FREE WILL Does Not Exist: Illusion of the Mind by Psychological Ration

[Mr.Nobody]

Western democracy exists on the assumption that human have free will and the ability of independent thinking, but really?
check this vid out:

[micrex22]

Western democracy exists on the assumption that human have free will and the ability of independent thinking, but really?
check this vid out

You do realize most of the main user base on Deskthority is European, right? Or that it's rude to lump all political systems in North America as "western democracy"?

I was about to create a large write up as to why the video doesn't support your political statement, and why the video itself is silly, but it'll be lost text.

If someone doesn't want to change their mind, or sell a specific mindset.. it doesn't matter how much you argue against them or provide indisputable evidence. Simply because of the fact they've already reached the catastrophic point of crusading and selling an ideology. On the opposite spectrum, the truth doesn't have to be sold... why you do think there are people who have to 'sell' you a flat earth? The people who KNOW the earth is a sphere don't have a reason to crusade.

I'm not saying opinions are bad, but I'm a bit confused why you're trying to sell China's political system--on a primarily European keyboard forum of all places :0)

[Mr.Nobody]

I am confused as well, I don't even mention Chinese politics, why you think I am trying to sell Chinese politics.Let me put it this way: If I post a vid from youtube made obviously by Americans and the video tells that the way many people maintain their cars is not scientifically proper, and by chance the OP( in this case ME) is from China,will you think that I am trying to sell Chinese cars to you? What's the logic behind it?

[7bit]

Maybe because you are Chinese.


What is better:
Free Will of all people vs. Free Will of some people.


Also: We are more successful, because the more free a country is (freedom of speech etc.) the less corruption and crime have a chance.

Just compare Romania today with Romania before 1990, or imagine what would happen if 500,000 people would demonstrate against the government in Beijing instead of Bucharest.

[Mr.Nobody]

Only for the sake of discussion and nice conversation...
@micrex22
If people over here don't believe earth is spherical, it doesn't mean we believe it's flat necessarily, maybe we have found a more precise answer, it's oval...you got the metaphor...

@7bit
No offence, but you really think you are more successful over there even today? The statement could be true if we were still in 1917, but the world is in 2017 now...

If you compare China today with China 1990, you will know why no one demonstrates on the street...

I know, Western Democracy has its merits and it's almost the traditon of western world since back in the days of ancient Greece...but, look at the mess in western world today, obviously it doesn't work as we expected...is it possible that another political system is as good and feasible as western democracy or even better could exist in this world and derived from eastern geographically and cultrually speaking? Is it possible?

You have to change the mindset that everything from western must be superior and anything good comes into existence must comes from western world.

EDIT:
All I want to say is: As we know more and more about how the mind of human being works (as the content of the vid tells us), we should accept necessary change of the political machine accordingly to make human society run more properly and healthily. If you think you've already held the best thing in hand...nothing better could come...I call it close-minded optimism.

[scottc]

If you compare China today with China 1990, you will know why no one demonstrates on the street...

Because they could be executed?

[Kurplop]

I have been fascinated by the determinism/free will argument for several years. The results from behavioral science and rational thought can present a compelling case to question free will, while at the same time our phenomenological observations and the presence of, what seems like, autonomous decision making on our part, rejects such a notion. My own opinion is best characterized as a strain of compatibilism, but a lot of unanswered questions remain.

As for the video: I think it, like many arguments, offer a lot of support for the determinist position without balancing it with an adequate representation of the opposing viewpoints. I think this is a fair technique in a debate where an opponent is able to respond but fails as a purely informational piece. I will respond to two of the four major "facts" made.

In his first "fact" (point 4) he refers to FMRI studies made, suggesting that responses are made in the motor cortex before decisions are made. Rather than make a feeble attempt to do the topic justice, I would recommend this 2010 report by W. R. Klemm. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942748/ In it he offers 12 points which call into question the conclusions drawn from the tests.

