Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: raildogg
:thumbsdown:
Thanks for the cookie, hope you got the point.
:thumbsdown: Well no.
:thumbsdown: Well no.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: raildogg
:thumbsdown:
Thanks for the cookie, hope you got the point.
:thumbsdown: Well no.
It comes down to be careful what you ask for because you might get it. Suppose the President (any President) you support gets sweeping powers. You may applaud it because he's using them for the best as you see it. Now time passes, and one you really really dislike comes to power. Guess what? He has the same authority. Now he uses it to overturn something you like because he can, and something else, and another...
Well, if you start banning symbols, then consider what would happen if one of the anti christian type gets in power, and has a party which backs them. Well, all religious symbols offend someone. Therefore public display of religious symbols end. Oh it doesn't violate the Constitution because it covers PUBLIC displays, or so they say. Wait you can't do that!!!
Of course they can, you set the precident.
Again be careful what you hope for. Many have wanted Bush to get the line item veto. Suppose a quite socialist liberal gets that power? He becomes King. Well the old one was King just as much, but he did things that some liked. Once the genie is out of the bottle, then there is no putting it back in.
Yeah, we need to be really careful when dealing with these kind of things. One wrong move and we all get shafted.
That it is, and while I can't say I think it's a good idea for them to have done it, I understand their reasons. They(and others) needed to be sure that the Nazi's never came into power again, to cause the damage they did again. However, a E.U wide ban is a mistake. How big a mistake would depend on how far they take it.
I totally agree with raildog that the swastika directly represents National Socialism in the modern mind-set, but banning it is wrong. For example, in France it is illegal to deny the Holocaust due to anti-racism laws and punishable by imprisonment in federal prison to deny the Holocaust in any form. In one incident a Holocaust denyer recently commented that gas-chambers were a detail of WWII; I think that is an incredibly insensitive thing to say, but to imprison someone for a wrong point-of view smacks of Nazism as well. I think that people like Richard Evans who deny the Holocaust are sick twisted individuals but to imprison or censor someone for speech (dead-wrong or not) is becoming all too common around the world.
I think that it is similar with symbols. Americans burning the American flag is EXTREMELY offensive to me, but as Americans they have that right. Secondly, by banning the symbol you force wackos who espouse it to represent their ideas through less obvious means. Let idiots prove they're idiots and you can save yourself half the trouble. That doesn't mean condoning people spray-painting swastikas etc. but if someone wants to wear that symbol, they have that right, at least in the US. I think that education, not omission from the history books, is the best defense against wackjobs.
I think that it is similar with symbols. Americans burning the American flag is EXTREMELY offensive to me, but as Americans they have that right. Secondly, by banning the symbol you force wackos who espouse it to represent their ideas through less obvious means. Let idiots prove they're idiots and you can save yourself half the trouble. That doesn't mean condoning people spray-painting swastikas etc. but if someone wants to wear that symbol, they have that right, at least in the US. I think that education, not omission from the history books, is the best defense against wackjobs.
I actually would not care if they banned crosses and stars of david. Nothing to do with me.. I won't actively advocate banning religion, because free speech is a higher ideal than whatever teh fundamental truth of teh woald iz.
I realize some people say that inaction is worse, but I have conflicts of interest, and I'd rather just ignore it.
How is banning the cross or star of David help free speech in any way? Second, ignoring the Jews being deported and murdered was exactly what the Europeans did because they had conflicting interests. Please explain your strange logic.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
No, as much as i disagree with the nazis, they have the right to display their symbol in a free nation(s).
At first, most religous peoples' reactions would be "you're an idiot". I'm not calling you an idiot, just trying to explain how that kind of attitude comes across.
But you are actually very far ahead of your time sandorski. Seriously.
Your mindset will increase rapidly, as it has in the last 50 years, becoming ever more popular until its overwhelming.. there is no stopping it.
I dont agree with you, or your "brilliant analysis" to somehow correlate the cross to swastika in any way.. but, someday Christians will be hunted and you (and probably your children) will be cursing God's name in vain.. but at that point, you will have acknowledged his presence, as other events will have happened to where it will be undeniable, even to a liberal.
I'd fill you in, but the rest of the story is foretold in the Bible.
Just saying...
kind of a warning as to what will happen to you. But I'm a Bible bumping bumpkin, what do we know. Flame me/ignore me and move on with your life.. we'll see whose right.
Now to address the specific thread, the swastika is nothing to fear, it is no different from the cross in that it has been misused.. but like most of these symbols, the original purpose of representation was actually peace and love.
We have more to fear from man himself on a powertrip.
Banning the cross for instance as sandorski suggests, or an equivalent attrocity like Hitler.
Both are by and large, huge failures of the human mind.
Hmm, interesting. Giving the rapidly increasing influence Christians have in the US, I can certainly see how they will one day be hunted
Banning symbols is stupid, because as others have suggested, it does not erase the idea that created (or misused) them in the first place. If we banned the cross, would we stop seeing Christians?
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Don't be so quick to congratulate yourselves. Look north to Canada and freedom of speech is cherished every bit as much as in the US. In fact you'll find it, plus or minus a little bit, respected and adhered to in most developed nations. They ban the swastika, but you can't have tom sawyer in school because of the n-word (Oh, I must not utter it!).
confed flag's not banned
distasteful like german shiesse porn but not banned
/come to think of it, shiesse is allowed but swastika's not?
