lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Should books be banned from schools?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-06-2003, 07:54 PM   #41
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Homuncul, I agree we should also educate people.

Quote:
Millions and MILLIONS of people have been killed in the name of Christianity, so therefore christians = bad, and therefore the bible needs to be banned...
No.

They're still two different things. Almost everyone who practice christianity do not do it in a harmful way. Everyone who practice nazism, however, practice anti-semitism and prejudice against minorities, because that's the definition of nazism. I see your reasoning, but I strongly disagree with it.

Quote:
and at what point does murder become something that can be banned? Is Hitler killing millions really any worse than some random murderer killing and raping 4 or 5? Does increasing the numbers make murder more wrong? If you said yes then tell that to the families of one of those dead girls.
If some book is released by a rapist promoting rape, I'd want that book too to be banned, wouldn't you? Or would you want that, too, to be available to public because "some people think it's a good thing"? I never said rape was good, in fact, I despise rapists.

Quote:
So does that mean we should boycott everything Russian?
Er.. no?

Quote:
Do I personally believe so? Absolutely not.
Good, you had me scared for a second there.

Quote:
Banning books that have to do with Hitler and Nazi Germany won't do anything. It's just denying what's right in front of us. In fact, that's almost COPYING Hitler. Hitler didn't like Jews. Hitler burned Jewish books. We don't like Hitler. We're "burning" Hitler's books.
You don't realize there's a difference between reasons for hating then. Quick, name one death camp run by the Jews. Quick, name one holocaust carried out by Jews. Quick, tell me how Jews have killed 6,000,000+ members of a single group (the nazis killed this many Jews).

There's a difference between burning the memoars of someone who started WW II; and burning books written by a group that hardly ever did anything wrong (maybe except from invading Palestine, according to some).

Quote:
Now, personally, I don't agree with Hitler's views. But who is to say that we're right and he was wrong? Just because the majority says it's right doesn't make them right. That's what America is FOUNDED on. And that's EXACTLY why the idea of banning books is ludicrious.
Er.. I hate flaming, but I can't say this without coming close to flaming: It's not that the majority says so that makes Hitler bad. It's that he freaking started WW II, where over 30 million people died and two atomic bombs were dropped!! (duh). What, do you think we want My Struggle banned because we need someone to hate?

It's the same thing with burning flags, to say so again. Americans widely accept freedom of speech, right? But would I get away with burning the Stars and Stripes in the middle of a shopping mall? Or in the commons of a High School or College? No. Why? I won't answer that: If you don't know, go figure.

Do you realize that we (Europeans and Jews) feel the same way about My Struggle? Or that a refugee from an anarchy feels the same way (or worse) about the book "How to Overthrow the Republic and install an anarchy for Dummies"?

Look at Scandinavia. My Struggle is banned. However, every child in elementary school knows what the book is. So much for erasing history.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-06-2003, 10:29 PM   #42
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Even though I think flag burning is silly and pointless, I would not hate somebody because they burned a flag in front of me. I wouldn't do anything to them, because that is their RIGHT.....If America takes away people's rights to read materials they want to or practice the beliefs that they want to, then American loses everything it was founded on, and takes a step closer to becoming just like Nazi Germany......




Last edited by ET Warrior; 05-06-2003 at 11:06 PM.
ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2003, 08:07 AM   #43
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
Quote:
Even though I think flag burning is silly and pointless, I would not hate somebody because they burned a flag in front of me. I wouldn't do anything to them, because that is their RIGHT.....If America takes away people's rights to read materials they want to or practice the beliefs that they want to, then American loses everything it was founded on, and takes a step closer to becoming just like Nazi Germany......
I don't know maybe you're not right

The function of world tendencies expressed in some movements is something like sinusoidal through time. On maximum we have extreme (nazism) and on minimum - indifference (something like primary Buddhism). But actually every society have to step from time to time in to the level of maximum and minimum. Somehow after the last american elections I believed that America passed another minimum level now the time comes closer to the maximum again (starting from september to war, like it was 50 years ago) and it seems that after all distrust about the matter America finally passed it with minimum of bad consequences
Than it comes to this. If burning of american flag had no bad consequences I would agree with not banning it just considering those who do that a little bit nervous. But it has consequences. It says to everyone to do with America just what they did with the flag.
Futhermore human right is something very slippy . So is it really their right to burn american flag?. If it's outside America it should not be banned (necessarily but I would do it in any case). If it's in America itself it's like for americans to betray their own state. It's not just showing their position about's it's government actions. For this demostrations are permitted. But trying to attract attention with such methods anywhere in the world is something of no healthy right.
In the end I'm optimist and I don't think that it's possible for any state these days to come to something like Nazi Germany but on the other hand we have to watch carefully for those who step into something that can in future lead to another Third Reich.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-07-2003, 11:20 AM   #44
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle


No.

They're still two different things. Almost everyone who practice christianity do not do it in a harmful way.
Do Nazists? Being a nazist doesn't equate to being a killer either, y'know. I means supporting something which has killed millions of people in its name. It's exactly the same as supporting the church, the institution Christianity. Many more people have died in Christianity's name than Hitler's, yet we're still giving Christians a fair chance.

And rightly so. Christians as individuals usually set a good example, but banning Nazism as a cause would require the same to be done to Christianity.

Quote:
If some book is released by a rapist promoting rape, I'd want that book too to be banned, wouldn't you?
Absolutely not. That line of thought is unreasonable in the extreme. Again, it's a return to book burnings we see here. You think it's dangerous to let such books circulate in society, whereas I see a danger in such a mean of thought control. And that's what it is - thought control. You deny someone their right to publish books becuase of your own subjective opinion of the theme. That's horrid.

Regarding Russia, you do realize that communists can be rightfully compared to Nazism, don't you? More people have been killed in the name of Communism than Nazism. They're exactly the same, right down to breaking down society and having one man as the leader of genocides.

If you want Nazism banned, you must ban Communism as well, otherwise I'd call you a hypocrite.

Quote:
You don't realize there's a difference between reasons for hating then. Quick, name one death camp run by the Jews. Quick, name one holocaust carried out by Jews. Quick, tell me how Jews have killed 6,000,000+ members of a single group (the nazis killed this many Jews).
Communists killed over 35 million. Christianity killed far more than even that. What's your point? That Nazism is the greater enemy, despite the lower bodycount?

Quote:
There's a difference between burning the memoars of someone who started WW II; and burning books written by a group that hardly ever did anything wrong (maybe except from invading Palestine, according to some).
Oh, so it's not their line of thought that offends you, it's the past of the authors? If I wrote a book about rape, you wouldn't ban it because I haven't done anything wrong? Again, I refer to the bodycount math above.


Quote:
It's not that the majority says so that makes Hitler bad. It's that he freaking started WW II, where over 30 million people died and two atomic bombs were dropped!!
Did he? Last time I checked, it was a number of reasons that resulted in the monster Hitler.

Again, I don't see you wanting to ban Das Kapital even though it's done more bad than Nazism. You want to ban Mein Kampf because of you own subjective stance on it, and that's what's leading to totalitarian regimes. Oh, you have perfectly good intentions, but so did Hitler. You warp the past and create wisted arguments to support your own opinion. Not fact, or human rights.

Quote:
What, do you think we want My Struggle banned because we need someone to hate?
Yes. Hitler has been used as The Scapegoat of All Evil in many matters, but he is not solely to blame. What about USA, which didn't back up on the League of Nations, and allowed Hitler to rearm Germany, thus blatantly ignoring the Pacifism=Wrong idea that they so loudly proclaim now? What about the German people, who were disillusioned and needed an enemy after their national pride had been burned in war? What about France and England, who raped Germany economically and thus created social unrest and a search for a FŁhrer?

Hitler is only to blame, no?

Quote:
It's the same thing with burning flags, to say so again. Americans widely accept freedom of speech, right? But would I get away with burning the Stars and Stripes in the middle of a shopping mall? Or in the commons of a High School or College? No. Why? I won't answer that: If you don't know, go figure.
Legally you would get away with it. Practically, not so.

The same thing with books. You must be allowed to publish them, but if people aren't interested in buying them, it's your own fault, not the system's.

