TorilMUD Forums

I was having a discussion the other day about how its illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany France and other places. I was surprised that my associate felt that this was ok.

He went on to say that not only should it be illegal to dispute the holocast as fact, that it should be illegal to profess any ideology that is profoundly violent and negative in nature. His example was Islamic extremism that believe Israel has to be wiped off the map.

Shouldn't we be accepting of other people's views even if they are profoundly negative and ignorant? If you incite a riot or provide material support to terrorists thats one thing, but simply professing / believing in something shouldn't be illegal should it?

Don't all ideas / philosophies have a right to exist?

the case of the guy who is a self proclaimed pedophile and took normal pictures of young girls in public places comes to mind. He has theoretically never done anything illegal, but a lot of people felt that he should be locked up.

Not exactly a violent ideology, but I doubt you could find more people to support his ideology than those who want to wipe out israel.

Ok, I'm going to feel like an idiot, but did Kiryan write this? Is it a joke?

All joking aside, I agree that all ideologies, philosophies, etc. are fine as long as they do not get forced on anybody else or they do not incite violent or dangerous behavior that is illegal in the area in which it occurs. If somebody next door to me wants to think eating babies is a good thing, that's all well and good, but he better never do it.

Personally, I think it is a tragedy when a philosophy, religion, or any other treatise on human nature gets tossed aside and forgotten. Even if they aren't well thought out, or very smart in the first place, they are still interesting to view -- whether to laugh at or actually consider.

Just my 2c.

(however, denying historical fact is pretty damn silly)

i dont normally reply to this type of threads...

but i just need to say...

history is written by those who win the war....

if Germany had won the war, i'd be typing in german and thinking jews were to be baked with a side of rice...

in america most people that were around during Kennedy's presidency thinks he was the greatest president we have had in office... yet he tried to have several members of other gov'ts assassinated... (it failed should have hired teba).... did that make him a bad person or just an ideolist who thought castro wasnt a decent enough baseball player to run a foreign gov't.

my dime!

I studied philosophy and religion in college and took a few law courses as well. Ultimately, I decide what I personally believe in which may have nothing to do with the logical and academic arguments for or against.

Getting back to the subject, what about the practical applications of this sentiment were its ok to outlaw dangerous ideas or philosophies? I'm thinking of all the outlawed political organizations, McCarthyism, Black Panthers, homosexuality, adultery. Lots of time these kind of things revolve around religion, but not always. China's leadership supposedly is "protecting" their people from all sorts of social immorality with their totalitarian rule, illegal drugs are a possibly good result, punishment for not supporting the government is probably a bad one. Although they may be draconian in their application and enforcement, isn't the fundamental concept the same? Governments/Society has a right to restrict ideas through law and intimidation for the benefit of the group?

A lot of the examples I suggest like homosexuality, adultery, McCarthyism are relics of our past. Its interesting how society has come to accept or reject these over time. It seems proper for me that society should change slowly over time in general. It balances the personality of the older generations with the newer generations. Each group compromises to a degree for social harmony.

Now think about how laws and judges in particular create dramatic social change. For example, one might say that we as a society weren't ready for legalized abortion at the time of Roe vs Wade, but society was forced to change because of this decision. As we watch the homosexual marriage debate played out, I think it should see saw back and forth for a decade or two and will eventually become "normal". Of course this is somewhat unlikely since eventually there will probably be an anti discrimination case that will decide the issue.

I've drifted way off topic now (if I was ever on it), but I find it all interesting and related.

kiryan wrote:I studied philosophy and religion in college and took a few law courses as well. Ultimately, I decide what I personally believe in which may have nothing to do with the logical and academic arguments for or against.

Getting back to the subject, what about the practical applications of this sentiment were its ok to outlaw dangerous ideas or philosophies? I'm thinking of all the outlawed political organizations, McCarthyism, Black Panthers, homosexuality, adultery. Lots of time these kind of things revolve around religion, but not always. China's leadership supposedly is "protecting" their people from all sorts of social immorality with their totalitarian rule, illegal drugs are a possibly good result, punishment for not supporting the government is probably a bad one. Although they may be draconian in their application and enforcement, isn't the fundamental concept the same? Governments/Society has a right to restrict ideas through law and intimidation for the benefit of the group?

