On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> 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? 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.
In the same way money is intrinsically worthless. A dollar bill has
value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
Any chance of you'all taking this to private email? You are no longer
discussing a wikipedia related issue.