In his third "fact" (point 2), while showing how our emotions (which he says are simply chemical processes) steer our decisions, he casually dismisses the possibility of a soul or essence as an alternate possibility. I believe that this conclusion, made by the majority of experts in the field of brain science, comes from a careless handling of Occam's razor which is driven by an "anchoring and confirmation bias" (to use his words) towards a reductive view of consciousness. I recently read a book by, noted philosopher of brain studies, Thomas Nagel. Nagel, who in spite of his atheist worldview, made waves in the philosophical community by making the point in his book Mind and Cosmos that brain science needs to look beyond psycophysical reductivism because it has reached a dead end.

I'm not sure what political or sociological point some are suggesting that the OP is trying to make but hard determinism does lead to policy which cannot cast blame on anyone since the individual has no real control over their actions.

The question of free will vs. determinism is nothing new. It has been around for millennia and in spite of data and theory growing daily, it still proves to be as mysterious and confusing as consciousness itself.

[7bit]

No scottc, contrary to Europe or America, or Japan, Korea (the south part) etc. people have no reason to protest in China, because everything is all good!


About free will and independant thinking:
It is an educational problem. Without good education, democracy is useless if you let people vote for Hitler or Erdoğan.


Sure we do not independantly thinking, but still there is no reason to get rid of democracy.

Democracy in itself only means that certain people have so an so many votes to participate in a decision. In a way almost no country on this planet is not a democracy.


But what most of us mean if we say "DEMOCRACY" we really mean that there is freedom of speech and no censorship etc, so people have more than one source of information and get a good chance to know what the democratic decision will be about. In repressive systems, this is not possible.

Can you publish this in China, showing Chinese politicans?

[seebart]

If someone offered you these Beamsprings for free HOW much free will would you feel in taking them vs. feeling guilty + like an asshole?

IMG_20140921_111724_p-2.jpg (509.99 KiB) Viewed 10693 times

dV387bb.jpg (923.91 KiB) Viewed 10693 times

[Daniel Beardsmore]

It is an educational problem. Without good education, democracy is useless if you let people vote for Hitler or Erdoğan.

That's what's so depressing about Brexit — passing the decision onto people not qualified or rational enough to take such a decision (and with a short deadline to disentangle all the lies presented to them as evidence).

[7bit]

The options should have been:
1: remain
2: negotiate harder
3: brexit

But the options where:
1: remain
2: brexit + get rid of Cemeron - money for Brussel + money for national health system

@seebart: I take both. Please order some free keys to cover shipping costs.
@Mr.Nobody: 500 EUR for each keyboard. Shipping to China is 59.59 EUR

[Menuhin]

Maybe because you are Chinese.


What is better:
Free Will of all people vs. Free Will of some people.


Also: We are more successful, because the more free a country is (freedom of speech etc.) the less corruption and crime have a chance.

Just compare Romania today with Romania before 1990, or imagine what would happen if 500,000 people would demonstrate against the government in Beijing instead of Bucharest.

Hmm...
China is definitely not so free in terms of any *public* speech action that challenge the ruling party. However, just because of the more straightforward way of doing things and pretty vague law in this area, it is unfair to say developed countries do not have similar enforcement that actually restrict freedom of speech in a similar way but by law - laws that are vague in a more sophisticated way, and enforced in a sneaky manner.

In the US, it's about the business to run fed reserve to control the whole system, and money cycles that involve not only investment banks but also many top-secret accounts (many suggests cocaine and heroine trades are also involved). And the unstoppable wars and terrorism plots popping up here and there support the monopoly of power. In case of key information leak, CIA and black sites are used, no trial needed.