Banning Mein Kampf won't change a damn thing. The wrong people will still let themselves be led and find someone to hate. The right people will still want to change a flawed system, even if it means they'll have to reinvent history. It doesn't matter.

Quote:
Do you realize that we (Europeans and Jews) feel the same way about My Struggle? Or that a refugee from an anarchy feels the same way (or worse) about the book "How to Overthrow the Republic and install an anarchy for Dummies"?
Yes, we hate it so fervently because our history books condemn it. Anarchy was given a chance to work during the Spanish civil war. It gave a massive moral boost to the fighting people. Now however, it'll never be allowed again, because people like you are set on banning it unreasonably. What if anarchy was a better system than a republic? We'll never know, because the thought police are already out there and doing its work.

Why are you after Anarchism now? What things has it done which makes it so incredibly inhuman and worse than Communism? Subjective opinion mein freund. Nothing more than that.

Will we even be allowed to discuss Nazism or Anarchism 50 years from now? I don't know, but I do know that some people are unwillingly creeping their way towards such a state.

Quote:
Look at Scandinavia. My Struggle is banned.
No it isn't. Maybe in Norway it is, but not where I live.

Quote:
However, every child in elementary school knows what the book is. So much for erasing history.
Elementary school? Not so. Gymnasium? Hardly. University level? Maybe, but as they've never f*cking read the damn thing, how can they possibly hope to make an informed, factual opinion of it? They know it's a bad book, because people told them so. So much for warping history.

Sorry for coming on you so hard, but freedom of speech is something I take very seriously.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 01:36 AM   #45
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
yeah......what he said.......I agree 100% with everything C'jais said, I don't think freedom of speech should EVER be curbed simply because you're spreading bad ideas.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 04:26 AM   #46
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
I'm with Eagle here

Quote:
C'Jais:
And rightly so. Christians as individuals usually set a good example, but banning Nazism as a cause would require the same to be done to Christianity.
No it will not. Christianity is something that formed our moral norms we accept for over a millenia to present moment while nazism is not. It proved futile and furthermore distructive.

Quote:
Absolutely not. That line of thought is unreasonable in the extreme. Again, it's a return to book burnings we see here. You think it's dangerous to let such books circulate in society, whereas I see a danger in such a mean of thought control. And that's what it is - thought control. You deny someone their right to publish books becuase of your own subjective opinion of the theme. That's horrid.
No I think you're wrong. There's no such thing as freedom in perspective. There're always limitations. We only decide how much of them we need and it's something fundamental. So there's no such thing as non-thought control. You want more freedom for your thought but you have it.
Rape book is not only banned because of someone's subjective opinion but because of right of those censorers to defy what fits the moral norms of the society and what's not. Rape certainly does not. So it's publish should be banned. Ill people still can find any information they need through web or their own imagination and of course it's just a matter of time till a rapist would show he's claws and such books would only make it faster. But a normal person should not be provocated in a propaganda way because such a book would only be banned if rape is glamorized there. And those books that condemn rape are in the society in numbers.
Of course I'm not agreed when my favourite songs concerning september, planes and blood are banned. It's a limitation over the top. I want to fight with these limitations

Quote:
Again, I don't see you wanting to ban Das Kapital even though it's done more bad than Nazism. You want to ban Mein Kampf because of you own subjective stance on it, and that's what's leading to totalitarian regimes. Oh, you have perfectly good intentions, but so did Hitler. You warp the past and create wisted arguments to support your own opinion. Not fact, or human rights.
Hitler was ill. He had mixed conceptions of good and bad. You should look at his childhood.

Quote:
Yes, we hate it so fervently because our history books condemn it. Anarchy was given a chance to work during the Spanish civil war. It gave a massive moral boost to the fighting people. Now however, it'll never be allowed again, because people like you are set on banning it unreasonably. What if anarchy was a better system than a republic? We'll never know, because the thought police are already out there and doing its work.
Yeah that's a bad thing, the same as banning songs. But Anarchy is something everybody knows what is and we get knowledge about and not just subjective in schools. We learn it's factual goals and we're explained why it doesn't work. Or these goals are also subjective because author of a school book was a human? Or you mean that I can't imagine anarchy implicitly in all of it's forms because I lived only in republic?

Quote:
Elementary school? Not so. Gymnasium? Hardly. University level? Maybe, but as they've never f*cking read the damn thing, how can they possibly hope to make an informed, factual opinion of it? They know it's a bad book, because people told them so. So much for warping history.
After all everything depends on them. They can get it if they're really really interested.

But realization of some things after all comes only with experience.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 07:51 AM   #47
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
You can't compare the bible with Mein Kampf, for obvious reasons, but if a book is legal in the country, I guess it should be allowed.
No, you're right. It's a gross insult to Nazism, but somehow I don't care very much.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
If you're saying Anarchist books should be illegal, you're contradicting yourself because there are, quote, "people out there who thinks [it's] good and you simply make an arbitrary judgement of what is good and bad" (forgot who said that).
Aah. Well, the Complete Anarchist's cookbook is a book on how to make bombs 'n stuff like that from household materials. So, no, I reckon I'm not contradicting myself here, as this is merely the eqivalent of gun control. It's not just any Anarchistic book.

Quote:
You don't realize there's a difference between reasons for hating then. Quick, name one death camp run by the Jews. Quick, name one holocaust carried out by Jews. Quick, tell me how Jews have killed 6,000,000+ members of a single group (the nazis killed this many Jews).
Jenin, Jenin, Never had the power to do so, but would happily do it to the entire Arabian world if they did. And the feeling is mutual.

Quote:
Christianity is something that formed our moral norms we accept for over a millenia to present moment while nazism is not. It proved futile and furthermore distructive.
If you kill one man, you are a murderer, if you kill ten thousand, you are a hero. The fact that they carried out their insane and murderous practises for more than 100 times as long as the Nazis suddenly makes them accepted. And by the way, you're wrong about the norms, etc. They were made by those who opposed Christianity during the Age of Enlightenment, and later The Modern Breakthrough.

Quote:
No I think you're wrong. There's no such thing as freedom in perspective. There're always limitations. We only decide how much of them we need and it's something fundamental. So there's no such thing as non-thought control. You want more freedom for your thought but you have it.
Point.

Quote:
Rape book is not only banned because of someone's subjective opinion but because of right of those censorers to defy what fits the moral norms of the society and what's not. Rape certainly does not. So it's publish should be banned.
And in some underdeveloped places, like the US, porn is against the norm of society. But if the "norm of society" was not merely dictated by a little group of priests and other no-good well-fare abusers, then this norm would be embraced by the majority without needing the bother of censorship.

What I'm getting at is that 99.99+% of the population will be able to read the book and still won't commit rape. This says to me that the rapists are wrong, not the books. Which again says to me that the rapists would probably commit rape anyway. Which says to me that you're sacrificing something valuable for little or no gain. Which is a stupid thing to do.

Quote:
Hitler was ill. He had mixed conceptions of good and bad. You should look at his childhood.
Objection: Relevance?

Quote:
Or these goals are also subjective because author of a school book was a human?
Yes.

Quote:
Or you mean that I can't imagine anarchy implicitly in all of it's forms because I lived only in republic?
Yes. But that's not relevant either.


Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 05-08-2003 at 08:14 AM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 10:11 AM   #48
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Books are banned when people are afraid of the ideas they may posses, however; immoral or unpopular a book may be. It and its "ideas" are still a part of free speech.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" didn't support racism it was part of the story the "Mein Kampf" though I haven't read it. I believe supports fascism. If I know Hitler that knotty boy.

Am I wrong in assuming pornography is banned from schools already? The only reason someone hasn't made that illegal is the part in the constitution where it says "freedom of speech" or something to that effect. When I was in High School 7 years ago they had a copy mined you only one of the Satanic Bible in the school library.

Just because a book supports a negative view it shouldn't be banned from a school. If you do that than your teaching is one sided whether right or wrong point of view. It's the teachers and the parentsí jobs to help the children interpret what they read and understand what's going on. Christians have been doing that with the Bible for a long time. The problem is Parents want someone else to teach their kids right from wrong.

