The BNP - Good or Bad?

[Black_Apalachi]

Exactly. Denying the holocaust causes hatred and causes sadness etc for the victims families. Thats our point. If the other two don't get it then "/ and they say we are enjoying pointless post counts "/.
To me, undertaker says something, we prove him wrong, and then he says thats not what he meant. He is just full of excuses and hence I am losing interest in this debate as he is one of those people who never accept they are wrong.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED
gets proved wrong
WAIT THATS NOT WHAT I MEANT, I MEANT IT SHOULD BE LIMITED FOR PURPOSES OF HATRED ETC
gets proved wrong about BNP again
WAIT IT SHOULD ONLY BE FOR RACIAL ABUSE
gets proved wrong

whats next undertaker?

He's not doing that at all :S. Every time you post he replies with the fact if you want a democracy, you have to accept other people's opinions. He's said it like about a dozen times. Literally. You haven't proven anyone wrong anywhere and you never will by trying to persevere with saying denying the holocaust is equal to going to a funeral and laughing.

[Seatherny]

He's not doing that at all :S. Every time you post he replies with the fact if you want a democracy, you have to accept other people's opinions. He's said it like about a dozen times. Literally. You haven't proven anyone wrong anywhere and you never will by trying to persevere with saying denying the holocaust is equal to going to a funeral and laughing.

We have explained very clearly why it is.

Let me use a more recent example:

You love your mum alot and cannot live without her. She gets bombed.
A man comes on tv and goes BOMB NEVER HAPPENED. ITS ALL A LIE.

You are saying thats not the same as laughing at a funeral?? It is :S Its destroying memories on your mum and making the way she died look better than it was. He is denying you of memories of her.
To me, that is the same as going to her funeral and going SHE NEVER GOT BOMBED SHE NEVER GOT BOMBED

1 word: empathy

[Black_Apalachi]

Exactly. Denying the holocaust causes hatred and causes sadness etc for the victims families. Thats our point. If the other two don't get it then "/ and they say we are enjoying pointless post counts "/.
To me, undertaker says something, we prove him wrong, and then he says thats not what he meant. He is just full of excuses and hence I am losing interest in this debate as he is one of those people who never accept they are wrong.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED
gets proved wrong
WAIT THATS NOT WHAT I MEANT, I MEANT IT SHOULD BE LIMITED FOR PURPOSES OF HATRED ETC
gets proved wrong about BNP again
WAIT IT SHOULD ONLY BE FOR RACIAL ABUSE
gets proved wrong

whats next undertaker?

All I can say to that is it's slightly more understandable for someone to disbelieve something that happened 60 years ago as opposed to something that happened very recently. I mean if a bomb goes off tonight, and I get up tomorrow morning and shout in the street that it didn't happen, I'm clearly just being a ****. However as I said a long time ago in this very thread, I'm assuming when someone denies the holocaust, they are doing it because they genuinely believe it did not happen, rather than simply to cause people grief.

If you really think about it, you only believe it happened because of what we're told and what our history books say. Countries have been known to rewrite their schools' textbooks to brainwash their children into believing what they wanted them to believe about their own country. I am lucky enough to have attended a talk by a holocaust survivor which was extremely moving so I obviously have no doubt it occurred.

But wait, I've gone completely off topic! The point is I accept other people's views if they genuinely believe an event did not happen. If they're just saying it to cause hate, then I don't think that's what freedom of speech is really about.

[Ardemax]

All I can say to that is it's slightly more understandable for someone to disbelieve something that happened 60 years ago as opposed to something that happened very recently. I mean if a bomb goes off tonight, and I get up tomorrow morning and shout in the street that it didn't happen, I'm clearly just being a ****. However as I said a long time ago in this very thread, I'm assuming when someone denies the holocaust, they are doing it because they genuinely believe it did not happen, rather than simply to cause people grief.

If you really think about it, you only believe it happened because of what we're told and what our history books say. Countries have been known to rewrite their schools' textbooks to brainwash their children into believing what they wanted them to believe about their own country. I am lucky enough to have attended a talk by a holocaust survivor which was extremely moving so I obviously have no doubt it occurred.

But wait, I've gone completely off topic! The point is I accept other people's views if they genuinely believe an event did not happen. If they're just saying it to cause hate, then I don't think that's what freedom of speech is really about.

I'm sorry but there is more than one way to learn about the holocaust.

There's so much evidence and proof it happened, it's like, it happened. It's like denying World War 2.

A long shot, but the same circumstances.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I still can't believe someone would deny all that evidence and proof. meh.
ok lemme quote from my other post

"So the only time when freedom of speech is stopped as soon as racism comes into play?

But I've only insulted someone? They're not gay, nor a different skin colour to me. That's still freedom of speech?"

....

Denying the holocaust is not directly insulting somebody, so the exact same point still stands; denial of a historical event is not the same as racism/homophobia.

Exactly. Denying the holocaust causes hatred and causes sadness etc for the victims families. Thats our point. If the other two don't get it then "/ and they say we are enjoying pointless post counts "/.
To me, undertaker says something, we prove him wrong, and then he says thats not what he meant. He is just full of excuses and hence I am losing interest in this debate as he is one of those people who never accept they are wrong.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED
gets proved wrong
WAIT THATS NOT WHAT I MEANT, I MEANT IT SHOULD BE LIMITED FOR PURPOSES OF HATRED ETC
gets proved wrong about BNP again
WAIT IT SHOULD ONLY BE FOR RACIAL ABUSE
gets proved wrong

whats next undertaker?

Nothing is next darling, I will keep repeating what I have said throughout this thread so maybe it'll sink in for you; denial of a historical event is not the same as homophobia/racism.

You haven't proved anything wrong, when I said 'that isn't democracy then!' that was a pun, and thats been explained. Of course outright racism and homophobia shouldn't be allowed, that would be a anachism which I strongly disagree with, not to mention that it wouldn't work either.

[Seatherny]

First you said FoS should not be limited. Then you said FoS should be limited to avoid hatred. Then you said FoS should be limited to avoid homophobia/racism.

Make your mind up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

First you said FoS should not be limited. Then you said FoS should be limited to avoid hatred. Then you said FoS should be limited to avoid homophobia/racism.

Make your mind up.

Are homophobia and racism not hatred now?

It is you who needs to make their mind up.

[Seatherny]

And destroying or whatever someones memories when theres proof of an event not causing hatred?

[-:Undertaker:-]

And destroying or whatever someones memories when theres proof of an event not causing hatred?

Denying the holocaust is not hatred therefore it is not comparable to hatred.

[Ardemax]

Denying the holocaust is not directly insulting somebody, so the exact same point still stands; denial of a historical event is not the same as racism/homophobia.

you didn't answer my question

have a look at that post please then tell me