In Germany, this 87-years old lady UH was put to jail without sentence in Germany, because she just wanted to know more and know more clearly the official story that enslaved Germany to his host for many decades, the host, the actual real ruler that Germany will sell nuclear-capable submarines to without any discussion from the public, and that receive binding money flows as aids from Europe and from the US in millions and billions every year. If you want to know the legal foundation of that law in Germany (and in EU except Switzerland, and also in Canada - covered by these power) you can try to look up the explanation by Sylvia Stolz, a lawyer, who just because she defended in court for her client and asked for evidence in normal procedures like in all those cases (e.g. murder cases). When some events are defined in Law to have happened (by definition in Law), and protected by a criminal law that no one can question it, then people can claim victims for thousands of years, and blame some other as evil for thousands of years, assisted by movies and novels, but not backed by any court trial records with the detailed documentations like in a formal murder case, e.g. time, location, methods, verification, remains.

Spoiler:

http://ursula-haverbeck.info/

P.s It was interesting to visit those sites, but you don't want to visit those sites when you have a chemistry degree and a critical mind or are with a friend with one.
P.p.s. Sorry, some topics like this pulled my trigger...

[7bit]

I did not say our democracies are the best, but going backward and have certain masters manage us is even worse.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "German's real ruler"?

If you are talking about the Jewish world conspiration, I think you better move on to another forum!

[seebart]

@seebart: I take both.

Neither are available in reality! They belong to Halvar and Kuato respectively.

Please order some free keys to cover shipping costs.

Once again I will oder ZERO keycaps since ROUND SEEBART rules ...

Spoiler:

IMG_20160626_145648.jpg (920.42 KiB) Viewed 10661 times

[kbdfr]

[…] In Germany, this 87-years old lady UH was put to jail without sentence in Germany, because she just wanted to know more and know more clearly the official story […]

Ursula Haverbeck, a disgusting antisemite, has not been "put to jail without sentence", but sentenced multiple times.

Want a sample of her hate speeches?
In 2009 she wrote an open letter to the then president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany Charlotte Knobloch (who was born in Germany to German parents), urging her to not "interfere in German domestic affairs" but instead "return to her home country in Central Asia".

I don't know where you got the "put to jail without sentence" part.
I would strongly condemn anything of the kind, but I can't remember having ever heard of anybody "put to jail without sentence", which would be clearly illegal.
At least in Germany, that country allegedly under the yoke of that dark force you call the "actual real ruler" (you will probably mean the Jews) who has "enslaved" that poor, innocent country after a war which (I wonder you forgot to add that) has been forced on it.

[Menuhin]

...
If you are talking about the Jewish world conspiration
...

No world domination "conspiracy theory" here.

There are definitely in-group benevolent behaviors here, but these are not only observed among Jews families (which can cover almost all European countries, Russia, and Mediterranean), also among powerful Indian families, Chinese families, Korean families, etc.

Some historical events might have happened in a certain way.
However, no selected few families, nor selected ethnic group (by the way, 'Jew' is not at all an ethnic group scientifically speaking, debated in Nature and Science a few times), nor US mil, British Empire or Roman Empire or Monguls etc can rule the world indefinitely no matter in an open way or out of public view way, history has shown us.

By the way, the term conspiracy / conspiracy theory is not a useful term for meaningful discussion, because the term implies a false nature to the idea to be examined and therefore when presented using this term, people tends to look for counter-evidence.

[…] In Germany, this 87-years old lady UH was put to jail without sentence in Germany, because she just wanted to know more and know more clearly the official story […]

Ursula Haverbeck, a disgusting antisemite, has not been "put to jail without sentence", but sentenced multiple times.

Want a sample of her hate speeches?
In 2009 she wrote an open letter to the then president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany Charlotte Knobloch (who was born in Germany to German parents), urging her to not "interfere in German domestic affairs" but instead "return to her home country in Central Asia".

I don't know where you got the "put to jail without sentence" part.
I would strongly condemn anything of the kind, but I can't remember having ever heard of anybody "put to jail without sentence", which would be clearly illegal.
At least in Germany, that country allegedly under the yoke of that dark force you call the "actual real ruler" (you will probably mean the Jews) who has "enslaved" that poor, innocent country after a war which (I wonder you forgot to add that) has been forced on it.