Yes racism is so bad. /sarcasm
I mean, to the pampered modern day fatboy.. it is.
But in ancient history, and across species of creatures across the globe, "racism" is just another world for survival.
I am in no way condoning racism in the modern sense. At all.
I am merely saying that without racism, which we ALL are to some degree (its human nature, you are racist, whether you admit it or not).. survival would have been much harder at times.
I know most people here are not college educated, nor self learners.. but if you look at genetics, if you had a certain breed that has been isolated for thousands of years, once you mix them you can get very adverse effects. Some good, some bad.
Take for instance the some species of ants, some ants cannot even survive without forced mating and enslaving of a working class species, they have become so dispositioned to relying on another species.
A good example would be breeds of dogs, if you know about dogs, sometimes the mixed breeds are superior.. but most of the time they display adverse effects such as physical depairments like bone defects.
Im not saying race and species are interchangable at all. Just trying to bring in some food for thought. It is quite clear the different races of the world have gone down different biological path (even though 99% of their DNA is similar).. but its not enough to constitute different species, at least in our case.
Homo erectus/homo sapiens would be species.
Though it is valid to point out that its suspected many other species of mankind have intermingled with certain races of man.. so to rule out that different races are NOT (indefinitely) different species to some degree would be absurd.
Because what I'm seeing here, is essentially what might as well be the banning of the world "racism".. when racism itself was not created soley for discrimination and to hurt ones feelings/enslave others.
Its one of nature's tools.
Unfortunately, mankind likes to make itself god, and ban this and that and pretend we have some kind of power here.. when its really really futile and ignorant to do so. Trust me, God and nature has a reason for racism. It belongs. Its in your mind right now. You are racist, and you cannot help it. Its natural.
I hate to put it this way: but banning "racism" and "racist symbols".. is ignorance in itself.
I mean, to the pampered modern day fatboy.. it is.
But in ancient history, and across species of creatures across the globe, "racism" is just another world for survival.
I am in no way condoning racism in the modern sense. At all.
I am merely saying that without racism, which we ALL are to some degree (its human nature, you are racist, whether you admit it or not).. survival would have been much harder at times.
I know most people here are not college educated, nor self learners.. but if you look at genetics, if you had a certain breed that has been isolated for thousands of years, once you mix them you can get very adverse effects. Some good, some bad.
Take for instance the some species of ants, some ants cannot even survive without forced mating and enslaving of a working class species, they have become so dispositioned to relying on another species.
A good example would be breeds of dogs, if you know about dogs, sometimes the mixed breeds are superior.. but most of the time they display adverse effects such as physical depairments like bone defects.
Im not saying race and species are interchangable at all. Just trying to bring in some food for thought. It is quite clear the different races of the world have gone down different biological path (even though 99% of their DNA is similar).. but its not enough to constitute different species, at least in our case.
Homo erectus/homo sapiens would be species.
Though it is valid to point out that its suspected many other species of mankind have intermingled with certain races of man.. so to rule out that different races are NOT (indefinitely) different species to some degree would be absurd.
Because what I'm seeing here, is essentially what might as well be the banning of the world "racism".. when racism itself was not created soley for discrimination and to hurt ones feelings/enslave others.
Its one of nature's tools.
Unfortunately, mankind likes to make itself god, and ban this and that and pretend we have some kind of power here.. when its really really futile and ignorant to do so. Trust me, God and nature has a reason for racism. It belongs. Its in your mind right now. You are racist, and you cannot help it. Its natural.
I hate to put it this way: but banning "racism" and "racist symbols".. is ignorance in itself.
Awesome! Thats all I can really ask for.
Since my views seldom comply to "convential wisdom" of modern day.. (I'd go as far as to say that most people around the world would think banning the swastika/cross is a good idea).. knowing someone isnt instantly blowing it off at least lets me, and the rest of the crowd, know your opinion will be thought out, and not rash.
Congrats. :beer:
Since my views seldom comply to "convential wisdom" of modern day.. (I'd go as far as to say that most people around the world would think banning the swastika/cross is a good idea).. knowing someone isnt instantly blowing it off at least lets me, and the rest of the crowd, know your opinion will be thought out, and not rash.
Congrats. :beer:
Funny how housecat describes the history of the idea of racism as stretching back into pre-history when the concept has only existed since the late nineteenth-century. Anyway the topic was on the banning of the swastika, not an exclusive invite for people who probably like to wear them to describe their thoughts on racism.
The concept is very much older than that. Have you not heard of the ancient aryans of India? Thats just one small, very recent example (in a historical sense).
How about the ancient culture of Japan, that based superiority to rule based on skintone? Its much more deep than the idea that the Western world created "RACISM" in the late 19th century.
And its REALLY REALLY SMALLMINDED TO BELIEVE WE ARE THAT IMPORTANT.
Sorry for yelling.
Sheesh guy. I'm not going to waste my time explaining this all to you, or others who agree with you.. but the "idea of racism" stretches FAR back before the late 19th century.
And my post is not my thoughts on racism, it was the background to my final conclusion-
Come on guy.. that was a bit ridiculous to not realize/miss.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter