Free Speech Yet Again
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Partly right. It is an inverted form of the ancient Indian symbol called the Swastik. Hitler adopted it because of its Aryan origin, but inverted it for some reason that I don't know. It is said that the inverted Swastik is a bad symbol.
Partly right. It wasn't the Indian Swastik they used, they used the germanic Victorysign. This was one of the germanic runes and hilter loved them because a liked all what was germanic. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
Wikipedia says that the Swastik was used in ancient Germany too, but doesn't say which version was used. Thanks, I didn't know that early Germans used it too. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
-
Spanish Inquisition. Crusades (I - IX). Albigensian Crusade. Sacking of Constantinople. New England Witch Burnings. Honour killings. The Baltic Crusades. Spanish Reconquista. To name a few...
thealj wrote:
Spanish Inquisition
About 1200 people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1239577,00.html[^])
thealj wrote:
New England Witch Burnings
9 million.
thealj wrote:
Crusades (I - IX).
About a dozen.
thealj wrote:
Albigensian Crusade
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Honour killings
I don't think that counts. They're called "honor killings" and are performed to protect the honor of the family, not to derive any religious benefit.
thealj wrote:
The Baltic Crusades
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Spanish Reconquista
I don't see how you're saying this was done in the name of religion either. It was Spain vs. the Moors. So the total is about 9 million. Virtually all of that was part of The Crusades which occurred nearly a millenium ago (and lets not forget that was against the Middle East, so let's put that in some context). So basically a good estimate is that 800-1000 years ago about 5%-10% of those killed in the name of atheism over the past century were killed in the name of religion. So I'm still not getting where the whole "many were killed in the name of religion" thing.
-
thealj wrote:
Spanish Inquisition
About 1200 people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1239577,00.html[^])
thealj wrote:
New England Witch Burnings
9 million.
thealj wrote:
Crusades (I - IX).
About a dozen.
thealj wrote:
Albigensian Crusade
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Honour killings
I don't think that counts. They're called "honor killings" and are performed to protect the honor of the family, not to derive any religious benefit.
thealj wrote:
The Baltic Crusades
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Spanish Reconquista
I don't see how you're saying this was done in the name of religion either. It was Spain vs. the Moors. So the total is about 9 million. Virtually all of that was part of The Crusades which occurred nearly a millenium ago (and lets not forget that was against the Middle East, so let's put that in some context). So basically a good estimate is that 800-1000 years ago about 5%-10% of those killed in the name of atheism over the past century were killed in the name of religion. So I'm still not getting where the whole "many were killed in the name of religion" thing.
espeir wrote:
thealj wrote: New England Witch Burnings 9 million.
:omg: Where do you get that figure from? Hell, there wouldn't have been any women left they had burned that many. In North America the actually number of women killed as wiches was quite small (numbering less than a hundred). Modern historians have shown that the victims of the witchhunt were not always female (in Iceland, for example, 80% of those accused were men), though they were in the majority and misogyny was an important part of the forces behind it. Generally accepted figures amongst historians today range from Levack at around 60,000 to Hutton at around 40,000[^] And I would bet those figures are a gross exageration. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
thealj wrote:
Spanish Inquisition
About 1200 people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1239577,00.html[^])
thealj wrote:
New England Witch Burnings
9 million.
thealj wrote:
Crusades (I - IX).
About a dozen.
thealj wrote:
Albigensian Crusade
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Honour killings
I don't think that counts. They're called "honor killings" and are performed to protect the honor of the family, not to derive any religious benefit.
thealj wrote:
The Baltic Crusades
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Spanish Reconquista
I don't see how you're saying this was done in the name of religion either. It was Spain vs. the Moors. So the total is about 9 million. Virtually all of that was part of The Crusades which occurred nearly a millenium ago (and lets not forget that was against the Middle East, so let's put that in some context). So basically a good estimate is that 800-1000 years ago about 5%-10% of those killed in the name of atheism over the past century were killed in the name of religion. So I'm still not getting where the whole "many were killed in the name of religion" thing.
