The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
LuckyR wrote:Would you like to explain "Why?" denying is made illegal for something?
The 'why' could be more a question of making the incitement of hatred of racial or ethnic groups illegal, rather than as an attempt to prohibit freedom of speech. If great pains have been taken to move forwards in a peace process, the action of starting to project or reiterate old hatreds could reasonably be banned. I imagine this step would need to be taken if there was still enormous tension in the area, and there was a constant threat of violence.
-- Updated March 27th, 2015, 7:18 pm to add the following --
*Apologies- that quote was from Okisites, not LuckyR.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell
Yes, now you seems to be answering one of my question i.e. When such laws are applicable? What was the purpose of it? Would you like to explain "Why?" denying is made illegal for something?
Well, I don't deal with the law professionally but I am a student of human nature and I suspect that there are two reasons: National Security folks need tools to go after groups they feel are a security threat (this would be a relatively new concept) and in the past politicians pandered to groups by making genocides involving those groups of voters illegal to court those votes in the next election.
Who deals with law professionally here? I am very common person, who thinks. That's it.
The reason that "National Security folks need tools to go after groups they feel are a security threat" is a good one. Thisis a good technique to any such person who can pose such threats, but my problem is do court have a rational approach to differentiate between two cases of denial of same thing(which is made illegal), but are of two different kind, one of which is just of some provocative nature and other one is about rational interpretation of history, but both are about denying the same thing which is illegal (say genocide). Do court have any rational approach to differentiate between these two cases of denial of same thing? If court don't then imo, it is hard and fast rule that could be dangerous and can bring more such rules in other issue, which will look normal in nature but are actually suppressive to truths and facts, which cannot be good, imo. This is my problem with restricting freedom of speech of certain kind, my definition of which can be accessed from "Freedom of Speech" thread.
So do court have the rational approach to differentiate between two different cases of denial which is made illegal?
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller
Well, the courts will tell you that they DO in fact consider such nuances, since that is the role of lawyers etc to make detailed arguments. Customers of the court's product will tell you a different story, of course since half of their customers lose their case and are likely dissatisfied with the court's product.
1st thought - although I don't think anyone can force people to acknowledge truths inconvenient to them, I do think a most close - right around us - genocide in the US should not be denied - that is the systematic discrimination and cruel and inhumane killing of millions of children (developing humans) through abortion.
2nd - Jews are believed to dominate over 90% of US media and have made careful effort (even hired publicity firms) to portray Jews and Israel only in favorable light, discounting their own discriminatory and cruel actions. Granted, many true-believing Jews are against many of the liberal ideologies unorthodox Jews are (abortion, homosexuality etc). Still, influential Jews who seem to harbor paranoia with losing power, legally, socially & financially support several little minority groups, so that there is never one big majority group to over power them.
"History is told by the victors." Of course victors will paint themselves in favorable light as if they did no wrong. We know human interactions are usually not so clear-cut in reality. Both sides may do good and bad, even if the victor tells his-story as if they are the 100% "good guys" and their enemy is 100% bad. So, it is illogical and potentially harmful to attempt to threaten legal action if someone questions any group. If we cannot question, then lies hiding truth and injustice are more likely. Already, there are silencers and censors in media and politics and more often than not, it promotes more sense of injustice and more need to point out that which people insist in hiding.
“Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.” - Epicurus
1st thought - although I don't think anyone can force people to acknowledge truths inconvenient to them, I do think a most close - right around us - genocide in the US should not be denied - that is the systematic discrimination and cruel and inhumane killing of millions of children (developing humans) through abortion.
Don't forget the daily torture and genocide of millions of cows and other animals in high density factory farming.
Newme wrote:
2nd - Jews are believed to dominate over 90% of US media and have made careful effort (even hired publicity firms) to portray Jews and Israel only in favorable light, discounting their own discriminatory and cruel actions. Granted, many true-believing Jews are against many of the liberal ideologies unorthodox Jews are (abortion, homosexuality etc). Still, influential Jews who seem to harbor paranoia with losing power, legally, socially & financially support several little minority groups, so that there is never one big majority group to over power them.