The problem here if they banned a book like ďTo Kill a MockingbirdĒ it was probably banned because of Political Correctness not because it had racism in the story. Some kidís mother probably read the book with them and took offence. They complained or threaten a law suit or whatever I donít know thatís how these things happen. I could understand a little more if it was a book about racism and it was written by a KKK Red Dragon or something, but than it would still be protected.

Didnít Hitler bann alot of books because of their nonfascist ideas or maybe he just didnít like competition.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 10:43 AM   #49
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Books are banned when people are afraid of the ideas they may posses, however; immoral or unpopular a book may be. It and its "ideas" are still a part of free speech.
*Promptly removes Mr. Jack from Ignore List.*

Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
"To Kill a Mockingbird" didn't support racism it was part of the story the "Mein Kampf" though I haven't read it. I believe supports fascism. If I know Hitler that knotty boy.
Nah. Facism was inspired by Mein Kampf, but the book (im)proper is Nazistic. Not much of a difference, though.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Am I wrong in assuming pornography is banned from schools already?
Nothing I know of. Can't see why it should be, though.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
It's the teachers and the parentsí jobs to help the children interpret what they read and understand what's going on. Christians have been doing that with the Bible for a long time.
Yeah. Christians have been doing that to the Bible ever since it was written... First to make it appear harmless, then to take complete and utter control over people's lives, then, after being beaten into submission, to make it seem innocious... Am I the only one spotting a pattern here?

Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Didnít Hitler bann alot of books because of their nonfascist ideas or maybe he just didnít like competition.
Yeah, he did.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 11:36 AM   #50
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Yeah. Christians have been doing that to the Bible ever since it was written... First to make it appear harmless, then to take complete and utter control over people's lives, then, after being beaten into submission, to make it seem innocious... Am I the only one spotting a pattern here?
No I have seen it all my life. It sticks out like a swastika in a white circle on a red background. I think I am the only person to ever read the bible and get pissedoff.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 12:22 PM   #51
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
I think I am the only person to ever read the bible and get pissedoff.
Presumably because most other like-minded people get sick and tired of it less than half-way through.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 03:14 PM   #52
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Homuncul
No it will not. Christianity is something that formed our moral norms we accept for over a millenia to present moment while nazism is not.
It did not. Anyone can see how virtually every society arrives at the same basic morals, with or without religion.

Quote:
It proved futile and furthermore distructive.
So did Christianity. Your point?

Quote:
No I think you're wrong. There's no such thing as freedom in perspective. There're always limitations. We only decide how much of them we need and it's something fundamental. So there's no such thing as non-thought control. You want more freedom for your thought but you have it.
Yes, but we have to draw a line somewhere. I think we should make everything public in this regard. Keeping the "Anarchists cook-book" etc banned is okay, as this is gun control (like ST pointed out). Banning "Mein Kampf" is political control.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 06:29 PM   #53
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Homuncul
No I think you're wrong. There's no such thing as freedom in perspective. There're always limitations. We only decide how much of them we need and it's something fundamental. So there's no such thing as non-thought control. You want more freedom for your thought but you have it.
Again, the public ought to draw the line - if they don't like it, they don't buy it. We have to courses of action:

1) Let censors decide which books and which political parties are banned. The problem here is that this will udavoidably lead to conflicting opinions - if Mein Kampf is banned, why isn't Das Kapital banned as well? If a book promoting rape is banned, which isn't the Holy Bible banned as well? All promote a destructive change in society which will gnaw at the fundament of Democracy. Banning MK but not Das Kapital only shows that the censors have no idea what they're doing - Das Kapital promotes an equally dangerous society, one which will replace democracy and remove the government. It shows that the censors are biased towards Communism, and inflicts this bias upon the democratic society which they are supposed to protect and uphold (all the while promoting, through censorship, an anti-democratic government). Is this fair?

2) On the other hand, we can let every political text be open for public use and abuse. There is no bias here, and democracy is upheld, but there's the danger that some people might be swayed and persuaded by these texts to commit crimes and try to destroy democracy.

It is this very self-sacrificing idea behind democracy which must be protected in my eyes. Choice No. 1 has a huge democratic loss in the form of free speech, but it has the gain of upholding the current government. It relies upon faith - the faith that through tight censorship, peace in the system is attained. I am of the belief that a peace through this can never be attained, and that such a government will never find the strengh to support itself, and will gradually spin itself into a censoring hole from which it cannot recover and will ultimately breed terror groups.

Quote:
Rape book is not only banned because of someone's subjective opinion but because of right of those censorers to defy what fits the moral norms of the society and what's not.
Who gave them that right, and on which basis? Would society crumble if they weren't there?

Quote:
Hitler was ill. He had mixed conceptions of good and bad. You should look at his childhood.
That's not relevant.

Quote:
We learn it's factual goals and we're explained why it doesn't work.
So why not explain that Communism can't work either? Or a Church? Again, unneeded, biased censorship.

Quote:
Or you mean that I can't imagine anarchy implicitly in all of it's forms because I lived only in republic?
I mean that the only reason you believe Anarchy can't work, and a Church can work, is because of biased censorship.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 08:02 PM   #54
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
C' Jais: I didn't say Communism was good, did I?

Okay, here's the deal (what I meant to say):
Most christians practice chrisitanity in a way that doesn't really hurt people, apart from being a different view (ie. believing in God, not Allah), which is not offensive. A few think the Bible is a facist handbook.

All nazis are anti-semitistic, racists, and so on.

That's the difference.

Body count... The christians killed that many people, yes, but that was houndreds of years ago. It's like saying Norwegians are barbarians today because we were Vikings 1000 years ago, I think.

Quote:
Books are banned when people are afraid of the ideas they may posses, however; immoral or unpopular a book may be. It and its "ideas" are still a part of free speech.
I want to ban Mein Kampf, but I'm not afraid of nazis, so I'm afraid you're wrong. If I was a Pakistani, maybe. Seeing I'm blonde, no.

Quote:
I mean that the only reason you believe Anarchy can't work, and a Church can work, is because of biased censorship.
Um.. or maybe he's been to churches and seen them work? IMO, all the sermons I've been to in Christian Norway "worked". What's your definition of a "working" church anyway (just curious)? Anarchy deserves a whole thread of itself, IMO.

And about the rape book in my example, haven't you considered that it's not that "we think rape is wrong", but that it might increase the amount of rapes in the country, give the rapers a "leader"/"hero", and glorify rapes to the rapists?

If you value Democracy over as low a rate of sexual abuse as possible, well, tell that to girl who've been raped. "Yeah, the rape rate went up 10% but we're a democracy, so it's okay?"

This brings me to an interesting point. Yes, we value democracy, but don't we also value safety, security, acceptance, etc.?

Let's say we ban My Struggle and Nazism. You were right, and the exact same people remain anti-minority groups, but under new names. Pointless? No. Because although their opinions are the same still, their message will be different when they can't publicly call themselves "nazis", recognizing Adolf Hitler as their leader. Their message will be different when they can't use swastikas as symbols. You can say the exact same things about Jews (unless anti-semitism is banned too, which I'd like to see), but you'll be "just another racist", not a "member of the faction that killed 6 000 000 Jews". It might not be different to you, but I ensure you it'll be a big difference to those hit by their remarks (such as me).

Also about rape: You may value democracy, but if 5000 more girls are raped in the States annualy because of Molesting for Dummies, what's wrong with banning it?

This whole "if we ban this, we'll ban that and pretty soon we'll be a dictatorship" thing is simply not valid. Norway, for example, outlaws burning American flags. They don't, however, plan to outlaw saying something bad about America or Americans. Your theory of a "domino effect" is just that: A theory.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 09:13 PM   #55
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I want to ban Mein Kampf, but I'm not afraid of nazis, so I'm afraid you're wrong. If I was a Pakistani, maybe. Seeing I'm blonde, no.
Hmm so youíre against free speech?

Freedom of speech protects the Fascists, the KKK, and Christians alike. While we are at it lets ban Maxiam it portrays a negative image of women and the Bible it promotes beleving in a god or your going to hell. Lets just ban books all together, because everybody might not like what they have to say.

