 | | Freedom of Protest, was Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Nick's point is that there is a difference between "restrict someone's right to act like a jerk" AND "restrict someone's right to act like a jerk anywhere they please. The Supreme Court has held up "free speach zones" - especially on college (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) I have to disagree - horrible though it was, there was more to Nazism than just hate... Adn does it really matter WHY millions were killed? I like your EB MOCs, Lenny, and I think that this one may have crossed the line in polite society, but (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) And what is "inappropriate"? Who decides? You? Some would argue it is inappropriate that women are permitted out in public unveiled. Sure, Nazism is a horrible, evil thing, but should we restrict someone's right to act like a jerk if they want (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) The general theory of Nazism is based on hate, whereas the general theory of communism is based on peace. It was one madman (Stalin) who transformed the USSR into a machine that killed 30 million Russians. And again, don't forget that ALL (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Snide comments can have premises? I thought they were just mean. Rosco, are your snide comments generally based on true premises? (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) I don't believe that speech was included at the time of the BoR for society-at-large censorship, but rather protection from vengeful governing bodies like royalty or Congress. As I stated earlier, there were no neo-nazis in the late 18th (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Uh, isn't that pretty much what I wrote? Dave! (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) "requires protection" All speech is protected, but only some speech needs to be protected. -Lenny (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Once again, you have crystallized my thoughts exactly, Paul..er Dave! [1] (...) Exactly. "polite", "civil", "responsible", "respectful". They are all qualities of a good citizen; a good person for that matter. (...) Yes, tactics are certainly (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Yes (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) On the contrary--the only speech that requires protection is that which society-at-large finds suitable for censorship. (...) Unless you're equating "offensive" artistic expression with slander, this point is irrelevant. Likewise, arguments (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Just because one should be free to speak their mind, doesn't mean that should be able to at the expense of other's pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, which is the basic premise of the Constitution. We "bother with it" because (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) I'd like to clarify this, if I may. John, from our long history of debate, I sense that you'd agree that people have the right to air their views publicly, no matter how ignorant or hateful those views are, but according to the nature of our (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Do you mean if everyone is perfect, why bother with laws? I guess you wouldn't need them. Then again, everyone isn't perfect, so I have no idea what your point is. (...) And I'm saying that responsible, considerate people who hate Jews (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Whoa - if everyone is always responsible, civil, and unoffensive, why even bother with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is there specifically to protect behavior people might find offensive, like neo-Nazi marches through Jewish (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) The issue to me is two fold: 1. This MOC is potentially deeply offensive, and 2. It isn't funny. When I saw it the first thing I thought up was Kevoh's comic - but the difference between Kevoh and Richie is that Kevoh is funny. It is obvious (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Nathan has a good point. The issue isn't depicting a terrible scene or time in LEGO, its making light of a terrible scene or time in LEGO. Although, maybe I shouldn't (URL). :) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) This MOC tries to be funny on a subject that is certainly less than funny. And no, I don't find other Brickshelf finds such as suicide bombers and (URL) this> funny at all. I find those grossly inappropiate. Depictions of genocides in the (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Hey all, (Note the FUT-off-topic-debate). I'm a bit nervous about jumping into this because there are already strong opinions expressed on both sides by people I respect, but here goes. I have to admit confusion: A MOC based on a fictional (...) (19 years ago, 8-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Try telling that to the (URL). Marc Nelson Jr. (URL) Marc's Creations>> (19 years ago, 8-Aug-05, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) In this case: yup. -- Nathan Wells (19 years ago, 8-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: ...just one more form of anti-Semitism
|
|
Much of this article is filled with fallacy and nonsense arguments. The guy is upset but isn't doing a very good job of convincing me that his side is actually right. (...) How exactly does taking a stronger role in this issue de-legitimize the (...) (19 years ago, 1-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: ...just one more form of anti-Semitism
|
|
(...) Posted on October 7, 2004 10:01 PM EST Email this Commentary By BRUCE S. TICKER Location: Philadelphia Those Presbyterians and Episcopalians might as well have kicked and beaten their mutual victim to a pulp while they were at it. No, not (...) (19 years ago, 1-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: ...just one more form of anti-Semitism
|
|
Strange. It works for me.... but only sometimes. Same story, but a different angle: (URL) A (...) (19 years ago, 1-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: ...just one more form of anti-Semitism
|
|
(...) "Article Not Found" (19 years ago, 1-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | ...just one more form of anti-Semitism
|
|
(URL) Anti-Semitic Christians see the light> Ho-hum Scott A (19 years ago, 1-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | One Nation Under... What was it again?
|
|
(URL) God Bless America!> (19 years ago, 28-Jul-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's a scary one
|
|
(...) Teachers are usually assumed to have the benefit of in loco parentis, which grants them some immunity from this kind of thing (though I don't know of a good test-case that defines the boundaries). Barnaby's attorney said it exactly right: "If (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jul-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's a scary one
|
|
(...) Ok, now here's one that's even scarier: (URL) really scary though is the debate over on Sean K. Reynold's boards where one guy is saying that the guy deserved the punnishment because he broke the particular law. No reasoning that perhaps when (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jul-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Souter Farm target of hotel proposal?
|
|
(URL) case this link goes stale, apparently someone has made a proposal that Justice David Souter's(1) farm in NH be condemned under eminent domain and used to site a hotel. It's pretty clear the proposal is a protest but I found it interesting (...) (19 years ago, 29-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) Since I've already ceded that point, I think we can move on. Also, I don't know what I was smoking that led me to fail to distinguish between fetal and embryonic, which really is central in this context. My apologies. (...) We need to define (...) (19 years ago, 27-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) All politicians are most interested in the unthinking flock. Both sides have a flock like this that will beleive and regurgitate what ever they are told, expecially when it is what they want to hear. Niether party is any better than the other (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) As you have noted elsewhere, this consensus most certainly doesn't exist and scientific progress can most likely procede without the use of fetal stem cells. (...) This is actually a good point. I know that numerous eggs are used purely for (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Supremes sing another sour note
|
|
(...) The "liberal" side is always sour:-D JOHN (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Supremes sing another sour note
|
|
(...) Well isn't it the "liberals" who are supposed to be "down" on "big bad corps"?? from the article: "The court's decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who argued the decision favors rich corporations." Hence the (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Supremes sing another sour note
|
|
(...) What's so strange about that? :-) You are correct; brutal decision! JOHN (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The Supremes sing another sour note
|
|
The state can favour one (presumably well connected) private individual over another, to the point of using eminent domain to take what rightfully belongs to one person and give it to another: (URL) enough, this time it was the "liberal" side that (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) Or maybe (URL) not.> Well, how about that! And right in my own backyard. Heck, I don't have any let's-kill-as-many-e...s-possible agenda; I just want the science to proceed. This is very encouraging, though of course we'll need to see more (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) Well, yeah, until they've wrecked'em. JOHN FUT.pun (19 years ago, 23-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
