I don't agree with their restrictions on freedom of speech, to be more precise.sergeriver wrote:
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?
I understood, I just wanted to point out that those are the same countries you used as example.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't agree with their restrictions on freedom of speech, to be more precise.sergeriver wrote:
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.
That's a parenting issue...I'm sure child welfare authorities will put a little red mark beside her parent's names. It doesn't require banning of free speech. Once you go down that road where does it end? Burning books?sergeriver wrote:
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.
Would you let a 7 years old kid read Playboy? Yes or no? Why?Braddock wrote:
That's a parenting issue...I'm sure child welfare authorities will put a little red mark beside her parent's names. It doesn't require banning of free speech. Once you go down that road where does it end? Burning books?sergeriver wrote:
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.
we have those laws for a very specific reason. But that doesn't mean we're not talking about the holocaust, or Nazi germany in class. Actually, it is all we ever talk about in history classes...sergeriver wrote:
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.
The symbol itself doesn't hurt anyone, and I fail to see how a symbol can be "hate speech". It's just a symbol, and means different things to different people.
History is only going to repeat if we allow ourselves to forget the lessons we have learned from it. To a 7-year-old, this symbol means nothing, except maybe if they like the shape or whatever. What I would like to know is, why the child drew the symbol, and if her parents told her anything about what it means.
the fact remains though, that the swastika is not a forbidden symbol in canada, and thus, taking away the child was not justified. From my point of view, authorities were trying to have a cheap shot at the parents, and used the child for that.
And that's really what annoys me. If they break the law, do your job, but leave the child out of it. Using the child is lame, and cowardly.
No and if I saw a 7 year old bringing a copy into school I'd tell child welfare I had concerns about how the child was being raised at home.sergeriver wrote:
Would you let a 7 years old kid read Playboy? Yes or no? Why?Braddock wrote:
That's a parenting issue...I'm sure child welfare authorities will put a little red mark beside her parent's names. It doesn't require banning of free speech. Once you go down that road where does it end? Burning books?sergeriver wrote:
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.
Ok, that's not curbing your freedom of speech, as not letting 7 years old kids use a swastika isn't either. That's protecting 7 years old kids from things they aren't capable to understand.Braddock wrote:
No and if I saw a 7 year old bringing a copy into school I'd tell child welfare I had concerns about how the child was being raised at home.sergeriver wrote:
Would you let a 7 years old kid read Playboy? Yes or no? Why?Braddock wrote:
That's a parenting issue...I'm sure child welfare authorities will put a little red mark beside her parent's names. It doesn't require banning of free speech. Once you go down that road where does it end? Burning books?
At age 7?B.Schuss wrote:
we have those laws for a very specific reason. But that doesn't mean we're not talking about the holocaust, or Nazi germany in class. Actually, it is all we ever talk about in history classes...
Yes but it's an issue to be dealt with under school uniform regulations or child welfare policy...not freedom of speech.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, that's not curbing your freedom of speech, as not letting 7 years old kids use a swastika isn't either. That's protecting 7 years old kids from things they aren't capable to understand.Braddock wrote:
No and if I saw a 7 year old bringing a copy into school I'd tell child welfare I had concerns about how the child was being raised at home.sergeriver wrote:
Would you let a 7 years old kid read Playboy? Yes or no? Why?
I don't think 7 years old kids need to have the same freedom of speech than adults have. I'm all about talking about the Holocaust in school, not at age 7 though.Braddock wrote:
Yes but it's an issue to be dealt with under school uniform regulations or child welfare policy...not freedom of speech.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, that's not curbing your freedom of speech, as not letting 7 years old kids use a swastika isn't either. That's protecting 7 years old kids from things they aren't capable to understand.Braddock wrote:
No and if I saw a 7 year old bringing a copy into school I'd tell child welfare I had concerns about how the child was being raised at home.
no, but why would we have to ? As I said, to a 7-year-old, this symbol means nothing. Maybe they like the shape, maybe they like to draw in general. Small children are like that. But it doesn't mean anything to them, and it doesn't hurt, so why not let them draw it ?sergeriver wrote:
At age 7?B.Schuss wrote:
we have those laws for a very specific reason. But that doesn't mean we're not talking about the holocaust, or Nazi germany in class. Actually, it is all we ever talk about in history classes...
