actually it does kind of infringe on other peoples' happiness etc (especially if they're black or Jewish 'n so on )... so in that sense it's not really a freedom of speech thing...lowing wrote:
however, it is an expression of free speech and does not infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness.
Um, no. Very relevant. Public school would mean public property which would mean in order for the authorities to get involved she would have had to have broken a law regardless of what the dress code states. A schools dress code does not superceed a written state staute therefore it would mean the school would remove her and the family would in turn file suit with the state on the grounds of discrimination and violation of her right to the first amendment. Thus meaning the police had absolutely no right to remove her.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Irrelevant. Both had the right to enforce a dress code and force the student to remove it, but in neither case should the child have been removed.
If that were true then it would be illegal to be in the KKK. It is not illegal to be in the KKK because they have the right to exist, it is just really fucking stupid to be in the KKK and that is not illegal.oug wrote:
actually it does kind of infringe on other peoples' happiness etc (especially if they're black or Jewish 'n so on )... so in that sense it's not really a freedom of speech thing...lowing wrote:
however, it is an expression of free speech and does not infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness.
btw the symbol is early Greek and was later smudged by the nazis, I just had to say it sorry :S
Wrong lowing...to you the cartoons represent taking a stand against the threats to free speech but to every dedicated Muslim who loves and respects their faith the cartoons represent the most offensive, hateful thing possible...far more offensive than any logo that may have been corrupted by the Nazis.lowing wrote:
regardless of the history of the swastika and its previous meanings, it is now, like it or not, agree with it or not, a synbol of hate. Same with the American Confederate Flag, and we are pulling that symbol down all over the South because people are offended by it. Hell even the word "Dixie" has been removed from the title of an anual airshow in Georgia. It was called "Wings Over Dixie", they had to change it to "Wings Over Georgia" or some shit. I never agreed with this form of PC.
For some reason, and I gotta do some soul searching as to why, I do not feel the same about this scenerio with the swastika thing. As far as the cartoon issue goes, I admit I have no pause as to how I feel about this form of PC and appeasement. People should be able to draw whatever they want with out threat of bodily harm.
Perhaps the answer lies in the accepted universal symbology as to what the swastika represents..Hate, pure and simple. We all agree
The cartoons of Muhammad do not represent hate, they represent taking a stand against the threats to free speech.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-09 07:47:31)
Normally under this scenerio I might agree.........but I refuse to recognize the outrage and disgust of people over a cartoon by people who show none for beheadings, stonings, human bombers, the use of women and children a sshields etc........Any Muslim outrage over a cartoon with the absence of outrage over blood spilling would be laughably absurd if it were not so disgustingly tragic.Braddock wrote:
Wrong lowing...to you the cartoons represent taking a stand against the threats to free speech but to every dedicated Muslim who loves and respects their faith the cartoons represent the most offensive, hateful thing possible...far more offensive than any logo that may have been corrupted by the Nazis.lowing wrote:
regardless of the history of the swastika and its previous meanings, it is now, like it or not, agree with it or not, a synbol of hate. Same with the American Confederate Flag, and we are pulling that symbol down all over the South because people are offended by it. Hell even the word "Dixie" has been removed from the title of an anual airshow in Georgia. It was called "Wings Over Dixie", they had to change it to "Wings Over Georgia" or some shit. I never agreed with this form of PC.
For some reason, and I gotta do some soul searching as to why, I do not feel the same about this scenerio with the swastika thing. As far as the cartoon issue goes, I admit I have no pause as to how I feel about this form of PC and appeasement. People should be able to draw whatever they want with out threat of bodily harm.
Perhaps the answer lies in the accepted universal symbology as to what the swastika represents..Hate, pure and simple. We all agree
The cartoons of Muhammad do not represent hate, they represent taking a stand against the threats to free speech.
You can't be a hypocrite on this issue if you truly believe in free speech. That swastika wasn't physically hurting anyone, same as those cartoons weren't physically hurting anyone...why should one society get special treatment as regards the offending of their sensibilities over another society.