The simple fact here is. If I want to be a Christian, a Nazi, a Communist, or a Capitalist. I have that right in the USA. Itís on paper itís the law. If I want to read about it, or talk about it, or demonstrate about it. As long as Iím not hurting anyone or causing trouble I am free to do so. If you donít want to read the ďMein KampfĒ guess what you have the freedom not to read it also. Nobody in this country has the right to tell me what I can and can not read. Itís the law. If this country starts banning books itís on its way to fascism in a hand basket. Might as well get out your swastika.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
This whole "if we ban this, we'll ban that and pretty soon we'll be a dictatorship" thing is simply not valid. Norway, for example, outlaws burning American flags. They don't, however, plan to outlaw saying something bad about America or Americans. Your theory of a "domino effect" is just that: A theory.
Heil Dagobahn Eagle. I ve ian Berliner ? <--- That was just wrong of me


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.

Last edited by Cosmos Jack; 05-08-2003 at 09:26 PM.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 09:56 PM   #56
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
That was just wrong of me
1. Weird.
2. Du bist nicht eine Berliner.
3. Du mussen Deutsch lehren, but your spelling is already addressed.
4. Pointless. Banning nazi books doesn't make me a nazi , or what? Maybe I'm in favour of dictatorship (in your opinion), but you do realize it's not very nazistic to ban nazist ideas, right? Because how would I do it? First I'd have to ban my own speech, and then I'd be stuck!

Quote:
Lets just ban books all together, because everybody might not like what they have to say.
I don't think that's a good idea.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 10:07 PM   #57
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
3. Du mussen Deutsch lehren, but your spelling is already addressed.
That's how it showed up on Yahoo search.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
4. Pointless. Banning nazi books doesn't make me a nazi , or what? Maybe I'm in favour of dictatorship (in your opinion), but you do realize it's not very nazistic to ban nazist ideas, right? Because how would I do it? First I'd have to ban my own speech, and then I'd be stuck!
Not necessarily you can be a fascist without being a Nazi. They donít have exclusive rights over fascism.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I don't think that's a good idea.
Neither is banning a book, because you don't agree with it.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2003, 10:52 PM   #58
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
That's how it showed up on Yahoo search.
LOL!
It's "Ich bin ein(e?) Berliner."

Facist, nazi, or just pro-censorship. Point is, banning it doesn't make me a facist OR a nazi. Like a facist, maybe, but not necessarily an actual facist.

Quote:
Neither is banning a book, because you don't agree with it.
Well, it's not that I don't agree with it, otherwise I'd have banned every Republican book out there. Problem is, keeping it legal to society destructive to society more than not banning it is constructive. In my opinion.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-09-2003, 12:21 AM   #59
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Well, it's not that I don't agree with it, otherwise I'd have banned every Republican book out there. Problem is, keeping it legal to society destructive to society more than not banning it is constructive. In my opinion.
Like I said before... Regardless of being negative or positive it has equal protection under freedom of speech that's just the way it is. If you ban it for whatever reason you are denying that freedom. People have the freedom to read and think hate field things if they want.

During the rise of Christianity the early christens ram sacked a Library in Alexandria. At the time a center of knowledge. They did that, because they considered the science and reading there to be pagan and against Christianity. At the time paganism was viewed as bad fascism is now. The problem here is if they had not done that The Dark Ages may never have happened. We could have been on the moon a few hundred years ago.

It was a Nazi scientist that built the rocket that took the US to the moon. In fact allot of advancements came from the Nazis, however; bad they may have been there is allot of things we wouldnít have right now if WWII had never have happened. We might not even have Computers.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-09-2003, 01:12 AM   #60
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Many good points there, CJ.

I'm familiar with the 1st Amendment, but I believe the question of the thread is "but should it stay that way"?

Quote:
It was a Nazi scientist that built the rocket that took the US to the moon. In fact allot of advancements came from the Nazis, however; bad they may have been there is allot of things we wouldnít have right now if WWII had never have happened. We might not even have Computers.
I get your point.
However, we can't know that the USA wouldn't have built rockets if Nazi Germany didn't. True, war is a good reason for promoting research, but let's say that the USSR built the first long-range rockets, beating the USA, and even ended up landing on the moon ("a small step for me, a huge step for the mothers' land"), just to beat the States.

True, computers are also inventions that we can "thank" WW II for, but again, we don't know how things would have been different without WW II.

This is an argument I haven't used before, just as a side note.

Let's say you run from school one day, late for the bus. As you run into this road intersection, wham, a bicyclist hits you and runs over your arm, breaking it, causing you to be unable to play for your team, which affects the game because they have to insert someone else who's not doing too well in center-position.

So let's say you turn back time. This time, too, you run away from school, but stop before the intersection. You see the bike pass you harmlessy and move on into the intersection







where the bus hits it, killing the biker. You, on the other hand, moves on to play for your team, which wins the cup.

IMO, you winning the cup = computers and moon landing, while the dead biker = the deaths and horrors of WW II. If I were you, I'd not turn back time in that scenario.

I know that doesn't refute your argument, but I find it interesting.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-09-2003, 01:59 AM   #61
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm familiar with the 1st Amendment, but I believe the question of the thread is "but should it stay that way"?
I think I said it should. If in one way or another.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I get your point. However, we can't know that the USA wouldn't have built rockets if Nazi Germany didn't. True, war is a good reason for promoting research, but let's say that the USSR built the first long-range rockets, beating the USA, and even ended up landing on the moon ("a small step for me, a huge step for the mothers' land"), just to beat the States.
Well the Nazis built the 1st working usable rockets. The USA and the USSR bothe used Nazi scientist and technology to build them. The Russians did launch the 1st long ranch rocket into space putting Sputnik in orbit beating the US, however; they started the space race and the US one out in the long run.

So the Russians did build a long ranch rocket first and the US still beat them to the moon... So I'm sorry but the bottom of your statement is a little off.

So as for WWII being responsible for many of the nifty things we have today. Whether they would have come about if not for war is unknown. Space travel was believed to be utterly impossible since combustion could not occur in space. If someone had not invested the time in making a working rocket even if for war nobody may have been able to.

Necessity is the mother of invitation. Nobody is going to break their necks making something happen that isnít needed, and war is the ultimate needy thing. All kinds of things come from war and the need to do it better than your opponent. We wouldnít have the ballpoint pin if not for war. It was invented for early fighter pilots.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-09-2003, 10:47 AM   #62
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
C' Jais: I didn't say Communism was good, did I?
So you'd want to ban Das Kapital as well?

And every even remotely extremist right-wing political propaganda poster?

Quote:
Most christians practice chrisitanity in a way that doesn't really hurt people, apart from being a different view (ie. believing in God, not Allah), which is not offensive. A few think the Bible is a facist handbook.
I'm not talking about Christians as individuals.

I'm talking about the Church as an institution. An institution which discriminates, feed on its members, twists their minds and stands like a roadblock in the way of science. It's dangerous, though very few are willing to see it. As ST said, it's accepted because we're used to it, just like Communism is through some strange turn of fate more accepted than Nazism even though it's done far more evil. Because many Russians grew up with Stalin during their entire lives, he's a "great leader", compared to Hitler who's a fascist monster. I was recently in Spain, and I talked to an old lady - she liked Franco's dictatorship far better than the current democracy "because back in the day, the police would take care of all the thugs on the street". Weird, but possible only because people had become used to it.

All around the world, we scoff at the Moonies for "brainwashing" people and instilling a dangerous sense of righteousness into people. Yet most are not aware that their Church next door does the exact same thing. It's done far worse, but as its been forced into submission it no longer has the influence it desperately wants.

Quote:
All nazis are anti-semitistic, racists, and so on.
All churches will install a theocracy with its own moral doctrines had they the power.

Quote:
Body count... The christians killed that many people, yes, but that was houndreds of years ago.
Even today, churches are making people die and kill for them, disrupting education and destroying cultures.

Quote:
I want to ban Mein Kampf, but I'm not afraid of nazis, so I'm afraid you're wrong. If I was a Pakistani, maybe. Seeing I'm blonde, no.
You're obviously still afraid of Nazis, even though they're not interested in harming you specifically. One doesn't exclude the other.