A lot of the examples I suggest like homosexuality, adultery, McCarthyism are relics of our past. Its interesting how society has come to accept or reject these over time. It seems proper for me that society should change slowly over time in general. It balances the personality of the older generations with the newer generations. Each group compromises to a degree for social harmony.

Now think about how laws and judges in particular create dramatic social change. For example, one might say that we as a society weren't ready for legalized abortion at the time of Roe vs Wade, but society was forced to change because of this decision. As we watch the homosexual marriage debate played out, I think it should see saw back and forth for a decade or two and will eventually become "normal". Of course this is somewhat unlikely since eventually there will probably be an anti discrimination case that will decide the issue.

I've drifted way off topic now (if I was ever on it), but I find it all interesting and related.

Well, what you're describing here is much like Hegal's dialectical view of history which was later built upon by marx, popper, and the rest. I think it's an interesting view, and it is obviously apparent when you look at the broad spectrum, and even the minute details, of society; however, the flaw is that it works towards a perfect harmony, paradise, or whatever you wish to call it. This theory, or viewpoint, automatically assumes this endpoint, but is there really the endpoint? This is why I wasn't much of a fan of the Enlightenment philosophers outside of schelling and fischte -- and to a lesser degree, kirkegaard.

So, I guess my question would be, is this going to be a cyclical pattern of society, or is there an endpoint (whether in sight or not) that it will eventually reach given humanity will survive that long?

As an intersting side-point: When I took a course on human sexual behavior, most of the class was based around the historical view of sex and how it oscillates back and forth between periods from conservative to liberal. The odd thing is that while the societal view of sex went back and forth, the actions never really shifted much. What I mean is that while society fluctuated back and forth between sex being ok to sex being bad, people were always producing porn, having teenage sex, masturbating, committing adultry, in what seems to be an almost non-variable manner. Kinda weird.

Are you trying to turn this into a "post arbitrary comedy pictures" thread or something?

If it isn't illigal, then you can have that point of view.

E.g. you can't deny holocaust in Germany because it is illigal, just like you can't be homosexual in Iran because it is illigal.

What you can mean is guided by the society or norm that surrounds you. I guess you can mean a lot of things in america, but if you get sued and loose then you can't mean it.

Everybody have a sense of right and wrong, my sense of right is also that people that deny holocaust are morons, but, since we live in a country that allow for free thinking then people can have that oppinion.

The one place where I think the chain snaps is if those that are wrong try to impose their belief on others, e.g. their kids.

Kifle wrote:I agree that all ideologies, philosophies, etc. are fine as long as

Thank you, Big Brother.

moritheil wrote:

Kifle wrote:I agree that all ideologies, philosophies, etc. are fine as long as

Thank you, Big Brother.

You're welcome, little sister.

Kifle wrote:As an intersting side-point: When I took a course on human sexual behavior, most of the class was based around the historical view of sex and how it oscillates back and forth between periods from conservative to liberal. The odd thing is that while the societal view of sex went back and forth, the actions never really shifted much. What I mean is that while society fluctuated back and forth between sex being ok to sex being bad, people were always producing porn, having teenage sex, masturbating, committing adultry, in what seems to be an almost non-variable manner. Kinda weird.

Sustinence, shelter, and reproduction.

There's nothing wierd about human instinct. There are things that society can't touch across an entire population. Ultimately, society adjusts around the environmental factors it is subject to. Human nature is one of those factors that society must arrange itself around.

teflor the ranger wrote:

Kifle wrote:As an intersting side-point: When I took a course on human sexual behavior, most of the class was based around the historical view of sex and how it oscillates back and forth between periods from conservative to liberal. The odd thing is that while the societal view of sex went back and forth, the actions never really shifted much. What I mean is that while society fluctuated back and forth between sex being ok to sex being bad, people were always producing porn, having teenage sex, masturbating, committing adultry, in what seems to be an almost non-variable manner. Kinda weird.

Sustinence, shelter, and reproduction.

There's nothing wierd about human instinct. There are things that society can't touch across an entire population. Ultimately, society adjusts around the environmental factors it is subject to. Human nature is one of those factors that society must arrange itself around.

