quote:

---

Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind has built a dinosaur-filled theme park in the Florida panhandle and claims to prove that evolution is bunk. A visit there shows that it is definitely a fantasy land.

---

Read it here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I eagerly await the day when sane governments consider evolution-denial to be the same sort of odious crime as holocaust denial, with the same legal penalties.

---

That's a lot of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and Hindus, inter alia, you're putting on a par with garbage like Ernst Zundel. Not to mention suggesting the belief systems of most indigenous peoples are less-than-sane.

Why do you find a person who denies one proven fact "garbage", while protecting the rights of others to deny other proven facts? Where's the logic in that? Are you worried about offending fundamentalists?

I don't believe that the vast majority of the world's faithful literally believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and even if they did, why should that belief, debunked by science, be given any more credibility than the assertion that the Holocaust never happened?

ed'd to add: I'm not saying it should be illegal to believe in a deity. I'm saying it should be illegal to deny what's been proven time and time and time again... especially when this denial serves solely to misinform.

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Why do you find a person who denies one proven fact "garbage", while protecting the rights of others to deny other proven facts? Where's the logic in that? Are you worried about offending fundamentalists?

---

Zundel is garbage; people who believe in creationism are, at best, woefully misinformed. I could care less about offending fundamentalists of any stripe. That doesn't mean I think such people should face legal sanction for merely espousing a different opinion, no matter how misguided I think it is, or how much science (not to mention common sense) backs my side up. My side being evolution, just to make that crystal clear. (Let me hear a "yay Atheism!"). From a free speech point of view, I'm not even sure I agree with criminalizing Holocaust denial, though I'd love to see Mahmoud Abbas hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, if only for a laugh. But that's another topic. Maybe several.

quote:

---

I don't believe that the vast majority of the world's faithful literally believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and even if they did, why should that belief, debunked by science, be given any more credibility than the assertion that the Holocaust never happened?

---

As opposed to more rational religious ideas like walking on water, dead chiefs' souls inhabiting lost killer whales, or flying to Jerusalem on magic horses? Religions are full of crackpot concepts – wouldn’t we be better off just carrying your idea a little farther and banning religion altogether? I can think of several areas of the world that would benefit a great deal from a little less religiosity, the Middle East and US Deep South being but two areas where the Enlightenment’s reach is tenable at best. In the former’s case, practically non-existent.

But you aren't talking about the relative credibility of ideas - you want to make disagreement from a consensus belief illegal. I find that terrifying.

quote:

---

I'm not saying it should be illegal to believe in a deity

---

Just so long as one only believes in said deity to a degree you find acceptable. Beyond that, here come the allusions to Zundel.

quote:

---

I'm saying it should be illegal to deny what's been proven time and time and time again... especially when this denial serves solely to misinform.

---

Who will be the arbiter of what’s been “proven” time and time and time again, or even what constitutes so-called proof? And why should disagreement be illegal, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded it is? If one can’t tolerate disagreement, what does that say of one’s own belief system?

(edited because I'm as good at using the quote function as I am at dancing)

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]

quote:

---

And why should disagreement be illegal, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded it is? If one can’t tolerate disagreement, what does that say of one’s own belief system?

---

In the end then, do you believe we should allow holocaust denial? Yay or nay?

quote:

---

In the end then, do you believe we should allow holocaust denial? Yay or nay?

---

Who is this "we" that is going to tell me what I can and cannot believe under pain of criminal sanction? You? The government of the day? Bureaucratic lifers at one of any number of government agencies and commissions? A simple 50%+1 majority of voters?

I am a firm believer in the theory (and that's theory in the theoretical sense of the word, by the way) of evolution, but I'm not so scientifically illiterate that I confuse a preponderance of evidence with an absolute proof. Ergo, I must accept that another theory is possible, even if I consider it so unlikely as to be statistically impossible. Does that make me a Zundel collaborator? Should I be treated as a Holocaust denier for accepting the basic rules of the scientific method and understanding that a theory may be disproved?

quote:

---

If nay, then you've pretty much answered all of your own questions, I'd think. And if yay, then I'm the one who's scared.

---

Because you can't do something as easy as refute Holocaust deniers? I'm scared for you, too, in that case.

What you originally said that shocked me out of my slumber was that you wish to classify particular religious beliefs you disagree with as tantamount to Holocaust denial, and you hope that people who diverge from what you think is appropriate thought are subject to prosecution.

Freedom of speech is the lynchpin of the democratic process. You seem to have no qualms about destroying that right for people with whom you disagree. I'm surprised that anyone on this board would countenance support for that.

Just out of curiosity, what other opinions do you believe should be made illegal? Holocaust denial and evolution are the only two you've mentioned so far - who else should the thought police bust on, well, I guess on your behalf?

(edited because "surprise" does indeed have two R's)

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]

quote:

---

Should I be treated as a Holocaust denier for accepting the basic rules of the scientific method and understanding that a theory may be disproved?