Quote:
Um.. or maybe he's been to churches and seen them work? IMO, all the sermons I've been to in Christian Norway "worked". What's your definition of a "working" church anyway (just curious)?
I haven't seen any "working" churches, that's the entire problem. You haven't seen any "working" dictatorships, have you?

Quote:
Anarchy deserves a whole thread of itself, IMO.
Yes, but you'd still want to ban it if it was up to you, no?

Quote:
And about the rape book in my example, haven't you considered that it's not that "we think rape is wrong", but that it might increase the amount of rapes in the country, give the rapers a "leader"/"hero", and glorify rapes to the rapists?

If you value Democracy over as low a rate of sexual abuse as possible, well, tell that to girl who've been raped. "Yeah, the rape rate went up 10% but we're a democracy, so it's okay?"
The point is a good one, though very academic in my eyes.

Who would want to publish such a book? Do you think any publisher would foresee it selling very well?

Besides, such a hero figure have already been created. Look at the internet - I'm willing to bet that a lot of rape-glamourizing porn and fan fiction has been made already. Anyone can view this. But do you see an increased rate of rape? No, the people commiting rape are not looking for a hero figure, and even if the decidedly sick people were, it wouldn't matter- they'd be sick enough to have raped any way.

Again, the internet is used for spreading political propaganda, but we don't see an increase in Nazi supporters, do we? No, because if you're looking for this in the first place, you're sick enough already. It won't convince normal people in the slightest, just like a book glorifying rape wouldn't convince every male to go out and rape women.

The rape example will never be realized - there'd have to be something inherently wrong with all peope if they're willing to throw their morals on the fire just for a book they'll never read anyway.

Quote:
Let's say we ban My Struggle and Nazism. You were right, and the exact same people remain anti-minority groups, but under new names. Pointless? No. Because although their opinions are the same still, their message will be different when they can't publicly call themselves "nazis", recognizing Adolf Hitler as their leader. Their message will be different when they can't use swastikas as symbols.
Eagle, you know that isn't going to happen. You can't just call yourself a "Flazi" and expect to be ignored if your opinions are the same as Nazistic ones. You want to ban extreme political views - you can't just ban a group of people and expect to be rid of the problem. Everyone will still be offended by these new "Flazis", and you'd have to ban them as well. Until you banned the wrong views, you wouldn't be rid of the problem.

Quote:
You can say the exact same things about Jews (unless anti-semitism is banned too, which I'd like to see), but you'll be "just another racist", not a "member of the faction that killed 6 000 000 Jews". It might not be different to you, but I ensure you it'll be a big difference to those hit by their remarks (such as me).
Eagle, what you're doing is erasing history. As long as the name "Nazi" doesn't exist anywhere, you're satisfied? Once the new group publishes a book with the exact same ideas that Hitler had, are you saying you wouldn't ban it?

Quote:
Also about rape: You may value democracy, but if 5000 more girls are raped in the States annualy because of Molesting for Dummies, what's wrong with banning it?
Again, that would never happen. The political examples are valid, but the rape one is way out there.

And political control should never happen.

Quote:
This whole "if we ban this, we'll ban that and pretty soon we'll be a dictatorship" thing is simply not valid. Norway, for example, outlaws burning American flags. They don't, however, plan to outlaw saying something bad about America or Americans. Your theory of a "domino effect" is just that: A theory.
It's not a domino effect.

Where do you draw the line? Who decides which movie promotes, and which one doesn't? Who decides if American History X promotes Nazism? You'd have to constantly ban every new extremist political stance - it's not a domino effect, it's just something that'd naturally occur every once in a while as the wrong people are always looking for the right excuse.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-09-2003, 01:24 PM   #63
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Lightbulb

I was eating tortilla chips with spicy salsa just now and was thinking about how allot of people I know don't like hot & spicy salsa.

It has an odd parallel to free speech. Freedom to eat what you want is like the freedom to say and read what you want. Say you're a Republican you might like nice fancy restaurants or you're a Democrat you can't afford to much so you eat fast food allot.

I might have a taste for them capitalistic McDonalds guys or choose to go Commi Burger King. Maybe I'm just down right Fascist and go to Taco Bell.

The point here is you have the freedom to eat what you want. If you don't like what McDonalds has to eat you don't have to go there. If you don't like any of the choices you have the freedom to fix for yourself what you want to eat, and nobody has to like it but you.

If I right a book about the pros of eugenics and planned parent hood it might not be to popular with all the christen crowd. They don't have to read it neither does anyone else, however; I have the right to think that I even have the right to speak out about it. If my ideas are truly viewed as wrong I'm not going to get much support.

Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. Whatís right is what the majority thinks is right same for what's wrong. All the people in history who have done bad things only did bad things; because they didn't win and go on to right the history. Christians for example think they have saved the world and if you read the more popular crap you would think they did. There are millions of dead Native Americans who would argue that.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-12-2003, 04:53 AM   #64
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
Quote:
ShadowTemplar:
And in some underdeveloped places, like the US, porn is against the norm of society. But if the "norm of society" was not merely dictated by a little group of priests and other no-good well-fare abusers, then this norm would be embraced by the majority without needing the bother of censorship.

What I'm getting at is that 99.99+% of the population will be able to read the book and still won't commit rape. This says to me that the rapists are wrong, not the books. Which again says to me that the rapists would probably commit rape anyway. Which says to me that you're sacrificing something valuable for little or no gain. Which is a stupid thing to do.
If you're not agreed with these censorers become one yourself and change the damn thing.
Majority is a superstition. Those not very clever people who are propagaded with doing rape might find suitable to rape not because of their mind desease (they are not with high probability to become rapists) but because of their inability to follow their own decisions resulting in the persuadence of ideals of some horrible book (ocassionally). These things happen with many people. Some are just not as smart as you. Face it.

Quote:
Objection: Relevance?
I don't know maybe you're too much sticking with the words. Understand, many of us can follow with great accuracy, logically, imaginatively the illness of Hitler with high relevance concerning of his acts in history. Actually concerning to the point where relevance is defined by our assumptions. I can follow the facts about Hitler as any shrink can do to say that Hitler was an ill person (but very capable nonetheless I think). If you can't postulate that facts (measurement) are subjective too (highly inaccurate) then I can say for fact (with very high probability and "high level" relevance) that Hitler was ill and had mixed conception of good and bad (ill conceptions) resulting in WWII (missing purposely many leads) which of course is subjective but to which we attribute "high" relevancy which is logical I think.
And the WAY those ideas are propogaded in Mein Kampf should be banned and his illness is one reason for that.

Quote:
Or these goals are also subjective because author of a school book was a human?
Yes
Again we must consider not the facts that these observations of history were made by men so that facts are subjective but that facts are made accurately in time and place and that the conclusions from them were made with logic and high accuracy. If you don't trust these things then whom to trust. Or is it again not relevant? Or we can trust no one?. Something paranoid I think

Quote:
Yes. But that's not relevant either.
It is relevant. We can make more accurate assumptions with all possibilities concerning. And now through historians studying it we can tell with great accuracy that anarchy won't work. Of course it is all probability. But what is not then?

Quote:
C'Jais:
It did not. Anyone can see how virtually every society arrives at the same basic morals, with or without religion.
Ok. Let's look at the "world religion". First every worldview comes out of a myth. Later the society forms it's worldview taken from the conjunction of myths that circulate in their group. Then religion shows up which is the next step of a society evolution. It's adopted by the society to fit the norms (Christianity when comes to some other culture) or necceseties to create other norms(look at Buddhism and Brachmanism). Christianity is young, it's made to be all uniting world religion, a bit weaker is islam, then judaism, then buddhism then others. Then I say that the Christianity unites any of these except islam perhaps. And these basic ideas that circulate in the society are coming from the same myths Christianity inhereted and furthermore we no longer even use these myths to defy our worldview but the Bible which is propagaded to us without intent by our parents or with one by the church.
It comes to the same look worldwide because of Christianity's "universality". so as Christianity prevails I may say that nowadays these norms come from it. Of course I forgot about the opposotion of christianity (that Shadow mentioned) which played its role but it doesn't change a thing.

Quote:
So did Christianity. Your point?
Sure but without the amendment on it's "universality" which we can't by any mean attribute to nazism.