True true, but I was kinda more hinting around at sodomey (bjs, anal, etc, homosexuality), porn, strippers, etc... being a constant throughout time even while the acts themselves have supposedly gone in and out of fashion in the moral stadium. Basically, regardless of the public's view of these acts, or sexuality in general. And, yes, I think to much of a degree, it is human instinct, but what I find weird about it is that we curb and supress our instincts with respect to society's views on quite a few things, but this arena has never really changed much.

Kifle wrote:True true, but I was kinda more hinting around at sodomey (bjs, anal, etc, homosexuality), porn, strippers, etc... being a constant throughout time even while the acts themselves have supposedly gone in and out of fashion in the moral stadium. Basically, regardless of the public's view of these acts, or sexuality in general. And, yes, I think to much of a degree, it is human instinct, but what I find weird about it is that we curb and supress our instincts with respect to society's views on quite a few things, but this arena has never really changed much.

I find often that the circumstances society finds itself in has a lot to do with the attitudes regarding the arena of extraordinary sexuality. When the AIDS was first being documented and studied and found to be more prevalent amongst homosexual men, there was a backlash against the homosexual community for over a decade. However, the prevailing liberalism in our country specifically, and the civil rights march turned the tides on the public's initial reaction, as well as the continual spread of AIDS to other areas of the general population.

In regards to suppressing instinct, I do find that establishing social order requires, in some degree or level, the suppression of instinct. I do believe cirucumstances like the discovery of the 'gay cancer' (HIV/AIDS) was just one circumstance that required the people to suppress some instincts (the behaviors that played a major role in HIV's initial rapid spread), just as the civil rights movement in our country required others to suppress their instictive reaction of fear.

It is human instinct to discriminate. Often times it is encouraged (facism, nationalism, etc, etc.), often times it is discouraged (civil rights advocacy, racial and cultural tolerance), and yet, as with extraordinary sexuality, discrimination has always been around in some form or another, regardless of how the public views its acts or implications.

I agree that constant extraordinary sexuality has persisted despite the changing acceptance or rejection of society throughout the ages, but I do note that there is a gorup of things like it, that have persisted despite the acceptance or rejection of society, extraordinary discrimination being amongst them.

I just had a philosgasm.

Mike... I'm seriously wondering what happened that caused you to go so far off the map in the last few months. Severe drug use?

On a side note, I can't believe anyone seriously replied to this thread.

After reviewing the people who seriously replied to this thread... I can believe it.

Gormal wrote:Mike... I'm seriously wondering what happened that caused you to go so far off the map in the last few months. Severe drug use?

On a side note, I can't believe anyone seriously replied to this thread.

After reviewing the people who seriously replied to this thread... I can believe it.

Some people have ideas and wish to know others' opinions. I know, strange huh?

Gormal wrote:Mike... I'm seriously wondering what happened that caused you to go so far off the map in the last few months. Severe drug use?

On a side note, I can't believe anyone seriously replied to this thread.

After reviewing the people who seriously replied to this thread... I can believe it.

Holy crap! Gormal is on a high horse? Color me suprised.

Kiryan is talking about people denying the holocaust for Christ's sake. We might as well make a thread about how the world has been discovered to be flat.

Gormal wrote:Kiryan is talking about people denying the holocaust for Christ's sake. We might as well make a thread about how the world has been discovered to be flat.

The Japanese still deny the rape of Nanking don't they? Doesn't seem far-fetched to have people denying the holocaust.

People are funny. People are actually capable of denying events they experienced themselves. Why wouldn't they deny things that happened before they were born?

*shrug* There are really bigger things to worry about.

Dalar wrote:

Gormal wrote:Kiryan is talking about people denying the holocaust for Christ's sake. We might as well make a thread about how the world has been discovered to be flat.

The Japanese still deny the rape of Nanking don't they? Doesn't seem far-fetched to have people denying the holocaust.

I'm not saying that there aren't retarded people out there. I'm saying that opening a debate that centers around incredibly misguided perceptions like this is just as retarded.

Dalar wrote:

Gormal wrote:Kiryan is talking about people denying the holocaust for Christ's sake. We might as well make a thread about how the world has been discovered to be flat.

The Japanese still deny the rape of Nanking don't they? Doesn't seem far-fetched to have people denying the holocaust.

is this an anime?