Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday November 13 2018, @12:50PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the Room-101-dept dept.

As the days go by our hard won freedoms and liberty are slowly being eroded. In Europe a crushing blow has been made to freedom of speech with a European Court of Human Rights upholding a conviction for saying that the person known as Muhammad ten centuries ago was technically a paedophile based on information in historical texts. The statement was made in reference to Muhammad's marriage to a six year old child name called Aisha. The court found that “Presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society.”. In giving its ruling that "Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship" the court has additionally demonstrated a complete misunderstanding as to the religion involved which worships "Allah", a word meaning 'God', not 'Muhammad' who claimed to be a prophet of this god. Freedom of speech is dying.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 13 2018, @12:59PM (80 children)

    You lot want to borrow our First Amendment for a bit?

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:11PM (67 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:11PM (#761259)

      It looks like a story we've seen already. First the gov starts inserting itself everywhere into basic needs like healthcare, then they start taking away the guns and other weapons, then they start limiting free speech, next comes the financial crises, and finally the militant extremists take control of this overpowerful organization and use it for mass murder. I, of course, hope not but I am still surprised people would clamour for anything resembling this pattern.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:58PM (18 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:58PM (#761276)

        The late American historian and theorist of the evolution of civilizations, Caroll Quigley from Georgetown University talked a lot about this.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:12PM (17 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:12PM (#761310) Homepage Journal

          Never heard of Quigley before. But, skimming over the Wiki article, I can say that he's full of shit. He *may* be right, in regards to Christianity, but he's all wrong about "western" civilization. We, the West, have had little to do with inclusivity, or any of that other crap he talks about. As Christians, we are pretty much willing to accept anyone who accepts our God. Reject God, and we reject you. That's the way it is. All three Abrahamic religions have that in common.

          --
          Taking bets: When does Biden's approval rating reach 15%?
          • (Score: 1, Troll) by Bot on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:42PM (12 children)

            by Bot (3902) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:42PM (#761361) Journal

            >Reject God, and we reject you. That's the way it is. All three Abrahamic religions have that in common.

            The ABC of Christianity is the sermon of the mount. All the rest is what Christ told/did his disciples and not necessarily meant for every believer.

            Enter Matthew 5:
            45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
            46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
            47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
            48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

            Also, I wouldn't lump Christianity with the two subsequent religions, Judaism (a split occurred 33AD) and Islam which are notable because explicitly ANTI-christ. Islam is not anti Jesus but this is meaningless from a Christian POV.

            But in practice I agree with you for a fundamental reason: Islam is the religion of immigrants. Immigrants are being hosted. The law of hospitality is quite simple. I let you into my house, you don't dictate ANY FUCKING THING, especially the denial of an obvious truth, that a prophet (JUSTICE be upon him) married a child and fucked a teen, which at the time might have been normal but now is referred to as pederasty. If you are an european converted to Islam, instead, you belong to a tradition of not fucking teens, so what are you offended about? about the sky being blue?

            --
            Account abandoned.
            • (Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:01PM (5 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:01PM (#761370) Homepage Journal

              One error in your post. Nine years old is not a teen. A teen is (usually) sexually mature. It may be stupid to get teens pregnant as soon as they bleed, but it's more or less natural. Banging babies who have no idea what sexual maturity means is not natural.

              Few men fail to notice that a nubile teen is nubile. Fewer men get excited over - what? A third grade girl? Fourth grade? This Moo-ham-mad guy got excited over Aisha when she was little more than an infant, arranged the "marriage", then waited about three or four years to "marry", then waited three more years to bang her. He didn't want to wait for her to become an "old maid" I guess.

              --
              Taking bets: When does Biden's approval rating reach 15%?
              • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:28PM

                by Bot (3902) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:28PM (#761378) Journal

                Indeed I thought she was older when the old man hit. EW.

                --
                Account abandoned.
              • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday November 13 2018, @07:34PM (3 children)

                by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @07:34PM (#761425) Journal

                I think that's part of the excitement about boobs: girls with no boobs means "Don't touch", whereas when boobs develop, it means they're close to ready. In other words, the biggly the boobs, the more ready they are for sex.

                Also, the more you get to see of the breasts, the closer you are to seeing more of the girl and the closer you are to having sex.

                Breasts: the gateway drug to sex.

                --
                --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
                • (Score: 3, Touché) by edIII on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:04PM (2 children)

                  by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:04PM (#761449)

                  Uh, huh. Just where do all the ass men fit in to your theory?

                  It's not unified, until it integrates Sir Mix-A-Lot's seminal observation, "Anaconda don't want nun, unless it got buns hun".