You're right, everyone is free to hate so long as they don't actually do anything about it.deeznutz1245 wrote:
If that were true then it would be illegal to be in the KKK. It is not illegal to be in the KKK because they have the right to exist, it is just really fucking stupid to be in the KKK and that is not illegal.
Both the cartoons and the swastika are wrong. They both represent hate spech, which isn't the same than freedom of speech. You need to put limits to your freedom of speech. Human nature makes people to offend other people just out of fun. I personally think that Religions are BS, but I can't offend Muslims, like in the case of the cartoons, just because I think it's bollocks. Those are the limits.lowing wrote:
Normally under this scenerio I might agree.........but I refuse to recognize the outrage and disgust of people over a cartoon by people who show none for beheadings, stonings, human bombers, the use of women and children a sshields etc........Any Muslim outrage over a cartoon with the absence of outrage over blood spilling would be laughably absurd if it were not so disgustingly tragic.Braddock wrote:
Wrong lowing...to you the cartoons represent taking a stand against the threats to free speech but to every dedicated Muslim who loves and respects their faith the cartoons represent the most offensive, hateful thing possible...far more offensive than any logo that may have been corrupted by the Nazis.lowing wrote:
regardless of the history of the swastika and its previous meanings, it is now, like it or not, agree with it or not, a synbol of hate. Same with the American Confederate Flag, and we are pulling that symbol down all over the South because people are offended by it. Hell even the word "Dixie" has been removed from the title of an anual airshow in Georgia. It was called "Wings Over Dixie", they had to change it to "Wings Over Georgia" or some shit. I never agreed with this form of PC.
For some reason, and I gotta do some soul searching as to why, I do not feel the same about this scenerio with the swastika thing. As far as the cartoon issue goes, I admit I have no pause as to how I feel about this form of PC and appeasement. People should be able to draw whatever they want with out threat of bodily harm.
Perhaps the answer lies in the accepted universal symbology as to what the swastika represents..Hate, pure and simple. We all agree
The cartoons of Muhammad do not represent hate, they represent taking a stand against the threats to free speech.
You can't be a hypocrite on this issue if you truly believe in free speech. That swastika wasn't physically hurting anyone, same as those cartoons weren't physically hurting anyone...why should one society get special treatment as regards the offending of their sensibilities over another society.
I also take note, and chuckle to your assertion that cartoons are........."the most offensive, hateful thing possible", given what I just discribed above. I hope you see how rediculous that sounds, to people who have some sort of priorty for their "outrage"..
The swastika is actually a Hindu symbol of peace. It adorns every mandir. So your 'accepted universal symbology' comment would go down like a lead balloon in India.lowing wrote:
Perhaps the answer lies in the accepted universal symbology as to what the swastika represents..Hate, pure and simple. We all agree
The cartoons of Muhammad do not represent hate, they represent taking a stand against the threats to free speech.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-09 08:02:46)
Since idiocy is a very common thing of Human nature, you need to curb freedom of speech in some cases, like the cartoons or the swastika. Both represent hate and we all know what happens when there's hate, you get a lot of dead people.CameronPoe wrote:
The swastika is actually a Hindu symbol of peace. It adorns every mandir.lowing wrote:
Perhaps the answer lies in the accepted universal symbology as to what the swastika represents..Hate, pure and simple. We all agree
The cartoons of Muhammad do not represent hate, they represent taking a stand against the threats to free speech.
The cartoons of Mohammed as a suicide bomber do not represent hate, but they are deeply childish and offensive, as offensive as a swastika is to a jew. I would not curb freedom of speech, irrespective of how offensive something is, because I believe in personal liberties. The stance you take lowing is 'one rule for one offensive image, another rule for another'. Not very consistent and obviously coloured by your self-professed bigotry towards Muslims.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you there serge. I am a firm advocate of freedom of speech. Symbols don't hurt people: actions do.sergeriver wrote:
Since idiocy is a very common thing of Human nature, you need to curb freedom of speech in some cases, like the cartoons or the swastika. Both represent hate and we all know what happens when there's hate, you get a lot of dead people.CameronPoe wrote:
The swastika is actually a Hindu symbol of peace. It adorns every mandir.lowing wrote:
Perhaps the answer lies in the accepted universal symbology as to what the swastika represents..Hate, pure and simple. We all agree
The cartoons of Muhammad do not represent hate, they represent taking a stand against the threats to free speech.