---

Then provide that proof. That will, indeed, get you off the hook. That's all I ask.

If you can prove that only 6 Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and if that proof is scientifically rigorous, I certainly won't call you a Holocaust denier. In fact, you can feel free, in that case, to call me a Holocaust Fabricator. But until then, until such time as you actually disprove this theory (instead of sophistically pointing out that perhaps, possibly, maybe you could) then I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the prevailing theory.

That's what science does, right? We wouldn't let a science teacher teach students that gravity "might" also make things fall upward, just because there's an all-but-zero chance of that. We wouldn't allow a newspaper to print a false story on the grounds that it "could" be true. Why should we allow religious nutjobs to pass off unproven theories as factual? Why should anyone be allowed to go around trying to convince others that an invisible superhero who lives in space built the world 6000 years ago when we have fossils a thousand times older than that?

And anyway, pretending that religious kooks deny evolution out of some fastidious scientific rigour, or propose a God-based theory of the universe out of genuine curiousity is either naive in the extreme, or disingenuous in the extreme. They're interested in science only so far as it can be used to silence science.

quote:

---

What you originally said that shocked me out of my slumber was that you wish to classify particular religious beliefs you disagree with as tantamount to Holocaust denial, and you hope that people who diverge from what you think is appropriate thought are subject to prosecution.

---

As with Holocaust denial, I don't really care what happens inside someone's head. I care when they begin trying to actively coach others to believe the same way. The "government of the day" seems to agree.

quote:

---

Freedom of speech is the lynchpin of the democratic process.

---

And yet freedom of speech is not a permissible defense against a charge of fraud. In other words, we don't allow people to make false claims because their freedom of speech is somehow absolute. We also don't allow people to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, nor do we allow people to perjure themselves, or slander others.

So let's not act like it's absolute, or that it trumps the public good.

quote:

---

who else should the thought police bust on, well, I guess on your behalf?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
More dino-human cohabitation in Calgary:

---

quote:

---

Then provide that proof. That will, indeed, get you off the hook. That's all I ask.

---

The hook? Are you asking for a positive statement of defence? You might not think my argumentation is up to your standards, but I wasn’t aware that my dissent had risen to the mysterious level you consider criminal.

quote:

---

If you can prove that only 6 Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and if that proof is scientifically rigorous, I certainly won't call you a Holocaust denier.

---

How can I arrive at proof when the moment I dared to ask questions or suggest alternatives, you would have me charged with a crime?

I really hope you aren’t suggesting that I am in any way downplaying the horror of the Holocaust. 6 million innocent Jews barbarically murdered is a statement I fully accept with the only reservation that the number may be higher or the murders more gruesome. I just want to make that as clear as possible – Holocaust deniers are revolting and should be considered persona non grata by civilized society. They should be refuted and countered at every turn, but does voicing an opinion necessarily constitute a criminal act?

quote:

---

But until then, until such time as you actually disprove this theory (instead of sophistically pointing out that perhaps, possibly, maybe you could) then I don't think it's unreasonable to go with the prevailing theory.

---

Prevailing theory? Glad we at least agree on that.

Who are you kidding - you want people with whom you disagree, who you consider “unreasonable”, to be charged with a crime. That crime, apparently, is merely the questioning of what we both recognize as only "the prevailing theory", and thus only one of range of competing theories. Or am I free to question, as long as I don’t actually believe my results should they run counter to the prevailing theory? You accuse me of sophistry – a reasonable characterization of my argument, though I disagree. I assumed the appropriate counter to sophistry was proving the fallaciousness of my reasoning, not the laying of criminal charges.

quote:

---

Why should anyone be allowed to go around trying to convince others that an invisible superhero who lives in space built the world 6000 years ago when we have fossils a thousand times older than that?

---

Why shouldn’t they? Who are you to decide what people should be “allowed” to go around saying?

Why should people be allowed to go around saying God knocked up some poor married lady then allowed their son (who made a habit of going around with his posse dishing out miracles like a holy Pez dispenser) to die nailed to a bit of lumber, only to rise from the dead a few days later? Sounds like visible superheroes are just fine. Just as silly as Creationism, I think, but hardly criminal.

quote:

---

We wouldn't allow a newspaper to print a false story on the grounds that it "could" be true.

---

But we allow them to run a story that is, as the New York Times put so beautifully in a recent headline, “Fake But Accurate”. Or we’ll let myths like the supposed Jenin massacre take over front pages until it’s shown to be false – then we bury the “clarification” below the fold on page A31. Or we’ll keep repeating lies like the “fake turkey” legend until they become a sort of pseudo-truth. Does that call into question the intelligence of people who still maintain the stories are true? Of course it does. Was any crime committed? Not unless we start charging people with gullibility or ignorance.

