Did the holocaust really happen?

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

P.S. The crack about the "'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine" pissed me off. If you want to discuss the issue, that's fine. I don't think I was personally insulting in my comments to you, and if I was, I apologize. But this was just unnecessary, and it did not relate at all to anything that I wrote. You want to debate, fine; you want to engage in sarcastic repartee, you'll have to do it with someone else. I'm just not up to it right now. Try me again next week.

Whoa. Reign in a bit, please. I sincerely meant no insult. I'll try and explain. My point was (is) when you 'expand' clear and present danger to potentential damage somewhere down the line, then it becomes way too cloudy, and good people who might make unpopular comments (e.g. defending those who refused to sign McCarthy's Loyalty Oath) would be subjected to the standard no more reasonable than it pissed someone off (in the instance of my response to your opinions ...you).

As too my larger point, well, boiled down to essentials, to preserve a free people ...I'm right and you're wrong.

Peace,

jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

P.S. The crack about the "'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine" pissed me off. If you want to discuss the issue, that's fine. I don't think I was personally insulting in my comments to you, and if I was, I apologize. But this was just unnecessary, and it did not relate at all to anything that I wrote. You want to debate, fine; you want to engage in sarcastic repartee, you'll have to do it with someone else. I'm just not up to it right now. Try me again next week.

Whoa. Reign in a bit, please. I sincerely meant no insult. I'll try and explain. My point was (is) when you 'expand' clear and present danger to potentential damage somewhere down the line, then it becomes way too cloudy, and good people who might make unpopular comments (e.g. defending those who refused to sign McCarthy's Loyalty Oath) would be subjected to the standard no more reasonable than it pissed someone off (in the instance of my response to your opinions ...you).

As too my larger point, well, boiled down to essentials, to preserve a free people ...I'm right and you're wrong.

Using your example, no one in my world would be required to sign McCarthy's Loyalty Oath.

It's not about "potentential" [sic] damage somewhere down the line," it's about leaving people alone to live their lives as they choose without interference, as long as they don't interfere with the lives of others.

For example, you are free to think abortion is wrong, and you are free to not have an abortion or perform an abortion. You haven't the right to impose your belief on another woman's belly. What "free speech" as currently constituted seems to allow is almost constant interference by a group of like-minded people in an individual's choice.

And if people want to have weird ideas, they can have all the weird ideas they want, in the privacy of their own homes. But when their ideas begin to impinge adversely on others, they need to shut up. The need to control another human being is childish and narcissistic. Most of the problems we have in the world are a direct result of the failure of some people to grow the hell up.

Finally, when you brought up McCarthy, you started in the middle, not at the cause. You have to start at the cause, say no, and then there's no need for all the nonsense that follows.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[likearock 2]

Quote

And if people want to have weird ideas, they can have all the weird ideas they want, in the privacy of their own homes. But when their ideas begin to impinge adversely on others, they need to shut up.

If that's your belief, how can you make a distinction for legitimate dissent? Who's to judge that a holocaust denier's ideas are "weird", but a Viet Nam protester's are not? There's always people who feel adversely affected by dissent.

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

If that's your belief, how can you make a distinction for legitimate dissent? Who's to judge that a holocaust denier's ideas are "weird", but a Viet Nam protester's are not? There's always people who feel adversely affected by dissent.

The Holocaust is a documentable part of history. Denying reality is evidence of mental illness.

But that's not the point either. In the world I want to live in, all of this would be unnecessary, because if everyone just lived their lives and minded their own business, we would haven't these problems to begin with.

As it is, the world is never going to be perfect, so I'm just dreaming. But we do need a better way to go than allowing Nazis to terrorize little old Jewish ladies in their homes.

I'm done with this thread. I have been advised by PM that I'm not fit to debate with because I am "pissed, unstable and more than a little scary as an individual." (The stated reason is a google of my full name on usenet. I'm not sure which posts exactly, but I do know that the first few pages turns up a host of forged postings made by a known net kook.)

I make note of this because it shows what happens when people fail to mind their own business and go about making pronouncements based on false information--i.e., people get hurt for no reason.

But hey, we all have the right to free speech...even if it means invading another's private space to let them know how shitty we believe them to be.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Michele 1]

Quote

I'm done with this thread. I have been advised by PM that I'm not fit to debate with because I am "pissed, unstable and more than a little scary as an individual." (The stated reason is a google of my full name on usenet. I'm not sure which posts exactly, but I do know that the first few pages turns up a host of forged postings made by a known net kook.)

