MrTsFloatinghead: So... everyone has a capacity to reason which we should trust completely, but we can't teach anyone anything.
Sounds brilliant.
So why are drugs not legal?
I have no idea. I can only assume a grower convinced a politician to make them illegal so the price would skyrocket and the grower could amass a fortune selling them.
Soooo... first you think that we need someone to tell us what is true and what is false, because we can't decide that for ourselves...
Except I didn't say that; you did. I said that, if a thing can be proven to to be false, then thereafter we can already legally call it false in many cases (unless new evidence somehow comes to light that would overturn it), with notable bizarre exceptions.
Soooo... first you think that we need someone to tell us what is true and what is false, because we can't decide that for ourselves...Except I didn't say that; you did. I said that, if a thing can be proven to to be false, then thereafter we can legally call it false (unless new evidence somehow comes to light that would overturn it). Which is more or less how the court system already functions, with notable bizarre exceptions.
You didn't?
Unfortunately, research shows that, paradoxically, efforts to debunk myths only strengthens belief in them, because people's brains don't logically process information the way we think they do.
If I spend $10M on an ad campaign about the Earth being flat, and the meme catches on, after that, everything NASA does to prove me wrong does nothing but strengthen my ad campaign. That's one reason "money = speech" is so pernicious a concept.
You're raving again Sissyl. It isn't helping you convince anyone.
And neither is your comment.
That would be a point if examining evidence were always simply a PR campaign. Thankfully, it's not.
|
So why are drugs not legal?I have no idea. I can only assume a grower convinced a politician to make them illegal so the price would skyrocket and the grower could amass a fortune selling them.
So it really takes no proof, only a politician to decide and a mob to support them. THAT is why other opinions should be heard. If they made it illegal to question that drug policy then who really benefits? The people or the government with its financial backers and power players?
Hell i even say this when i am completely against drug use
And in the case of the anti-vacc spouters? Is that a PR campaign/meme or not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it really takes no proof, only a politician to decide and a mob to support them.
And THAT is exactly what I'm arguing against. Because proof should be based on evidence, not opinion. QED.
If we can take a step back, I'd like to ask a question raised by the thread title: Does anyone on either side of this discussion think that Bishop Richard Williamson is being punished for ignorance of accepted facts?
I really, really don't think that's what went on there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just reading the thread. I thought I might warn you how you're coming off.You're raving again Sissyl. It isn't helping you convince anyone.And neither is your comment.
Warn away, but you could have saved yourself the trouble.
There is a deplorable idea on this board that the government can safely tell us how we should live our lives, and that freedom of speech is of secondary importance to how society works. I don't buy that, and I'd say I have been quite civil in this discussion. That I am making a case of things you don't care for is typically what gets me called a lunatic, raving or the like, and honestly, I don't care anymore.
And in the case of the anti-vacc spouters? Is that a PR campaign/meme or not?
Think about it a bit, but lkeep in mind: (1) many of their claims has been disproven by evidence, and yet (2) they continue to gain support. Is that a good way of running things? Claiming that their "free speech" to outright lie outweighs the actual evidence runs 180 degrees contrary to what I'm arguing.
I assume you're not actually of the opinion that the truth of their claims is irrelevant, and that it's better for the legal system as a whole if PR decides everything?
There is a deplorable idea on this board that the government can safely tell us how we should live our lives.
If living life somehow requires a person to commit outright harmful falsehoods, I'd suggest they maybe re-examine it.
And in the case of the anti-vacc spouters? Is that a PR campaign/meme or not?Think about it a bit, but lkeep in mind: (1) many of their claims has been disproven by evidence, and yet (2) they continue to gain support. Is that a good way of running things? Claiming that their "free speech" to outright lie outweighs the actual evidence runs 180 degrees contrary to what I'm arguing.
I assume you're not actually of the opinion that the truth of their claims is irrelevant, and that it's better for the legal system as a whole if PR decides everything?
Try again, Kirth. You claim that in a PR situation, people can't discern truth from falsehood, EVEN IF PRESENTED WITH A CLEAR CASE. You also claim that my example about the flu vaccines is irrelevant, because it is "childishly simple" to distinguish between two different vaccines. Do you honestly think the vacc haters are going to say "Oh, right, that was just the seasonal flu vaccines that were bad, that has nothing to do with the traditional vaccines that we hate"? Or, do you think they are going to see any evidence of ANY vaccine being dangerous as proof that ALL vaccines are bad? I mean, these are the cream of the crop regarding rationality, aren't they?
