Su-asti-ka

~~Lord Larehip~~ · 07-21-2014, 05:24 PM

Ah, I see. So if a country isn't this "world wide threat" then it doesn't matter how many millions they kill. Sorry, can't help being offensive.

DwnWthVwls · 07-22-2014, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip

Ah, I see. So if a country isn't this "world wide threat" then it doesn't matter how many millions they kill. Sorry, can't help being offensive.

Lemme try this again.. maybe I won't get ignored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip

But we don't care about that because the media doesn't shove it down our throats all day with movies and books and songs and articles about it.

It's not that they don't care, there just isn't enough time nor does anyone have enough energy to stand for everything they believe in. Sooo, they pick the things most popular/relevant(generally dictated by the media) and make heads roll.

~~Lord Larehip~~ · 07-30-2014, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

It's not that they don't care, there just isn't enough time nor does anyone have enough energy to stand for everything they believe in. Sooo, they pick the things most popular/relevant(generally dictated by the media) and make heads roll.

That's the same thing as saying they don't care. If they cared, it would be on their minds. If it isn't then how much can they possibly care? Because the media told them they must care. Isn't that exactly the point I've been making??

This is aside from the fact that opposition to the swastika is a first amendment issue because if I cannot publicly display one without being attacked either verbally or physically regardless of why I am displaying it then that is censorship--plain and simple. If you favor stigmatizing (read as censoring) the swastika then you may as well favor replacing "n-igger" with "slave" in "Huck Finn" and putting parental advisory stickers on CDs. You may as well admit that the people who tried to ban Burroughs' "Naked Lunch" had a point. The displaying of a swastika in public is, in fact, far less harmful than any of these other instances that liberals would immediately jump up to defend.

DwnWthVwls · 07-31-2014, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip

That's the same thing as saying they don't care. If they cared, it would be on their minds. If it isn't then how much can they possibly care? Because the media told them they must care. Isn't that exactly the point I've been making??

How often does someone have to have a given topic on their mind to justify them caring? You seem to be asking of us what isn't humanly possible.

I don't donate to any causes. To steal from a famous quote, I try my best "to be the change I want to see", and to me that is plenty. I support the fight against animal cruelty by not beating animals. I don't think about it regularly or contribute in any other way. That doesn't mean I don't care.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 07-31-2014, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip

This is aside from the fact that opposition to the swastika is a first amendment issue because if I cannot publicly display one without being attacked either verbally or physically regardless of why I am displaying it then that is censorship--plain and simple. If you favor stigmatizing (read as censoring) the swastika then you may as well favor replacing "n-igger" with "slave" in "Huck Finn" and putting parental advisory stickers on CDs. You may as well admit that the people who tried to ban Burroughs' "Naked Lunch" had a point. The displaying of a swastika in public is, in fact, far less harmful than any of these other instances that liberals would immediately jump up to defend.

the first amendment gives you the right to freedom of expression. it doesn't dictate how people will react to your expression. if someone physically attacks you for it then that is illegal. if they just get offended and call you a racist dick then that is not. your rights are not being violated here.

07-21-2014, 05:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
~~Lord Larehip~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 899	Ah, I see. So if a country isn't this "world wide threat" then it doesn't matter how many millions they kill. Sorry, can't help being offensive.