At some point, they'll learn what symbols are, and then you can tell them what that symbol means, historically, and today.
That poor child simply drew something she had seen at home, totally innocent. And now she gets the blame, and is taken away from her parents ? That's not right, serge.
effectively, this child is punished for something her parents have done, or are doing. That's wrong, and cowardly.
read my sig, enough said about generalizingBraddock wrote:
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"..
I don't like swastikas but it makes fuck all difference to me if some girl wants to wear one to school, the same way it makes fuck all difference to me if I see a picture of Mohamed wearing a suicide vest. Why should one rule apply to one scenario over another?
As a whole, there is/was little to know outrage from the Muslim world regarding the beheading of Nick Berg etc...........However, the outrage was more than apparent over a cartoon.......Are we really gunna disagree about this??
It is difference because it is not the same thing: this is for Cam as well, regardless as t owhat the swastika used to represent, it has unfortunately been replaced with what it means now, just like the confederate flag...so this was already addressed.
The cartoon about Muhammad was not meant as hate nor was it delivered as such. It addressed the hypocrisy over Islams peace and love store front and its actions around the world.
Before you say it, read my sig...DO NOT give me a generaliziation argument... Like it or not, Islam IS NOT in a positive light regarding viloence done under its name, and the peace that it supposedly preaches.....are we really gunna disagree on this as well?
her parents are neanderthals... she is more than likely an unwitting accomplice due to ignorance of the significance of the nzi symbol...
I would ignore her in school... and maybe someday when she gets older and maybe realizes how hurtful her symbol was... she will understand why people were upset... These neonazi tards are angry at themselves and find solace in the hate of others... the same as other groups that hate each other... When your life is going well and you have nothing to complain about... it's kinda hard to be upset about another group that may be different than you in some way... not including disliking people who wish to bring you harm...
I would ignore her in school... and maybe someday when she gets older and maybe realizes how hurtful her symbol was... she will understand why people were upset... These neonazi tards are angry at themselves and find solace in the hate of others... the same as other groups that hate each other... When your life is going well and you have nothing to complain about... it's kinda hard to be upset about another group that may be different than you in some way... not including disliking people who wish to bring you harm...
Love is the answer
lowing you're inherent bias and meaningless generalisation disclaimer makes it impossible to have a proper argument. In a court of law will you supply a generalisation disclaimer, in case anything you might say might incriminate you? I think not. They damage your arguments because you won't argue in exact and precise terms. You dismiss the criticisms because if you had to deal with them you would have to do so through gritted teeth.lowing wrote:
It is difference because it is not the same thing: this is for Cam as well, regardless as t owhat the swastika used to represent, it has unfortunately been replaced with what it means now, just like the confederate flag...so this was already addressed.
The cartoon about Muhammad was not meant as hate nor was it delivered as such. It addressed the hypocrisy over Islams peace and love store front and its actions around the world.
Before you say it, read my sig...DO NOT give me a generaliziation argument... Like it or not, Islam IS NOT in a positive light regarding viloence done under its name, and the peace that it supposedly preaches.....are we really gunna disagree on this as well?
Another thought sprung to mind: your 'appeasement' theory - could we not equally say, using your mindset, that this infringement of civil liberty is just appeasement of the politically correct brigade? One must be thoroughly consistent here.
Islam is not in a positive light regarding violence under its name only because of a concerted media blitz attempting to copper-fasten an association between the religion itself and the acts of a few radical nutters. You choose to believe Islam can be characterised as such, that's your prerogative, but again it's a completely incorrect gross generalisation.
