NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/29/germany.swastika.reut/index.html

Wow. Just... wow. That's tough.

Green party member of parliament, Claudia Roth, herself once investigated by the Stuttgart authorities for wearing an anti-Nazi lapel pin, said the ruling was unjustified.

"This ruling is scandalous," she said. "It is a form of autism which completely ignores the real problems of right wing extremism, anti-Semitism and racism in this country."

A form of autism? I think she's talking about autocracy, but either she doesn't understand that vocabulary too well or the translation is a poor one.

On the article as a whole, I understand their fear. But I think it's a little much. They were against the symbol.

Hmmm. Germany’s always been a bit touchy, understanably, about Nazi images and ideas. Though the state has gone too far on some occasions, and caught up some innocent people, including Peter Singer, who advocates euthinasia for those termanilly ill and severely disabled babies who have no quality of life. For this, he was banned from speaking in several universities and public spaces in Germany.

Hmmm. Germany’s always been a bit touchy, understanably, about Nazi images and ideas. Though the state has gone too far on some occasions, and caught up some innocent people, including Peter Singer, who advocates euthinasia for those termanilly ill and severely disabled babies who have no quality of life. For this, he was banned from speaking in several universities and public spaces in Germany.

Which is one of the exact things Hitler wanted to do: get rid of those who "drained away resources."

Along with the Jews, gays, Gypsies, and bed-wetters.

So if I posted a picture of a swastica on here and one of our German posters opened it, they would technically be breaking the law?

So if I posted a picture of a swastica on here and one of our German posters opened it, they would technically be breaking the law?

Hmm... I'd say not, because it was displayed from a British site.

Which is one of the exact things Hitler wanted to do: get rid of those who "drained away resources."

Along with the Jews, gays, Gypsies, and bed-wetters.

Nope. This guy just advocates voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill people, and for babies which are, quite frankly, doomed.

Which is one of the exact things Hitler wanted to do: get rid of those who “drained away resources.”

Along with the Jews, gays, Gypsies, and bed-wetters.
Ooooooooooooooooooooooh boy. Here we go......

How exactly do you equate killing a person for no reason other than their ethnicity/sexuality/religion with ending the suffering of someone who is in constant pain and has no enjoyment of life in any way imaginable?

Euthinasia in certain situations and eugenics on a mass scale are not the same and it’s intellectually devoid to suggest so.

Nope. This guy just advocates voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill people, and for babies which are, quite frankly, doomed.

Why? What logic is that? "They hurt and we hurt seeing them hurt, so let's kill them." We're discovering new things everyday, one of which could save their lives. But no, the years they may have afterward don't matter. They're in pain now, so let's end it.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooh boy. Here we go......

How exactly do you equate killing a person for no reason other than their ethnicity/sexuality/religion with ending the suffering of someone who is in constant pain and has no enjoyment of life in any way imaginable?

Euthinasia in certain situations and eugenics on a mass scale are not the same and it’s intellectually devoid to suggest so.

Euthinasia comes down to whether or not something is pleasent or desirable. As did the issue of genocide. Are these people and their condition desirable? Actions, thoughts, ideas are all adequate, right bases (sp?) for discrimination. Condition or desirability are not. That is one of the reasons for why euthinasia (and abortion, for that matter) are wrong.

What you're saying when you euthinize (sp?) anyone is that you don't want to see their pain. Rather than helping and hoping that you can get them through, you end it, because you don't like it. And they don't like it. But it comes down to desirability.

So if I posted a picture of a swastica on here and one of our German posters opened it, they would technically be breaking the law?No. A German could even post the image here without breaking any German laws, since this place is hosted in the UK. Of course, it might be illegal if the German didn't simply repost an image from somewhere else.

It's about owning Nazi paraphenalia, not simply spotting it.

The ban on anti-Nazi emblems though, is just absurd. Germany sems to have some sort of phobia against getting confronted with the extreme right. Sadly, denial doesn't make anything vanish, ideas included. Outlawing public displays of opposition to such ideas won't help either.

Don't Animal Planet broadcast in Germany? One'd think they'd know that sticking one's head in the sand won't stop one from getting mauled.

Why? What logic is that? “They hurt and we hurt seeing them hurt, so let’s kill them.” We’re discovering new things everyday, one of which could save their lives. But no, the years they may have afterward don’t matter. They’re in pain now, so let’s end it.
They’re semi-vegetables, who’s only experience is excruciating pain. What wonder-cure will suddenly resolve this? Singer (and I agree with him) only advocates the termination of life when life is not worth living; when there is no ‘life’ beyond the biological.

At least your argument above has some merit, rather than OMG!!! Nazis!!!!111

Why? What logic is that? "They hurt and we hurt seeing them hurt, so let's kill them." We're discovering new things everyday, one of which could save their lives. But no, the years they may have afterward don't matter. They're in pain now, so let's end it.

You don't get it, do you?

1) For the terminally ill, it's voluntary! They're killing themselves! It's their choice!