"History is told by the victors." Of course victors will paint themselves in favorable light as if they did no wrong. We know human interactions are usually not so clear-cut in reality. Both sides may do good and bad, even if the victor tells his-story as if they are the 100% "good guys" and their enemy is 100% bad. So, it is illogical and potentially harmful to attempt to threaten legal action if someone questions any group. If we cannot question, then lies hiding truth and injustice are more likely. Already, there are silencers and censors in media and politics and more often than not, it promotes more sense of injustice and more need to point out that which people insist in hiding.
Ehm, which academic source or reliable source can you give me to support your claim that 90 percent of the media is owned by Jewish people? My problem is, it is indeed correct that some important media like the BBC have a director called Cohen, but that very easily creates the idea that it is an evil group manipulating in favour of them, in fact, there are jewish people which oppose these media you talk about too. In regard to Israel it isn't that simple, there are people claiming that European media portrayed Israel too negative during the Gaza attack.
It's absurd to me anyway, someone attacks me so Ibomb his neighbourhood and I take the big majority of innocent victims for granted.... what might be interesting to you is this video in which a jewish rabbi says that Israel hijacked his religion.
By the way, what about Al Jazeera and RT? They give a quite different view in my opinion. There also is an Israeli rabbi who fled to the Netherlands due to accusations of pedophilia, in the media he is called the sex rabbi, but in a Dutch newspaper I read that he in fact preached peace between Jews and Arabs and he claimed that his persecution is a way for the Israeli gouvernment to eliminate him.
If your view is correct, you should take into account that people of the same group are targeted too if they oppose. I hope that you don't believe in a jewish conspiracy, not only because it's hateful to all jews but also because it's too simple, if there really was a jewish conspiracy, it makes no sense that jews preaxhing for peace get persecuted, because they would be part of it too.
"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." - Friedrich Hegel
Newme wrote:1st thought - although I don't think anyone can force people to acknowledge truths inconvenient to them, I do think a most close - right around us - genocide in the US should not be denied - that is the systematic discrimination and cruel and inhumane killing of millions of children (developing humans) through abortion.
2nd - Jews are believed to dominate over 90% of US media and have made careful effort (even hired publicity firms) to portray Jews and Israel only in favorable light, discounting their own discriminatory and cruel actions. Granted, many true-believing Jews are against many of the liberal ideologies unorthodox Jews are (abortion, homosexuality etc). Still, influential Jews who seem to harbor paranoia with losing power, legally, socially & financially support several little minority groups, so that there is never one big majority group to over power them.
"History is told by the victors." Of course victors will paint themselves in favorable light as if they did no wrong. We know human interactions are usually not so clear-cut in reality. Both sides may do good and bad, even if the victor tells his-story as if they are the 100% "good guys" and their enemy is 100% bad. So, it is illogical and potentially harmful to attempt to threaten legal action if someone questions any group. If we cannot question, then lies hiding truth and injustice are more likely. Already, there are silencers and censors in media and politics and more often than not, it promotes more sense of injustice and more need to point out that which people insist in hiding.
You seem to be misunderstanding the topic.
No one is arguing that people MUST acknowledge the Armenian genocide, rather that it would be illegal to state that it did not in fact happen. All are free to not talk about it.
In addition, the ability of those who feel that the law of the land (as pertains pregnancy termination or anything less controversial, for that matter) is wrong are quite vocal in their objection, so no one can complain that in the US system such discussion is suppressed.
Non-issue really, especially in this particular thread.
Newme wrote:1st thought - although I don't think anyone can force people to acknowledge truths inconvenient to them, I do think a most close - right around us - genocide in the US should not be denied - that is the systematic discrimination and cruel and inhumane killing of millions of children (developing humans) through abortion.
2nd - Jews are believed to dominate over 90% of US media and have made careful effort (even hired publicity firms) to portray Jews and Israel only in favorable light, discounting their own discriminatory and cruel actions. Granted, many true-believing Jews are against many of the liberal ideologies unorthodox Jews are (abortion, homosexuality etc). Still, influential Jews who seem to harbor paranoia with losing power, legally, socially & financially support several little minority groups, so that there is never one big majority group to over power them.
"History is told by the victors." Of course victors will paint themselves in favorable light as if they did no wrong. We know human interactions are usually not so clear-cut in reality. Both sides may do good and bad, even if the victor tells his-story as if they are the 100% "good guys" and their enemy is 100% bad. So, it is illogical and potentially harmful to attempt to threaten legal action if someone questions any group. If we cannot question, then lies hiding truth and injustice are more likely. Already, there are silencers and censors in media and politics and more often than not, it promotes more sense of injustice and more need to point out that which people insist in hiding.