I agree with you.

I am incorrect about the "put to jail without sentence" part.

And I don't like any "Hate speech" - even in lands full of protectionism mind set, e.g. "Welcome Tourists! " / "What??! You do business here? To earn our money??! >:( "

Two points to make:

Perhaps for the trial / sentence, I want to say, "without any trial that actually look like there is a way to defend in a reasonable manner".
UH asked from government departments for evidence, and that lawyer asked for evidence to counter her defense for her accused client. I believe UH, like the lawyer was trialed in a similar way: the legal argument basically was, if you ask for evidence, then that is equivalent to denial, because the alleged historical cruelty myths/happenings throughout the years in a sneaking way gained a kind of 'factual truth' legal status. These 'factual truth' status is not only those for one's birthday was on a certain day, but "When you goes out and walk in the rain, your clothes will get wet" kind of status.

I am not sure if this Charlotte Knobloch is powerful or what, or did she or some other related people was involved to put this 87-years old UH into jail again and again. These are all minor because hatred may arise among other relationships too, such as one can deliberately find ways to put her divorced husband into jail again and again.
However, why so much monetary (EU powerhouse) and exclusive military (most advance tanks and submarines in the world) support to a country that continues to destroy and occupy homes of innocent people around it and engulfing the area with the surrounding countries mostly just being beaten up?
I am sure these are more than just "German domestic affairs", but perhaps involve some domestic elements.

P.s. For a war that was forced on, for the forced on part, I think you might be talking about this, before the long-awaited French and Brits then finally marched in.

P.p.s. Please remember George Orwell's book Animal Farm (not that propagandist version on TV for anti-Russian communism).
What I wanted to say is that in the more developed system, there are ways to restrict 'Free speech'.
For example simply by brainwashing and telling their animals certain certain way of acting or speech are politically incorrect, and sometimes so incorrect that some very restrictive laws even against all ways of human reasoning should also be created "for the society".

[caligo]

That all took an interesting turn…

An observation though: If Western democracy is based on free will, so is any other political system. It does not matter what way a group is governed, it still essentially comes down to descision making. If the non-existence of free will renders impossible the idea of many people making descisions for the group, the same goes for a supreme ruler or some kind of elite (be it the Party or an aristocracy).

Also, all systems of law are based on some notion resembling Kant's practical postulate, that we must assume people have a free will if we are to hold them accountable for their actions. That holds in China as well as ancient Rome, the US of today, or even a place like North Korea.

The issue of free will is probably one of the most interesting problems in contemporary philosophy, especially since we really don't know all that much about how our brain works yet. But I fail to see how its existence is a prerequisite for democary in particular.

[7bit]

What you write does not make any sense for me. But it seems you believe that there was no holocaust and you believe that Germany was not the country that started WW II. The link you posted is from some Nazi assholes who like to spread false propaganda by leaving away facts. Just look at what kbdfr wrote.

[Menuhin]

Ah....

For anybody who were born in Germany (actually EU except Switzerland + Canada + Commonweath) since the occupation, since the reformulation of education, they have no choice but to believe the official story of history.

But for tourists, or for fresh off the boat people from another continents and culture, if a German friend wants to introduce to them what they were taught about themselves in their education system, they still have their choice to examine and look at things bit by bit, piece by piece with a critical mind, especially if they come from background that involves some investigation, e.g. law, science, archeology (factors such as time, location, methods, verification, remains).
Such piece of history is perhaps mentioned in only 1 or 2 sentences in history books in some other non-related countries, totally not an important piece for them to learn in high school if they do not major in history - yeah, perhaps Hollywood movies mean more for them to "teach them the fact". It is not going to shake their world if their conclusion, after their critical read, differs from those world concept taught and ingrained since high school in the mind of children in Germany.
They will just be extremely surprised and perplexed if citizens in an area are not even allowed to ask, to clarify, to look into the details of the official claims.

