|
The Amazing Randi’s amazing suicidal applicant
|
Posted By:
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
May 08, 2005
|
A Belgian man has made an application for James Randi's $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge. The applicant, Siegfried Verbeke, claims he will be able to survive exposure to Zyklon B gas for 15 minutes. This, he says, will prove that the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis during WWII was a hoax. He would like to use the restored gas chamber at Auschwitz to conduct the test. The exchange between Verbeke and Randi's agent, Kramer, has to be read to be believed. And even then you may not.
Amazing suicidal applicant
|
Comments
|
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 > |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 07:01 PM
Mark-N-Jen, I guess I misunderstood your intention. Sorry. I don't know if it was the way you said it or that I'm just a dimwit, but the bottom line is that I think you and I actually agree on this.
Because of the First Amendment, I think you should be able to SAY anything you want, no matter how stupid, annoying or disgusting.
ACTING on your beliefs, however, is a different matter. You can SAY you wish I was dead; trying to make that happen is a crime. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 11:05 AM
"And Maegan, the name you are searching for is Matthew Shepard. And yes, to oversimplify your argument, if a gay man beats up a redneck with the motivation of the redneck's perceived racial or religious group as a factor in determining criminal intent, it very much could be considered as a hate crime under the law. And the law makes no distinction between "Jewish people" and "People who are Jews"; all that matters is whether the vicitm's religion or national origin (or perceptions of those categories) is a motivational factor for determining the elements of the crime."
Okay, this answers my question.
Although...I think it would be harder to prove that a gay person beat up someone for being "redneck". After all, is there even a precidence for that? Yes, sir, my client was beat up b/c he was a redneck. Explain? Well, he wears Wranglers and drives a truck old as dirt. Has 32 hunting dogs, a gun rack in his truck, and can spit a mile. Oh, and he loves catfish. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 11:05 AM
...You'd probably have to argue that it was b/c he was straight. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 03:03 PM
The problem with freedoms and rights is that they sometimes collide (i.e.: the freedom of the press and the right to personal privacy). The same can happen with freedom of expression: some means of expressing yourself can interfere with other people's rights. Laws go some way to setting guidelines to avoid this, but of course they're not perfect. Common sense and judgement are needed to keep things from getting into a tangle. . .which is probably why things are always such a mess. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 11:24 PM
CMG,
Oh I know we agree on this. My thoughts don't always come off well when written out so it's probably both of us that are a little off. 
My whole point in a nutshell though was...
I often find myself thinking that the USA goes overboard with a lot of things, but I found that (receiving jail time for just not-believing in the holocaust) to be WAY overboard and reaffirmed my appreciation of the locality of my birth.
Like Al mentioned... it's not as though this was accompanied by an assault or anything... it was just his belief, and for it he's going to jail. So, in the end, he's probably going to end up being even MORE of a nut-job!
Who knows... there are no simple solutions! |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 10:43 AM
Mark-N-Jen,
don't forget about the tons of free world-wide publicity these guys get, which is probably all they wanted in the first place. If we just let them mouth off and ignore them, we would be giving them much better punishment. |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 11:29 AM
(It's a slow day, so...)
Europe doesn't have thought-crime (to use the Orwellian term). You can believe what you want, Verbeke included.
Many countries do put limits on freedom of expression where it is likely to injure or insult a number or community of people. In these cases the needs of the many, etc. So you can believe what you want, but keep it to yourself okay?
Don't think it's like that in the US? Go visit the Arlington national cemetery and take a whiz on one of the graves, remember to remind the angry gentlemen in the nice red, white and blue uniforms about the first amendment.
Freedom of expression is not unlimited, even in America. If you do something just too offensive, no jury of your peers is ever going to let you off!
P.S. Don't even BEGIN to contemplate thinking about doing what I suggested. I'm from a military family myself and it'd make me very upset! |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 12:04 PM
Pissing in public is an offense in itself. So...he could be doing it in the middle of the street and he'd still get arrested. Use another example. |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 03:42 PM
"There is no "first ammendment" in Canada..." - Andy
Two words for ya there...
Horse
Shit
Refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2.
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
And I also wonder about Jonas' credentials. He claims to have spent several years teaching "anti-homophobia education" in schools. What schools?
And if he really did teach this stuff, then why does he refer to homosexuals as queers in his first post? Doesn't sound very gay friendly to me. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 05:07 PM
Dave says...
