You misunderstood. People are allowed for "freedom of speech" as long as they don't say/do stuff that = persecution of a sorts people. In these cases, things that are/were historically accociated to the word "persecution" is banned. So far noone has argued about why the swastika isn't allowed in sweden.
Death threats against Mohammed cartoonists
- Thread starter Minardi
- Start date
You misunderstood. People are allowed for "freedom of speech" as long as they don't say/do stuff that = persecution of a sorts people. In these cases, things that are/were historically accociated to the word "persecution" is banned. So far noone has argued about why the swastika isn't allowed in sweden.
That's nice, I'm glad you're not constantly harassed by Muslims. Nothing to do with what I was saying, but I'm happy for you. Homosexuals are targeted by religious people, though. Just because it hasn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.
I'm not claiming that Nazis and the religious view them the same way, I'm saying they view them in different but (in my opinion) equally negative ways. Why is it OK to say someone is biologically inferior, but not that someone is evil?
In the U.S. in 2000 a heterosexual man with the unfortunate surname of Gay walked into a gay club and killed one patron, injuring six more. He did so (in his words) as a "Christian Soldier working for my Lord". It happens.
Would you allow someone to wear a symbol display their affiliation with a group which promotes intolerance of homosexuality?
I wasn't saying that the Swastika should be allowed because it's a traditional, non-Nazi symbol. That's not my argument.
I'm not claiming that Nazis and the religious view them the same way, I'm saying they view them in different but (in my opinion) equally negative ways. Why is it OK to say someone is biologically inferior, but not that someone is evil?
In the U.S. in 2000 a heterosexual man with the unfortunate surname of Gay walked into a gay club and killed one patron, injuring six more. He did so (in his words) as a "Christian Soldier working for my Lord". It happens.
Would you allow someone to wear a symbol display their affiliation with a group which promotes intolerance of homosexuality?
I wasn't saying that the Swastika should be allowed because it's a traditional, non-Nazi symbol. That's not my argument.
what the fuck? I'm not gay or did I misunderstand what you said?
Of course they are, but they're not bothered to make a whole campaign out of it. There is more likely that "normal" people beat up a gay guy then a religious one. A real one, cause he doesn't attend things that aren't allowed or not liked. School would be the only place but muslims (strongly religious ones) have already one problem there; to avoid looking at girls who walk around halfnaked. They wouldn't be bothered by a gay person.
Religious people doesn't deny their human in them. While nazis don't even think they should breathe. To me it's a different stand. Like I said previously, they may think gays are evil sinners and whatelse but so far the abuse on gay-marriage (in sweden) has been from the "normal" people.
One odd example doesn't cut it. The reason I "showed" you the example is to make you understand that gaypeople have problems when it comes to hanging around places like bars and stuff. Religious people don't go to bars. I fail to see how they would feel threatened in school (we've drifted away from the topic but meh) where the most noticeable discrimination happens to them in other places.
In my previous post I said that freedom of speach only applys IF one type of folks don't feel that they are presectued by another. For me to answer that question in-depth I need a better word for intolerance.
You were asking whether the swastika should be allowed ( if a person choses to have it in school) and I told you why they shouldn't be allowed. It's more accosiated to the nazis then non-nazis even.
Of course they are, but they're not bothered to make a whole campaign out of it. There is more likely that "normal" people beat up a gay guy then a religious one. A real one, cause he doesn't attend things that aren't allowed or not liked. School would be the only place but muslims (strongly religious ones) have already one problem there; to avoid looking at girls who walk around halfnaked. They wouldn't be bothered by a gay person.
Religious people doesn't deny their human in them. While nazis don't even think they should breathe. To me it's a different stand. Like I said previously, they may think gays are evil sinners and whatelse but so far the abuse on gay-marriage (in sweden) has been from the "normal" people.
One odd example doesn't cut it. The reason I "showed" you the example is to make you understand that gaypeople have problems when it comes to hanging around places like bars and stuff. Religious people don't go to bars. I fail to see how they would feel threatened in school (we've drifted away from the topic but meh) where the most noticeable discrimination happens to them in other places.
In my previous post I said that freedom of speach only applys IF one type of folks don't feel that they are presectued by another. For me to answer that question in-depth I need a better word for intolerance.
You were asking whether the swastika should be allowed ( if a person choses to have it in school) and I told you why they shouldn't be allowed. It's more accosiated to the nazis then non-nazis even.
update:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B91FD4FC-0D75-417D-BAC5-085D8679EC3D.htm
This is getting out of hand.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B91FD4FC-0D75-417D-BAC5-085D8679EC3D.htm
This is getting out of hand.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.