There is a deplorable idea on this board that the government can safely tell us how we should live our lives.
Wrong again.
If we can take a step back, I'd like to ask a question raised by the thread title: Does anyone on either side of this discussion think that Bishop Richard Williamson is being punished for ignorance of accepted facts?
I really, really don't think that's what went on there.
Williamson is a disgusting creep. He knew what he was doing, and why. He deserved suffering for doing it... but he still shouldn't have been sentenced for it, ideally. As it is... a fine isn't going to change much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You claim that in a PR situation, people can't discern truth from falsehood, EVEN IF PRESENTED WITH A CLEAR CASE.
If you think that people are presented with clear cases in PR situations, you don't understand PR very well.
The whole point of a PR situation is to avoid presenting people with clear cases, and the PR people are very good at it. That's why we have nonsense like "Holocaust revisionism," because they want you to believe that they're just reexamining the data, not outright fabricating it. That's why we have nonsense like "teach the controversy," because they want you to believe that there is actually a significant amount of doubt in how to interpret the actual evidence. That's why the snake oil peddlers spend so much time decrying conspiracies among mainstream scholarship, because they want you to believe that their ideas have not been given a fair examination and found wanting.
|
|
So it really takes no proof, only a politician to decide and a mob to support them.And THAT is exactly what I'm arguing against. Because proof should be based on evidence, not opinion. QED.
But once again facts are slippery little things. All it took was the accepted "fact" that drugs are bad and bam now it is an unquestionable fact. If they make it illegal to question that "fact" your notion of proof loses all merit. I say better to allow both sides to try to fight with their proof since once it was proven fact the earth was flat and all....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. You claim that in a PR situation, people can't discern truth from falsehood, EVEN IF PRESENTED WITH A CLEAR CASE.
2. You also claim that my example about the flu vaccines is irrelevant, because it is "childishly simple" to distinguish between two different vaccines.
3. Do you honestly think the vacc haters are going to say "Oh, right, that was just the seasonal flu vaccines that were bad, that has nothing to do with the traditional vaccines that we hate"? Or, do you think they are going to see any evidence of ANY vaccine being dangerous as proof that ALL vaccines are bad? I mean, these are the cream of the crop regarding rationality, aren't they?
1. Which is why examination of evidence should not be left to PR, which is exactly what I've been saying. In a trial, we take people out of the PR arena and place them in a courtroom setting for a reason.
2. Given the formulae, yes, it would be.3. I don't care what they want to say; I care about what the evidence says in each case. If traditional vaccines are not only demonstrated to be safe but also shown to be essential to keep down preventable debilitating and fatal childhood diseases, I don't see why these people's ranting should be allowed to overrule their use on the basis of "free speech." Facts =/= opinions.
Orfamay: And if you had actually READ what I wrote, you would have understood that I never claimed any of that. Kirth told me:
Unfortunately, research shows that, paradoxically, efforts to debunk myths only strengthens belief in them, because people's brains don't logically process information the way we think they do.
If I spend $10M on an ad campaign about the Earth being flat, and the meme catches on, after that, everything NASA does to prove me wrong does nothing but strengthen my ad campaign. That's one reason "money = speech" is so pernicious a concept.
I.e. as soon as money and PR becomes involved, people can't learn anything. He also claimed that it was okay to ban criticism of vaccines, because it is childishly simple to distinguish to these people which vaccine you're talking about. Allow me to doubt that.
|
|
So, again, where would you draw the line? Who gets to judge the evidence?
After the swine flu furor in Sweden, we discovered that there was a large number of cases of narcolepsia among children. Sure enough, going through the records showed that all of these children had gotten flu vaccine shots. Narcolepsia is a very rare condition, so it wasn't just statistical noise, but was eventually judged to be a very real side effect, probably permanent, of the vaccine as it was distributed.
Would you consider this too to be anti-vacc screed, fit to bury under a law on what's okay to talk about and not?
