Swastikas, Nazism, and Christopher Columbus

[Almighty Colin]

Interesting news that was posted yesterday about the swastika showing up on a Coca Cola product in Hong Kong.

Symbols are so powerful :: an insignia, a flag or even a person can be symbolic.

For some people Christopher Columbus is a symbol of the new world meeting the old world. He's a symbol of the beginning of the American way - or the Puerto Rican way, or the Mexican way. he is a symbol of technology and progress and the Western way of life. For other people, he is a symbol of genocide and oppression - the systematic and brutal killing of a people.

Martin Luther King is a symbol of rising civil equality for millions of people. For many others, he is meaningless; just another name in history.

One person may feel outraged to see an American flag being burned and stepped on. Another may feel angry about a Rebel Flag flying over a capital building. We draw quick conclusions from the symbols people knowingly associate with themselves; the fish, the Darwin fish, the peace sign, the flag, a cross on a necklace, the swastika, a bumper sticker, a t-shirt, a hairstyle and even a car.

At what point is someone being insensitive by celebrating and symbolizing what they believe in even when that same symbol has a very negative meaning for someone else?

[Torone]

Insensitive=politically incorrect

Personally, I think too much is made of 'sensitivity'. We are supposed to be sensitive to the feelings; but it doesn't go both ways; nor does it make any allowances for the truth.

BTW, the 'robots' reminded me immediately of 'sprites' that we used to make back in the day...



Last edited by Torone at May 1 2003, 07:47 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Torone@May 1 2003, 07:45 AM
Insensitive=politically incorrect

Personally, I think too much is made of 'sensitivity'. We are supposed to be sensitive to the feelings; but it doesn't go both ways; nor does it make any allowances for the truth.
What do you think about people burning American flags?

[T-Rav]

Originally posted by Torone@May 1 2003, 07:45 AM
Insensitive=politically incorrect

Personally, I think too much is made of 'sensitivity'. We are supposed to be sensitive to the feelings; but it doesn't go both ways; nor does it make any allowances for the truth.

BTW, the 'robots' reminded me immediately of 'sprites' that we used to make back in the day...
How about people spitting on soldiers as they return from Iraq?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by T-Rav@May 1 2003, 09:52 AM
How about people spitting on soldiers as they return from Iraq?
Arrest them!

[Rox]

Originally posted by Colin+May 1 2003, 06:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ May 1 2003, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--T-Rav@May 1 2003, 09:52 AM
How about people spitting on soldiers as they return from Iraq?
Arrest them![/b][/quote]
Agreed. Assault.

Burn the fucking flag all you want, that falls under free speech. But when any part of YOU (including your bodily fluids) invades the personal space of another person, or touches them without their express permission as a result of a wilful act, you've crossed the line and infringed on the liberty of another.

Even though I can't stand the bastard, I'd say the same of someone spitting on GW. Spit on his picture all you like, but the man himself has the same right as any other American to his individual liberty.

[Torone]

Originally posted by Rox+May 1 2003, 10:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rox @ May 1 2003, 10:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@May 1 2003, 06:57 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--T-Rav@May 1 2003, 09:52 AM
How about people spitting on soldiers as they return from Iraq?
Arrest them!
Agreed. Assault.

Burn the fucking flag all you want, that falls under free speech. But when any part of YOU (including your bodily fluids) invades the personal space of another person, or touches them without their express permission as a result of a wilful act, you've crossed the line and infringed on the liberty of another.

Even though I can't stand the bastard, I'd say the same of someone spitting on GW. Spit on his picture all you like, but the man himself has the same right as any other American to his individual liberty.[/b][/quote]
I totally agree. You can't stop them from name-calling; but spitting, etc. is assault. As for flag-burning, I consider it an affront; but the SCOTUS has ruled that it is protected speech. If it's my flag, though, then assault kicks in (or I go looking for a fresh grave or a wood-chipper).

[Rox]

Originally posted by Torone@May 1 2003, 07:33 AM
I totally agree. You can't stop them from name-calling; but spitting, etc. is assault. As for flag-burning, I consider it an affront; but the SCOTUS has ruled that it is protected speech. If it's my flag, though, then assault kicks in (or I go looking for a fresh grave or a wood-chipper).
:yowsa:

And if it's YOUR flag, again we see where someone has come between you and your property.

Life, liberty & property -- as Americans the Constitution says we have the right to protect that which belongs to us.

I suppose there are some issues about which I lean to the left, but I'm pretty well convinced that the only acts which should be considered crimes and should be the target of legislation are those which lead to depriving Americans of life, liberty or property. If we were to stick to that, we'd see a whole hell of a lot fewer laws. Wouldn't that be nice?

I've read the Constitution many, many times, and nowhere do I see anything that says Americans have the right not to be offended. I'm sick to death of having laws made just because people are fucking pussies who are afraid to speak up. If you don't like my cigarette smoke (for example), either ask me to move or put it out, or move yourself away from it. Don't write to your congressperson and push for more laws, for Chrissake.

[Torone]

Originally posted by Rox@May 1 2003, 01:12 PM
And if it's YOUR flag, again we see where someone has come between you and your property.

Life, liberty & property -- as Americans the Constitution says we have the right to protect that which belongs to us.

I suppose there are some issues about which I lean to the left, but I'm pretty well convinced that the only acts which should be considered crimes and should be the target of legislation are those which lead to depriving Americans of life, liberty or property. If we were to stick to that, we'd see a whole hell of a lot fewer laws. Wouldn't that be nice?

I've read the Constitution many, many times, and nowhere do I see anything that says Americans have the right not to be offended. I'm sick to death of having laws made just because people are fucking pussies who are afraid to speak up. If you don't like my cigarette smoke (for example), either ask me to move or put it out, or move yourself away from it. Don't write to your congressperson and push for more laws, for Chrissake.
Damn' straight! :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Rox@May 1 2003, 01:12 PM
I've read the Constitution many, many times, and nowhere do I see anything that says Americans have the right not to be offended. I'm sick to death of having laws made just because people are fucking pussies who are afraid to speak up. If you don't like my cigarette smoke (for example), either ask me to move or put it out, or move yourself away from it. Don't write to your congressperson and push for more laws, for Chrissake.
I , for one, would like to see less legislation and I agree with you in principle. Your cigarette smoke doesn't bother me and if it did, I'd just move. However, I also realize that it is WE THE PEOPLE and that some people may consider the harm from smoking to be greater than the principle of liberty itself. With a different history we may have illegal smoking but legal cocaine.

You can drink in your house but not while driving. You can smoke in your house but not in a restaurant in certain states.

If we are to appeal to the Constitution, however, it quite clearly states that those matters not specifically delegated to the US by the Constitution - or defined and interpreted by the US courts, are to be decided by the states. This is exactly what the system is now and exactly what the Constitution says. Laws regulating cigarette smoking are decided by the states.

I agree with the sentiment that there there should be as few laws regulating liberties as
possible. Every question of liberty is balanced, however, by issues such as public safety and national defense.