Quote:
Yes, but we have to draw a line somewhere. I think we should make everything public in this regard. Keeping the "Anarchists cook-book" etc banned is okay, as this is gun control (like ST pointed out). Banning "Mein Kampf" is political control.
I agree. I meant that if you want you have a freedom to become a censorer for such books, prove yourself right to those censorers that oppose you and restrict anything you want. You can't eliminate political control, you can only make it smoother. It all depends on you. If you really try you can do it.
But there's another thing. This political control is not opposing us, cauze we're the ones who can read Mein Kampf without problems resulted in a change of our worldview and further participation in a world nazistic revolution. We have a base (our primary upbringing,history knowledge, ability to make logical conclusions and will to make them) as I already mentioned earlier that not all people have. Furhermore the majority do not. That's why I'm for banning Mein Kampf.

Quote:
1) Let censors decide which books and which political parties are banned. The problem here is that this will udavoidably lead to conflicting opinions - if Mein Kampf is banned, why isn't Das Kapital banned as well? If a book promoting rape is banned, which isn't the Holy Bible banned as well? All promote a destructive change in society which will gnaw at the fundament of Democracy. Banning MK but not Das Kapital only shows that the censors have no idea what they're doing - Das Kapital promotes an equally dangerous society, one which will replace democracy and remove the government. It shows that the censors are biased towards Communism, and inflicts this bias upon the democratic society which they are supposed to protect and uphold (all the while promoting, through censorship, an anti-democratic government). Is this fair?
But I think you're too pessimistic. I can only refer to my early sinusoidal view on such tendencies. It's economy, nothing must stand in place, it must always move. And this movement leads to these points of max (people's extreme) and min (their indifference). But this is micro level. On macro level you will see an autonymously balancing machine which'd formed recently that gives no opportunity to these tendencies to prevail completely. It's mine and not soly mine view

Quote:
2) On the other hand, we can let every political text be open for public use and abuse. There is no bias here, and democracy is upheld, but there's the danger that some people might be swayed and persuaded by these texts to commit crimes and try to destroy democracy.
Right. So you see these are the same two points of max and min (resulting in destruction of democracy) but the balance is in the middle.

Quote:
It is this very self-sacrificing idea behind democracy which must be protected in my eyes. Choice No. 1 has a huge democratic loss in the form of free speech, but it has the gain of upholding the current government. It relies upon faith - the faith that through tight censorship, peace in the system is attained. I am of the belief that a peace through this can never be attained, and that such a government will never find the strengh to support itself, and will gradually spin itself into a censoring hole from which it cannot recover and will ultimately breed terror groups.
Again maybe you're too pessimistic about it. With great probability You will never see in your lifetime anything like nazist doctrine. I hold to that.

Quote:
Who gave them that right, and on which basis? Would society crumble if they weren't there?
Sorry, but it's political control of the state you live in. You live in it, it gives you rights it takes something instead. But you're nothing without it. Don't mean any offense

Quote:
So why not explain that Communism can't work either? Or a Church? Again, unneeded, biased censorship.
Some are just incapable of listening as some fighting muslim terrorists (perfect example). And in the case of Church - unfortunately it is working.

Quote:
I mean that the only reason you believe Anarchy can't work, and a Church can work, is because of biased censorship.
No, I don't believe anarchy can't work because I CAN'T read a book where anarchy is glamorized and it's "good" things are explained imlicitly and maybe even prevail over the bad ones. But because I've been introduced to all of it's goals and at present moment I can decide for myself whether Anarchy is right or wrong not thinking about my historian professor saying it's wrong but relying on my conclusions about it. Maybe my conclusions miss some data for calculation than I make a terrible mistake. But I think that our BELIEF in something is a justification for that missing data. Although I try not to miss it happens. But it could also happen that I was still right ocassionally not concerning the missing data.

That's actually why I'm hear I'm looking for something that'd been missed and if someone would convince me of it I would only appreciate it.

P.S. My mouth is numb I can speak no more or I lose my myself.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-13-2003, 01:21 AM   #65
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Whoa, long post

Quote:
Elementary school? Not so. Gymnasium? Hardly. University level? Maybe, but as they've never f*cking read the damn thing, how can they possibly hope to make an informed, factual opinion of it? They know it's a bad book, because people told them so. So much for warping history.
Not so.
Well, here's what an elementary school child knows:
MK is Hitler's book.

Middle/High school:
MK is the book that Hitler wrote when he was jailed for nazism before WW II.

College:
Probably have it summarized for them.

Quote:
No, I don't believe anarchy can't work because I CAN'T read a book where anarchy is glamorized and it's "good" things are explained imlicitly and maybe even prevail over the bad ones. But because I've been introduced to all of it's goals and at present moment I can decide for myself whether Anarchy is right or wrong not thinking about my historian professor saying it's wrong but relying on my conclusions about it. Maybe my conclusions miss some data for calculation than I make a terrible mistake. But I think that our BELIEF in something is a justification for that missing data. Although I try not to miss it happens. But it could also happen that I was still right ocassionally not concerning the missing data.
Good point. Even if books are banned, we can still educate people on the good and bad sides of the subject, can't we?

A school can disallow promotion of bullying and still teach about bullying. You're right, letting kids bully would be the best way to teach them about it, but face it: Which one is the most constructive? Which one leaves the most people feeling bad and hurt?

And about burning books.. well, look at vires scientists "make extinct". When they can't, they don't make them extinct, they preserve a few of them in laboratories, where they can keep studying them.

I don't think in any way that we should eradicate all copies of My Struggle and completely forget what the Red-White-Black Nazi flag looked like. Include them in museums, history books, and otherwise, but ban possession of them and promotion of them (except to gain a somewhat more biased view of them ). However, it shouldn't be promoted.

If a teacher stood up and said: "Okay, today, to get a full view on bullying, I'll tell you why you should bully people", and then went on to ignore all bullies, would you like that? No. Why? Because you know bullying is bad. Same with banning books like the Protocols of Zion (Jewish propaganda) and My Struggle (Hitler's book).

If you don't agree with the censoring the current party is doing, let that party or another party know it will get your votes by allowing the work. Let it be up to the ruling party to carry out the wishes of the people. Democracy.

Quote:
You can't just call yourself a "Flazi" and expect to be ignored if your opinions are the same as Nazistic ones. You want to ban extreme political views - you can't just ban a group of people and expect to be rid of the problem. Everyone will still be offended by these new "Flazis", and you'd have to ban them as well. Until you banned the wrong views, you wouldn't be rid of the problem.
Okay, I'm wrong. So, are you for banning anti-semitism then?

Quote:
I was eating tortilla chips with spicy salsa just now and was thinking about how allot of people I know don't like hot & spicy salsa.

It has an odd parallel to free speech. Freedom to eat what you want is like the freedom to say and read what you want. Say you're a Republican you might like nice fancy restaurants or you're a Democrat you can't afford to much so you eat fast food a lot.
It goes a bit deeper than that. We want certain books prohibited because we think they are harmful, not because we just dislike them.

If I suspected your chips were salmonnela-infested, I'd want you not to eat it. If it was safe, heck, I've heard about eating places where they serve whale meat, for crying out loud! But unless it's harmful, and even if they're harmful, it's their right to eat it. Still, if the whale meat gave you diarrhead, I'd speak up against eating it.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-13-2003, 04:43 AM   #66
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
It goes a bit deeper than that. We want certain books prohibited because we think they are harmful, not because we just dislike them.
No it really doesn't go deeper there guy. That's pretty much rock bottom. It's also like people wanting to ban firearms. If you ban guns to people that can legally own them at the moment. It's not going to get rid of all the illegally ones. There are also a lot of people that know how to make guns. So all you do is create a underworld market for such things. Wait a minute there already is one. If I want to kill someone do you really think I'm going to get a gun registered to me. Nah I'm going to Joe Shmowe he has a tone of them from where he buys and trades them on the street.

Ban all the books you want. Little "Albert" when he grows up is going to be "Albert Heckler" and be the 1st Fascist Dictator of the U.S.A. Them dam Flazies. Not only did he not ever read about fascism. He came up with it out of his little head. No matter how many negative ideas you ban there will always be someone in the future that will come up with that same idea. Maybe even add a new twist and make it worse.