Traditional vaccines are well-known, unchanging entities. The new flu vaccines are new drugs for each specific epidemic, using various preservatives and boosters each time. This lies inherent in the method of production we need to use to get them out in time, and doesn't seem likely to change in the near future. Nevertheless, a law saying you're not allowed to criticize the use of vaccines will mean that we aren't going to learn anything about the side effects of each new vaccine - something I am sure Big Pharma would have a happygasm about.
Is that what you want?
The answer to the first question is easy. People make that decision, and sometimes people will get it wrong. That is the risk we take when we live in society with other people. At some level, we HAVE to be willing to sacrifice some of our freedom and autonomy to others, or else society simply falls apart. Once that is the case, it is ALWAYS going to be about drawing lines, and sometimes those lines will be drawn incorrectly. Sometimes we will learn, to our cost, that we made a bad decision. Sometimes that cost will be high. That's sad, but it's also inevitable.
The problem, of course, is that nowadays many issues are so complicated that realistically only experts are qualified to make determinations of "fact", which leads to suspicions of elitism and conspiracy, especially in the famously anti-elite United...
Translation "the king knows the truth, that is all you commoners need to hear" After all as you just said, let them think for themselves and we risk them coming to the wrong conclusion
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say better to allow both sides to try to fight with their proof since once it was proven fact the earth was flat and all....
You're agreeing with me to an extent. All evidence should and must be presented. But when one side's evidence doesn't hold up and the other's does, it's time for the discredited people to give it a rest. At that point, they've stopped presenting evidence and are instead simply lying. If they get some new evidence, they can try again.
|
|
1. You claim that in a PR situation, people can't discern truth from falsehood, EVEN IF PRESENTED WITH A CLEAR CASE.
2. You also claim that my example about the flu vaccines is irrelevant, because it is "childishly simple" to distinguish between two different vaccines.
3. Do you honestly think the vacc haters are going to say "Oh, right, that was just the seasonal flu vaccines that were bad, that has nothing to do with the traditional vaccines that we hate"? Or, do you think they are going to see any evidence of ANY vaccine being dangerous as proof that ALL vaccines are bad? I mean, these are the cream of the crop regarding rationality, aren't they?1. Which is why examination of evidence should not be left to PR, which is exactly what I've been saying. In a trial, we take people out of the PR arena and place them in a courtroom setting for a reason.
2. Given the formulae, yes, it would be.
3. I don't care what they want to say; I care about what the evidence says in each case. If traditional vaccines are not only demonstrated to be safe but also shown to be essential to keep down preventable debilitating and fatal childhood diseases, I don't see why these people's ranting should be allowed to overrule their use on the basis of "free speech." Facts =/= opinions.
Except that when opinions are accepted as facts they become functionally indistinguishable. And if those "facts" cannot be questioned....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He also claimed that it was okay to ban criticism of vaccines, because it is childishly simple to distinguish to these people which vaccine you're talking about.
I actually claimed it was okay to ban false criticisms of specific vaccines, because intentionally conflating all vaccines with one another is in itself a lie and can be proven incorrect and so "a different one might be harmful" is in no way evidence that the one under discussion is.
|
|
I say better to allow both sides to try to fight with their proof since once it was proven fact the earth was flat and all....You're agreeing with me to an extent. All evidence should and must be presented. But when one side's evidence doesn't hold up and the other's does, it's time for the discredited people to give it a rest. At that point, they've stopped presenting evidence and are instead simply lying. If they get some new evidence, they can try again.
I can partly agree with that, but what laws like these i think will lead to is ending attempts to present evidence contradicting accepted facts altogether. Better to keep up the fight then to end it by silencing disagreement.
So why are drugs not legal? Can you prove that someone else using drugs is inherently going to hurt you? And there are studies that "prove" lots of things. then we get the fun of proving proof....
Most of the original drug laws can be traced back to reactionary attempts to moralize the nation. It's standard patriarchal conservative bullcrap that started affecting the country hugely negatively in the 1970s. This perpetuates a culture of violence around the drug trade (literally the only reason the US has such a high murder rate for a 1st world country). It then in turn helps to keep poor people down perpetuating the cycle of poverty. While drugs themselves don't help anyone and can cause issues with individuals, how we punish them and make them valuable to criminals makes their persecution far worse than the damage of having users in the country.