From ATG's recent thread, quoted from The Sun: "The Muslim Council of Britain also blasted the poem, branding al-Qaeda “mass murderers”".
Your 'one rule for one group of people/instance of offence, another rule for another group of people/instance of offence' just shows you to be inconsistent and that you have inherent biases that don't make you a free-thinking impartial arbiter on this topic.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-09 12:05:41)
I told you guys when the rounded up the polgamist kids it was a test. If you tollerated state control of those people you would find it that much easier to see a child wearing a Nazi symbol rounded up by the authorities.
She should be compelled to wear sleeves covering her arms and if she is a serious overall disruption to the school she should be removed and home schooled.
She should be compelled to wear sleeves covering her arms and if she is a serious overall disruption to the school she should be removed and home schooled.
FAO: Lowing
You expect that all Muslims (all the different nationalities and sects) should unite and collectively speak out any time anything deplorable is done under the banner of Islamic extremism and take the fact that this does not happen as some sort of proof that the entire Muslim population somehow condone everything from stoning for adultery to the use of child shields.
On the other hand if someone criticises America for not collectively speaking out against the foreign policies of the Bush administration, the use of torture camps or the actions of 'bad-apple' soldiers they are speaking in generalisations and are not accepting the reality that not every American shares exactly the same views. Double standards in my opinion.
You have your own way of looking at the world lowing and seemingly cannot truly appreciate the viewpoints of other people different to yourself. These cartoons are horribly offensive and upsetting to anyone who practices the Islamic faith...both the Muslim who has never hurt a fly in his entire life and the Muslim extremist, and yet you feel the actions of the extremist alone validate the right to publish these cartoons.
Then along comes an issue about some people who get offended because of a SYMBOL that has negative connotations for certain sections of society because of the second world war and you want to change your own rules. I'm sorry lowing but that swastika is hurting people no more or no less than those Mohamed cartoons. You just want to have censorship that takes care of your own sensibilities.
You expect that all Muslims (all the different nationalities and sects) should unite and collectively speak out any time anything deplorable is done under the banner of Islamic extremism and take the fact that this does not happen as some sort of proof that the entire Muslim population somehow condone everything from stoning for adultery to the use of child shields.
On the other hand if someone criticises America for not collectively speaking out against the foreign policies of the Bush administration, the use of torture camps or the actions of 'bad-apple' soldiers they are speaking in generalisations and are not accepting the reality that not every American shares exactly the same views. Double standards in my opinion.
You have your own way of looking at the world lowing and seemingly cannot truly appreciate the viewpoints of other people different to yourself. These cartoons are horribly offensive and upsetting to anyone who practices the Islamic faith...both the Muslim who has never hurt a fly in his entire life and the Muslim extremist, and yet you feel the actions of the extremist alone validate the right to publish these cartoons.
Then along comes an issue about some people who get offended because of a SYMBOL that has negative connotations for certain sections of society because of the second world war and you want to change your own rules. I'm sorry lowing but that swastika is hurting people no more or no less than those Mohamed cartoons. You just want to have censorship that takes care of your own sensibilities.
I may be bringing this conversation back, so sorry about that.CameronPoe wrote:
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.
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. The only reason the Mohammed cartoons aren't 'accepted universally as symbols of hate' is because 6 million Arabs were never gassed in Auschwitz. If they had been - any poke at their religion would be declared anti-Islamic and severely reprehensible, just as any poke at Judaism today is declared anti-semtica and severely reprehensible.
Anyway I heard the artist speak on BBC radio at some point, and I must say that both of you are wrong on this. Those cartoons were not meant to be a stand as lowing says, but they were not childish either. As for offensive, well certainly to some people they were, but again that was not the intention of the cartoonist. This was meant to be a serious satire, with a comical twist of course. Now the particular humor may not have been everyone's cup o' tea as it turned out, but let's not forget what the original intention was because of all the craze that followed by some religious fanatics.