Ok, I looked it up, there isn't a significant part which is jewish:
-- Updated Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:48 pm to add the following --
Why is de-railing it into a discussion about animal rights worse than de-railing it into a discussion about abortion?
Genocide is the topic - which refers to human beings. Children (developing human beings) are systematically being discriminated against based on age and killed in torturously inhumane ways - which constitutes as genocide (the topic).
-- Updated April 3rd, 2015, 8:05 pm to add the following --
Roel wrote:
Newme wrote:1st thought - although I don't think anyone can force people to acknowledge truths inconvenient to them, I do think a most close - right around us - genocide in the US should not be denied - that is the systematic discrimination and cruel and inhumane killing of millions of children (developing humans) through abortion.
2nd - Jews are believed to dominate over 90% of US media and have made careful effort (even hired publicity firms) to portray Jews and Israel only in favorable light, discounting their own discriminatory and cruel actions. Granted, many true-believing Jews are against many of the liberal ideologies unorthodox Jews are (abortion, homosexuality etc). Still, influential Jews who seem to harbor paranoia with losing power, legally, socially & financially support several little minority groups, so that there is never one big majority group to over power them.
"History is told by the victors." Of course victors will paint themselves in favorable light as if they did no wrong. We know human interactions are usually not so clear-cut in reality. Both sides may do good and bad, even if the victor tells his-story as if they are the 100% "good guys" and their enemy is 100% bad. So, it is illogical and potentially harmful to attempt to threaten legal action if someone questions any group. If we cannot question, then lies hiding truth and injustice are more likely. Already, there are silencers and censors in media and politics and more often than not, it promotes more sense of injustice and more need to point out that which people insist in hiding.
Ok, I looked it up, there isn't a significant part which is jewish:
Genocide is the topic - which refers to human beings. Children (developing human beings) are systematically being discriminated against based on age and killed in torturously inhumane ways - which constitutes as genocide (the topic).
Almost the entire abortion debate centres on precisely that question - the point at which we regard a developing embryo/foetus as a human child and the point at which we decide to afford it human rights. So, by introducing that question, you derail the topic from one which is about groups of unequivocally human beings to one about the definition of a human being. Of course you pretend that you haven't derailed the topic by assuming that this central question in the abortion debate is already settled.
-- Updated Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:48 pm to add the following --
Why is de-railing it into a discussion about animal rights worse than de-railing it into a discussion about abortion?
Genocide is the topic - which refers to human beings. Children (developing human beings) are systematically being discriminated against based on age and killed in torturously inhumane ways - which constitutes as genocide (the topic).
-- Updated April 3rd, 2015, 8:05 pm to add the following --
Roel wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
Ok, I looked it up, there isn't a significant part which is jewish:
Daily stormer is a neo-nazi website, this is like a communist saying how great communism is and referring me to a communist website, you get me when I say that isn't objective.
Also rense.com isn't outspoken anti-semitic or neo-nazi but it supports those views. As long as you don't preach or use violence, I will tolerate (that doesn't mean that I accept it) that you have a white suprematist worldview but I don't really get why you have that, white suprematism is just as bad as multiculturalism, they are both ideologies with big flaws not taking into consideration all individuals.
But as I don't want to come over as someone who doesn't listen I will read what that rense website has to say.
I read it a bit and even if they are correct, that doesn't explain why crimes of the gouvernment of Israel are reported at European news channels. Also, what do you want to say with this? That it's ok to beat up your neighbour which happens to be jewish? What about jews which criticize the state of Israel and want it to be abolished, are they also bad according to you? It's not the case but suppose that I would be jewish, how do you think your post would sound like to me? I think that it's horrible how Israel is trying to destroy the reputation of jews preaching peace between arabs and jews but you seem like claiming that all jews are bad, which is simple and incorrect. The fact that the state of Israel commits crimes which are against international laws doesn't mean that you can blame all the jews.
"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." - Friedrich Hegel
Roel wrote:
Ehm, which academic source or reliable source can you give me to support your claim that 90 percent of the media is owned by Jewish people? My problem is, it is indeed correct that some important media like the BBC have a director called Cohen, but that very easily creates the idea that it is an evil group manipulating in favour of them, in fact, there are jewish people which oppose these media you talk about too. In regard to Israel it isn't that simple, there are people claiming that European media portrayed Israel too negative during the Gaza attack.
