Holocaust denial = sacking?

[mur'phon]

Who get to decide if a position is too ignorant? And, what harm does such ignorant positions do when in the open vs when they are spread by stealth?

This is far from a nashi beating, however that dosen't change the fact that the moment you punish someone for what they say, you make it more likely that they won't speak their mind in a place where their positions can be shot down.

[Web Rider]

Fine and well. However I will reiterate if ignorance (or I guess just outright BS in this case) is obvious, it ought to be ridiculed rather than considered. Those posing an argument ought to have it well plotted and covered on all angles.

I agree that they should do a good job, and most of these guys are anything but ignorant, they just read documents B and C instead of A and D.

 

When it hyperbolizes to extremes, yes. When it is slanted (hyperbole with omissions) to fit your personal beliefs instead of the unabridged word, yes.

If we don't have the whole truth, even if we're only off by a hair, we can't really have the "unabridged" word. Therefore, everything is more or less personal belief. I believe documents A and F and G are correct while Joe-Nazi believes documents D and L and Y are correct. Maybe I'm biased because I'm Jewish, maybe he's biased because he's a Nazi. At what point does personal belief make something "wrong"?

 

And that's my problem with "official doctrine". Germany only has these laws because the rest of the world makes it feel like poop for WWII. Which we really need to get over....I'm looking at YOU Poland.