Telling someone they can't think or read a certain thing is like telling a guy with gun to your head to not pull the trigger. It's up to them what they do with what they think. Not all people are going to pull the trigger, and you can't do a dam thing about the one that does.

Ban books on how to rape it doesn't take a guy with a 200+ IQ to figure out how to rape a woman. It's not like you have to read a book. I seriously doubt most rapist read a book on how to rape.

Ban books on how to make bombs. Joe Smuckitly a cross the street was a combat engineer in Vietnam. He made bombs all the time. He is going to teach little "Albert" how to make them, because the government went against the right to free speech, and it needs to be overthrown. Go ahead ban books that teach about fascism. Joe Smuckitly hates Christians, because they run the country. He thinks they tell people what to say and think. Joe wants little "Albert" to grow up and wipe them out. Gee though where did they get all these nasty ideas if they couldn't read about them.

Not only are you going to have to ban books, but you better ban the e-net as well. Someday there won't be books. While you're at it figure out how to control what people think, because at the heart of everything here. It's what people come up with in their own heads that does the damage not what they read. Someone came up with the KKK, and someone came up with Fascism. Before there were books about it there was a guy with an Idea. I wouldn't doubt if some day someone is going to make the Nazis look like fairy god mothers. Banning books on how to be that way isn't going to stop hate field "Albert" from growing up to put that illegal off the street gun to your head. After he blew up the 7/11 down the road with the bombs Joe taught him how to make.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-13-2003, 07:02 PM   #67
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally posted by Homuncul
Those not very clever people who are propagaded with doing rape might find suitable to rape not because of their mind desease (they are not with high probability to become rapists) but because of their inability to follow their own decisions resulting in the persuadence of ideals of some horrible book (ocassionally). These things happen with many people. Some are just not as smart as you. Face it.
Are you implying that if some loonie managed to get his rape-glorifying book published, every loonie with access to a shady bookstore would seek it out and start raising the rape statistics? That sounds very pessimistic to me.

With all respect, I think the point is an academic one. When someone does write such a book, every person who's mentally disabled enough to actually go out and rape someone because of it, will have plenty of access to equally "dangerous" works on the internet. You can't stop it, I feel.

Furthermore, I infer that you want to ban murder-promoting books and internet sites as well. Do you have any idea how hard that's going to be? It's nigh impossible, and a quick look at the latest blockbusters will reveal plenty of movies with stumped, murdering people in the lead roles.

Quote:
If you can't postulate that facts (measurement) are subjective too (highly inaccurate) then I can say for fact (with very high probability and "high level" relevance) that Hitler was ill and had mixed conception of good and bad (ill conceptions) resulting in WWII (missing purposely many leads) which of course is subjective but to which we attribute "high" relevancy which is logical I think.
And the WAY those ideas are propogaded in Mein Kampf should be banned and his illness is one reason for that.
Hitler was a crazy man, no doubt there, but you can't ban books because of the mental condition of the author alone. His views are widely regarded as skewed, but because you and I don't agree with them doesn't mean they're ripe for banning. It's yet to be proved that banning Mein Kampf will lower the amount of Nazis.


Quote:
And now through historians studying it we can tell with great accuracy that anarchy won't work. Of course it is all probability. But what is not then?
Anarchy has never been in a position to prove itself as a working political system. Why do you want to ban it?

Communism has been proved worthless - you want to ban Das Kapital as well, I infer.

And how about theocracies and dictatorships - in the light of Democracy, they don't work and are furthermore dangerous to the state. You want to ban litterature, movies and computergames that promote these? Good luck, again.

It comes to the same look worldwide because of Christianity's "universality". so as Christianity prevails I may say that nowadays these norms come from it. Of course I forgot about the opposotion of christianity (that Shadow mentioned) which played its role but it doesn't change a thing.

Quote:
Sure but without the amendment on it's "universality" which we can't by any mean attribute to nazism.
Theocracies do not work, history has proved this on many occasions.

Christianity is no more universal than other religions, and the fact that every time it has tried to be that, it's broken apart (remember the dark ages, and the seperation of church and state?).

Quote:
We have a base (our primary upbringing,history knowledge, ability to make logical conclusions and will to make them) as I already mentioned earlier that not all people have. Furhermore the majority do not.
You don't think most people are quite able to see for themselves that Nazism doesn't quite work, and that glorifying rape is going to get them behind bars pretty damn fast? I think they do.

I think it's only crackpots who can't make those conclusions, and they'd wind up doing school shootings from playing Doom anyway

In other words, I think you're gearing your book banning towards individuals so stumped they'd be placed on asylums at the age of 4.

On the other hand, the masses are easily swayed in times of conflict. Yet when such a troublesome time comes (Germany in the 20's etc), people are willing to look anywhere for guidance and blame to place. Anyone can do this, and in this regard, a church state is just as likely to form if that isn't banned as well.

Quote:
Again maybe you're too pessimistic about it. With great probability You will never see in your lifetime anything like nazist doctrine. I hold to that.
What do you mean? No, I don't think I'll ever see a Nazist rule, and even though it could still happen, I honestly don't think a state which supresses it is going to deter it.

Quote:
Some are just incapable of listening as some fighting muslim terrorists (perfect example). And in the case of Church - unfortunately it is working.
By the same line of thought, Saddam's police state worked as well. For many years. So many years in fact, that people had gotten used to it and didn't see a point in fighting it.

Quote:
P.S. My mouth is numb I can speak no more or I lose my myself.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2003, 12:22 AM   #68
BrodieCadden
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 47
How has this turned into another debate about Christianity? I am all for discussions, but this has been done to death and it has little to do with the topic. Why is it always Christianity that is brought up and ridiculed (not by all, SkinWalker and C'Jais are respectable fellows, who both just happens not to be Christian, and I respect them and I hope they respect me) whenever a religious topic is brought up? There are other world religions ya'know and it is hard for me to keep on defending it (it takes alot of typing ) Can we please lay off? Pick another religion to be the sponge for your, generally, ignorant complaining. Better yet, make an anti-Christianity topic, where y'all can all go and complain.

It is hard for me to enjoy myself here when every thread I go into turns into a ridicule of Christianity. This forum is for "intelligent discussion", I would think staying on topic is part and parcel of that statement, eh chaps? Thankyou

" It's yet to be proved that banning Mein Kampf will lower the amount of Nazis."

I think that keeping Mein Kampf on the market may actually dissuade people from becoming Nazis. Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was a maniac, I lost count of how many times he said "racial poisoning" and how Germany would become "Lords of the Earth". That sort of rhetoric would certainly stop me becoming a Nazi.
BrodieCadden is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2003, 01:39 AM   #69
munik
Banned
 
munik's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 457
It's because christianity permeates many facets in our lives. I don't think this discussion is turning into anything religious. You can have a discussion that mentions religion without being a religious discussion.
munik is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2003, 02:11 AM   #70
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by BrodieCadden
How has this turned into another debate about Christianity?
It didn't get turned into another debate. It was used as a wiping boy, and that's where it belongs.
Quote:
Originally posted by BrodieCadden
Why is it always Christianity that is brought up and ridiculed
Well there is so much to bring up and ridicule about it.
Quote:
Originally posted by BrodieCadden
There are other world religions ya'know and it is hard for me to keep on defending it (it takes alot of typing )
Yes there are many other wonderfully ignorant religions out there, but christianity has a special place in my heart. As for all your typing don't waste your time.
Quote:
Originally posted by BrodieCadden
Can we please lay off? Pick another religion to be the sponge for your, generally, ignorant complaining.
Ignorance is bliss and that's why christians are so happy.

I don't know if that was borderline flaming, but on a scale of 1 to 10%. I was holding back 100%


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2003, 02:19 AM   #71
BrodieCadden
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 47
Cosmos Jack the insults you are throwing around are serious grounds for a banning. Watch yourself, you are coming off as seriously bigoted.
BrodieCadden is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2003, 02:37 AM   #72
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Dont mind cosmos jack, he just likes to irk people



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2003, 02:47 AM   #73
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
From what I can tell you asked questions and I gave you answers. I'm sorry if you didn't like them, but they were true and straight from the heart. They were also as soft as I can make them.