For anyone who does not allow people to ask, there is just one reason: they have something to hide.

[codemonkeymike]

If humans don't have free will explain Beamsprings. Check and mate

[Menuhin]

About the "Fact 4" illusion of freewill video:

The Fact 4 YouTuber is such a prude, he was embarrassed to talk about male attractiveness, but it's fine... such an old-school American style homophobic attitude.

Free will is probably a hard topic to study because the difficulty in reaching well agreed definitions in concepts and terminologies involved. This should be one of the most cited recent articles based on a non-popular science book on the topic, I believe every popular science books touched upon the topic got their ideas from this one:
Wegner, D. M. (2004). Précis of the illusion of conscious will. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(05), 649-659.

Spoiler:

Here's a more current related development:
Craig, A. D. (2009). How do you feel—now? the anterior insula and human awareness. Nature reviews neuroscience, 10(1).

The take home message of these is that unconscious decision precedes our conscious awareness window. But sometimes we operate "in a flow" and all the decisions of actions are made subconsciously. What counts as our "will" then? What qualifies to let us say that is "free"?


Studies about consciousness is fascinating, on the other hand, I am more scared by genetic related studies, studies that dig into identical twin registries and look for those raised separately, and their implications, i.e. life choices are highly driven by nature (DNA) and not so much by nurture. The implication is that a criminal is born a criminal, a murderer is born a murderer, a successful person is born into such, etc. And that what people doing in their life right are very likely "destined".

[codemonkeymike]

Ibm goes in ibm goes out. Beamsprings, cant explain them

[7bit]

...

Not sure were you are from, but I want to guess:
Japan did not occupy China and did not do any Pearl Harbor attack. They teached you this all wrong!


Your argumentation is quite typical. Just vague bla bla and nothing concrete. I again suggest you move on to those conspiracy forums.

Back on topic:
1000s of people who protested against the gonvernments have been arrested both in Russia and Belarus.

Compare this with anti gonverment protest in France, Greece or Romania. The democracies we have are not perfect, this is why people protest, but at least we can protest, can write about corruption and can post cartoons about that, without being arrested!


These are all people following their own will! No conspiracy here, just people who want to have corrupt politicans out of their office.

[caligo]

[…]
They will just be extremely surprised and perplexed if citizens in an area are not even allowed to ask, to clarify, to look into the details of the official claims.

For anyone who does not allow people to ask, there is just one reason: they have something to hide.

I suppose this refers to the laws in e.g. Germany and the UK that forbid denying the Holocaust? If so, it should be noted that this is part of legislation aimed at hate crimes – that is, acts that target a specific group of citizens, with the aim of denying them their civil rights. Because historically, this is what flat out denial of the Holocaust has been used for.

The pros and cons of where a particular line for free speech is drawn can certainly be discussed, but that hardly merits murky conspiracy theories about how 'they' (who exactly?) have something to hide. Also, there is really no denying Western democracy is at present the system where debate on such things is the least curtailed by state interference – people discuss the pros and cons of said laws, openly and without fear of prosecution. That hardly counts as 'not allowing people to ask'.

As far as I know, all states have laws against e.g. defamation and threathening people. Freedom of speech is one right, the right to not be threatened is another. Sometimes they come in conflict. Any society, contemporary as well as historical, comes with a social contract that weighs positive and negative rights against each other. This is hardly anything new.

[caligo]

As for the question of free will, claiming it is an illusion kind of misses the point. We certainly experience free will, and the existence of this subjective experience can hardly be denied. In much the same way as with qualia, e.g. the experience of color and such, what can be debated is whether said experience has any causal role in our actions. Modern neuroscience seems to indicate that this is not always the case, but there's really not enough evidence to say definitively that it never happens.

