HorrorMovieFans.com

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Nobody is faulting the statue for the actions. If not a single blow was struck by s racist ever again those statues should come down.

not my mindset. actions are the problem. and censorship is an action too. *shrug*

State sponsored philosophy is not the sane as censorship. Feel free to talk about how great being white is, but you don't get public statues for it.

i asked before, and you didn't answer, why were you with me, about defending people wearing the hijab in america or europe (if it happens there?}, in spite of what it represents even in our modern time?

A hijab represents faith. I don't see the similarity.

it is a part of islamic religion and tradition, but it represents subjugation of women. if it was about faith, there would not be punishment for choosing not to wear it in middle eastern cultures. you know this.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:does state sponsored philosophy ever become censorship, in your mind? can state sponsored philosophy ever be oppressive or harmful or wrong?

Yes. All the time. Lots and lots. The worst oppression is state sponsored.

and so censorship can also be state sponsored philosophy, as a form of oppression?

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Nobody is faulting the statue for the actions. If not a single blow was struck by s racist ever again those statues should come down.

not my mindset. actions are the problem. and censorship is an action too. *shrug*

State sponsored philosophy is not the sane as censorship. Feel free to talk about how great being white is, but you don't get public statues for it.

i asked before, and you didn't answer, why were you with me, about defending people wearing the hijab in america or europe (if it happens there?}, in spite of what it represents even in our modern time?

A hijab represents faith. I don't see the similarity.

it is a part of islamic religion and tradition, but it represents subjugation of women. if it was about faith, there would not be punishment for choosing not to wear it in middle eastern cultures. you know this.

The issue there isn't the hijab, it's the regime enforcing the rules. In Britain you can't be punished for taking off your hijab. Yet millions wear it and choose to do so. Simple as.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:does state sponsored philosophy ever become censorship, in your mind? can state sponsored philosophy ever be oppressive or harmful or wrong?

Yes. All the time. Lots and lots. The worst oppression is state sponsored.

and so censorship can also be state sponsored philosophy, as a form of oppression?

100%

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Nobody is faulting the statue for the actions. If not a single blow was struck by s racist ever again those statues should come down.

not my mindset. actions are the problem. and censorship is an action too. *shrug*

State sponsored philosophy is not the sane as censorship. Feel free to talk about how great being white is, but you don't get public statues for it.

i asked before, and you didn't answer, why were you with me, about defending people wearing the hijab in america or europe (if it happens there?}, in spite of what it represents even in our modern time?

A hijab represents faith. I don't see the similarity.

it is a part of islamic religion and tradition, but it represents subjugation of women. if it was about faith, there would not be punishment for choosing not to wear it in middle eastern cultures. you know this.

The issue there isn't the hijab, it's the regime enforcing the rules. In Britain you can't be punished for taking off your hijab. Yet millions wear it and choose to do so. Simple as.

cool. and they have that right. i support it 100% but it could remind muslim women who seek out our freedoms of being subjugated and oppressed, the exact same way that a statue of robert e. lee could remind african americans of slavery and of segregation or the kkk.etc.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:does state sponsored philosophy ever become censorship, in your mind? can state sponsored philosophy ever be oppressive or harmful or wrong?

Yes. All the time. Lots and lots. The worst oppression is state sponsored.

and so censorship can also be state sponsored philosophy, as a form of oppression?

100%

so then, don't say it's state sponsored philosophy not censorship, as if that can never be one and the same.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Nobody is faulting the statue for the actions. If not a single blow was struck by s racist ever again those statues should come down.

not my mindset. actions are the problem. and censorship is an action too. *shrug*

State sponsored philosophy is not the sane as censorship. Feel free to talk about how great being white is, but you don't get public statues for it.

i asked before, and you didn't answer, why were you with me, about defending people wearing the hijab in america or europe (if it happens there?}, in spite of what it represents even in our modern time?

A hijab represents faith. I don't see the similarity.

it is a part of islamic religion and tradition, but it represents subjugation of women. if it was about faith, there would not be punishment for choosing not to wear it in middle eastern cultures. you know this.