LOL. Well, if you're unstable (and I don't think you are...) and if you're pissed (did the nastygram indicate angry or drunk? Both, btw, are changeable situations, not permanent in the least) it's the norm for this particular forum (hey, this is the place to debate even if you get angry...it's Speaker's Corner), and 'more than a little scary as an individual' sounds like a relatively apt term for most of the people I know who are honest with their feelings.

So, well, it occurs to me that you're normal...whatever that means. And furthermore, those nastygram senders (and yes, I've had some, and people'd be surprised by who sent them...LOL) tend to hide behind the 'net, and spew hatred and vitriol both publicly (if you know how to read their posts) and privately (which is solved by blocking them in PMs.).

Don't stop stating how you feel. Don't stop presenting your arguments and positions. No reason why you should be chased from any board for someone else's problems...none that I can see.

And I, for one, have understood your points and positions. I may not agree with them - or I may, one never knows - but they are cogent and presented with less "shove down your throat-ness" than others I've seen, and with far less sarcasm and subtle jabs than I'm used to seeing here.

Don't let someone who can't debate you publicly (because it risks too much for them; namely they can't take the heat they'd get) push you away from a thread you've contributed to...it makes no sense. They don't control you unless you let them...and you don't strike me as the sort who will let someone else tell you what to do; especially someone you don't know very well, and only through these boards. Makes no sense, you know?

Ciels-
Michele

Edited to add: as I am now getting pm's from the same person RL referenced, I do believe I shall take my own advice, and utilize a great feature of this site...

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

"pissed, unstable and more than a little scary as an individual."

You fit right in here, sweetie.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

"pissed, unstable and more than a little scary as an individual."

You fit right in here, sweetie.

I love you too, John.
rl


P.S. Thanks, Michele, that was kind.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

If that's your belief, how can you make a distinction for legitimate dissent? Who's to judge that a holocaust denier's ideas are "weird", but a Viet Nam protester's are not? There's always people who feel adversely affected by dissent.

The Holocaust is a documentable part of history. Denying reality is evidence of mental illness.

But that's not the point either. In the world I want to live in, all of this would be unnecessary, because if everyone just lived their lives and minded their own business, we would haven't these problems to begin with.

Unfortunately, that's the same argument that has always been made to keep things as status quo. The world and particularly this country have been made better because people didn't just mind their business about things but spoke out about them publicly. We didn't mind our own business about being part of England, about tolerating slavery, about having segregated public facilities. I know you don't object to the fact that those issues had been openly debated. And yet, there were a great many people at the time who did object to the contrary ideas being "imposed" on them.

It may seem clear to you which public speech should be curtailed but if you think about it, it's very difficult to formalize that into some objective criteria that say, a judge might be able to follow. And that's the dilemma of the First Amendment. If you don't allow all speech, if you try to impose some kind of conditions, those very conditions can be twisted to prevent speech that's politically unpopular. I'd rather allow all speech.

By the way, regarding your statement that denying the Holocaust is evidence of mental illness, let's not forget one of the common ways the Soviets used to stifle dissent was to brand the dissidents as mentally ill and keep them locked up in a sanatorium.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

It may seem clear to you which public speech should be curtailed but if you think about it, it's very difficult to formalize that into some objective criteria that say, a judge might be able to follow. And that's the dilemma of the First Amendment. If you don't allow all speech, if you try to impose some kind of conditions, those very conditions can be twisted to prevent speech that's politically unpopular. I'd rather allow all speech.

I guess that's what it comes down to for me also. In the choice between too much freedom or too little freedom, I have to go with the former.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Slink2 0]

What you say, think, or write, should NEVER be a CRIME. If more people talked about banning guns, would the NRA shift it's focus from the 2nd to the 1st amendment? If you restrict speech, YOU are a Nazi whether you wear a arm band or a Yamika .

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If that's your belief, how can you make a distinction for legitimate dissent? Who's to judge that a holocaust denier's ideas are "weird", but a Viet Nam protester's are not? There's always people who feel adversely affected by dissent.

The Holocaust is a documentable part of history. Denying reality is evidence of mental illness.

It's long been established that the winners write the history books. You can't just decide that an historical event is accurately described and no longer open for debate.

Earlier you wrote: "It seems to me that the standard should be "you can do whatever you want, as long as it's about you, not about someone else." Unfortunately, there are those who believe that they should be able to dictate the actions of others,"

Seems to me that saying others can't talk about a subject is dictating their actions, and is about them, not you.

[Guest 1010]

Quote

...

because I am "pissed, unstable and more than a little scary as an individual."

before, I couldn't put my finger on it why I liked you, but this makes it all so clear

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.