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                  • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:26PM

                    by isostatic (365) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:26PM (#761476) Journal

                    They’re in the closet

                  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:40PM

                    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:40PM (#761486)

                    Uh, huh. Just where do all the ass men fit in to your theory?

                    Breasts apparently evolved in humans from simple teats for providing milk to mimic the appearance of full, round buttocks that signify a better ability to survive famine. The ass men are just puritans of a sort.

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by Pino P on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:31PM (2 children)

              by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:31PM (#761380) Journal

              And if ye salute your brethren only, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

              The prefix "re-" means "again". What's a word for those who act like "publicans again"? And it'd appear that "salut[ing] your brethren only" applies well to the "purity tests" that have empowered paleoconservatives lately.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:42AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:42AM (#761667)

                Not "re:", more from res, "thing, matter", combined with publica, for Respublica, the "public thing". Norse had it better, they just called it a "Thing", and the big one the "Allthing". Bloody Vikings!

              • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:25AM

                by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:25AM (#761686) Journal

                > applies well to the "purity tests" that have empowered paleoconservatives lately
                I think that your application of this gospel to define who should be a republican candidate, or a truck driver or a surgeon for that matter, are not gonna end well.

                In general though, you are right, being the christian ones is tougher than it looks, if you want the comfort of the tribe go for the anti christian ones.

                --
                Account abandoned.
            • (Score: 5, Informative) by DutchUncle on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:35PM (2 children)

              by DutchUncle (5370) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:35PM (#761409)

              Judaism isn't "subsequent" - it's the original. Jesus would have been brought up Jewish, if he's supposed to be descended from David. Judaism isn't "anti Jesus", it's "before Jesus and therefore not including Jesus ". And by the way, if the guy had written his own damn book, maybe he would have been called a prophet, except the political situation was sort of tense what with the Roman occupation and all.

              • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:31PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:31PM (#761435)

                Judaism isn't original, Babylonian mythology is.

                Jesus would have been executed by haredim for being a heretic. Oh wait, he did. kek.

                Judaism is a bad copy, perverted by political realities of early rabbis and desert realities of israelites.

                The core thing that you forget, is that Daud was not actually following judaism, and neither did Suleiman.

                The imagery was colonised by the other people, who have as much claim to the holy land, as Ukrainians have to Moscow City.

              • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:16AM

                by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:16AM (#761684) Journal

                Judaism in a nutshell:
                - The LORD is on our side, will send us a messiah that will heal the blind and the deaf and lead us to conquer all humanity
                - hey, there is that Jesus guy who reportedly healed the blind and the deaf and his followers are in all parts of the world.
                - Nah, too much of a friend of the gentiles, we pass.
                2000 years of more or less disguised attempts at political/cultural dominance (without disdain for the arsenal of tricks of the devil) and correlated suffered persecution follow. I say correlated, not casually linked, envy is a thing.

                I mean, if you believe in Christ it is a no brainer, but even if you don't believe, you gotta concede it looks more of a fork than the other branch.

                --
                Account abandoned.
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @07:44PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @07:44PM (#761427)

            As Christians, we are pretty much willing to accept anyone who accepts our God. Reject God, and we reject you. That's the way it is.

            I think herein lies the fundamental problem. You are brainwashed at birth to believe the above sentences and human psychology being what it is that quickly extends to "willing to accept anyone who agrees with us. Reject our ideas and we reject you."

            Least accepting people in the US, shockingly it goes with being the most racist people in the US, and more frequently the most selfish people in the US. Key word "most" which leaves room for other groups to also be shitty, not just your "tribe".

            Fucking religious dinosaurs, thank god religion is on the way out demographically.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:19PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:19PM (#761455)

              I'm just wondering how the Runaway reconciles that with Yahweh's multiple commands to put "lickbutts" to death.

              I'm certain he has some way to reconcile it, such as defining "lickbutts" as unpeople.

              • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:36AM

                by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:36AM (#761687) Journal

                I am certain you will recognize that homosexuality, or gluttony for that matter, were socially unwelcome habits, before the industrial reshaping of society. You will also recognize that 'the hardness of their hearts' implies some laws given by the god can become more lenient or harsher (matthew 5 again), not because the god changes idea, because the recipient has changed.

                If somebody campaigned against gluttony as a sin, with eat pride and stuff (which will happen after normalizing pedophilia bestiality and polygamy I guess, the push to reshape society will not end with LGBT obviously), I would say it's not a grave sin given our circumstances, but still a sin.

                --
                Account abandoned.
            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:38AM

              by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @10:38AM (#761689) Journal

              Selfish people built America, son. It's like if Hitler won on the other side of the ocean, you would have ended up with an Union of European Countries. Luckily he didn't and... o shit.