Also, the definition of free will is difficult at best. It usually refers to a sense of agency, which is something entirely internal and subjective. We often mean that we could have acted otherwise, but also like to think our actions are based on our history and the information available to us at the time – making our actions the result of external factors, things that we ourselves cannot control. I guess one could argue that our free will is an inherently internal process which is the result of nature as well as nurture, a process that is affected by external factors but that is still fundamentally our own.

[Menuhin]

I am all with you about advocating the freedom of anti-government protest.

What I meant was, these protest could never overthrow the real rulers in the more advanced form of ruling, the mil industry, the wall-street banking Fed Reserve system, the oil industry, the NATO-EU ruling. I just hope everyone real George Orwell books again to see the society more clearly with his perspective.

It is okay to think one's own society is well off enough, like in MrNobody's case and in 7-bit's case, because this will make one happier. I just don't like killings, and I just don't like injustice, that's all, but this world always have killings, mostly for the oligarchs, and this world is never fair and is full of lies, the more obvious versions by North Korea or China governments we can make jokes about those here, or the more advanced versions I mentioned above that still are making the modern generations of Europeans possessed.

About Japan, there was also historians revisiting the reasons for their start of war, for sure their army was on different lands, but what they actually did and how severe was that was again susceptible to US war propagandists manipulation. I will add the links of how historians and archaeologists establish historical facts later, their definitions of primary and secondary evidence. Primary evidence artifact has been the gold standard (methods, verification, remains must be there), but then not until for this piece of modern history e.g. In Steven Spielberg documentary movie, oral Narrative eye-witness evidence was never so accepted as enough even when these primary evidence has been lacking.

Spoiler:

https://library.ithaca.edu/sp/subjects/primary
Have you noticed many diary 50+ years published later were all typewritten on typewriters instead of by hand?

[kbdfr]

Ah....

For anybody who were born in Germany (actually EU except Switzerland + Canada + Commonweath) since the occupation, since the reformulation of education, they have no choice but to believe the official story of history.

But for tourists, or for fresh off the boat people from another continents and culture, if a German friend wants to introduce to them what they were taught about themselves in their education system, they still have their choice to examine and look at things bit by bit, piece by piece with a critical mind, especially if they come from background that involves some investigation, e.g. law, science, archeology (factors such as time, location, methods, verification, remains).
Such piece of history is perhaps mentioned in only 1 or 2 sentences in history books in some other non-related countries, totally not an important piece for them to learn in high school if they do not major in history - yeah, perhaps Hollywood movies mean more for them to "teach them the fact". It is not going to shake their world if their conclusion, after their critical read, differs from those world concept taught and ingrained since high school in the mind of children in Germany.
They will just be extremely surprised and perplexed if citizens in an area are not even allowed to ask, to clarify, to look into the details of the official claims.

For anyone who does not allow people to ask, there is just one reason: they have something to hide.

The usual revisionist blurb.

No forensic evidence of mass murdering, as you asserted on another occasion?
Well, the guys who freed the concentration camps were quite busy with other things than securing "forensic evidence" in your modern sense. If at all, they filmed, took photos and wrote down and reported what they had seen. Sadly enough, they failed to take aseptic samples from everything they found and to fetch half-carbonized corpses from crematory ovens in order to secure they had died from inhalating ZyklonB.
But of course you would contest even that. For you everyone who testified what had happened was a liar just eager to take revenge. For you even the perpetrators or helpers of such crimes who afterwards recognized what happened are liars.

Although having been all my (long!) life quite against forbidding even that part of free speech which has the only aim of lying in order to negate the crimes committed by the Nazis, I must now say it was a good idea to not let those incorrigible hate-mongers try to do exactly what Stahlhelm and Hitler did after WWI: playing the poor innocent unable of any evil, the proud and noble modern knights themselves victims of the eternal Jewish conspiracy.

A few years ago a distant in law-relative of mine, while we were discussing politics, suddenly asserted that Helmut Kohl was born as Helmut Kohn and in fact was a Jew. He had read that on the Internet - and really believed it.
That is not forbidden, by the way.