Mistakes, shall we say, are made. What we don’t allow is using freedom of speech as a defence to the commission of a crime – your hoary chestnut of yelling “fire!” in a crowded theatre being one of the overused examples. That exercise of supposed “free speech” can be dangerous – it’s inciting a riot, endangerment, causing panic, and quite probably will result in bodily harm to quite a few people. Those are the crimes, the yelling of “fire!” is the vehicle of commission. If I yell “fire!” in a crowded theatre but nobody hears me, have I still committed a crime? If not, why not? Because I didn’t harm anyone.

Gillian Cosgrove wrote a false story about Queen Adrienne – quite rightly, she was canned by the Post. For (allegedly) committing an actual offence – libel. Free speech rights end when they cause demonstrable harm to others. Incitement to argument is perfectly fine with me; incitement to violence is not, and there is a distinct difference.

If you can figure what crime has been committed, or who was demonstrably harmed, because some yahoos still believe in Creationism, feel free to charge them with whatever actual crime was perpetrated. You can’t simply criminalize an entire vein of thought because you don’t agree with it.

quote:

---

And anyway, pretending that religious kooks deny evolution out of some fastidious scientific rigour, or propose a God-based theory of the universe out of genuine curiousity is either naive in the extreme, or disingenuous in the extreme.

---

Which major religion doesn’t propose a God-based theory of the universe? A belief in God presupposes a creation myth of some sort. Does that rise to the level of criminality? Let’s just ban all religions (maybe leaving Buddhism, to keep Richard Gere off my front lawn) and be done with it – that, or make criminals of billions of people.

quote:

---

As with Holocaust denial, I don't really care what happens inside someone's head. I care when they begin trying to actively coach others to believe the same way. The "government of the day" seems to agree.

---

So I’m free to believe whatever I want, just so long as nobody knows I believe it? How would you define “coaching”? Can I argue with friends or family? What if they foolishly see some logic in my position and think I might be on to something? Are they now criminals, or are they fine so long as they don’t let anybody know they share my illegal belief?

The government of the day in the US is Republican, through-and-through. Is it free to criminalize whatever beliefs it likes, with your blessing? If the Conservatives in Canada form the next government, will they be free to police dissent as they see fit? Or, as with people’s personal beliefs, do you only support those with whom you agree to begin with? If governments can’t, or shouldn’t, decide what sort of opinion or belief is criminal, then who does? Maybe nobody should at all.

quote:

---

[Hehe. I love the term "thought police". Mucho paranoid. Anyway, as I've said, think what you want. Just keep it in your own head. Whether it's that the Holocaust is fake, or that evolution is fake. Keep it to yourself and I promise you'll never get "the knock in the night".

---

I’m sorry – I misspoke. It’s not the thought police I have to worry about, but the conversation police. I have your permission to think naughty things (cheers for that, Kreskin), just not to share those thoughts with others. Thank you so much for clearing that up.

Mucho paranoid, eh? You’ve unequivocally stated your opinion that some thoughts become criminal offences when voiced to others, and implied that a legitimate function of governmental power is policing the appropriateness of what people discuss in private. I wouldn’t call that paranoid. It seems a legitimate concern to me.
And yes, such things as conspiracy to commit murder, say, are and should be considered crimes. Me missing my bus and muttering “oh, I could kill that driver!” doesn’t qualify. Nor should arguing about philosophy, politics, religion, history, or questioning authority, among other topics.

quote:

---

But start selling lies like that to others and it's a different story.

---

Would this be the “knock in the night” you were referring to? Or just Mr. Magoo’s run-of-the-mill anti-Creationist lynch mob coming to show me the error of my ways?

Before I get into any more trouble, what else besides re-evaluating the scale of the Holocaust and Creationism am I free to think about but not speak of? What if I speak about it, but don’t really believe it? Could my defence be “hey – I was only yanking your chain”?

Is there a statute of limitations? Say Creationism becomes the prevailing theory in the US (which the more lunatic Democrats might believe possible), should I mind my Ps and Qs and keep my mouth shut about evolution? Or does running counter to the consensus opinion become valid in this case, because you have a bee in your bonnet about Creationism already? I suppose I could then flee to Canada and claim refugee status. Unless, of course, Canada is also prosecuting pro-evolutionists. Then I suppose your advice to me would be put up, and shut up.

Or hey, here’s an idea: let’s allow people to participate in free and open debate, without fear of being criminalized for saying the unpopular thing!

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces, this time because he mixed up libel and slander ]

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces to remove a rather snippy bit]

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]

quote:

---

So long as you do, we may as well peacefully stop here.

---

Sigh. Just when I was starting to enjoy myself, too!

I guess we're stuck at my fundamental(ist?) belief in freedom of speech and your somewhat more guarded support for such a right. Fair enough.

Thanks for the debate, Mr. Magoo. In the tradition of quality after school specials, it was both fun and informative.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Von Mises Pieces ]