So it really takes no proof, only a politician to decide and a mob to support them. THAT is why other opinions should be heard. If they made it illegal to question that drug policy then who really benefits? The people or the government with its financial backers and power players?Hell i even say this when i am completely against drug use
By this same logic all it would take for Nazism to resurge is another politician and rhetoric fed to the mob. Doesn't that make Nazi rhetoric just as dangerous as any censorship?
Have you met the human race? Facts are only facts so long as people believe them to be. and beyond that only truly facts until proven wrong.
Yeah, I deleted the post that this was in reply to, because I went back and read it and decided it was uncool.
He also claimed that it was okay to ban criticism of vaccines, because it is childishly simple to distinguish to these people which vaccine you're talking about.I actually claimed it was okay to ban false criticisms of specific vaccines, because intentionally conflating all vaccines with one another is in itself a lie and can be proven incorrect and so "a different one might be harmful" is in no way evidence that the one under discussion is.
But we both know the anti-vacc crowd isn't going to see it that way. Ban or no ban, if evidence of flu vaccine side effects is published, they ARE going to recruit people and smear all vaccines. That's their modus operandi, that's what they do in EVERY situation.
But we both know the anti-vacc crowd isn't going to see it that way. Ban or no ban, if evidence of flu vaccine side effects is published, they ARE going to recruit people and smear all vaccines. That's their modus operandi, that's what they do in EVERY situation.
So when they smear one that's been cleared, you call them on it, and eventually they'll have to get the hint. That seems a better response than simply saying "we can't convince them, therefore they can stop vaccinating and keep recruiting others to do the same using outright falsehoods."
Williamson is a disgusting creep. He knew what he was doing, and why. He deserved suffering for doing it... but he still shouldn't have been sentenced for it, ideally. As it is... a fine isn't going to change much.If we can take a step back, I'd like to ask a question raised by the thread title: Does anyone on either side of this discussion think that Bishop Richard Williamson is being punished for ignorance of accepted facts?
I really, really don't think that's what went on there.
This is a real question Sis, not snark. What sort of suffering do you find appropriate?
I'm speaking as WASP-ey as WASP can be US citizen who's needed a trip the hospital after getting in a fist fight with neo-nazis at a party in my own home. Make of that what you will.
Ummmm... why? Is there any particular reason they WOULD get the hint? Seriously, these people are the ones who spend their lives complaining about vaccines. Some work full time on it. You'd have to throw quite a number of them in prison to even dent their zeal... and by then, your law would be the target of more and more questioning.
|
|
By this same logic all it would take for Nazism to resurge is another politician and rhetoric fed to the mob. Doesn't that make Nazi rhetoric just as dangerous as any censorship?
Does freedom of speech make the danger of bad opinions being believe a possibility? yes it does. Does removing freedom entirely help? not one bit, at that point tryanny has already won without us getting to decide on the merits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why are drugs not legal? Can you prove that someone else using drugs is inherently going to hurt you?And to the militant vegan they are hoping that some day you lose the freedom to eat meat...Have them demonstrate that my eating meat is directly harmful to them. That's susceptible to evidence. If they can prove it using evidence, I'll give up that right -- but I really don't think they can. Until then, their opinion that "eating meat is bad" is just that, an opinion.
Can you really not tell the difference between facts and opinions? Or are you just stonewalling me?
Some drugs. Not many. And in general, the effect is situational (e.g. driving drunk) rather than systematic.
There are also a number of drugs that are inherently dangerous to the user, to the point where they've been medically disapproved for human use in general because there are better ways of doing the same thing.
And there are studies that "prove" lots of things. then we get the fun of proving proof....
There are indeed, which is why we need actual scholarship and not just slogans.
Most of the original drug laws can be traced back to reactionary attempts to moralize the nation. It's standard patriarchal conservative bullcrap that started affecting the country hugely negatively in the 1970s.
Long before that.... The first anti-marijuana laws were around the turn of the century, and the only reason the drug trade didn't flourish in the 1930s is that the bootleg liquor trade was more profitable.
By this same logic all it would take for Nazism to resurge is another politician and rhetoric fed to the mob. Doesn't that make Nazi rhetoric just as dangerous as any censorship?
