Meanwhile in London: Beheading in broad daylight

[Nepenthe]

 

 

 

Okay so you do accept that the Swastika represents bigotry and  that its offensive to many people?

 

 

 

For example: your avatar. It offends me. Did you stop for a second to think about that? No.

If I tried to force you to remove it would you like it? No.

 

 

Trashman I'll gladly change my avatar if you admit that the Swastika is offensive and a sign of bigotry. I don't see my avatar picture in anyway the same as the Swastika but I really don't mind?

 

Actually, the way the colors divide is kind of swastika-ish.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Okay so you do accept that the Swastika represents bigotry and  that its offensive to many people?

 

 

 

For example: your avatar. It offends me. Did you stop for a second to think about that? No.

If I tried to force you to remove it would you like it? No.

 

 

Trashman I'll gladly change my avatar if you admit that the Swastika is offensive and a sign of bigotry. I don't see my avatar picture in anyway the same as the Swastika but I really don't mind?

 

Actually, the way the colors divide is kind of swastika-ish.

 

 

Oh you !!! 

[TrashMan]

 

I'm equating them in the sense that they are banned for the same reason. I'm sure that the people who originally banned swastikas in Germany could think up legitimate situations to use them themselves. Sensitivity to foreign relations probably weighed much heavier though.

 

What I'm really trying to say here is that rules are in practice pragmatic. You can't demand that laws should be idealistic. It's pointless to argue that a law is unfair in a particular case, you will have to argue that the total effect of the law is harmful to society.

 

To compare, I don't like that I can't write about **** Tracy having a ****tail on this forum, but I still think that the censorship might have a positive effect on the tone of discussion.

 

 

 

What I am saying that it might have been better ot not bann it, so at least than all those neo-natzi's would be very visible and easier to keep an eye on.

Positive net effect? I don't see it really.

 

 

Same goes for word censorship.

Especially on 18+ forums. I see no need for censorship at all. I'm all for freedom of speech - and freedom of speech includes the possiblity of me being offended. I recognize that, but I can deal with it.

In other words...you have the right to be offended. You don't have the right to outright forbid people from offending you.

 

[TrashMan]

 

Trashman I'll gladly change my avatar if you admit that the Swastika is offensive and a sign of bigotry. I don't see my avatar picture in anyway the same as the Swastika but I really don't mind?

 

Offensive to some? Yes.

Sign of bigotry? No.

 

You'd change your picture? How unexpectedly .... spinless.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Trashman I'll gladly change my avatar if you admit that the Swastika is offensive and a sign of bigotry. I don't see my avatar picture in anyway the same as the Swastika but I really don't mind?

 

Offensive to some? Yes.

Sign of bigotry? No.

 

You'd change your picture? How unexpectedly .... spinless.

 

 

" spineless", you funny

 

My avatar is just a picture, its not as important to me as you acknowledging the Swastika is completely inappropriate.

[Nepenthe]

You can't have a ****roach in the ****tail you were enjoying in the ****pit, either.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

Trashman I'll gladly change my avatar if you admit that the Swastika is offensive and a sign of bigotry. I don't see my avatar picture in anyway the same as the Swastika but I really don't mind?

 

Offensive to some? Yes.

Sign of bigotry? No.

 

You'd change your picture? How unexpectedly .... spinless.

 

 

Wow, so Bruce offers to change something that you found offensive, and you call him spineless?  Way to endear yourself to the community.

[Malcador]

Who knew people here were so tender.

[Walsingham]

Actually I believe he called him spinless.

 

Some sort of rotary prejudice at work?

 

EDIT:

 

Almost forgot. The friends of the fellows in the OP just blew up a Red Cross office. Lot of evil crusaders killing women and children there no doubt.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22711612

Edited May 31, 2013 by Walsingham

[TrashMan]

 

" spineless", you funny

 

My avatar is just a picture, its not as important to me as you acknowledging the Swastika is completely inappropriate.

 

 

Do you like it?

If yes, then you don't owe me any justification or explanation.

 

If you stand for what is written on the avatar, then backing down is basicly "spinelesness".

 

 

And I'm not acknowledging anything.

 

 

 

 

Wow, so Bruce offers to change something that you found offensive, and you call him spineless?  Way to endear yourself to the community.

 

 

 

Hypothetical. Also I said it's kinda spinelessl-y.

 

 

And I'm not trying to get you to like me.

Edited May 31, 2013 by TrashMan

[Gfted1]

[Malcador]

Well, the cross is a religious symbol. So a symbol of the Crusaders and therefore a justified target.

[Hassat Hunter]

And you sometimes learn ****.

 

If you truly dig deep, then even a cursory glance will tell you just how redicolously overblown the whole "evil of dark ages is". Tons and tons and tons of lies, half-truths and myths.

I'm not quite sure where you sat on school, that they taught that. But in the Netherlands, eductation is a lot better.

And yes, I still stand by my point that Christianity caused it. 

Lol, religious war of extermination? Seriously? The kind of war that didn't happen even when Christianity and Islam were the defining ideas behind their respective societies?

There were no crusades? To teach the infidels the meaning of Christ or perish? Ancient legendary cities weren't completely demolished/razed during this.

That didn't happen, right?

 

Wrong. It did.

And the muslims has a hard time with the Mongols at the same time as the European Christian crusaders fought at them. They got pretty close to wiping them out.

That's just on the edge of extermination to me...

[Amentep]

Well, the cross is a religious symbol. So a symbol of the Crusaders and therefore a justified target.

 

I thought the organization used the Red Crescent symbol in Muslim majority countries instead of the cross (officially being The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies).

[pmp10]

Ancient legendary cities weren't completely demolished/razed during this.

That didn't happen, right?

 

Wrong. It did.

I'm afraid that it is you who are wrong here.