"Don't think it's like that in the US? Go visit the Arlington national cemetery and take a whiz on one of the graves, remember to remind the angry gentlemen in the nice red, white and blue uniforms about the first amendment."
OK Dave...
You sounded pretty intelligent when you were discussing evolution in another thread...
but to liken "pissing" on someones' grave to expression of ideas through speech and writing is just plain STUPID! And what would it matter if it was Arlington and some veteren, or just Hoboken and someone's grandmother? None, you're still guilty of at least pulic indecency, vandalism of private property, and probably public intoxication.
No one said that freedom of expression wasn't limited on some terms anywhere in world... but we weren't discussing this guys right to "whiz" where ever he chooses but instead his right to believe what he wants. And the way it reads, and has been related to us by friends of the forum who are Dutch themselves... it's a criminal act to "not believe in the holocaust." No where in the article did it say he would have been alright if he had just kept his stupid ideas to himself.
Obviously acts such as the one you described are "criminal" and therefore wouldn't garner exemption by the first amendment. Next time your bored, use some of your free time to think about your use of examples because in this case it was a poor choice.
 |
Big Dave
in Santa Monica
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 05:09 PM
To get back to the point, Verbecke was trying to justify the disconcerting theory among white supremist that the Holocaust did not occur, and that it is a fabrication by the Jews. Randi should be saluted for handling it the way he did.
To get to the free speech issue, Mark-N-Jen's ignorance of the law is a clear statement of how bad our education system here in the US. Free speech is allowed as long as you don't forment violence or discrimination against anyone else. Through the years the law has been refined and added to for issues of modern society. And with the refinement came the birth of "hate" crimes, meaning violence against a specific group. Enforcement is erratic, and charges are not easily leveled because of the burden of proof.
Now, with all that said, if someone jumps out of an alley and demands all my money, I've been mugged. But if someone jumps me shouting "Die Jew Bastard" then I believe it's a hate crime.
And that goes to the really issue being discussed, and that's just common respect for your fellow man. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 05:30 PM
"Thought crime" does indeed exist in America. I remember a case a few years ago where a man was sent to prison for keeping a mock-diary of his pedophilic (it's a word now!) urges. The jury determined that he was likely to commit a crime in the future.
Now granted, this is not really an Orwellian case, but the idea of arresting people because they're "bad" or because they look like they might comit a crime is horrendous. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 06:12 PM
Big Dave,
Where in my post did I state that free speech was allowed if you're formenting violence or discrimination? No where, so how am I ignorant of the law?
I didn't say I knew EXACTLY what Verbeke (?) and his site were about or whether or not he / it was promoting violence or discrimination. I merely stated that IF this guy was going to jail for ONLY not believing in the holocaust that it seemed to be going too far!
Also, I don't buy that someone screaming "Die Jew Bastard" is a hate crime... as it's not even a crime. Statements like this are made millions of times per day in the U.S. Are you saying that a team who says "We're gonna kill 'em" when discussing opponents is guilty of a crime? Just because the person who was disrepectful to you and screamed that, added the word "Jew" doesn't make it any more of a crime... it just makes him a dickhead. But then according to your line of thinking I'm probably guilty of a crime just for calling him a dickhead right. People promote hatred all the time and it IS protected by the first amendment... otherwise none of these stupid sites would exist here in the U.S. or they'd be facing similar consequences to Verbeke. You see in the news ALL the time things like the KKK or Neo-Nazi groups being allowed to demonstrate, just like everyone else. They promote hatred, but hatred and violence / discrimination are two different things.
Again, to reassert... my point was this...
I merely stated that IF this guy was going to jail for ONLY not believing in the holocaust that it seemed to be going too far!
You seem to think this is possible in the US too... which I don't believe. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 06:19 PM
PS - As for your ending statement...
And that goes to the really issue being discussed, and that's just common respect for your fellow man.
I agree totally... in fact, if I were ever that disrepectful to someone my father would kick my ass... even now when I'm 34 years old!
But to legislate "respectfulness and impose prison sentences for the lack of" is FANATICAL. Fanatics can be on either side of the fence... you have fanatics who want to kill people because they're of a different religion AND you have fanatics who want to throw people in prison because they shout "Die Jew Bastard" at them.
