Free Speech Yet Again
-
(1) We are sick of your Nazi jokes. They were funny until around March 17, 1957. They are stale, boring, childish and not funny. Bring on some healthy, dry english humour, and we get along. (2) certain insignia of the 3rd reich are prohibited in Germany. Everyone knows that, and if you come here, follow the rules. (3) Laws like that are the only measure a democratic country has against shitheads. Would you rather have a headline "30.000 Nazis march through Berlin! US Ambassador applauds german courts for ruling they are protected under free speech."? OK, those english folks with a Nazi fetish probably wouldget off on that, but IMHO they should stick to their sheep.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistI can understand how Nazi stuff would greatly offend Germans personally and perhaps nationally. However, in my mind, freedom of speech should be seen as close to absolute as possible. With it, you have to learn to put up with the ass-hats, and trust your fellow citizens to recognize them for what they are. A few years back, a Christmas parade in Atlanta (my hometown) was cancelled because the KKK wanted to enter a float in the parade. The theme of the float was to be "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas" (clever, eh?). There was absolutely no legal recourse available, so the parade organizers decided to cancel the parade. Personally, I think they should have had the parade. Let the KKK have its float. Let the TV cameras see a bunch of men dressed up in bedsheets wanking on about 'white power' and 'white perfection'. Let everybody see them for the clowns they are under those bedsheets. Let the TV cameras air the parade goers along the entire parade route turning their backs as the KKK float passed. Cancelling the parade let the KKK and its supporters play up their delusional martyr complex. Having an entire city literally turn it's back on you, publicly, would have been wholly devastating to the KKK internally...
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
Free Speech is not meant to provoke or insult other poeple/culture, it is to be able to express the truth without being oppressed for doing so.
Fair enough, but all I'm saying is that despite its intentions any statement can and will be construed as provocation. (ie. There will be consequences) Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
Unfortunately, you are right :sigh: -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Hey dimwit, that does not mean I find it OK to shit on the US flag. I was just trying to illustrate the german law is not so ridiculous, and that shitting on the US flag or do the goose walk in germany is not free speech, it is simply provocation. But your brain is probably too small for such subtlety. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote:
But your brain is probably too small for such subtlety.
How ironic. I was apparently too subtle in letting you know that the action you described is not speech...unless you talk out of your a**. In Europe, they specifically restrict "speech" in a manner that is very different than the USA. I guess if I lived on a continent with the cultural history that Europe has I wouldn't want anyone to talk about it either.
-
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.
But, historically, it is far easier to discover secular violence independent of religious purpose than it is to discover religious violence indpendent of secular purpose. In fact, aside from the occasional heretic or witch, or whatever, being burned at the stake, it is almost impossible to find any religious violence independent of the state. State violence is the one great constant throughout history, sometimes it has religious associations, but far more frequently it is committed to achieve completely secular goals. Clearly, this should give pause to those forces which wish to marginalize religious influcence in our society in exchange for state base, secular, influence. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
But your brain is probably too small for such subtlety.
How ironic. I was apparently too subtle in letting you know that the action you described is not speech...unless you talk out of your a**. In Europe, they specifically restrict "speech" in a manner that is very different than the USA. I guess if I lived on a continent with the cultural history that Europe has I wouldn't want anyone to talk about it either.
How ironic. I was illustrating the fact that goose walking or the nazi salute are not speech either.
espeir wrote:
In Europe, they specifically restrict "speech" in a manner that is very different than the USA
In what manner (this is not a challenge to you, just curious to know)? -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
How ironic. I was illustrating the fact that goose walking or the nazi salute are not speech either.
espeir wrote:
In Europe, they specifically restrict "speech" in a manner that is very different than the USA
In what manner (this is not a challenge to you, just curious to know)? -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote:
In what manner (this is not a challenge to you, just curious to know)?
Well. For example...teaching your dog to raise it's paw is illegal in Germany: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3194360.stm[^] That same article says: "Nazi symbols and gestures, including words and actions which can be interpreted as condoning Nazism, are illegal in Germany." So in Germany if you say something that someone can interpret as condoning (apparently not even advocating) Nazism, you're breaking the law. I find that just crazy. Of course here in America we allow professors to promote our enemies during wartime, so we're kind of on the opposite extreme. In France you can get a year in prison for insulting a homosexual or a woman: http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1379536,00.html[^] And as recently posted, a priest is on trial in Italy for claiming that Jesus existed. Personally, I'm shocked that a priest would do such a thing, but I would think that would be within his rights.
-
Many more millions have been killed in the name of religion (and the slander of other people's religions) than were killed by the Third Reich. Plus you, nor I, can go around saying "This hate speak is fine but that hate speak is not fine." None of us are wise enough or unbiased enough to be the decider of such matters. The whole point is that no one group is more important than the other. No one group should have privileges that others do not have. That is what the Third Reich wanted, layers of humanity with different levels of rights. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Forgot what forum i was in for a minute... saw your post and thought, "please tell me he's not giving advice on Netscape 4-style DHTML..." Ah, politics on a programming site. 's _Fan_tastic. :-O
---- Scripts i've known... CPhog 0.9.9 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.1 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.1 - printer-friendly forums
-
Forgot what forum i was in for a minute... saw your post and thought, "please tell me he's not giving advice on Netscape 4-style DHTML..." Ah, politics on a programming site. 's _Fan_tastic. :-O
---- Scripts i've known... CPhog 0.9.9 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.1 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.1 - printer-friendly forums
:laugh: I miss Netscape layers like you'd miss genital warts. 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 -
Josh Gray wrote:
The Germans have the right to make any law they like
No they dont. Their law is subservient to European Law. Nunc est bibendum
Ok. How about ...The Germans have the right to make any law they like as long as they dont breach international law, European law and any other treaty or argreement their are party to. Got a gun, fact I got two That's O.K. man, cuz I love god Glorified version of a pellet gun Feels so manly, when armed Glorified version of a pellet gun
-
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!
Interesting question. Yes, I'd defend at least any re-print of the Mohammad cartoons, and I think it's right that german police will crush down on Sieg-Heiling soccer fans - even if it's "just a little bit innocent fun" to them. There is a clear difference between it, but it took me a while to put it into words. The core difference is regional sovereignity. Maybe this appears outdated to the "netizen" I think you are much more than I - but I strongly believe in "conglomerated diversity", i.e. regionally separated cultures with different values. Only under this aspect they are different: As provocative Jylland Posten was, they did not go to muslim festivity to show posters with Mohammed cartoons. Similar: If the english make Sieg Heil the official greeting, fine. I might not like it, but if I choose (or feel forced to) go to England, I have to accept it. But if they come here, accept the local rules. (reprinting the cartoons is something entirely different for me: I see no practical difference between cencorship through an opressive regime and proactive self-censorship through fear of hurting someone. IMO "freedom of speech" must go along with some respect, but none should be used to null the other)
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
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.
espeir wrote:
You have 50 million US abortions in the past 30 years
Abortion is not an atheist principle. Prove that those 50 million abortions were not performed on Christian or Jewish women.
espeir wrote:
36 million WWII deaths.
WWII was started by Christian Germany and Shinto Japan. Neither are atheist cultures. Prove that either Hitler or the Emperor linked their war to the promotion of atheism.
espeir wrote:
30 million Chinese from their communist government.
Killed for political and personal purposes, not for atheism. Prove that any Chinese were killed because they either a) refused to accept atheism or b) continued to worship their prior gods.
-
Precisely. And lets not even mention the ensueing deaths resulting from military operations necessary to defeat those secular forces. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Precisely. And lets not even mention the ensueing deaths resulting from military operations necessary to defeat those secular forces.
Stan, I'm disappointed in you.
-
ihoecken wrote:
Over thousand of years have more people been killed by several religions than in the third reich
That is absolute Marxist historic revisionism. You could not site a single historic instance of any religion, of its own accord, killing mass numbers of people. "You get that which you tolerate"
Does a religion have it's own accord? I thought things were usually decided my men (yes, always men) with funny hats and/or beards.
-
Does a religion have it's own accord? I thought things were usually decided my men (yes, always men) with funny hats and/or beards.
justinstenner wrote:
Does a religion have it's own accord? I thought things were usually decided my men (yes, always men) with funny hats and/or beards.
You aren't married, are you? Don't take me for an idiot that I asked. Of course you aren't otherwise you would know that women reign the world and men have only to proclaim their women decisions. :sigh: Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
Does a religion have it's own accord? I thought things were usually decided my men (yes, always men) with funny hats and/or beards.
Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. But, regardless, history shows that only if those same men acquire secular authority do they become trully dangerous. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
espeir wrote:
You have 50 million US abortions in the past 30 years
Abortion is not an atheist principle. Prove that those 50 million abortions were not performed on Christian or Jewish women.
espeir wrote:
36 million WWII deaths.
WWII was started by Christian Germany and Shinto Japan. Neither are atheist cultures. Prove that either Hitler or the Emperor linked their war to the promotion of atheism.
espeir wrote:
30 million Chinese from their communist government.
Killed for political and personal purposes, not for atheism. Prove that any Chinese were killed because they either a) refused to accept atheism or b) continued to worship their prior gods.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Abortion is not an atheist principle.
Yes it is. Abortion is almost always framed in a religious context by its proponents. Those denouncing abortion are almost universally accused of "trying to mix church and state" because abortion is clearly recognized by atheists as one of their fundamental principles (which I find extremely vain). I'm sure plenty of people claiming to be religious have had abortions, but I'm equally certain that plenty of atheists have been to church.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
WWII was started by Christian Germany and Shinto Japan. Neither are atheist cultures. Prove that either Hitler or the Emperor linked their war to the promotion of atheism.
Both wars were waged in the name of nationalism which placed the state above religion. A war in the name of the state is performed not in the name of religion but in the name of atheism. The religions of their constituents is as irrelevent to the motivations of the war as is the motivations of a theist to go grocery shopping.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Killed for political and personal purposes, not for atheism. Prove that any Chinese were killed because they either a) refused to accept atheism or b) continued to worship their prior gods.
China is a communist government which oppresses religion in favor of the atheist state. Those who opposed the state may or may not have denounced their religion, but that is irrelevent because we're discussing whether or not those people were killed in the name of atheism. Because communist governments are all atheist (adopting the state as the ruling power rather than recognizing that rights are derived from the Creator), those people killed by the state for the state were killed in the name of atheism. If you oppose the atheist state, you are killed. If you want to claim that all those Chinese were killed for political purposes, then you're forced to recognize that those killed in the Crusades were also killed for political purposes. In fact, wars are rarely waged and people killed merely in the "name of religion". It is far more common for people to be killed in promotion of atheism and atheist ideals. History is very clear on that.
-
espeir wrote:
You have 50 million US abortions in the past 30 years
Abortion is not an atheist principle. Prove that those 50 million abortions were not performed on Christian or Jewish women.
espeir wrote:
36 million WWII deaths.
WWII was started by Christian Germany and Shinto Japan. Neither are atheist cultures. Prove that either Hitler or the Emperor linked their war to the promotion of atheism.
espeir wrote:
30 million Chinese from their communist government.
Killed for political and personal purposes, not for atheism. Prove that any Chinese were killed because they either a) refused to accept atheism or b) continued to worship their prior gods.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
WWII was started by Christian Germany and Shinto Japan. Neither are atheist cultures. Prove that either Hitler or the Emperor linked their war to the promotion of atheism.
Hitler was atheist and he not only persecure jews but christians, too. Instead of christmas he wanted to bring the old germanic festives and instead of christmas songs they invented new winter songs. But 36 million people were not killed in ww2 there were over 50 million people killed. I just have some german references, this is one of them: http://tote_im_zweiten_weltkrieg.know-library.net/[^] Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!