              --
              Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:05PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:05PM (#761285)

        Are you talking about Australia?

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:47PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:47PM (#761301) Homepage Journal

          It isn't a "place", it's a process. No "place" is immune. Generations may be immune, and then suddenly lose their immunity. It can happen here, or there, or anywhere.

          --
          Taking bets: When does Biden's approval rating reach 15%?
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:28PM (45 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:28PM (#761315)

        First the gov starts inserting itself everywhere into basic needs like healthcare

        As opposed to corporations inserting themselves into basic needs like healthcare, and setting up actual death panels like in the US where they refuse to cover certain treatments to save money? It doesn't follow that a government that provides healthcare to its citizens will necessarily become an authoritarian monstrosity. After all, plenty of governments that don't provide healthcare are authoritarian.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:02PM (33 children)

          Faulty logic on those last two sentences. They have no causal relationship.

          And yes, it does follow that a government that provides healthcare to its citizens will necessarily become an authoritarian monstrosity. Any decisions regarding healthcare made by it are by definition authoritarian.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:51PM (4 children)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:51PM (#761368) Journal

            And yes, it does follow that a government that provides healthcare to its citizens will necessarily become an authoritarian monstrosity.

            No, doesn't follow. Totally faulty conclusion.

            • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:00AM (3 children)

              by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:00AM (#761544) Journal

              TMB makes sense if you are libertarian enough to consider any authoritarian be a monster.

              And he's not wrong about them being authoritarian. If the government is required to provide healthcare they will necessarily try to control it. They may tolerate a parallel private system of insurance/healthcare, as in AU and I believe in UK and Canada, but they will still exert authority over it.

              Whether you consider that control to be a reasonable trade-off for having a functional health system is probably a philosophical discussion.

              --
              No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
              • (Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:45AM (1 child)

                by shrewdsheep (5215) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:45AM (#761668)

                And he's not wrong about them being authoritarian. If the government is required to provide healthcare they will necessarily try to control it.

                No, does not follow. In Europe (the countries I know), government controls the fact that everybody is health insured. The terms of the contracts are negotiated between insurance companies and the medical profession. As far as I know, no government bureaucrats. The only strong political influence might be that the premiums must not become, well, too premium. On this part the libertarian would wholeheartedly agree. That makes them being authoritarian then, right?

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:01PM

                  by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:01PM (#761699) Journal

                  Depends on what you call authoritarian I guess. Authoritarianism isn't necessarily bad.
                  The system I am familiar with is Australia's.

                  We have public funded (through tax) healthcare that covers everything except cosmetic surgery and non-emergency dental.
                  There is a schedule of fees for services that they will rebate, and the patient pays the difference if the doctor charges more. Emergency room treatment is usually free.
                  Many GP's and clinics 'bulk-bill', which means they avoid a fair bit of paperwork and payment problems by charging the exact fee from the schedule, and submitting it to the gov in bulk. The patient pays nothing and assigns the rebate to the doctor or clinic.

                  There is also private healthcare for those that want it, and in fact the government strongly encourages it to reduce the demands on the public system. It usually covers extras like dental, cosmetic surgery, having a private room instead of being on a ward, and usually shorter waiting lists for elective surgery.

                  It is acknowledged by both systems that where there is a difference in quality of treatment, it is the public system that is superior. Many private patients who need serious surgery get it done in the public system, and then transfer to the private system for a nicer recuperation.

                  The government controls who can practice medicine, how much it costs the patient, the price of drugs, who can buy/sell those drugs. There is actually a constant pressure between the medical groups and the government bureaucrats over these things which helps avoid the worst aspects of authoritarianism.

                  In Europe (the countries I know), government controls the fact that everybody is health insured. The terms of the contracts are negotiated between insurance companies and the medical profession.

                  If the situation is as you describe, the government is not providing healthcare, they are merely enforcing the purchase of insurance and participation in a private system.

                  --
                  No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
              • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday November 26 2018, @07:12PM

                by fyngyrz (6567) on Monday November 26 2018, @07:12PM (#766552) Journal

                TMB makes sense if you are libertarian enough to consider any authoritarian be a monster.

                Anyone that "libertarian" is actually an anarchist. :)

                Libertarians almost uniformly agree that government is needful. They're about liberty; not a complete lack of an authority structure. In fact, some of their precepts are non-starters without an authority structure. For instance, if "my right to swing my fist stops at your face" is to have any meaning at all, then said right must be subject to enforcement, and therefore, authority. Otherwise said "right" is just meaningless babble.

          • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @07:50PM (#761429)

            Someone already called you out, but sweet jesus

            And yes, it does follow that a government that provides healthcare to its citizens will necessarily become an authoritarian monstrosity.

            is the most stupid brainwashed bit of "logic" I've seen around here in a while. Shit like that is why I have no respect for your opinions, blatant ideology with quite a few real world instances that disprove your statement.

            You are one of the sheeple, which must eat you up so bad subconsciously.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:40PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:40PM (#761440)

              You are one of the sheeple, which must eat you up so bad subconsciously.

              Indeed. It is rare to find someone so willing to roll over and die so that an insurance company can save a few bucks on medical coverage.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:15PM

              You don't know what authoritarian means, do you?

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:39PM (21 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:39PM (#761439)

            Any decisions regarding healthcare made by it are by definition authoritarian.

            That's not how taxpayer funded healthcare works. At least where I live, the government makes no decisions regarding healthcare. Doctors do that.

            Government makes some decisions regarding funding, but not all, as we have elected Health Boards who make the real day-to-day decisions.

            Doctors and nurses tend to gravitate to stand for election to Health Boards, because they have an interest. They also have specialist knowledge.

            We think this is a much better system, as insurance companies don't control the whole process to maximise their profits.

            It also means that when Mrs. Zombie broke her ankle last year, she got prompt, professional treatment at no cost. We didn't even have to sell our house to pay for it.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 14 2018, @08:11AM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 14 2018, @08:11AM (#761651) Journal

              elected Health Boards

              That's government too.

              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 14 2018, @06:36PM (3 children)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @06:36PM (#761832)

                You're right.

                Let's just throw money at them. Who needs management?

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 15 2018, @05:53AM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 15 2018, @05:53AM (#762062) Journal

                  Let's just throw money at them. Who needs management?

                  That is the problem with government-run systems. They're great for making sure the checks are signed, not so good for spending money usefully.

                  We think this is a much better system, as insurance companies don't control the whole process to maximise their profits.

                  Insurance companies don't control the whole process in any country, including the US.

                  It also means that when Mrs. Zombie broke her ankle last year, she got prompt, professional treatment at no cost. We didn't even have to sell our house to pay for it.

                  Nobody does even in the US. And since you owned a house, it sounds like you could have easily paid for her health care rather than burden your society with that. So why didn't you?

                  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:20PM (1 child)

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:20PM (#762310)

                    ...you could have easily paid for her health care...

                    Of course I could.

                    And I have been over the last 30-odd years. It's called tax and I'm happy to pay it, because it gets me things like schools and roads and proper health care.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 16 2018, @03:59AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @03:59AM (#762519) Journal

                      And I have been over the last 30-odd years. It's called tax and I'm happy to pay it, because it gets me things like schools and roads and proper health care.

                      And an immense level of corruption and incompetence. That's what happens when people use other peoples' money in place of their own.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:16PM (15 children)

              I didn't say you aren't allowed to like the idea. I said it was authoritarian by nature.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 15 2018, @08:47PM (14 children)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday November 15 2018, @08:47PM (#762335)

                I said it was authoritarian by nature.

                I am aware. You will need to explain why though, because I don't think it is.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 15 2018, @09:20PM (13 children)

                  Because of the definition of authoritarian. When you take authority over people's lives from them and place it with the government, that is authoritarianism. Full stop.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 15 2018, @09:49PM (12 children)

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday November 15 2018, @09:49PM (#762362)

                    Because of the definition of authoritarian

                    I had a quick peruse of this: which seems pretty informative. [wikipedia.org]

                    I can see how you might think your own political system fits the definitions, but it doesn't really work for the country I live in.

                    Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;

                    The US has a total of two political parties, which seems remarkable for a country of 320 million. We currently have 5 parties in our Parliament, and will probably have 6 next time. So, yes this might apply to you, but not to where I live.

                    A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;

                    From what I can see there is an awful lot of scare-mongering in US politics. (Have you guys fought off that invasion yet)? To be fair, various parties try it where I live sometimes, with varying levels of success.

                    Minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;

                    Did I mention that you have two political parties? How does that happen? Not with violence, I assume. Still, we do this much better than you do.

                    Informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.

                    You guys do this one pretty well, with your written constitution and all. Well done.

                    From that brief bit of info I am going to say that when I vote for the local people to run my local Health Board, I am not really participating in an authoritarian regime.

                    When you, however vote for one of the two parties that have any chance at all of representing you in anything at all, you might be.

                    Don't confuse what goes on in the US for how we live in other places.

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 15 2018, @10:37PM (11 children)

                      From that brief bit of info I am going to say that when I vote for the local people to run my local Health Board, I am not really participating in an authoritarian regime.

                      Indeed you are. You're simply participating in a local one that you don't object to. Where you live is irrelevant. Whether you think the government has any business telling you how to live your life is what decides if you are an authoritarian or not. That's all.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 15 2018, @11:06PM (10 children)

                        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday November 15 2018, @11:06PM (#762400)

                        So what's the alternative?

                        No hospitals?

                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 15 2018, @11:14PM (9 children)

                          Bit drastic, innit? There's a whole world of options between universal healthcare and getting rid of all healthcare.

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 15 2018, @11:44PM (8 children)

                            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday November 15 2018, @11:44PM (#762418)

                            Sure. still don't see how my local Health Board could possibly take authority over my life (your phrase).

                            All they do is decide how to spend the budget they get from taxes. Thy don't decide anything to do with health care, doctors do that, so maybe the doctors are the authoritarians?

                            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 16 2018, @12:01AM (7 children)

                              How the budget is spent makes a pretty damned big difference, no? And the taxes (money taken from you under threat of imprisonment or worse) are definitively authoritarian to begin with. Unless your healthcare funding all comes from voluntary taxation?

                              --
                              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday November 16 2018, @12:50AM (6 children)

                                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday November 16 2018, @12:50AM (#762436)

                                Oh, "violently imposed monopoly" then.

                                LOL.

                                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 16 2018, @03:53AM (5 children)

                                  You have some way to explain it where men do not come to your house with guns if you fail to pay them not to?

                                  --
                                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                                  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 19 2018, @02:10AM (4 children)

                                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday November 19 2018, @02:10AM (#763728)

                                    I'm not sure who those men would be, as the police don't carry guns where I live.

                                    The army have guns, but I have never heard of the army trying to collect debts.

                                    No, men with guns coming to people's houses is just not something that ever happens here, because why would it?

                                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 19 2018, @02:39AM (3 children)

                                      Clubs to beat you with if you resist isn't exactly a whole lot better. Force being used against you is the key, not the type of force employed.

                                      --
                                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                                      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 19 2018, @07:44PM (2 children)

                                        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday November 19 2018, @07:44PM (#763986)

                                        Force? That's not how we do things around here.

                                        This is how we handle things. [nzherald.co.nz]

                                        Bear in mind that has taken 11 years, and even though the woman involved is now dead, her house has still not been sold, and the taxes have not been collected.

                                        "We would urge all property owners who are struggling to pay their rates to contact us so that we can talk through options that won't cause financial hardship."

                                        Is the quote from the government mouthpiece.

                                        Doesn't sound like violence to me.

                                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 21 2018, @11:17AM (1 child)

                                          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@soylentnews.org> on Wednesday November 21 2018, @11:17AM (#764660) Homepage Journal

                                          That is a surprisingly less than typical example. Regardless, the use of force is the only means any government has to enforce its laws should a person not feel morally bound to obey them.

                                          --
                                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                                          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 21 2018, @08:31PM

                                            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday November 21 2018, @08:31PM (#764935)

                                            That's a totally typical example for where I live.

                                            Maybe it's not Government that you have a problem with, maybe it's your Government.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:11PM

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:11PM (#761453) Journal

            The government is not authoritarian. It represents authoritarians. I would like to say that the corporations that finance campaigns and legislation are authoritarian. That is true, but the real authoritarians are the voters who give consent. Over 96% of them... We can demand government service without all the baggage, but as we just saw, it is not to be for at least two more years. Oversight is our obligation. if we don't do it... well you are witness to the result.

            --
            Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
          • (Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:22PM (1 child)

            by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:22PM (#761457)

            I'm sorry, but that is asinine. Government providing healthcare is not necessarily involved in any decision making whatsoever regarding your healthcare. Not if you mean fully socialized medicine, and you're not specifically talking about assisted suicide.

            If, we, as a people, decide that healthcare is important enough to provide as a people to each other, it is a rather simple matter to remove the insane amount of money that goes towards profits only. Let's define profit as any money that goes towards any entity that didn't directly provide efforts in a specific case to provide care. Meaning, a stockholder is defined as profit. A c-suite is defined as profit. A nurse, janitor, and a doctor are not profit, but base costs of care. We engage in massive collective bargaining with all corporations that provide resources like syringes, gloves, IV bags, scrubs, band-aids, etc. Same with the pharmaceutical companies. They could sell directly to a patient, but if they want to to business with an entire hospital, then we collectively bargain their asses down. If they refuse to take a reasonable profit above their expenses, and they do have something that cures people, then we take it with the same logic found in eminent domain. We can quite easily become a more efficient healthcare system with 85%+ of money spent being directly for the benefit of the patient, instead of a parasitic stockholder and c-suite that believes that their lives and livelihood are more important than a grandma getting treatment.

