[WikiEN-l] Re: new user

Tue Feb 15 20:24:49 UTC 2005

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.

Ec