look man if you don't care about what i think you can ignore me insted of calling me an idiot.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]look man if you don't care about what i think you can ignore me insted of calling me an idiot.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly his point. You could also simply ignore the fact that he calls you an idiot (anything else won't work - trust me) and also the fact that people say the holocaust never took place.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]Suck it up, idiot, Hitler what next? you belive it's wrong that he is in jail i belive it's good. you are the ones who can't get along with the opinions of others.[/QUOTE]


Irony defined.

But the LOLOCAUST happened.

The difference between you and us is that if you were in charge, we would be in jail, and if we were in charge, you wouldn't be.

If you start by jailing people who have a different opinion or belief, what's to stop you from rounding them up and putting the in forced labor camps, death camps and committing genocide? This is exactly how the Holocouast started.

ok fine i don't whant to have a forum war here.

Then don't be a fascist :p

Oh yeah, cause I'm sure your quack doctor friend told you that right?

Pfft no.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]Look in my opinion some people don't know how to use ther rights without ofending others. manny people lost all they had in that war and the guy is telling us it's not true. that is ofensive.[/QUOTE]The potentiality of the real, tangible harm that could result from the precedent of censoring offensive statements vastly outweighs the potentiality of harm caused by simply allowing the offensive statement to be spoken. If the same principle of censoring offensive statements was used by a government in the entire application of free speech, the government would be bestowing the duty of defining an "offensive statement" upon human, and consequently partisan, entities. Even though this could very easily allow for the censorship of emotionally disturbing falsehoods, the abuse of this system could allow for the silencing of the truth; furthermore, since speech is used to express concerns of well-being, a leading majority could silence "truths" of abuse of the human rights of a minority. In short, there are many other bad things that could happen (to put it lightly). I suggest you read about world dictators--one of the things they all had in common was censorship.

On the other end of the spectrum, if offensive statements were allowed to be spoken the worst feasible result would be "emotional distress".

So it basically boils down to: would you rather risk the abuses of an authoritarian state or emotional distress?

Abuse of an authoritarian. Read about Józef Piłsudski.

I don't get what you're hinting at. What about him?

Not all dictators are bad

No, just most of them.

Which is a reason to avoid it.

PS, mr. communist.

Bet you paid for that computer with capital.

didint whant to take for free

Well then you aren't a very good communist, now are you?

Why are you a communist? Please exaplain to me the definition of communism, and what makes you a communist.

There is capital in china there was capital in soviet russia and so on and so on. find something else to suck on

[quote=Zwier Zak]Not all dictators are bad[/quote]Yeah, and what is your point? Assuming you can agree that humans are by nature self-concerned, the likelihood of there being a dictator who completely meets the needs of all his subjects is very slim. If you've studied history in the least, you should realize abuse of authority is one of the most common human tendencies. There's a reason the Renaissance popes were some of the worst leaders (albeit spiritual leaders) in world history despite their positions of holiness; they had nearly unlimited power, and this coupled with their natural human proclivities towards sinfulness and abuse were their main motivations.

So, with that all said, I gather you'd risk having an oppressive state in the hope that a good one came along. That's just great kid, good for you. All I gotta say is I'm glad the people in charge of my government aren't so haphazard.

ok. like i said i don't whant to have a war here(to late??). just forget my posts ok??

C'mon, Karl-Jong Khrushchev, answer my questions.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]Abuse of an authoritarian. Read about Józef Piłsudski.[/QUOTE]

So, you'd rather have a government that infringes on your rights that have your feelings hurt? That makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Its like a goverment CONCEIVED OF EMO...

They all look, dress, and act the same..

AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO HURT THEIR FEELINGS. ESPECIALLY WOMEN.. THATS WHY THEY DON'T GET ANY RIGHTS...

Oh god.

Horrifying.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]ok. like i said i don't whant to have a war here(to late??). just forget my posts ok??[/QUOTE]
It's not a "war," it's called a debate. And it seems you're just avoiding it because you know you're wrong and don't want to admit it.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!! That would be hilarious!!!!

I belive that classess have faild there funcjon. I belive it is moore just to give all by what they do, make and need. I am a communist becouse communism is the only fair form of society. I don't whant to be used by those who have moore just becouse they like to take everything they can.

Good luck making that work out.

So in other words, you have no idea what communism really as and you're just spouting off some crap a left wing liberal nut high school history teacher told you.

DON'T MAKE ME REPEAT THE IMAGE EMON.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]ok. like i said i don't whant to have a war here(to late??). just forget my posts ok??[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is too late. You have voiced the opinion that a government has the right to decide what is appropriate for its people to believe. That means that if we were in power, we would have the legal right to jail you and ship you off to a quiet corner of the country.

Is that fair? By your standards, it is. By ours, it's not. You can think someone's an idiot. You can think that their beliefs are the stupidest thing you have ever had the misfortune to be subjected to. But you can ignore that person, assuming that they're not dogging you (in which case that would be called harassment, and I'm fairly certain that there's some law against that). You can argue with the guy, and you can protest. You can fight words with words. But censoring someone because they believe differently than you? That's ridiculous, fascist, and an immature way of dealing with differing opinions.

not becouse my feelings mey be hurt. becouse i don't whant annyone to insolt my people and history just for fame.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]not becouse my feelings mey be hurt. becouse i don't whant annyone to insolt my people and history just for fame.[/QUOTE]

Being an idiot only has something to do with fame if you're Bam Margera.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]not becouse my feelings mey be hurt. becouse i don't whant annyone to insolt my people and history just for fame.[/QUOTE]It's still your feelings that are being hurt. Pride is a feeling.

[QUOTE=Zwier Zak]not becouse my feelings mey be hurt. becouse i don't whant annyone to insolt my people and history just for fame.[/QUOTE]

Who are "your people"?

if i would deny that 6 milion jews where killed i would say that yes you can jail me.

But, why? What harm would you be doing in denying that?

But where does it stop and who determines what people should be jailed for? It's far too subjective. It would lead to some leaders eventually jailing people who have disssenting political opinions.

By this quote one would assume that you're ignorant about it, its actually quite an intellectual theory that most people just assume means "dictatorship where the government takes EVERYTHING!!!"




Actually many European countries have similar laws about holocaust denial

the risk is grate i must admit. the thing is do you whant to crose that line? i do.