Theresa Knott wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@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.
Actually, I think we just reached an at least two-person consensus on the principle behind a wikipedia-related issue. In any case, I have no problems taking it off-list if any more discussion is needed, and I'll shut up now (barring further wikipedia-related discussion to which I wish to respond).
-- Chad