The issue there isn't the hijab, it's the regime enforcing the rules. In Britain you can't be punished for taking off your hijab. Yet millions wear it and choose to do so. Simple as.

cool. and they have that right. i support it 100% but it could remind muslim women who seek out our freedoms of being subjugated and oppressed, the exact same way that a statue of robert e. lee could remind african americans of slavery and of segregation or the kkk.etc.

Nope. Not even close. The hijab is not a metaphor for subjugation any more than a Yarmulke or a Cross necklace. They don't get to equate, and there is no argument for banning any of those articles from public soaces that is worth subscribing. And it also has a positive connotation for those involved about their personal choices to get closer to Allah. That is the fact.

The statues occupy none of that space and are again not just people's freedom of expression but public monuments owned by the government and state. They therefore can and should be taken down with no impact on the rights of others to be free from censorship.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:does state sponsored philosophy ever become censorship, in your mind? can state sponsored philosophy ever be oppressive or harmful or wrong?

Yes. All the time. Lots and lots. The worst oppression is state sponsored.

and so censorship can also be state sponsored philosophy, as a form of oppression?

100%

so then, don't say it's state sponsored philosophy not censorship, as if that can never be one and the same.

I'm saying it's not one and is the other.

showa58taro wrote: Nope. Not even close. The hijab is not a metaphor for subjugation any more than a Yarmulke or a Cross necklace. They don't get to equate, and there is no argument for banning any of those articles from public soaces that is worth subscribing. And it also has a positive connotation for those involved about their personal choices to get closer to Allah. That is the fact.

The statues occupy none of that space and are again not just people's freedom of expression but public monuments owned by the government and state. They therefore can and should be taken down with no impact on the rights of others to be free from censorship.

alright. i hope that they stop at just slave owners then. (like lincoln) i'm not ever gonna convince you that it's the actions that are the problem. let's hope that this censorship doesn't go too far.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: Nope. Not even close. The hijab is not a metaphor for subjugation any more than a Yarmulke or a Cross necklace. They don't get to equate, and there is no argument for banning any of those articles from public soaces that is worth subscribing. And it also has a positive connotation for those involved about their personal choices to get closer to Allah. That is the fact.

The statues occupy none of that space and are again not just people's freedom of expression but public monuments owned by the government and state. They therefore can and should be taken down with no impact on the rights of others to be free from censorship.

alright. i hope that they stop at just slave owners then. (like lincoln) i'm not ever gonna convince you that it's the actions that are the problem. let's hope that this censorship doesn't go too far.

They should stop at the Confederate generals, leaders and soldiers erected subsequent to the Civil War as a display of White Suprenacy and in support of Jim Crow laws. They should touch neither Lincoln, Jefferson, Rushmore or any other monument for this cause whatsoever.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: Nope. Not even close. The hijab is not a metaphor for subjugation any more than a Yarmulke or a Cross necklace. They don't get to equate, and there is no argument for banning any of those articles from public soaces that is worth subscribing. And it also has a positive connotation for those involved about their personal choices to get closer to Allah. That is the fact.

The statues occupy none of that space and are again not just people's freedom of expression but public monuments owned by the government and state. They therefore can and should be taken down with no impact on the rights of others to be free from censorship.

alright. i hope that they stop at just slave owners then. (like lincoln) i'm not ever gonna convince you that it's the actions that are the problem. let's hope that this censorship doesn't go too far.

They should stop at the Confederate generals, leaders and soldiers erected subsequent to the Civil War as a display of White Suprenacy and in support of Jim Crow laws. They should touch neither Lincoln, Jefferson, Rushmore or any other monument for this cause whatsoever.

you can already see that it's not just about confederates. i hope they stop it before it goes beyond slave owners.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: Nope. Not even close. The hijab is not a metaphor for subjugation any more than a Yarmulke or a Cross necklace. They don't get to equate, and there is no argument for banning any of those articles from public soaces that is worth subscribing. And it also has a positive connotation for those involved about their personal choices to get closer to Allah. That is the fact.