I'm sorry if you're a christian, but that is your problem. If you think what I said was bad. Than you have no true idea of what I really feel on the subject. As for being a bigot. If I'm a bigot than I'm not alone in a world full of christians.

If you really have anything else like above to say to me PM me and keep it off the boards.

Bigot you say.......... Only "by God"

Quote:
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Dont mind cosmos jack, he just likes to irk people
Gee Wiz


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2003, 10:36 PM   #74
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Are you implying that if some loonie managed to get his rape-glorifying book published, every loonie with access to a shady bookstore would seek it out and start raising the rape statistics? That sounds very pessimistic to me.
It's about culture, I think, C' Jais. Maybe it doesn't bring it up too much, but it certainly doesn't lower them.

Look, in the USA, some prisons' webpages publish every little detail on their prisoners on the Web, especially those on Death Row. What they eat, what they think, any point they want to make. Look at the attention already.

Loonies will walk into a bookstore and go "whoa, 500 000 people read this book about how I raped C'Jais's sister?" and then go rape someone, too, just to get the attention. How would you feel?

Quote:
With all respect, I think the point is an academic one. When someone does write such a book, every person who's mentally disabled enough to actually go out and rape someone because of it, will have plenty of access to equally "dangerous" works on the internet. You can't stop it, I feel.
Neither can you stop people from doing drugs. Should drugs be legalized?
Neiter can you stop people from stealing and robbing. Should stealing and robbing be legalized?

Of course there will always be "those" sites. The same goes for child porn and websites selling illegal narcotics. If someone went and legalized them "because it's hopeless to keep them illegal because they show up anyway", how would you feel?

In my personal opinion, it's just as much about the victims. A couple of years ago (just to give an example) two girl, 8 and 10, were raped and killed in a forest in Haugesund City, Norway. If one of the two rapists, say, Viggo Kristiansen, was to publish a book on how he raped those girls, glorifying it troughout the whole book, I'd speak up.

Why?
1. Well, how would family and friends feel?
2. People would go out and do the same thing. Why? Public attention.

Someone put my school on fire once. How many people claimed responsibility? Over a dozen. How many were guilty? Well, neither of those who turned themselves in. Just for attention. See how it works?

Glorifying rape isn't a political view anyhow, and I refuse to believe that there aren't people out there who commit crimes because others do.

Quote:
Hitler was a crazy man, no doubt there, but you can't ban books because of the mental condition of the author alone. His views are widely regarded as skewed, but because you and I don't agree with them doesn't mean they're ripe for banning. It's yet to be proved that banning Mein Kampf will lower the amount of Nazis.
We're not in favour of banning it judging on mental condition and our opinion, but on the fact that he set off WW II.

If he never set off WW II, fine, it'd be another forgotten racist book which no one would read. Still anti-semitic and offensive, but not as good an example.

Quote:
I think it's only crackpots who can't make those conclusions, and they'd wind up doing school shootings from playing Doom anyway

In other words, I think you're gearing your book banning towards individuals so stumped they'd be placed on asylums at the age of 4.
A lot of people can be insane and hide it for a long time. Did Sarah Yates get into an asylum? No. She was even allowed to have kids and ended up drowning them in the bathtub.

I know you didn't necessarily mean it literally, but that's my response.

Quote:
Anarchy has never been in a position to prove itself as a working political system. Why do you want to ban it?

Communism has been proved worthless - you want to ban Das Kapital as well, I infer.
Frankly, I was using nazism as an example. I have yet to consider Das Kapital and anarchy books.

There is, however, the law banning books that are incentive to riots (spreading panic at an airport by persuading people into believing that there's a dirty bomb there, for instance).

Let me say it this way: I won't get in the way of a ban of any books written by Stalin advocating the slaughter of all those workers.

Quote:
How has this turned into another debate about Christianity? I am all for discussions, but this has been done to death and it has little to do with the topic. Why is it always Christianity that is brought up and ridiculed (not by all, SkinWalker and C'Jais are respectable fellows, who both just happens not to be Christian, and I respect them and I hope they respect me) whenever a religious topic is brought up?
Seeing this thread was not a religious thread in the first place, I second that.

Can't someone merge all the christian stuff in a Christianity thread or something? I never started 10 threads on Buddhism, and I have yet to derail a single one by mentioning it. I respect the teachings of Christ, but there's a time and a place for everything, right?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2003, 11:05 PM   #75
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
For one... Christianity isn't being debated. It is being used as an example. It can be just as destructive as anything else, and it is widely excepted. I don't recall any forum rules that state "No using of examples"?


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2003, 11:25 PM   #76
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Gee Wiz
.I was just kidding..........



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-15-2003, 03:31 AM   #77
Homuncul
 
Homuncul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 383
I don't want to ban the world, only something I consider dengerous for common people. Glorifyed rape and Mein Kampf are in my banning list. The line between banning the book or let it live is too unstable as you mentioned and we have to draw it somewhere. There're many "yes" and "no" and the way censorer put accents on them defines whether the book would be published or banned. I also mentioned earlier that it's not banning we should fight. It's only for now. When the desease is cured and not the simptoms we would not need any restrictions. You want to drop people into the water and let them swim while they can't. Some will swim, many will drown. I hold to a more stable future way where freedom is achieved step by step and every single step takes efforts and test to define whether people can sustain themselves on that level. They're learning now to swim with help of their teachers and someday they will need there help nomore. That's main point about banning. If you say again that you will never ever would want to be tought by such teachers-censorers then I say (knowing some of your points) that you can swim faster than them, that you're selfsustained person and now look at those who can't swim...

Quote:
C'Jais:
Furthermore, I infer that you want to ban murder-promoting books and internet sites as well. Do you have any idea how hard that's going to be? It's nigh impossible, and a quick look at the latest blockbusters will reveal plenty of movies with stumped, murdering people in the lead roles.
I can't jump over my head. I love murder myself when it's funny in the movie but I don't remember any movie where murder was actually glorified.

Quote:
Communism has been proved worthless - you want to ban Das Kapital as well, I infer.
Yes... well maybe no. But at least it must be studied early in school.

Quote:
Christianity is no more universal than other religions, and the fact that every time it has tried to be that, it's broken apart (remember the dark ages, and the seperation of church and state?).
I was talking about present day Christianity. Of course I remember history. I say then and now that it became universal nowadays.
Again dark ages where anyone speaking something out of the line was sentenced to death for heresy. I guess it's not the way today it's done. You may be ignored but not punished with death. Christianity overlooked it's methods (again long ago these were methods of single crazy old man).

Quote:
munik:
I think that keeping Mein Kampf on the market may actually dissuade people from becoming Nazis. Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was a maniac, I lost count of how many times he said "racial poisoning" and how Germany would become "Lords of the Earth". That sort of rhetoric would certainly stop me becoming a Nazi.
It won't help cauze some people really don't understand that Hitler was maniac . I know a lot of such people

Quote:
BrodieCadden:
It is hard for me to enjoy myself here when every thread I go into turns into a ridicule of Christianity. This forum is for "intelligent discussion", I would think staying on topic is part and parcel of that statement, eh chaps? Thankyou
Christianity was only mentioned because it's very associative and from my opinion is easy to deal with and that's all. We stick to the topic perfectly. Just don't take it on your account. I' m christened non-christian who let Christianity live. Maybe you should stop worrying too.
Homuncul is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-15-2003, 10:03 AM   #78
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally posted by ET Warrior
.I was just kidding..........
I forgive you.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-20-2003, 09:31 AM   #79
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
C'Jack: You may want to note that Facism is a particular political movement. The catch-all word that you're looking for is 'Totalitarian' (which is, with a little light reasoning, synonymous with 'Religious'). Not that it matters much, I just like to get the terms right.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-20-2003, 03:27 PM   #80
Cosmos Jack
 
Cosmos Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Europe.
Posts: 678
I don't know when I think of christians i think of Nazis and the like. So Facism best discribes how I feel about them. They both have their own form of cross.


-QUOTE------
Every cock fights best on his own dunghill.
Cosmos Jack is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Should books be banned from schools?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:36 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.