The cartoons of Mohammed as a suicide bomber do not represent hate, but they are deeply childish and offensive, as offensive as a swastika is to a jew. I would not curb freedom of speech, irrespective of how offensive something is, because I believe in personal liberties. The stance you take lowing is 'one rule for one offensive image, another rule for another'. Not very consistent and obviously coloured by your self-professed bigotry towards Muslims.
A seven years old girl using a swastika in a school means a lot of kids not knowing shit about the swastika and what it represents, and maybe using it because they think it's cool. Then, you need to rely in the common sense of teachers and parents, to explain to those kids what the Holocaust was. Nah, I prefer to curb freedom of speech rather than having another Holocaust.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm afraid I don't agree with you there serge. I am a firm advocate of freedom of speech. Symbols don't hurt people: actions do.sergeriver wrote:
Since idiocy is a very common thing of Human nature, you need to curb freedom of speech in some cases, like the cartoons or the swastika. Both represent hate and we all know what happens when there's hate, you get a lot of dead people.CameronPoe wrote:
The swastika is actually a Hindu symbol of peace. It adorns every mandir.
The cartoons of Mohammed as a suicide bomber do not represent hate, but they are deeply childish and offensive, as offensive as a swastika is to a jew. I would not curb freedom of speech, irrespective of how offensive something is, because I believe in personal liberties. The stance you take lowing is 'one rule for one offensive image, another rule for another'. Not very consistent and obviously coloured by your self-professed bigotry towards Muslims.
Lowing we've discussed generalities at length in other threads! Your tone suggests you seem to think every Muslim condones suicide bombing and using women and children as shields. this is NOT a universal position among the Muslim world, however...depicting religious figures in disrepectful ways is - it's explicitly forbidden. As regards stonings and beheadings? Well the US has the death penalty too...pretty silly arguing that one side kills people more humanely than the other in my opinion and in any case not everyone in the US supports the death penalty, the same applies to Muslim nations.lowing wrote:
Normally under this scenerio I might agree.........but I refuse to recognize the outrage and disgust of people over a cartoon by people who show none for beheadings, stonings, human bombers, the use of women and children a sshields etc........Any Muslim outrage over a cartoon with the absence of outrage over blood spilling would be laughably absurd if it were not so disgustingly tragic.
Stop thinking in Lowing-mode and try to imagine an outside perspective. Imagine cartoons of your mum fucking a goat being plastered all over the papers, now imagine your religion (for some strange reason!) outlawed disrespectful depictions of your mother...now you're getting close to the level of feeling invoked by these cartoon among the Muslim world.lowing wrote:
I also take note, and chuckle to your assertion that cartoons are........."the most offensive, hateful thing possible", given what I just discribed above. I hope you see how rediculous that sounds, to people who have some sort of priorty for their "outrage"..
Are you saying we should bury history? Are you saying that being exposed to some idiot making a fool of themselves is going to cause another holocaust?sergeriver wrote:
A seven years old girl using a swastika in a school means a lot of kids not knowing shit about the swastika and what it represents, and maybe using it because they think it's cool. Then, you need to rely in the common sense of teachers and parents, to explain to those kids what the Holocaust was. Nah, I prefer to curb freedom of speech rather than having another Holocaust.
I'm saying 7 years old kids exposed to this kind of symbols is a very dangerous thing. Who said anything of burying history? I just don't want history to repeat. A seven years old kid won't understand ethnic cleansing. They must watch pokemon or whatever shit kids watch, not learn about Hitler, not at that age.CameronPoe wrote:
Are you saying we should bury history? Are you saying that being exposed to some idiot making a fool of themselves is going to cause another holocaust?sergeriver wrote:
A seven years old girl using a swastika in a school means a lot of kids not knowing shit about the swastika and what it represents, and maybe using it because they think it's cool. Then, you need to rely in the common sense of teachers and parents, to explain to those kids what the Holocaust was. Nah, I prefer to curb freedom of speech rather than having another Holocaust.
Ahhh, lowing's inability to empathise rearing its head again. Refreshing. Now I know you've put that little generalisation disclaimer in your sig but I'm afraid it has to be rendered null and void in this argument because your statement simply isn't true. You simply can't make that statement and be expected to have your arguments taken seriously. It's just blatant anti-Muslim bias, nothing more, nothing less.lowing wrote:
but I refuse to recognize the outrage and disgust of people over a cartoon by people who show none for beheadings, stonings, human bombers, the use of women and children a sshields
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-09 08:26:28)
Germany and Austria have holocaust classes that start at quite an early age. I'm sure there are plenty of swastikas in the literature on the curriculum...sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying 7 years old kids exposed to this kind of symbols is a very dangerous thing. Who said anything of burying history? I just don't want history to repeat. A seven years old kid won't understand ethnic cleansing. They must watch pokemon or whatever shit kids watch, not learn about Hitler, not at that age.
Germany and Austria have laws punishing Holocaust denial. Where does your freedom of speech go with that kind of law?CameronPoe wrote:
Germany and Austria have holocaust classes that start at quite an early age. I'm sure there are plenty of swastikas in the literature on the curriculum...sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying 7 years old kids exposed to this kind of symbols is a very dangerous thing. Who said anything of burying history? I just don't want history to repeat. A seven years old kid won't understand ethnic cleansing. They must watch pokemon or whatever shit kids watch, not learn about Hitler, not at that age.
You have to allow for freedom of speech in relation to history otherwise you could end up with many aspects of history being buried. Imagine America decided discussing arguments against the Iraq war were offensive because of how atrocious Saddam treated his people and how insulting these arguments might be to the descendants of these Iraqi victims...all of a sudden you have a sanitised version of history. True, you can apply the same principle and say the holocaust could be erased by holocaust deniers but at least if there is open debate on the subject people can see for themselves the facts and weigh up the actual truth as far as it is possible to to know the truth.sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying 7 years old kids exposed to this kind of symbols is a very dangerous thing. Who said anything of burying history? I just don't want history to repeat. A seven years old kid won't understand ethnic cleansing. They must watch pokemon or whatever shit kids watch, not learn about Hitler, not at that age.CameronPoe wrote:
Are you saying we should bury history? Are you saying that being exposed to some idiot making a fool of themselves is going to cause another holocaust?sergeriver wrote:
A seven years old girl using a swastika in a school means a lot of kids not knowing shit about the swastika and what it represents, and maybe using it because they think it's cool. Then, you need to rely in the common sense of teachers and parents, to explain to those kids what the Holocaust was. Nah, I prefer to curb freedom of speech rather than having another Holocaust.
I don't agree with their laws.sergeriver wrote:
Germany and Austria have laws punishing Holocaust denial. Where does your freedom of speech go with that kind of law?
Of course, I'm just saying 7 years old kids shouldn't be exposed to this yet. They aren't capable to undertand what the Holocaust was. Open debate is not for 7 years old kids.Braddock wrote:
You have to allow for freedom of speech in relation to history otherwise you could end up with many aspects of history being buried. Imagine America decided discussing arguments against the Iraq war were offensive because of how atrocious Saddam treated his people and how insulting these arguments might be to the descendants of these Iraqi victims...all of a sudden you have a sanitised version of history. True, you can apply the same principle and say the holocaust could be erased by holocaust deniers but at least if there is open debate on the subject people can see for themselves the facts and weigh up the actual truth as far as it is possible to to know the truth.sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying 7 years old kids exposed to this kind of symbols is a very dangerous thing. Who said anything of burying history? I just don't want history to repeat. A seven years old kid won't understand ethnic cleansing. They must watch pokemon or whatever shit kids watch, not learn about Hitler, not at that age.CameronPoe wrote:
Are you saying we should bury history? Are you saying that being exposed to some idiot making a fool of themselves is going to cause another holocaust?
Those are the countries you quoted having these classes about the Holcoaust, which by the way I'm pretty sure aren't for 7 years old kids.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't agree with their laws.sergeriver wrote:
Germany and Austria have laws punishing Holocaust denial. Where does your freedom of speech go with that kind of law?