            Finally, the biggest reason you are full of crap today my friend, is that in all systems that I've heard proposed, it is a panel of DOCTORS that make decisions regarding your healthcare. Not just that, but whatever happens is performed with informed consent. Furthermore, no panel of doctors is going to decide to not provide care due to the costs. Those costs will be heavily lowered if you get rid of the bullshit parasites.

            Government as it is now decides what happens in your healthcare by supporting the hellbound shitheads that lobby them for the power to deny pre-existing conditions. Even though, insurance is the ONLY FUCKING WAY A BLUE-COLLAR WORKER CAN AFFORD HEALTHCARE. It's not as if they can relax and thank God they are in a Capitalist society where abundant competition arising from a free market ensures that the invisible hand tangibly provides. It's some sort of insurance, or death.

            Wake up, dude. There are powerful people today, that are not even close to being a healthcare provider, that make decisions affecting your healthcare on a constant basis. You cannot get around that when 60 pennies on every dollar go towards the parasites, and their lobbying power is supreme.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:14PM (10 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:14PM (#761345)

          A corporation is just a group of people paying the government to get access to a special legal system if they follow certain rules (determined by the government). So I dont really see any way not to blame a government for the behaviour of its corporations.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:25PM (9 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:25PM (#761352)

            Businesses besides corporations can exist as well, and they would do all of the same things in order to save a buck.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:38PM (8 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:38PM (#761358)

              Local family doctor is much more likely to care about their patients. I also wonder if it really is possible to run a business without at least buying a llc from the gov anymore.

              • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:23PM (7 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:23PM (#761405)

                You still need money to go to a local family doctor, which the poor often don't have. And local family doctors don't usually do major surgeries, which cost more than a poor person can possibly afford.

                Healthcare is indeed a basic need, and that's why I have no issue with governments ensuring that everyone has access to it without going bankrupt or dying from preventable causes, much in the same way that governments can build roads, bridges, and so on.

                • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:56PM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:56PM (#761416)

                  The "sticker price" healthcare is inflated beyond all reason by government meddling and insurance scams. Before you pay for anything make sure you first go to at least one place and tell them you are uninsured to get the real price (usually 10-50% of the supposed price). Keep in mind that once they know you have insurance its illegal for them to charge you the real price...

                  http://selfpaypatient.com/2014/01/03/insured-patients-can-save-money-by-pretending-to-be-uninsured/ [selfpaypatient.com]
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargemaster [wikipedia.org]

                  So if you are worried about the poor having access to healthcare, more insurance and more government is the opposite of what you should want.

                  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:23PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:23PM (#761434)

                    I don't want more insurance. I want a system that has been proven to work better in every other first world country: Single-payer healthcare. Even if we generously assume a situation where governments and corporations are out of the picture, and even if that brought costs down substantially, poor people would still have trouble paying for healthcare because it will never be totally free. I really don't see how this is all too different from using tax dollars to provide roads, bridges, military, police, firefighters, etc.

                    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:54PM

                      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @08:54PM (#761443)

                      Single-payer healthcare

                      Yup. Better in every way.

                      I really don't see how this is all too different from using tax dollars to provide roads...

                      That's because it's exactly the same.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:35AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:35AM (#761530)

                    Not this shit again.

                    The other problem is that it’s possible that the rates for a procedure are less for insured patients than for someone paying cash. Usually this is going to be the case at practices that aren’t cash-friendly to begin with, so be sure to ask right up front if they offer discounts for patients who pay cash.

                    lol! Do these places exist outside of California?

                • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:14PM (2 children)

                  by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:14PM (#761468) Journal

                  That only applies in some countries.. Free health care is a thing, in many places.

                  --
                  "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
                  • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:30AM (1 child)

                    by crafoo (6639) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:30AM (#761556)

                    Nothing of monetary value is free. I mean, it's a pretty simple concept. Someone pays. Using the government to force someone to pay your medical expenses under the threat of jailing them (taxes) may be "free" to you, but it isn't free healthcare.

                    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:00AM

                      by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:00AM (#761574) Journal

                      Here's the kicker - even people who don't pay tax get free health care.

                      If your arguement is "user pays" vs "pooled payments with government oversight" (ie, tax), then fine, you are welcome to your weird insurer-rules mess. I'll pay tax for roads, schools, and healthcare. Makes for a nicer place to live.

                      --
                      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:04PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:04PM (#761283)

      'Cause we're not using it.

    • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:46PM (1 child)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:46PM (#761332)

      Ewwww. You guys have been dragging that thing through the mud so much that I wouldn't want to touch it with a 10ft pole.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @06:03PM (#761395)

      You lot want to borrow our First Amendment for a bit?

      Why not? It's not like you're using it.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by linkdude64 on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:09PM

      by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:09PM (#761465)

      Don't worry, they have no Second to keep it anyway.

    • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:15PM (2 children)

      by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:15PM (#761469)

      They might want to borrow the Second as well.

      I've heard it said "The Second defends the First"

      --
      "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
      • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:30AM (1 child)

        by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:30AM (#761558) Journal

        I have been thinking about this recently and I think there is danger in thinking this way. I often hear from those on the right (myself included) that the second amendment protects the remaining amendments from further encroachment. I think this is a fundamental flaw in the thinking of the right, not because it is wrong but because it is a good excuse not to protect erosion of the other amendments.

        Yeah well if the government actually tried something or went too far we could rise up and protect those rights, or at least die free

        I think this ends with the right falling into the trap of a frog being slowly boiled. Rights will continued to be eroded because the people always have the nuclear option, but by the time anybody notices it is time to act too much will already have been taken.

        I think this also explains some of the difference in how the left and the right think. On the right people will think that Trump isn't a big deal because if he ever oversteps that line we are all armed and can fight back, where the left who doesn't own a lot of firearms is afraid of any authoritarian threat (except for their own) because they have no way to defend themselves. I know I was never concerned about Pence's opinions on gays because if he ever tried to round em up for reeducation I would be willing to join the cause to fight back against the oppression.

        The second amendment is tough because nobody really knows what it is when government goes too far. Jefferson thought there should be some sort of rebellion every generation to keep the tree of liberty watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots, it also would establish a clear line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable as far as government intervention in our lives goes. Hell I imagine even for people who think it has gone too far very few people want to go down in history as another Gavrilo Princip.

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 16 2018, @05:10AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @05:10AM (#762543) Journal

          I think this is a fundamental flaw in the thinking of the right, not because it is wrong but because it is a good excuse not to protect erosion of the other amendments.

          Why is it a good excuse? You give the following reason why it is not a good excuse.

          I think this ends with the right falling into the trap of a frog being slowly boiled. Rights will continued to be eroded because the people always have the nuclear option, but by the time anybody notices it is time to act too much will already have been taken.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:45AM (2 children)

      by driverless (4770) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @09:45AM (#761669)

      Unfortunately this is going to be buried a million flames down, but I guess I'll say it anyway: You need to look at the context of that, not just read a rant in the Murdoch media. The woman was a spokesperson for the FPO, a far-right Austrian party founded by a former SS officer and Nazi Minister of Agriculture. The case went through multiple levels of court hearing, all of whom ruled that what she was saying would class as hate speech, and "amounted to a generalization without factual basis" (claims about Aisha are a staple of anti-Muslim far-right propaganda). It was a carefully-considered decision, nothing like what the Murdoch media has portrayed it as.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:22PM

        Being in favor of the idea that the government should be able to declare any idea illegal to speak out in favor of is begging to have your own ideology declared "hate speech".

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:25PM (#762313)

        If we want even more context, we should make clear that EU has no say in free speech. We agreed to the free internal market shit, not a bullshit federation. Germany and Austria clearly has some wounds of the past they are dealing with, so I let them. This can not be enforced as a general ruling in the EU.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:15PM (16 children)

    by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:15PM (#761261)

    For me this was when I decided speech is not free in Europe:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:59PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:59PM (#761277)

      Why, do you feel the need to deny the holocaust ?

      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:02PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:02PM (#761281)

        Why, do you feel the need to deny the holocaust ?

        Some people don't like to live in "reality".

        • (Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:55PM (#761459)

          The very fact of making "holocaust denial" illegal goes a long way to convincing many people that the holocaust didn't happen.

          If the holocaust happened, then any denials can simply be countered with the truth.

          If the holocaust didn't happen, then it would explain why governments are so desperate to conceal and prohibit the truth. Only lies need such protection.

          Yes, I realize that whether something is made illegal or not is no proof one way or the other whether the holocaust is true. But most people don't realize it, and making discussion of historical events illegal makes most people very suspicious, which only gives the deniers more fuel.

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:09PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:09PM (#761287)

        Defenders of free speech are frequently accosted by individuals who have formed in their minds the notion that if you are defending the right to speech, then surely you must be advocating or agreeing with the speech that is being presented.