So it really takes no proof, only a politician to decide and a mob to support them. THAT is why other opinions should be heard. If they made it illegal to question that drug policy then who really benefits? The people or the government with its financial backers and power players?Hell i even say this when i am completely against drug use
Actually, substantially more dangerous. Track record, and all that. I don't know of any militant vegans that are suggesting carnivores should be stripped of their civil rights, imprisoned, or killed. I know a number of neoNazis who are, in fact, making such statements about the undermensch of the day. (Untermensch du jour? Did I just commit linguistic mischling?)
You'd have to throw quite a number of them in prison to even dent their zeal... and by then, your law would be the target of more and more questioning.
Who said throw them in prison? I'm just denying them the right to lie on TV, in ads, etc.
BTW, I'm pretty much against prison as anything but a last recourse, but that's neither here nor there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does freedom of speech make the danger of bad opinions being believe a possibility? yes it does. Does removing freedom entirely help? not one bit, at that point tryanny has already won without us getting to decide on the merits.
By this same logic all it would take for Nazism to resurge is another politician and rhetoric fed to the mob. Doesn't that make Nazi rhetoric just as dangerous as any censorship?
Is there a middle ground between total freedom and removing freedom entirely? Yes. Does your rhetoric hide that middle ground? Entirely.
Williamson is a disgusting creep. He knew what he was doing, and why. He deserved suffering for doing it... but he still shouldn't have been sentenced for it, ideally. As it is... a fine isn't going to change much.If we can take a step back, I'd like to ask a question raised by the thread title: Does anyone on either side of this discussion think that Bishop Richard Williamson is being punished for ignorance of accepted facts?
I really, really don't think that's what went on there.
This is a real question Sis, not snark. What sort of suffering do you find appropriate?
I'm speaking as WASP-ey as WASP can be US citizen who's needed a trip the hospital after getting in a fist fight with neo-nazis at a party in my own home. Make of that what you will.
Hmmm... if we're meting out fantasy punishments, quite immune to silly rules about cruelty and unusualness, I figure something like a Clockwork Orange Eye-opening Rig (tm), some rope, a chair, a TV, a DVD player, some Teletubbies discs, and a month or two.
Seriously, people like him are a large part of why it can be difficult to speak out for freedom of speech. Well educated ultraconservative fanatics really do say the darndest things. Moreover, people LISTEN to them. I guess what I would really want him to go through is understanding how vile his beliefs are. Sadly, he's a fanatic, and one of the perks of that is not having to doubt yourself.
I am sorry I don't have a better answer. Fining him will probably make him proud.
Long before that.... The first anti-marijuana laws were around the turn of the century, and the only reason the drug trade didn't flourish in the 1930s is that the bootleg liquor trade was more profitable.
I was simplifying somewhat, but the legal penalties put in place by the controlled substance act were the largest contributor to the American culture of repeat prisoners I could think of immediately.
Williamson is a disgusting creep. He knew what he was doing, and why. He deserved suffering for doing it... but he still shouldn't have been sentenced for it, ideally. As it is... a fine isn't going to change much.If we can take a step back, I'd like to ask a question raised by the thread title: Does anyone on either side of this discussion think that Bishop Richard Williamson is being punished for ignorance of accepted facts?
I really, really don't think that's what went on there.
This is a real question Sis, not snark. What sort of suffering do you find appropriate?
I'm speaking as WASP-ey as WASP can be US citizen who's needed a trip the hospital after getting in a fist fight with neo-nazis at a party in my own home. Make of that what you will.
Hmmm... if we're meting out fantasy punishments, quite immune to silly rules about cruelty and unusualness, I figure something like a Clockwork Orange Eye-opening Rig (tm), some rope, a chair, a TV, a DVD player, some Teletubbies discs, and a month or two.
Seriously, people like him are a large part of why it can be difficult to speak out for freedom of speech. Well educated ultraconservative fanatics really do say the darndest things. Moreover, people LISTEN to them. I guess what I would really want him to go through is understanding how vile his beliefs are. Sadly, he's a fanatic, and one of the perks of that is not having to doubt yourself.
I am sorry I don't have a better answer. Fining him will probably make him proud.