It's absurd to me anyway, someone attacks me so Ibomb his neighbourhood and I take the big majority of innocent victims for granted.... what might be interesting to you is this video in which a jewish rabbi says that Israel hijacked his religion.
By the way, what about Al Jazeera and RT? They give a quite different view in my opinion. There also is an Israeli rabbi who fled to the Netherlands due to accusations of pedophilia, in the media he is called the sex rabbi, but in a Dutch newspaper I read that he in fact preached peace between Jews and Arabs and he claimed that his persecution is a way for the Israeli gouvernment to eliminate him.
If your view is correct, you should take into account that people of the same group are targeted too if they oppose. I hope that you don't believe in a jewish conspiracy, not only because it's hateful to all jews but also because it's too simple, if there really was a jewish conspiracy, it makes no sense that jews preaxhing for peace get persecuted, because they would be part of it too.
Nice video and ever so true, but it is also wrong to blame the Zionist Jews for that because it is the Christians who were the driving force or behind that idea.
It really is part of a very big topic in which Christians are trying to brown-nose Jews into heaven so that their Jesus actually can come back, and for this Israel must be a nation with borders instead of a state of mind called 'on-with-god' as Is-ra-el (and obviously we have been bombing the wrong countries ever since).
So this Rabbi Weiss here is right but may not realize that it is a typical Christian Idea that he is speaking against, and is never possible to win because it is part of New World Order plan with 1.3 billion to spend towards this end.
Here is part of it, and note that to make the nation Israel look at least half legal as seen form the outside, the so called purchase of that land has been part of the Christian mindset already for hundreds of years. http://www.the7mountains.com/
-- Updated April 12th, 2015, 9:39 am to add the following --
Oh, and let me add that their Jesus will not come back until Israel is pure and clean etc. So we are not done yet with more wars to follow.
Roel wrote:
Ehm, which academic source or reliable source can you give me to support your claim that 90 percent of the media is owned by Jewish people? My problem is, it is indeed correct that some important media like the BBC have a director called Cohen, but that very easily creates the idea that it is an evil group manipulating in favour of them, in fact, there are jewish people which oppose these media you talk about too. In regard to Israel it isn't that simple, there are people claiming that European media portrayed Israel too negative during the Gaza attack.
It's absurd to me anyway, someone attacks me so Ibomb his neighbourhood and I take the big majority of innocent victims for granted.... what might be interesting to you is this video in which a jewish rabbi says that Israel hijacked his religion.
By the way, what about Al Jazeera and RT? They give a quite different view in my opinion. There also is an Israeli rabbi who fled to the Netherlands due to accusations of pedophilia, in the media he is called the sex rabbi, but in a Dutch newspaper I read that he in fact preached peace between Jews and Arabs and he claimed that his persecution is a way for the Israeli gouvernment to eliminate him.
If your view is correct, you should take into account that people of the same group are targeted too if they oppose. I hope that you don't believe in a jewish conspiracy, not only because it's hateful to all jews but also because it's too simple, if there really was a jewish conspiracy, it makes no sense that jews preaxhing for peace get persecuted, because they would be part of it too.
Nice video and ever so true, but it is also wrong to blame the Zionist Jews for that because it is the Christians who were the driving force or behind that idea.
It really is part of a very big topic in which Christians are trying to brown-nose Jews into heaven so that their Jesus actually can come back, and for this Israel must be a nation with borders instead of a state of mind called 'on-with-god' as Is-ra-el (and obviously we have been bombing the wrong countries ever since).
So this Rabbi Weiss here is right but may not realize that it is a typical Christian Idea that he is speaking against, and is never possible to win because it is part of New World Order plan with 1.3 billion to spend towards this end.
Here is part of it, and note that to make the nation Israel look at least half legal as seen form the outside, the so called purchase of that land has been part of the Christian mindset already for hundreds of years. http://www.the7mountains.com/
-- Updated April 12th, 2015, 9:39 am to add the following --
Oh, and let me add that their Jesus will not come back until Israel is pure and clean etc. So we are not done yet with more wars to follow.
I thought that New World Order idea originated from christian fundamentalists which claim that a new Anti-christ reigns the world from Jerusalem?
"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." - Friedrich Hegel
