Swastikas and Germany in the modern day...

[Oberon]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...6&#post1945296

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

YUP! especially when the President of the United States come to town- this one got swept under the carpet of history as he laid a wreath in 1985 at the graves of Waffen SS soldiers. His remarks upon the occasion in response to criticism: "These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those, the average age is about 18. I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps" After 1943, the Waffen SS in fact did draft members due to the immense losses of elite troops in Russia and Normandy. Reagan's gesture: Still regarded as a controversial act to this day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitburg http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/wss/excerpt.html

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. They were victims too. Many of them.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

...

I tried to warn you. Game over.

[Oberon]

*sigh*

[Aktungbby]

Indeed! in an ancient series of temples (3) from antiquity near Kibbutz Maoz Haim near Lebanon in tile on the floors http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/7-2-16/51803.html Swastikas in tile!The floors were paved with small stones of about 70 different hues depicting Itzhak's sacrifice, the Ark of the Covenant, inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic, traditional Jewish symbols, such as the menorah, customary national ornaments, and many different swastikas. Clearly not as big an issue then as now... politics politics!

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by areo16

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. They were victims too. Many of them.

A bit of a double standard arises though, when Washington squawks over the Japanese minister visiting the Yasokuni War shrine to honor Japan's dead...apparently German SS Dead aren't the same as the 'yellow peril's' war dead... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by areo16

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. They were victims too. Many of them.

And many of them complicit in the offences they carried out in Hitler's name.

[Admiral Halsey]

So Tribe got thrown in the brig? This a permaban or just a temporary one? Reason I ask is because the arguments he causes always give me a good chuckle and I want to know if that source of amusement is gone for good.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by areo16

It seems you live in Germany. So, you are in favor of a limited freedom of speech. Which wouldn't be freedom of speech, because it is controls in some shape or form. It would be "limited freedom of speech", which isn't "freedom of speech" in the general sense of the words. It seems you feel freedom of speech should take the bench to the propagation of terror.

In most places propogation of terror is illegal anyhow. This could be considered a threat, which is a crime here in the states. So why limit the freedom of speech if the propagation of terror and the acts the Nazis did are illegal anyhow? What about the display of the swastika for educational purposes, or peaceful purposes? I realize this might be hard to grasps considering that the incidents occurred just 60 years ago. But you do think that Freedom of speech does have its limits.

Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.

Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.

This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.

You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".

In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.

My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

A bit of a double standard arises though, when Washington squawks over the Japanese minister visiting the Yasokuni War shrine to honor Japan's dead...apparently German SS Dead aren't the same as the 'yellow peril's' war dead... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine

I see no issue with this either. But is it me, or is our US media labeling it as these Japanese ministers are denying the Chinese atrocities just because they wish to remember the Japanese dead? I believe that is what I read.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.

Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.

This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.

You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".

In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.

My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.

What you say is true. Free speech is limited by things such as proximity and time. However, my response was addressing a situation of free speech which seems to be a bit more strict than that practiced here in the states. The limitation of free speech and the level it is practiced that I am addressing is a war and crimes which were committed over 60 years ago. No such limitation exists in the US. No one is outlawed from preaching anything about WW2 here in the US, from my general knowledge. Not boasting that our system is better, its more of a boast that I was brainwashed to think that my system is ideal.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by areo16

What you say is true. Free speech is limited by things such as proximity and time. However, my response was addressing a situation of free speech which seems to be a bit more strict than that practiced here in the states. The limitation of free speech and the level it is practiced that I am addressing is a war and crimes which were committed over 60 years ago. No such limitation exists in the US. No one is outlawed from preaching anything about WW2 here in the US, from my general knowledge. Not boasting that our system is better, its more of a boast that I was brainwashed to think that my system is ideal.

1917 the US under Wilson released the infamous Espionage Act which widened the definition of "spionage", to allow legal prosecution of wide-spread public opposition to getting the US involved in the war in Europe.

Under Bush, also under Obama, a tight regime was implemented aiming at controlling white house correspondents and to bring them into line with their questions and researches, preventing unwanted information getting published, not to mention the intimidation of reporters by legal threats risen under the cynically so-called "Patriot" Act. Legal rules were introduced that aim at drying out reporter's information sources, to allow that the WH alone defines what the "truth" and what the real "information" is. Manipulation of the flow of information aims at brainwashing and influencing public opinion forming. - Free mind and resulting free speech means little if transparency and unfiltered information is systematically prevented.

Or think of what free speech is worth if somebody's only source of information that he bases his knowledge of political events on, is a manipulating propaganda station like FOX.

The mind using - or being banned from having - freedom of speech, is more profound. And many people today get all day long systematically brainwashed and indoctrinated.

And I do not even go into anonymous social pressure, and social standards that people "voluntarily" submit to and that again manipulate the ways of their thinking.

Freedom of speech is not at the core of it. Like a brush is a tool for the painter, free speech is a tool for the thinking mind. If the painter has no artistic talent, than being free to use brushes as he likes is of no meaning/importance for him, and what a manipulated mind thinks it has to say, is not that important, like a dilettante's painting is just an amateurish scribbling.

[Betonov]

I see nothing wrong with Reagans gesture.

They were brainwashed and that meant they were victims long before they were killed. No excuse for the atrocities but they payed for it with their lives.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

1917 the US under Wilson released the infamous Espionage Act which widened the definition of "spionage", to allow legal prosecution of wide-spread public opposition to getting the US involved in the war in Europe.

Under Bush, also under Obama, a tight regime was implemented aiming at controlling white house correspondents and to bring them into line with their questions and researches, preventing unwanted information getting published, not to mention the intimidation of reporters by legal threats risen under the cynically so-called "Patriot" Act. Legal rules were introduced that aim at drying out reporter's information sources, to allow that the WH alone defines what the "truth" and what the real "information" is. Manipulation of the flow of information aims at brainwashing and influencing public opinion forming. - Free mind and resulting free speech means little if transparency and unfiltered information is systematically prevented.

Or think of what free speech is worth if somebody's only source of information that he bases his knowledge of political events on, is a manipulating propaganda station like FOX.

The mind using - or being banned from having - freedom of speech, is more profound. And many people today get all day long systematically brainwashed and indoctrinated.

And I do not even go into anonymous social pressure, and social standards that people "voluntarily" submit to and that again manipulate the ways of their thinking.

Freedom of speech is not at the core of it. Like a brush is a tool for the painter, free speech is a tool for the thinking mind. If the painter has no artistic talent, than being free to use brushes as he likes is of no meaning/importance for him, and what a manipulated mind thinks it has to say, is not that important, like a dilettante's painting is just an amateurish scribbling.

Yes, but your getting off track. I've stated that freedom of speech seems to be more robust in the states than it does in Germany. US does not outlaw the display of any symbols or flags in a public place unless they are a crime as to a physical threat to someone.

We all know that our freedom of speech isn't freedom, but we Americans try to test the limits day to day as we know there is a limit somewhere. The limits change according to place and time. However, the Sumpreme Court is more consistant than other judgements.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

So Tribe got thrown in the brig? This a permaban or just a temporary one? Reason I ask is because the arguments he causes always give me a good chuckle and I want to know if that source of amusement is gone for good.

Clicking on the infraction icon displays all the details.