Denying the Holocaust is because, inter alia, it is an insult to the memory of the millions of victims.

[Menuhin]

[…]
They will just be extremely surprised and perplexed if citizens in an area are not even allowed to ask, to clarify, to look into the details of the official claims.

For anyone who does not allow people to ask, there is just one reason: they have something to hide.

I suppose this refers to the laws in e.g. Germany and the UK that forbid denying the Holocaust? If so, it should be noted that this is part of legislation aimed at hate crimes – that is, acts that target a specific group of citizens, with the aim of denying them their civil rights. Because historically, this is what flat out denial of the Holocaust has been used for.

The pros and cons of where a particular line for free speech is drawn can certainly be discussed, but that hardly merits murky conspiracy theories about how 'they' (who exactly?) have something to hide. Also, there is really no denying Western democracy is at present the system where debate on such things is the least curtailed by state interference – people discuss the pros and cons of said laws, openly and without fear of prosecution. That hardly counts as 'not allowing people to ask'.

As far as I know, all states have laws against e.g. defamation and threathening people. Freedom of speech is one right, the right to not be threatened is another. Sometimes they come in conflict. Any society, contemporary as well as historical, comes with a social contract that weighs positive and negative rights against each other. This is hardly anything new.

I am all in in the support of freedom and free speech, and I am against the so call hate crime.

What I wanted to point out and ask everyone who has a clear mind is that:
Is asking for evidence denial?
Is asking for more details in order to have a clearer picture denial?
I am sure there are many historical incidents that have well established evidence and they fear no question to show everyone the details.

Think of a curious child who wants to ask to the detailed bits. Will such a child by definition commit crime if official letters are sent by him asking for the official supporting details?

For the hate speech or hate crime, please look up some work by the lawyer Sylvia Stolz, and look at her with an impartial mind without any prejudice. she was extremely careful about her wordings, and she has been all technical about the case she was to defend, yet she was accused and sentenced to jail. All she has in mind, similar to me, was about historical justice, but of course she is much braver.

[Menuhin]

I can see another totally brainwashed way of reasoning to argue against the much needed questioning and clarification

... millions ...

The exact number appeared again and again already on the newspapers in the 1930s, and similar accusations but about different incidents.

This has been part of the settlement plan.

Justice is in my mind.
I will add some details for what you talked about above, hoping to help you see things more clearly.

Spoiler:

On a US TV show:

Newspapers with the same numbers:

And people were talking about the construction of an oven / fridge with an unfitting operating temperature, the doors are not air-tight and even open towards inside, and with lots of reconstruction for tourists.

[caligo]

I am all in in the support of freedom and free speech, and I am against the so call hate crime.

What I wanted to point out and ask everyone who has a clear mind is that:
Is asking for evidence denial?
Is asking for more details in order to have a clearer picture denial?
I am sure there are many historical incidents that have well established evidence and they fear no question to show everyone the details.

Think of a curious child who wants to ask to the detailed bits. Will such a child by definition commit crime if official letters are sent by him asking for the official supporting details?

For the hate speech or hate crime, please look up some work by the lawyer Sylvia Stolz, and look at her with an impartial mind without any prejudice. she was extremely careful about her wordings, and she has been all technical about the case she was to defend, yet she was accused and sentenced to jail. All she has in mind, similar to me, was about historical justice, but of course she is much braver.

What a brave soul indeed…

The 44-year-old also signed a motion during Zündel's trial with "Heil Hitler" and shouted that the lay judges deserved the death penalty for "offering succour to the enemy" -- leading the court to dismiss her.

Honestly, I think we're about done here. The initial discussion on free will and democracy was kind of interesting, but this kind of pseudo-fascist bullshit does not really interest me. There is no law against asking questions about the Holocaust. There is a law against hate speech, i.e. libel and threats directed at an entire group and motivated by a hatred for said group. And that's about it really – there's really not much to discuss here.