The statues occupy none of that space and are again not just people's freedom of expression but public monuments owned by the government and state. They therefore can and should be taken down with no impact on the rights of others to be free from censorship.

alright. i hope that they stop at just slave owners then. (like lincoln) i'm not ever gonna convince you that it's the actions that are the problem. let's hope that this censorship doesn't go too far.

They should stop at the Confederate generals, leaders and soldiers erected subsequent to the Civil War as a display of White Suprenacy and in support of Jim Crow laws. They should touch neither Lincoln, Jefferson, Rushmore or any other monument for this cause whatsoever.

you can already see that it's not just about confederates. i hope they stop it before it goes beyond slave owners.

Nope. I can't see that. It IS about the confederates as far as I'm concerned. And it strikes me that the only ones pushing the retarded slippery slope argument is Trump, David Duke, and idiots.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: Nope. Not even close. The hijab is not a metaphor for subjugation any more than a Yarmulke or a Cross necklace. They don't get to equate, and there is no argument for banning any of those articles from public soaces that is worth subscribing. And it also has a positive connotation for those involved about their personal choices to get closer to Allah. That is the fact.

The statues occupy none of that space and are again not just people's freedom of expression but public monuments owned by the government and state. They therefore can and should be taken down with no impact on the rights of others to be free from censorship.

alright. i hope that they stop at just slave owners then. (like lincoln) i'm not ever gonna convince you that it's the actions that are the problem. let's hope that this censorship doesn't go too far.

They should stop at the Confederate generals, leaders and soldiers erected subsequent to the Civil War as a display of White Suprenacy and in support of Jim Crow laws. They should touch neither Lincoln, Jefferson, Rushmore or any other monument for this cause whatsoever.

you can already see that it's not just about confederates. i hope they stop it before it goes beyond slave owners.

Nope. I can't see that. It IS about the confederates as far as I'm concerned. And it strikes me that the only ones pushing the retarded slippery slope argument is Trump, David Duke, and idiots.

if the slippery slope was just a possibility harped on by trump, sure. i linked you to an article someone wanting to take a washington statue down. so that's where we are. i'm glad that you don't support it yourself, but that's not the point i'm making.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: Nope. Not even close. The hijab is not a metaphor for subjugation any more than a Yarmulke or a Cross necklace. They don't get to equate, and there is no argument for banning any of those articles from public soaces that is worth subscribing. And it also has a positive connotation for those involved about their personal choices to get closer to Allah. That is the fact.

The statues occupy none of that space and are again not just people's freedom of expression but public monuments owned by the government and state. They therefore can and should be taken down with no impact on the rights of others to be free from censorship.

alright. i hope that they stop at just slave owners then. (like lincoln) i'm not ever gonna convince you that it's the actions that are the problem. let's hope that this censorship doesn't go too far.

They should stop at the Confederate generals, leaders and soldiers erected subsequent to the Civil War as a display of White Suprenacy and in support of Jim Crow laws. They should touch neither Lincoln, Jefferson, Rushmore or any other monument for this cause whatsoever.

you can already see that it's not just about confederates. i hope they stop it before it goes beyond slave owners.

Nope. I can't see that. It IS about the confederates as far as I'm concerned. And it strikes me that the only ones pushing the retarded slippery slope argument is Trump, David Duke, and idiots.

if the slippery slope was just a possibility harped on by trump, sure. i linked you to an article someone wanting to take a washington statue down. so that's where we are. i'm glad that you don't support it yourself, but that's not the point i'm making.

They were idiots. Nobody took them seriously and nobody Is proposing to remove Lincoln or Washington. See, your slippery slope appears to be a non-story. They were idiots and nobody listened to them.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: Nope. Not even close. The hijab is not a metaphor for subjugation any more than a Yarmulke or a Cross necklace. They don't get to equate, and there is no argument for banning any of those articles from public soaces that is worth subscribing. And it also has a positive connotation for those involved about their personal choices to get closer to Allah. That is the fact.