Hey, no worries; I'm proud of a lot of the immature dumb s**t I did, too. :P
Edit: Or rather, whether or not it makes him proud, he'll certainly use it for political hay.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, people like him are a large part of why it can be difficult to speak out for freedom of speech. Well educated ultraconservative fanatics really do say the darndest things. Moreover, people LISTEN to them. I guess what I would really want him to go through is understanding how vile his beliefs are. Sadly, he's a fanatic, and one of the perks of that is not having to doubt yourself.I am sorry I don't have a better answer.
That's actually a very good answer. The issue is that this kind of stuff really is a serious problem.
Which is exactly why blanket slogans and bumper stickers like "freedom of the press" are unhelpful, to the point of negative value. The whole point of rule of law is to establish the principles under which individual decisions are made, based on the facts of the individual case and, as much as practical, common consensus.
And that's why we have things like trials, and judges, and juries. The citizens of Germany have decided, collectively, that the Holocaust was a bad thing and that people who minimize the Holocaust with the intention of laying the groundwork for a resurgence of Nazi ideals are dangerous. As you yourself have acknowledged ("people LISTEN to them"). And so they've established certain principles in law, such as freedom of speech, and certain limitations, such as "... as long as you don't engage in Nazi apologetics."
One of the things you should note is that (as far as I can tell) everyone who has been convicted Holocaust denial in Germany is also a disgusting creep, and dangerous to boot. So it sounds like the Germans drew the line right where they wanted, and right where it should have been drawn. They've been very scrupulous about affording Williamson and others all the rights and protections of anyone else accused of criminal behavior, and every decision handed down has been subject to the usual round of appeals, providing fresh sets of eyes to make sure that the decision was acceptable.
This system has worked well for decades; substantially better in fact than the legal systems that modern German law replaced (and than the East German criminal procedures).
Well, how does a large entity like a government sort out malfeasance from mere stupidity?Are you familiar with the david Irving Trial?[/url]
When it became obvious during the trial that the weight of factual evidence was strongly against the historical accuracy of Irving's claims, one of his last, desperate cards to play was the "it was mere stupidity and not malfeasance" argument. So it's directly relevant to the question you asked -- how does the decider-of-fact distinguish the two?
I don't think it does. This assumes that the preponderance of the evidence is in fact enough to overcome the delusion and stupidity. I've seen too many fox news enthusiasts to think that this is the case.
|
|
Is there a middle ground between total freedom and removing freedom entirely? Yes. Does your rhetoric hide that middle ground? Entirely.Does freedom of speech make the danger of bad opinions being believe a possibility? yes it does. Does removing freedom entirely help? not one bit, at that point tryanny has already won without us getting to decide on the merits.
By this same logic all it would take for Nazism to resurge is another politician and rhetoric fed to the mob. Doesn't that make Nazi rhetoric just as dangerous as any censorship?
How far from one or the other is right? Is one tick shy of tyranny free enough? Like getting to pick wich flavor of christian you want to be masquerading as freedom of religion. I would rather err on the side of too much freedom personally
MrTsFloatinghead: Don't tell me what I think, please. I have nothing against experts telling people whatever is true. It's their job, and lots of things would be better if we listened to them. However: Money talks to experts as well as others. History is full of malfeasance in this area, so we have to work at it. So far, so good.
But there is a more serious issue. Not every subject IS a good one for experts to decide on. It's not going to be difficult to find an expert that can tell people that crime statistics will fall if we put in cameras in every room in everyone's house, but that still doesn't make it a good enough idea to enforce such a law. There is no shortage of experts who would tell us that everything would be far better if we embraced a centrally planned economy either, or a thousand different things. Many of them would quite clearly say the opposite of one another.
With a background in natural science, it's easy for me to see the allure of that way to approach questions of society. However, political science is a science in name only. Various differing ideologies all have it as their stomping ground. There are no clear results, only theories and conjecture. Same with most other social sciences. The idea that those experts would get to shape society to their hearts' content is, frankly, a nightmare. Through history, it has been at various times.
Nothing good will come of this thread.It's chaotic neutral.
It's Chaotic Neutral in kind of an aeons-are-neutral way.
"Hm, just saved this adorable puppy. Time to burn down the house full of babies!"
-It's like denfying gravity...
Thanks. Now I'll have that song stuck in my head for the rest of the day.
I'm surprised. I read through the whole first page and no modposts. I guess the moderators were like, "A thread about holocaust denial? That seems really—ooh, a paladin thread! Wheeee!"