 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> "Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book
>> about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got
>> banned in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.
>
> Is Germany going down the path of history censorship?
I think it was just a bit of over-zealousness. They weren't trying to
censor history. They just wound up censoring history books (or was it
Wikipedia?) because the law was you couldn't display Nazi symbols in
public or some such, without any exception for educational purposes.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I think it was just a bit of over-zealousness. They weren't trying to
> censor history. They just wound up censoring history books (or was it
> Wikipedia?) because the law was you couldn't display Nazi symbols in
> public or some such, without any exception for educational purposes.
I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
trying to achieve.
Is it yet another victimless crime?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
> trying to achieve.
I think the idea is to have an excuse to arrest people who are actually
advocating a return of Nazism. Same as the law against holocaust denial,
really.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Worse, of course, is that it's only the popular things you can't speak
> out against. Nobody gets in trouble for bashing gays or pagans. Hell, we
> passed a constitutional amendment specifically to harm gays.
>
Interesting read, this is the "anti-Catholic League"'s (well sort of),
view "of" the Catholic League:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/pubs/documents/CatholicLeague.pdf
I love where it states that if you divided the "entire" money taken in
by the League the prior year by the $30 fee to be a member, you get
83,000 people, total, but dear old Bill claims they have 350,000
members. Then again, he also has "said" that he counts anyone that isn't
a "member", and gives him money as 1/2 a member, so.. without clear
numbers its hard to say. It could be him and the board, a few fruit
cakes, lets say.. 20 people at $30 a head = $600 + 700,000 people, who
sent him... $3.56 each? lol
Nah. What "is" true about the US is that the press will jump at anything
a loud mouth idiot says, **never** check any of their facts, and as a
result, people like Donahue have figured out that being loud, even
before you know what the hell you are protesting, through the right
"press sources", often enough, and re-expressed persistently enough, and
any paranoid idiocy will be lapped up by the press, paraded around as an
example of what "most members of group X believe", even if that is a
complete lie, and major corporations, businesses, government agencies,
and public organizations, will cave, rather than even try to fight back.
This is the "true" power of the religious right and the conservative
movement. Whining about imaginary "persecution" of their views, and
their "common cause" with other "religious" people, loudly, often,
constantly, and dishonestly, like some yapping poodle, stuck in an air
vent, so that **everyone** imagines is a huge pack of ravenous dogs at
there heals, not something with an inferiority complex, that does
nothing but bark, and you could kick out of the way like a football,
should it ever climb out of the vent long enough for you to figure it out.
And "everyone" is so bamboozled by these yapping idiots, they even have
otherwise "sane" people like my own parents, who given the shit they
went through and grew up *with*, should know better, parroting the,
"America is going to hell and losing its moral compass", BS.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
> trying to achieve.
Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!
http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, if you lie about someone in a way that damages their reputation,
> yes. But that's not we're talking about. Certainly newspaper editors can
> (for example)
>
> In theory, you're allowed to say anything that's true. "It's my opinion
> that ..." is true, since you've stated it as your opinion.
The problem comes when you say something that is your opinion/stance, and it
harms someone else enough to warrant action. It's perfectly possible to
seriously damage a person, company or group of peoples reputation by just
stating your opinion, especially if you are usually a trusted or well-read
source of information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Where are you talking about? In the USA, many police would probably
> agree. I think you'd find it quite different in China, for example.
Exactly my point, here in the countries I've lived in, expressing your
opinion in a sensible manner would never get you in trouble.
>> However if I start telling him about how I don't believe in the
>> holocaust, or how I want to try and convince everyone to become Nazis, or
>> if I start making insulting comments about people or groups of people
>
> You're not supposed to get in trouble for any of that stuff in the USA.
I think the whole holocaust/nazi/hitler thing here is a bit different from
the rest of the world. Germany needed to be seen as taking action, so were
kind of forced to pass these laws. As Warp pointed out, sometimes it's a
bit stupid with eg the nazi symbol in books, but they have the laws to give
the police power to really stop anything like that ever happening again.
> What possible benefit do you get from arresting someone who doesn't
> believe in the holocaust?
It's not so much the arresting them, but the seriousness of the situation
that it instills on everyone else. It's like saying "look this is a really
important part of history that we must never forget, there's no way anyone
is allowed to try and mess it up by spreading false information and
beliefs".
> The problem comes when you start arresting people next for not believing
> that men are superior and that God exists and should be obeyed.
I think the holocaust is a just exception to normal beliefs.
> "Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book
> about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got banned
> in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.
I think with that one they just don't want to define a line to divide what
is ok and what's not ok regarding the nazi symbol, far easier to just say
nothing is ok.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
> > trying to achieve.
> I think the idea is to have an excuse to arrest people who are actually
> advocating a return of Nazism. Same as the law against holocaust denial,
> really.
But I find it hard to believe that such a law is passed in congress without
anyone presenting some logical, legally sound arguments about why the law is
valid and makes sense. I don't believe "so that we will have an additional
convenient excuse to arrest neonazis" is a legally sound argument.
They must have come up with *some* rationalization to pass the law other
than that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!
> http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like
I really don't see too much of a difference between that and the internet
censorship in China...
(The scary thing is that that kind of attitude is getting more and more
common in western countries.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But I find it hard to believe that such a law is passed in congress without
> anyone presenting some logical, legally sound arguments about why the law is
> valid and makes sense. I don't believe "so that we will have an additional
> convenient excuse to arrest neonazis" is a legally sound argument.
You find it _hard_ to believe?
Congress over here just authorized giving out $700 billion with almost
no oversight, and based on a flimsy 3 page report. The "logical, sound"
argument for the amount of money? "Sounded like a good figure. Oh, and
BTW, I have no idea if this plan will work. The economy is funny
sometimes" (paraphrased).
--
In an Astronomy class (toward an Astronomy major, not that gen-ed crap)
the professor did not tell us we would have to remember constants, and
he asked them as questions. They were short questions, and weren't worth
a lot.
One of them was: What is the orbital period of Saturn? (2 pts/100)
I started thinking about Bode's law and the posibility I could calculate
it from an approximate radius I would get from that law... if I could
remember it. But when you expect a 72% to be an A on a test, you have
bigger fish to fry.
Then I got it. It was right, it should work, and no one would have to be
nailed to anything.
I wrote: One Saturn-Year
I didn't get credit for it. A couple years later a sophomore was telling
me about this funny question he had in the same class. He showed it to
me. It read:
What is the orbital period of Saturn? (Do not put one Saturn-Year)
I was so right that it had to be guarded against. Yet those were 2
points I would never have.
(as told by SetupWeasel on Slashdot)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
