[WikiEN-l] Re: new user

Tue Feb 15 20:51:07 UTC 2005

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
>> If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly 
>> murderous, you are mistaken.
>>
>> Essentially, what you're saying appears to be:  "The hammer and sickle 
>> is okay because it has been sensationalized differently."  That 
>> roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
>>
>> If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika.  If the 
>> swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer 
>> and sickle is as well.  Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or 
>> to neither.  I'll respect either decision.  Just don't try to pretend 
>> that one is okay and the other is not. 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to 
> it?

Yes.

> In your option I would prefer to ascribe abhorrence to neither.  
> The symbols alone just sit there and do nothing.  It's what people do 
> with them that makes the difference.

Great.

> 
> In the same way money is intrinsically worthless.  A dollar bill has 
> value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.

. . . or make little bowtie shapes as party favors.  Currency is only a 
means of keeping track of trade value: it is not the value itself.  I 
agree with you 100% on that.

--
Chad