Back in the good old days you, or the offended, could have just whipped his ass for being a disrespectful prick... he would definately deserve it, but he doesn't deserve prison time for it!
Sorry if you find that upsetting but that's America for you... everyone can have an opinion! |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 06:25 PM
Maegan said, "Pissing in public is an offense in itself. So...he could be doing it in the middle of the street and he'd still get arrested. Use another example."
Having sex in public is an offense too. Doing it in a magazine is protected under the first amendment.
Mark-N-Jen said, "to liken "pissing" on someones' grave to expression of ideas through speech and writing is just plain STUPID! And what would it matter if it was Arlington and some veteren, or just Hoboken and someone's grandmother? None, you're still guilty of at least pulic indecency, vandalism of private property, and probably public intoxication."
Claim it's a statement against the military-industrial-complex. The point was whatever your reason for doing it, it is too hurtful, too outrageous to tolerate. The US is very much more tolerant of the 'expression of ideas through speech and writing', congratulations, it is an achievement of which you should be justly proud. But perhaps to someone who watched their whole family inhumanly tortured, degraded and finally murdered, someone who may have been forced to pull the bodies out of the chambers and manhandle them into a furnace like so much refuse; saying it coulda woulda neva happened and they are spouting so much s**t and lies and it's all one big f**king jewish conspiracy anyway isn't so far away from pissing on their family's graves.
I deliberately chose the most offensive thing *to me* that I could imagine anyone doing as a 'political statement', because in a country where words *are* so free only an action could get across the level of revulsion people like Verbeke generate.
According to the old saying '... words will never hurt me'.
Sometimes, that is not true. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 07:40 PM
David B...
If you're going to take shots at me please read my posts' thouroughly, as I clearly stated when talking to LaMa that...
I was unsure how I, or this country, would deal with the situation IF we had the same history as Europe. That having to deal with the situations they have might change my views and opinions of the matter.
I am perfectly willing to accept your analogy that having to listen to someone spout that drivel is akin to pissing on their graves... but in reality it isn't pissing on their graves.
And again, I never said the Dutch or Europe was wrong for this or their actions... just that it seemed odd and like overkill to me! And that it made me appreciate my First Amendment that much more! I NEVER once said that Europe should do things the way we do... now did I? |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 | 01:30 AM
"Maegan said, "Pissing in public is an offense in itself. So...he could be doing it in the middle of the street and he'd still get arrested. Use another example."
Having sex in public is an offense too. Doing it in a magazine is protected under the first amendment." - Dave B.
I fail to see the connection here, man. You are equating pissing in public being to pictures in a porno magazine? Are you on glue?
What does the fact that pissing (or urtinating, if anyone reading has sensetive eyes  ) in public is illegal have to do with something that is not in public view (ie: the magazines)?
And, for the record, pictures of people taking a piss in public are legal, too. This does not make the pissing in public itself legal. |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 | 04:47 AM
I don't take shots at anyone. And I'm not on glue.
That something is illegal in one context does not mean it cannot be protected by the first amendment in another.
There are usually enough by-laws and statutes in place in any given scenario to arrest someone for burning a flag. But when this particular activity is proscribed by law that law is attacked as unconstitutional. My rhetorical 'grave-wetting' is (perhaps reductio ad absurdum) intended to be something so extreme to give even a pro- |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 | 07:52 AM
Dave, the point we're trying to get across is that you are saying something can be legal in once sense, but illegal in another. Your pissing issues do not explain your reasoning.
How about this? Freedom of speech: I can print the word "FIRE" in the newspaper. I can say it if I want to. Fire fire fire. If I go into a crowded movie theater & yell it, I can be arrested. In the first instances I'm simply sayin a word, in some sort of context or not, it's free speech. If I say it in a movie theater, I'm causing hysteria.
Yes, I get what you are saying. I can be sued for "slander", and I was really just expressing my right to call my boss a faggity douche bag. |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 | 11:26 AM
No, I'm trying to convey just how offensive some people will find holocaust denial. It certainly seems to have worked as not one person seems to think that this is on a par with flag-burning; it harms no-one, the laws it violates are trivial compared to the rights it exercises, it expresses a political opinion, and it presents no 'clear and present danger' (to use OWH's words) to the state or others.
In every sense I can see, it *should* be protected by the first amendment. So why has no-one come forward to defend the individual's right to gravewet? Hmm? |
|
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 > |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