        Free speech means I must defend this vile, disgusting woman from the marginally more repulsive people who want to kill her

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Pino P on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:45PM

          by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:45PM (#761385) Journal

          Remind these individuals of what Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in The Friends of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:01AM

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 14 2018, @12:01AM (#761511) Homepage Journal

          Web Communications at first, then later WebCom. It was the world's first commercial hosting service, and Zündel was one of our customers.

          The two owners, Thomas Leavitt and Chris Scheffler is as left as they come. Thomas was later sued by right-wing radio host Michael Savage for his Savage Stupidity website, on the basis was Thomas was cutting into Savage's ad revenue.

          Thomas won.

          The entire nation of Germany blocked our IP address. Some of our customers were German, many of our customers had good reason to reach German users.

          But Thomas and Chris stood firm - and all us employees agreed with him.

          This was in late 1997 or early '98, I don't clearly recall.

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:12PM (1 child)

        Feeling that need isn't required. Never letting your government decide that an idea must be outlawed is all that's required. It's an absolute guarantee that if you allow it this power, it will eventually be used against you.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:47PM (#761300)

          I guess this should be one of those two times a day right!

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by loonycyborg on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:28PM (4 children)

        by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:28PM (#761296)

        Nobody would feel a need to deny objective truth. If Holocaust is such a truth then laws against its denial are as dumb as, say, a law against denial of second law of thermodynamics. Very existence of such law gives more power to any remaining fascist elements painting them as a repressed minority.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:00PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:00PM (#761492)

          Nobody would feel a need to deny objective truth.

          So, in True Scotsman fashion, the following items [wikipedia.org] must not be objective truths then:

          - the planned systematic genocide of 1.5 million Armenians during World War I
          - the Nazi authorities' usage of extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews
          - the killing of 8,000 women and children in Srebrenica
          - the Tiananmen Square protests
          - the genocide of the Tutsi's in Rwanda

          From that link, quoting George Orwell on denialism:

          The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. [..] In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one's own mind.

          The reason for outlawing denialism has nothing to do with curbing free speech: the goal is to force people to deal with ugly truths, and not letting them put their fingers in their ears and scream "la la la can't hear you".

          Moreover, as you can note from the list above, most of the denialism is perpretrated by governments themselves. Are you now going to argue that those governments (Turkey, China, Serbia) are pinnacles of free speech for supporting denialism?

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:40AM

            by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:40AM (#761564) Journal

            You brought up some good examples of what was said above. Turkey's continued denial of the genocide they committed and repression of speech saying that it happened makes people question the official story and want to investigate the truth behind it. People don't like being told what they should and shouldn't think, so some people will question whether or not the holocaust happened simply because the government says you cannot talk about it, in the same way people question what Turkey and China did just because they repress speech saying that bad things happened.

            I am unaware of anyone, no matter how racist, who denies that slavery existed as an institution in America's past. If the US was to ban saying slavery never happened or ban saying it did happen it would have the opposite result. Through propaganda you can enforce an idea but by banning you can be sure that people will investigate it.

            How many of us read the anarchists cookbook, brave new world, of mice and men, etc just because they were either banned for a time or there were attempts to do so?

            --
            Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
          • (Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday November 14 2018, @08:21AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 14 2018, @08:21AM (#761654) Journal

            The reason for outlawing denialism has nothing to do with curbing free speech: the goal is to force people to deal with ugly truths, and not letting them put their fingers in their ears and scream "la la la can't hear you".

            Sorry, that goal should be illegal in a democratic society. It is in the US, which gets it right via the First Amendment. "Ugly truths" are extremely subjective. We already have an example in this very story where such a truth has been suppressed instead.

        • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:31AM

          by coolgopher (1157) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:31AM (#761617)

          If Holocaust is such a truth then laws against its denial are as dumb as, say, a law against denial of second law of thermodynamics.

          Don't worry, we Aussies have you covered [newscientist.com] on that front.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by unauthorized on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:49PM (2 children)

        by unauthorized (3776) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:49PM (#761334)

        Afraid you can't win an argument against someone stupid enough to believe holocaust denial?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:23PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @10:23PM (#761472)

          Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

          • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:47AM

            by unauthorized (3776) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:47AM (#761568)

            Oh dear, it seems that I forgot to add the <satire> tags. My bad.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by SomeGuy on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:25PM (1 child)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @01:25PM (#761263)

    Furthermore, there is no such thing as "god".

    What's that? You are sentencing me to death? Fine, I'm tired of living with you idiots.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:11AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:11AM (#761577)

      Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but you were already sentenced to death the first time you filled your lungs with air, just like the rest of us.

(1) 2