The statues occupy none of that space and are again not just people's freedom of expression but public monuments owned by the government and state. They therefore can and should be taken down with no impact on the rights of others to be free from censorship.

alright. i hope that they stop at just slave owners then. (like lincoln) i'm not ever gonna convince you that it's the actions that are the problem. let's hope that this censorship doesn't go too far.

They should stop at the Confederate generals, leaders and soldiers erected subsequent to the Civil War as a display of White Suprenacy and in support of Jim Crow laws. They should touch neither Lincoln, Jefferson, Rushmore or any other monument for this cause whatsoever.

you can already see that it's not just about confederates. i hope they stop it before it goes beyond slave owners.

Nope. I can't see that. It IS about the confederates as far as I'm concerned. And it strikes me that the only ones pushing the retarded slippery slope argument is Trump, David Duke, and idiots.

if the slippery slope was just a possibility harped on by trump, sure. i linked you to an article someone wanting to take a washington statue down. so that's where we are. i'm glad that you don't support it yourself, but that's not the point i'm making.

They were idiots. Nobody took them seriously and nobody Is proposing to remove Lincoln or Washington. See, your slippery slope appears to be a non-story. They were idiots and nobody listened to them.

i hope you're right. we'll wait and see. like i said, i hope the "idiots" stop at wanting to remove monuments to slave owners.

I mean you know that "Slippery Slope" is a specific logical fallacy.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: Nope. Not even close. The hijab is not a metaphor for subjugation any more than a Yarmulke or a Cross necklace. They don't get to equate, and there is no argument for banning any of those articles from public soaces that is worth subscribing. And it also has a positive connotation for those involved about their personal choices to get closer to Allah. That is the fact.

The statues occupy none of that space and are again not just people's freedom of expression but public monuments owned by the government and state. They therefore can and should be taken down with no impact on the rights of others to be free from censorship.

alright. i hope that they stop at just slave owners then. (like lincoln) i'm not ever gonna convince you that it's the actions that are the problem. let's hope that this censorship doesn't go too far.

They should stop at the Confederate generals, leaders and soldiers erected subsequent to the Civil War as a display of White Suprenacy and in support of Jim Crow laws. They should touch neither Lincoln, Jefferson, Rushmore or any other monument for this cause whatsoever.

you can already see that it's not just about confederates. i hope they stop it before it goes beyond slave owners.

Nope. I can't see that. It IS about the confederates as far as I'm concerned. And it strikes me that the only ones pushing the retarded slippery slope argument is Trump, David Duke, and idiots.

if the slippery slope was just a possibility harped on by trump, sure. i linked you to an article someone wanting to take a washington statue down. so that's where we are. i'm glad that you don't support it yourself, but that's not the point i'm making.

They were idiots. Nobody took them seriously and nobody Is proposing to remove Lincoln or Washington. See, your slippery slope appears to be a non-story. They were idiots and nobody listened to them.

i hope you're right. we'll wait and see. like i said, i hope the "idiots" stop at wanting to remove monuments to slave owners.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter at all where idiots want to go. Idiots on the "remove all slave owners" get no more credence than "remove any statues of black people" fringe would from the KKK.

showa58taro wrote:I mean you know that "Slippery Slope" is a specific logical fallacy.

in this specific instance, maybe so. i really hope you're right. i hope the censorship and vandalism stops with civil war figures.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I mean you know that "Slippery Slope" is a specific logical fallacy.

in this specific instance, maybe so. i really hope you're right. i hope the censorship and vandalism stops with civil war figures.

Well yes. That too.

But also it is a general fallacy that shouldn't be used as an argument.

showa58taro wrote: You're missing the point. It doesn't matter at all where idiots want to go. Idiots on the "remove all slave owners" get no more credence than "remove any statues of black people" fringe would from the KKK.

if it's just fringe that seeks for removal and not already well regarded members of a community with a large base too, then we'll probably be fine.