Despite all the atrocities that happen during crusades and afterwards complete city razing was not one of them.

[Amentep]

 

Ancient legendary cities weren't completely demolished/razed during this.

That didn't happen, right?

 

Wrong. It did.

I'm afraid that it is you who are wrong here.

Despite all the atrocities that happen during crusades and afterwards complete city razing was not one of them.

 

 

Well Saladin destroyed the towers of Ascalon IIRC.  That's about all I got.

[Malcador]

 

Well, the cross is a religious symbol. So a symbol of the Crusaders and therefore a justified target.

 

I thought the organization used the Red Crescent symbol in Muslim majority countries instead of the cross (officially being The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies).

 

In this case, you're probably right - but doubt it'd matter to these guys. Taliban's denying involvement, too. Must be some random jihadi.

[Walsingham]

Well, the cross is a religious symbol. So a symbol of the Crusaders and therefore a justified target.

 

I think my point was that if they're thinking that way then they are most assuredly in no need of soft-minded fools making excuses for them.

[BruceVC]

 

 

" spineless", you funny

 

My avatar is just a picture, its not as important to me as you acknowledging the Swastika is completely inappropriate.

 

 

Do you like it?

If yes, then you don't owe me any justification or explanation.

 

If you stand for what is written on the avatar, then backing down is basicly "spinelesness".

 

 

And I'm not acknowledging anything.

 

 

 

 

Wow, so Bruce offers to change something that you found offensive, and you call him spineless?  Way to endear yourself to the community.

 

 

 

Hypothetical. Also I said it's kinda spinelessl-y.

 

 

And I'm not trying to get you to like me.

 

 

Wow, you are HARDCORE!!! You don't care if people like you, but next time say it in a way so that people might actually believe you ?

 

I still think you should acknowledge the Swastika is a sign of bigotry. Personally I think a great weight will be lifted off your shoulders and I am sure you will sleep well tonight

[Drowsy Emperor]

How old are you Bruce?

[alanschu]

 

 

You don't get to disallow and villify a symbol jsut because you don't like it. Hitler was a bad man. Yes.

 

The swastika is just a symbol and as such has no morality. The only baggage it has is hte one you bring with you.

 

By the same account, you don't get to tell people what associations they make when they see symbols.  Feel free to plaster up a whole bunch of Swastikas on your home exterior, however.  State to all that walk by that you're "taking it back" from the Nazis.

 

You can "**** the modern world" all you want, but symbols are very important to humanity (we're using them right now).

 

I'm not in the buisses of telling people they aren't allowed to do or think X.

 

Unfortunately, that is all people really do in reality. Force their oppinions on eachother if they can.

 

 

I don't get to tell them what associations they make, but I don't want their association (singular) to be forced on me.

 

 

But you are in the business of telling people what they are allowed to do or think.  You do so by telling those people that they "don't get to disallow and vilify a symbol just because [they] don't like it."

 

Saying that you don't want the association "forced on you" is irrelevant.  Decorating your house with Swastikas is more than likely going to illicit a reaction.  People may even tell you what that reaction is, just as you're sharing your reaction to people doing things that you disagree with.

 

Symbols exist within a context.  As Zoraptor points out, it's less of an issue in Asia than it is in Europe and North America.  You can choose to ignore that context if you like, but you're effectively telling other people that they can't share their displeasure towards your thoughts and intents, all the while you share your own displeasure at their thoughts.

 

 

 

 

What I am saying that it might have been better ot not bann it, so at least than all those neo-natzi's would be very visible and easier to keep an eye on.

 

What this is, is a logical hypothesis.  It might very well have not been beneficial to not ban it.

Edited May 31, 2013 by alanschu

[BruceVC]

How old are you Bruce?

 

I'm 38 Drowsy

[Amentep]

I still think you should acknowledge the Swastika is a sign of bigotry.

 

 

Shouldn't that be qualified as something like "the Swastika is a sign of bigotry amid nations who fought WWII, were formed out of WWII, are highly populated by ethnic or religious groups targeted for extermination by the Nazi party and/or don't have strong Buddhist or Hindi traditions"?

 

Cause I seriously doubt that a devout Hindu living in rural India thinks of the Swastika as a sign of bigotry (could be wrong though).

[BruceVC]

 

I still think you should acknowledge the Swastika is a sign of bigotry.

 

 

Shouldn't that be qualified as something like "the Swastika is a sign of bigotry amid nations who fought WWII, were formed out of WWII, are highly populated by ethnic or religious groups targeted for extermination by the Nazi party and/or don't have strong Buddhist or Hindi traditions"?

 

Cause I seriously doubt that a devout Hindu living in rural India thinks of the Swastika as a sign of bigotry (could be wrong though).

 

 

Okay

 

"the Swastika is a sign of bigotry amid nations who fought WWII, were formed out of WWII, are highly populated by ethnic or religious groups targeted for extermination by the Nazi party and/or don't have strong Buddhist or Hindi traditions"?

 

Better? 

[Amentep]

 

 

I still think you should acknowledge the Swastika is a sign of bigotry.

 

 

Shouldn't that be qualified as something like "the Swastika is a sign of bigotry amid nations who fought WWII, were formed out of WWII, are highly populated by ethnic or religious groups targeted for extermination by the Nazi party and/or don't have strong Buddhist or Hindi traditions"?

 

Cause I seriously doubt that a devout Hindu living in rural India thinks of the Swastika as a sign of bigotry (could be wrong though).

 

 

Okay

 

"the Swastika is a sign of bigotry amid nations who fought WWII, were formed out of WWII, are highly populated by ethnic or religious groups targeted for extermination by the Nazi party and/or don't have strong Buddhist or Hindi traditions"?

 

Better? 

 

 

Yes.