but if I were to consciously break the laws of my country, I would first consider the effects my actions would have on my family. What about the families of those that died in the Holocaust? Are they less important than the family of a kook consciously breaking the law? Do you think what he is doing is fair on them?

[IlluSionS667]

The difference between your hypothetical and mine is that mine happened, only on a far larger scale than what I described.

No it didn't. That's exactly the point.

You refuse to look into the evidence and you prefer to silence those who mention it.

Whether or not you agree with the laws in effect in Belgium or elsewhere, they are not in place to silence free thinkers, they are there to protect the rights of groups who have suffered more than most

No one's rights are enfringed by questioning of refuting the truthfulness of the status quo regarding historical events of 60 years. Many people's rights ARE enfringed, however, when  the status quo regarding historical events becomes a dogma protected by laws and researchers must obey to that dogma if they don't want to risk social suicide, physical attacks or a prison sentence.

but also to prevent another genocide to take place

This sort of special censorship laws only increases antisemitism as it contributes to claims that Jews are very powerful and dominate Western society. I fail to see how censorship of Holocaust Revisionism contributes to preventing genocide from taking place, as not believing that Jews were killed 65 years ago certainly doesn't implicate the desire to have them killed today. Are you that irrational you actually believe this sort of loony Orwellian propaganda?

which to me is a reasonably noble cause

Censoring truth seekers is a noble cause?!?!

 

and certainly more important than the right of a few kooks to distort historical events.

The ones who distorted historical events are those who claim that Hitler is responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews.

[IlluSionS667]

I don't know about him, but if I were to consciously break the laws of my country, I would first consider the effects my actions would have on my family.

I rather die on my two feet than live on my knees. For me, the truth is more important than obedience to tyrannical laws. I have strong principles and honesty and courage are two principles very dear to me. If anything, my family should be proud I stand up against the Orwellian nightmare we live in.

What about the families of those that died in the Holocaust?

What about the families of those who are wrongfully accused of genocide? Why should either even matter in a research for historical truth?

You ASSUME that six million Jews were murdered during WW2 because you're told they are and you behave like a raving madman when someone tells you he has done a lot of research and came to the conclusion that your assumption is wrong. Don't you see how irrational your behavior is?

[Christopher McCandless]

Though finally I would like to say that Illusion has a family too. If this went to trial, do you think what you are doing is fair on them?

I don't know about him, but if I were to consciously break the laws of my country, I would first consider the effects my actions would have on my family. What about the families of those that died in the Holocaust? Are they less important than the family of a kook consciously breaking the law? Do you think what he is doing is fair on them?

If I found a law unfair, then I would flout it myself deliberately as protest of sorts. Of course, I would also try to make sure I was not caught doing it. Some of the laws that have come through in the UK I am personally ignore, e.g. the religious discrimination act. (though of course, I could not really say that I have broken that law)

[Phlexor]

IlluSionS667, you seem to believe what you want to believe.

Your statement couldn't be further from the truth. Do you think I actually enjoy being called a kook, an extremist, a neo-nazi or whatever label people have in store for those who disagree with certain elements of the status quo? Do you think I enjoy being a pariah?

My views are my views for no other reason but them being the result of intensive research. I wish the facts supported the status quo, but they just don't.

Yes, I think you do enjoy it. You like thinking you know the real truth when everyone else is swallowing the bullshit.

If you search long and hard and arent to discerning, you can find so called evidence for anything.

I'm not talking about so-called evidence. If you actually took the time to do the research without prejudice yourself, you'd know that all the real evidence proves me right.

You see, I used to be similar to you, I used to follow all the crazy kooky ideas and conspiricy theories etc. I bought into all that crap until I realised it was preying on my hightened paranoia which is a part of my AS DX. After I gave it all away, I realised that I didn't miss it and I had more time to devote to things that were more worthwhile. Like doing shit that was for me.

[odeon]

First you say this:

My views may be controversial, but I treat people with respect regardless of their political views, their religious views, their ethnic background, their sexual preference, etc.

Then you say this:

Sure I think that homosexuality is a perversity of nature

and this:

Sure I strongly object to Jewish culture

How are these two about treating people with respect?

What I notice, is that those who complain the loudest about my views and who accuse me of bigotry, intolerance or whatever they can think of are often the least tolerant themselves, as they only tolerate those who agree with their basic ideological principles.

How's the above "tolerant" in any way?

And please read some of my other posts from the time before you joined I2 before you again hint at my intolerance and whatnot. I've defended other groups of people against narrow-mindedness and intolerance, against ill-conceived attacks from people very much like yourself, because that's one of *my* basic ideological principles. Wasn't there a line that you quoted (and I'm paraphrasing), "they came for the communists but I remained silent because I was not a communist, ..."? Why is it that you cannot understand what that quote actually is about?