Lol. A dozen people killed during the Crusades... yeah, ok. I also love how your estimates are based on historical accuracy as they really kept a death toll throughout all these conflicts and you have access to all these documents. Riiiiight. Your figure of 9 million is as worthless to me (and everyone else for that matter) as a rotten banana peel. For that matter, so is your "estimate" of 5% - 10% "of those killed in the name of atheism". Why do you even waste your time trying to convince me with total nonsense? A "good estimate" :laugh:
espeir wrote:
I don't see how you're saying this was done in the name of religion either. It was Spain vs. the Moors.
LOL. Yeah, the Reconquista had absolutely nothing to do with the Christians forcing the Moors (Muslims) from Spain. You're right. How silly of me. :rolleyes:
-
espeir wrote:
thealj wrote: New England Witch Burnings 9 million.
:omg: Where do you get that figure from? Hell, there wouldn't have been any women left they had burned that many. In North America the actually number of women killed as wiches was quite small (numbering less than a hundred). Modern historians have shown that the victims of the witchhunt were not always female (in Iceland, for example, 80% of those accused were men), though they were in the majority and misogyny was an important part of the forces behind it. Generally accepted figures amongst historians today range from Levack at around 60,000 to Hutton at around 40,000[^] And I would bet those figures are a gross exageration. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where do you get that figure from?
He pulled it from his ass like the rest of his ridiculous "statistics".
-
Ed, if was to shit on the American flag while I am in the US (where I spend my weekdays), and I get arrested, would you say it goes against the free speech? -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons? :confused: regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons?
I think one major difference between the two issues is that in this case it is Germans deciding what Germany will or will not allow within their borders, which as an independent nation is their right obligation. In the case of the cartoons, non-Europeans are attempting to censor Europeans by intimidation and violence. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons?
I think one major difference between the two issues is that in this case it is Germans deciding what Germany will or will not allow within their borders, which as an independent nation is their right obligation. In the case of the cartoons, non-Europeans are attempting to censor Europeans by intimidation and violence. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
As a German law arguement that is totally fine. But as a free speech principals arguement it isn't ok. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
espeir wrote:
thealj wrote: New England Witch Burnings 9 million.
:omg: Where do you get that figure from? Hell, there wouldn't have been any women left they had burned that many. In North America the actually number of women killed as wiches was quite small (numbering less than a hundred). Modern historians have shown that the victims of the witchhunt were not always female (in Iceland, for example, 80% of those accused were men), though they were in the majority and misogyny was an important part of the forces behind it. Generally accepted figures amongst historians today range from Levack at around 60,000 to Hutton at around 40,000[^] And I would bet those figures are a gross exageration. "You get that which you tolerate"
I got the new england witch burnings and the crusades backwards (that "quote selected text" button can be unpreditable). I meant 9 million in the Crusades (which I just googled up...I think from Wikipedia) and about a dozen in the witch trials in the US. I don't know how many may have been burned in Europe, but in New England the figure was very small. Besides, do witch burnings even count? Weren't they burned in the name of fear over witches and not religion?
-
Lol. A dozen people killed during the Crusades... yeah, ok. I also love how your estimates are based on historical accuracy as they really kept a death toll throughout all these conflicts and you have access to all these documents. Riiiiight. Your figure of 9 million is as worthless to me (and everyone else for that matter) as a rotten banana peel. For that matter, so is your "estimate" of 5% - 10% "of those killed in the name of atheism". Why do you even waste your time trying to convince me with total nonsense? A "good estimate" :laugh:
espeir wrote:
I don't see how you're saying this was done in the name of religion either. It was Spain vs. the Moors.
LOL. Yeah, the Reconquista had absolutely nothing to do with the Christians forcing the Moors (Muslims) from Spain. You're right. How silly of me. :rolleyes:
I obviously reversed the crusades and witch burning figures (because of the quote button). But yes, that figure is a good estimate. You have 50 million US abortions in the past 30 years. Another 50 million worldwide (lowballing for your benefit). 36 million WWII deaths. I think the figure was something like 30 million Chinese from their communist government. That right there is about 170 million in the past 100 years in the name of atheism. That makes the 9 million killed over the past 1000 years in the name of religion a paltry maximum of 5.3% of those killed in the name of atheism over the past 100. If people kill in the name of religion as widely as you claim, they sure aren't very good at it. Churches need to take lessons from atheists! Prove that The Reconquista was done in the name of religion. It's Spanish for The Reconquest. One does not "conquest" for religion but for land.
-
New England Witch Burnings Honour killings Those are the only two I would give you. You continue to want to blame religoin exclusively for events that also had significant secular components. I would agree that these events may have been technically done 'in the name of religion', but they were also done in the name of many other, purely secular, purposes. So you simply cannot lay the blame for all those deaths on religion. The history is far more complex than that. For example, Constantinople was at least as important for economic and military reasons as it was for religious ones. Religion may have been important to get the peons to actually kill each other, but to those pulling the strings religion was entirely a secondary concern. Relgion in and of iteself would have never created the necessary conditions to motivate such sustained and expensive operations. And, in any case, historically we see no less violence and carnage in times and places when religion played no role then when it did. And the continued use of religion as the great evil of history, and the state as the hapless victim of overwhelming and uncontrollable religious zealotry, clearly shows the continueing and pervasive influence of Marxist thought on modern human culture. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 8:58 Thursday 9th February, 2006
And you continue to want to blame secularism for events that also had significant religious components, as well as blame Marx for events that happened centuries before his birth. Sure, in the big picture, the motivation is almost always political -- territory and/or power -- but, at the level of the people actually doing the killing, the motivation has been religious more often than not.
-
As a German law arguement that is totally fine. But as a free speech principals arguement it isn't ok. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons? :confused: regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons?
There is a slight difference here Paul. Hitler was real, Mohammed, God, Jesus, The Holy Ghost, Buddha, the Multi-Armed Elephant headed God are all make believe, more so than Santa Clause, cause at least he puts presents under the tree every year. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
Ed, if was to shit on the American flag while I am in the US (where I spend my weekdays), and I get arrested, would you say it goes against the free speech? -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote:
would you say it goes against the free speech?
I would. IMO our government/police would be wrong to arrest you. However... ...at the same time, it wouldn't really bother me too much if they turned the other cheek while someone beat the shit out of you as well. Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons?
There is a slight difference here Paul. Hitler was real, Mohammed, God, Jesus, The Holy Ghost, Buddha, the Multi-Armed Elephant headed God are all make believe, more so than Santa Clause, cause at least he puts presents under the tree every year. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
I'm pretty sure that Mohammed, Jesus and Buddha were all historical figures. Come to think of it...So was Santa Claus.
-
Ed, if was to shit on the American flag while I am in the US (where I spend my weekdays), and I get arrested, would you say it goes against the free speech? -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Do you talk out of your a**?
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
would you say it goes against the free speech?
I would. IMO our government/police would be wrong to arrest you. However... ...at the same time, it wouldn't really bother me too much if they turned the other cheek while someone beat the shit out of you as well. Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
ihoecken wrote:
And when you say there shouldn't be ANY consequences then you are not allowed to make fun of anybody else. Because the consequence is that he feels offended. That is a consequence and shows that your concept of free speech is totally nonsense.
:confused: :wtf: I think you misread my statements. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
ihoecken wrote:
And when you say there shouldn't be ANY consequences then you are not allowed to make fun of anybody else. Because the consequence is that he feels offended. That is a consequence and shows that your concept of free speech is totally nonsense.
:confused: :wtf: I think you misread my statements. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
would you say it goes against the free speech?
I would. IMO our government/police would be wrong to arrest you. However... ...at the same time, it wouldn't really bother me too much if they turned the other cheek while someone beat the shit out of you as well. Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind.
This is the essence of Free Speech, being able to express yourself without being afraid of negative consequences. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson