Subject:
|
Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:47:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1253 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Samuel Morrison wrote:
| |
| |
| |
Sure, Nazism is a horrible, evil thing, but should we restrict someone’s
right to act like a jerk if they want to?
|
If in the course of being a jerk, you earmark a minority group of humans for
death, we should restrict it. Should we have allowed slavery to continue?
Slaveowners were just being jerks, right?
|
You’re confusing speech with action. Wearing a swastika= speech. Murdering
millions = action. Advocating slavery = speech, enslaving people = action.
HUGE difference.
|
Actually, no he isn’t. You are. You said “should we restrict someone’s right
to ACT like a jerk if they want to?”
“Act” generally means action, not speech.
| |
| |
| |
You’re equating the use of a swastika to killing
millions, and it’s an entirely different issue. A symbol is not murder.
|
You keep comparing communism to nazism, and you compared naziism to Muslim
culture earlier in this post. But I’m guilty of confusing a swastika with
nazism? Wow, I should lie down to clear my head.
|
Again, a symbol is speech, not an action. And I’m using a few extreme clerics
as examples here, not all muslims. But do you see my point? The problem is
that unless you allow most speech behavior WHERE NO ONE IS ACTUALLY HURT you
start playing a dangerous game.
|
I’m not sure Nick is advocating the legal restriction of speech in any respect.
How does your example of extremist clerics support your point about allowing
speech behavior? And what exactly is ‘speech behavior?’ An action that garners
freedom of speech?
I’m seriously not following your point at all.
-Lenny
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
| (...) Pretty simple - if it doesn't hurt anyone to make a statement, it should be protected. But if we start restricting things because it upsets someone, we're starting down a slippery slope. Offensive speech is the only type that really needs (...) (19 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
| (...) Correct. The question specifically stated "act". Samuel is framing my answer with what he thought, not what he wrote. (...) I choose not to. You can split hairs all you like, but a symbol represents something. In this case, it represents the (...) (19 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
| (...) You're confusing speech with action. Wearing a swastika= speech. Murdering millions = action. Advocating slavery = speech, enslaving people = action. HUGE difference. (...) Again, a symbol is speech, not an action. And I'm using a few extreme (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
