There is nothing more threatening to democracy than what they have done. Holocaust denial is horrible for a myriad of reasons, but what they did is actually worse than even that for democracy.
Of course, we do counter holocaust denial with facts and proof, because it would be horrible to ignore the truth.
Election fraud denial is no different, but denial of fraud in the 2020 presidential election is even more horrible in terms of its effect on democracy.
While facts should be the standard, you're making an unfair demand.
Marshaling facts and applying them correctly is on orders of magnitude more difficult than simple assertions. You can run around telling people the sky is brown and that they've been conditioned to see blue. And it will take someone with advanced knowledge of visual spectrophotometry to demonstrate why brown light doesn't actually exist and therefore the sky can never be brown.
Facts can not keep pace with plausible assertion. Ever.
Lies that could lead to more murder are horrible. Imagine somebody lying to each of your parents separately. The lies take hold and in a fit of rage your dad murders your mom and goes to prison. Kids put in the foster system, abused. No idea is horrible? Please.
Nope. That just means your parents are unstable emotional psychopaths just like most of the left. Lies mean nothing without proof, and anyone willing to believe anything without significant, and even indisputable proof, depending on the topic at hand/lie, is a fucking 🤖🧠.
Who decides what is and what isn't a lie? Where is the line between insanity and righteous fury?
Lennon was allegedly assassinated because of a book. Should we ban all books because fiction is a lie that has caused more murder, and thus books are horrible? Or, should we assume the man claiming a century-old book told him to kill someone today was insane?
I will agree that some ideas are horrible, but it's ridiculous to argue that opinions on historic events should be oppressed because it can lead to horrible ideas in the present. It's like banning sugar because it could eventually lead to a meth addiction. Yes, it's technically possible to go from point A to point B, but it's fallacious to assume that most (or even enough) people will turn out the same way to justify such a ban. The more likely answer is that the person that went from A to B had more problems than just access to sugar to get to that meth addiction, and maybe one should target something else to fix it.
They are projecting, as usual.
There is nothing more threatening to democracy than what they have done. Holocaust denial is horrible for a myriad of reasons, but what they did is actually worse than even that for democracy.
It's not, no idea is horrible. Counter it with facts and proof if it's so wrong. Tyrants man.
Of course, we do counter holocaust denial with facts and proof, because it would be horrible to ignore the truth.
Election fraud denial is no different, but denial of fraud in the 2020 presidential election is even more horrible in terms of its effect on democracy.
While facts should be the standard, you're making an unfair demand.
Marshaling facts and applying them correctly is on orders of magnitude more difficult than simple assertions. You can run around telling people the sky is brown and that they've been conditioned to see blue. And it will take someone with advanced knowledge of visual spectrophotometry to demonstrate why brown light doesn't actually exist and therefore the sky can never be brown.
Facts can not keep pace with plausible assertion. Ever.
Lies that could lead to more murder are horrible. Imagine somebody lying to each of your parents separately. The lies take hold and in a fit of rage your dad murders your mom and goes to prison. Kids put in the foster system, abused. No idea is horrible? Please.
Nope. That just means your parents are unstable emotional psychopaths just like most of the left. Lies mean nothing without proof, and anyone willing to believe anything without significant, and even indisputable proof, depending on the topic at hand/lie, is a fucking 🤖🧠.
Who decides what is and what isn't a lie? Where is the line between insanity and righteous fury?
Lennon was allegedly assassinated because of a book. Should we ban all books because fiction is a lie that has caused more murder, and thus books are horrible? Or, should we assume the man claiming a century-old book told him to kill someone today was insane?
I will agree that some ideas are horrible, but it's ridiculous to argue that opinions on historic events should be oppressed because it can lead to horrible ideas in the present. It's like banning sugar because it could eventually lead to a meth addiction. Yes, it's technically possible to go from point A to point B, but it's fallacious to assume that most (or even enough) people will turn out the same way to justify such a ban. The more likely answer is that the person that went from A to B had more problems than just access to sugar to get to that meth addiction, and maybe one should target something else to fix it.
you mean, like the evening news?
I think he left off [that stating it should be illegal].