Subject:
|
Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:28:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1103 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
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?”
|
Correct. The question specifically stated “act”. Samuel is framing my answer
with what he thought, not what he wrote.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
|
I choose not to. You can split hairs all you like, but a symbol represents
something. In this case, it represents the murder of millions. When I see a
swastika, as most of the world does, I think of Bad Nazis in the 1940’s killing
Jews.
| |
| |
The problem is that unless you allow most speech behavior WHERE NO ONE IS
ACTUALLY HURT you start playing a dangerous game.
|
|
Not relevant in this case, since people were already hurt. Not isolated
incidents, either - state organized & sanctioned, with several facilities built
to that end.
| |
I’m not sure Nick is advocating the legal restriction of speech in any
respect.
|
People are free to say what they want. I believe people are responsible for
policing themselves in this regard, but also recognize that people in general
are drooling idiots and can’t/won’t accept responsibility for the freedoms they
have. I also believe people should have to pass some sort of test before
procreating.
| |
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 (Samuel’s) point at all.
|
Agreed. Samuel will allow himself the flexibility to compare your EB mocs to the
Flying Swastika thing, and “a few extreme Muslim clerics” with whatever, but in
his mind I am confusing the symbol of the Nazi party with the Nazi party itself.
Whatever.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
| (...) 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. (...) I'm not sure Nick is advocating the legal restriction of speech in any respect. (...) (19 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