I agree with your parallelism though CP.
ƒ³
100% wrong lowing ... the Danish cartoonist knew exactly what he was doing when those drawings where published, he is known to be anti-Islam all the way and knew very well that Islam doesn't allow the prophet to be pictured in any way, it was not to humor but to promote hate ...lowing wrote:
The cartoon about Muhammad was not meant as hate nor was it delivered as such. It addressed the hypocrisy over Islams peace and love store front and its actions around the world.
You can't put limits to free speech but you can use your head while exercising it!
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
This is child abuse and the parents should be arrested. That girl would have been found dead in a dumpster if she wore that in the wrong part of town.lowing wrote:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/canadian_politically_correct_child_services_take_children_from_a_home/
I spend my time in this forum thumping the bible of personal responsibility and the belief that we should be allowed to do anything we want as long as it does not infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness.
Well, now a wrench has been thrown into my fine machine of morality and freedom with the story of a girl who was taken from her home by authorities for being allowed to wear a swastika on her arm to school.
I no not how I feel about this. This symbol is a disruption in the school no doubt, it is a symbol of hate which sets us back as a society, and it is disgusting that these parents allow it and believe in it, however, it is an expression of free speech and does not infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness.
Usually, I am pretty cut and dry in my opinions....This time I really have no idea.
poseidon's right. its called the tinker standard. the supreme court ruled that there had to be massive evidence something would cause a major disruption before it could be censored.Poseidon wrote:
Uh? Yes it is. Threats aren't, but hate speech is.CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
hate speech is not protected under free speech
Of course, the girl shouldn't be taken away from her parents, since they are the ones to blame for this, not her. They are punishing a girl who doesn't even know what she did is wrong.B.Schuss wrote:
no, but why would we have to ? As I said, to a 7-year-old, this symbol means nothing. Maybe they like the shape, maybe they like to draw in general. Small children are like that. But it doesn't mean anything to them, and it doesn't hurt, so why not let them draw it ?sergeriver wrote:
At age 7?B.Schuss wrote:
we have those laws for a very specific reason. But that doesn't mean we're not talking about the holocaust, or Nazi germany in class. Actually, it is all we ever talk about in history classes...
At some point, they'll learn what symbols are, and then you can tell them what that symbol means, historically, and today.
That poor child simply drew something she had seen at home, totally innocent. And now she gets the blame, and is taken away from her parents ? That's not right, serge.
effectively, this child is punished for something her parents have done, or are doing. That's wrong, and cowardly.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-07-09 11:30:53)
I agree with Lotta_Drool (although I don't know about arrested, investigated I would say). It's a parenting issue not a free speech issue.Lotta_Drool wrote:
This is child abuse and the parents should be arrested. That girl would have been found dead in a dumpster if she wore that in the wrong part of town.lowing wrote:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/canadian_politically_correct_child_services_take_children_from_a_home/
I spend my time in this forum thumping the bible of personal responsibility and the belief that we should be allowed to do anything we want as long as it does not infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness.
Well, now a wrench has been thrown into my fine machine of morality and freedom with the story of a girl who was taken from her home by authorities for being allowed to wear a swastika on her arm to school.
I no not how I feel about this. This symbol is a disruption in the school no doubt, it is a symbol of hate which sets us back as a society, and it is disgusting that these parents allow it and believe in it, however, it is an expression of free speech and does not infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness.
Usually, I am pretty cut and dry in my opinions....This time I really have no idea.
What about yelling fire in a movie theater? Free speech? Dumb and wrong.
A theatre is not a forum for free speech. Free speech is exercised in your own time and space, either at home or in a park or at a streetcorner or on the internet or some place.CC-Marley wrote:
What about yelling fire in a movie theater? Free speech? Dumb and wrong.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-09 12:34:15)
what a weird source.