2) For the babies, we're talking SCREWED. Unless you can find a cure for Patau Syndrome or Edwards Syndrome, we'd be better off putting these kids out of their misery.

I think you guys are kinda missing the point on the restrictions on freedom of speech that are being imposed by german government just because it opposes people's ideas.

I think you guys are kinda missing the point on the restrictions on freedom of speech that are being imposed by german government just because it opposes people's ideas.

If there's one thing that Germany holds above the ideals of liberty and justice, it's being so anti-Nazi that you'd best stay quiet. I'd probably get thrown in jail in Germany; I'm not a Nazi, but I don't go apeshit about the stuff they did.

Euthinasia comes down to whether or not something is pleasent or desirable. As did the issue of genocide. Are these people and their condition desirable? Actions, thoughts, ideas are all adequate, right bases (sp?) for discrimination. Condition or desirability are not. That is one of the reasons for why euthinasia (and abortion, for that matter) are wrong.

What you’re saying when you euthinize (sp?) anyone is that you don’t want to see their pain. Rather than helping and hoping that you can get them through, you end it, because you don’t like it. And they don’t like it. But it comes down to desirability.
You’re confusing a valuation of someone’s quality of life, with a valuation of someone’s life as a human being. I am not suggesting that the terminally ill and severely disabled babies have any less right to live, merely that their quality of life is so poor that it would be kinder to let them die peacefully.

To take another example, imagine a severely wounded soldier on the battlefield. Assuming a medivac could not arrive in time, and all the soldier would experience untill his death was excruciating pain, I would argue it would be better to put him out of his misery. Again, this does not entail that the soldier has any less right to live.

They’re semi-vegetables, who’s only experience is excruciating pain. What wonder-cure will suddenly resolve this? Singer (and I agree with him) only advocates the termination of life when life is not worth living; when there is no ‘life’ beyond the biological.

At least your argument above has some merit, rather than OMG!!! Nazis!!!!111

Who determines what life is worth living? Unless you go into the religious (which I am fairly sure you don't want to), you can't determine. And if we get stem cells moving (I mean if they start researching with adult and umbilical cord stem cells rather than sitting and pouting about being refused the use of embryos) we may be able to reverse the damage, making the life "worth something" again.

You don't get it, do you?

1) For the terminally ill, it's voluntary! They're killing themselves! It's their choice!

2) For the babies, we're talking SCREWED. Unless you can find a cure for Patau Syndrome or Edwards Syndrome, we'd be better off putting these kids out of their misery.

But we get upset when someone shoots themself because their girlfriend dumped them. Killing yourself is wrong, no matter what condition you are in.

Well, you're whole point earlier was that it was voluntary. Do you think an infant would volunteer to die?

Instead of saying "Let's kill them!" Why don't we say "Let's try to save them!"

You’re confusing a valuation of someone’s quality of life, with a valuation of someone’s life as a human being. I am not suggesting that the terminally ill and severely disabled babies have any less right to live, merely that their quality of life is so poor that it would be kinder to let them die peacefully.

To take another example, imagine a severely wounded soldier on the battlefield. Assuming a medivac could not arrive in time, and all the soldier would experience untill his death was excruciating pain, I would argue it would be better to put him out of his misery. Again, this does not entail that the soldier has any less right to live.

Yet you okay the right of a parent to kill their child because there might not be a cure later down the road to save it.

Who determines what life is worth living? Unless you go into the religious (which I am fairly sure you don’t want to), you can’t determine. And if we get stem cells moving (I mean if they start researching with adult and umbilical cord stem cells rather than sitting and pouting about being refused the use of embryos) we may be able to reverse the damage, making the life “worth something” again.
Well, for a start, the nearest practical stem cell benifits are at least a decade away (and luckily I live in a country with a much more enlightened attitude to embryonic stem cell research). The issue is whether you would subject a severely disabled child or termanally ill patient to ten or more years of unbeleivable pain, for the hope of a cure for their sufferings. I don’t know if the chance is worth it. Especially as the side effects of many deliberating diseases are to reduce brain functions to nearly nill.

But we get upset when someone shoots themself because their girlfriend dumped them. Killing yourself is wrong, no matter what condition you are in.

"We" would, would we? Personally, I'd get upset if someone I cared about killed themself - for selfish reasons. I would miss them. I certainly wouldn't think they'd done something morally wrong, or that they weren't well within their rights to choose to die.

Well, you're whole point earlier was that it was voluntary. Do you think an infant would volunteer to die?

Honestly? Quite possibly. Given a choice between permanent, excruciating pain and nothingness, I think an awful lot of people would choose nothingness. Personally, I do have some qualms with euthanizing babies, but that still doesn't make it even remotely analogous to the Nazis' genocidal eugenics.

Instead of saying "Let's kill them!" Why don't we say "Let's try to save them!"

I am always puzzled by the fact that the people who are most vocally religious seem also to be the ones who are most terrified of death. I would think anyone who believes in God and heaven would have to acknowledge that death might well be a salvation.

Well, for a start, the nearest practical stem cell benifits are at least a decade away (and luckily I live in a country with a much more enlightened attitude to embryonic stem cell research). The issue is whether you would subject a severely disabled child or termanally ill patient to ten or more years of unbeleivable pain, for the hope of a cure for their sufferings. I don’t know if the chance is worth it. Especially as the side effects of many deliberating diseases are to reduce brain functions to nearly nill.

I disagree. There are only three times that a human being should be actively killed: self-defense (because someone going to die either way), execution (which is society defending itself), and war (which is a nation defending itself).

Anything else is immoral.

There is passive killing: two people are hanging off a cliff and you can only save one.

But we get upset when someone shoots themself because their girlfriend dumped them. Killing yourself is wrong, no matter what condition you are in.
What’s with the irrational equations here? One would think you were a troll.

Killing someone in cold blood, and euthinising someone in exceptional circumstances are completely unequatable.

"We" would, would we? Personally, I'd get upset if someone I cared about killed themself - for selfish reasons. I would miss them. I certainly wouldn't think they'd done something morally wrong, or that they weren't well within their rights to choose to die.

See my post above.

Honestly? Quite possibly. Given a choice between permanent, excruciating pain and nothingness, I think an awful lot of people would choose nothingness. Personally, I do have some qualms with euthanizing babies, but that still doesn't make it even remotely analogous to the Nazis' genocidal eugenics.

Do you think there is any infant who really understands any of that?

I am always puzzled by the fact that the people who are most vocally religious seem also to be the ones who are most terrified of death. I would think anyone who believes in God and heaven would have to acknowledge that death might well be a salvation.

I do not fear death (though I admit fear of pain that comes with most death). I find no support for "mercy" killing in the Scripture. Therefore it falls under the Ten Commandments: Thou shall not kill.

What’s with the irrational equations here? One would think you were a troll.

Killing someone in cold blood, and euthinising someone in exceptional circumstances are completely unequatable.

How is that an irrational equation? Man doesn't like the pain (emotional) so he kills himself. Man doesn't like the pain (physical) so he kills himself. I really don't see a difference.

How is that an irrational equation? Man doesn’t like the pain (emotional) so he kills himself. Man doesn’t like the pain (physical) so he kills himself. I really don’t see a difference.
When did we start talking about suicide? One final time: a lunatic killing in cold blood does not equate with a doctor and parents deciding that someone’s quality of life is not worth their continuing survival.

I do not fear death (though I admit fear of pain that comes with most death). I find no support for “mercy” killing in the Scripture. Therefore it falls under the Ten Commandments: Thou shall not kill.
Don’t you mean: Thou shall not kill unless you’re attacked by someone, executing someone, or expanding your nations borders?[/flamebait]

I can’t really argue with someone who’s taking orders from a dogmatic book that must be obeyed.

That’s all folks. I know it’s a bit rude hijacking a thread then leaving in the midst of an argy-bargy, but I got paces to go, people to see.

When did we start talking about suicide? One final time: a lunatic killing in cold blood does not equate with a doctor and parents deciding that someone’s quality of life is not worth their continuing survival.

I'm confused. When did we start talking about lunatic murderers?

Don’t you mean: Thou shall not kill unless you’re attacked by someone, executing someone, or expanding your nations borders?[/flamebait]

I can’t really argue with someone who’s taking orders from a dogmatic book that must be obeyed.

No.

That’s all folks. I know it’s a bit rude hijacking a thread then leaving in the midst of an argy-bargy, but I got paces to go, people to see.

Agreed. Sorry for hijacking.

These anti-nazi laws that Germany and any other country might have need to be repealed. Fast.

See my post above.

I don't know what post above you're referring to, as none of them seem to have anything to do with voluntary euthanasia. Nor do any of them address the fact that you were baselessly applying your opinion to people-in-general. If "we" means "people on this thread," then "we" don't hold the position you said "we" did. As far as the subsection of "we" writing this post is concerned, neither suicide nor voluntary euthanasia are in any way, shape, or form morally wrong.


Do you think there is any infant who really understands any of that?

I genuinely don't know, which is why, as I stated, I have some personal moral reservations about infant euthanasia. It is still, however, as I said, entirely incomparable to killing off "undesirables."


I do not fear death (though I admit fear of pain that comes with most death). I find no support for "mercy" killing in the Scripture. Therefore it falls under the Ten Commandments: Thou shall not kill.

So God would rather we put innocent babies through horrible suffering than send them to heaven? That doesn't sound like a very nice God to me.

These anti-nazi laws that Germany and any other country might have need to be repealed. Fast.

May I ask a side question? I don't mean to be rude, but I'm majoring in linguistics, so I find stuff like this interesting.

Are you a native speaker of English? I've never seen a construction like the one bolded above.

So God would rather we put innocent babies through horrible suffering than send them to heaven? That doesn't sound like a very nice God to me.

Good /=/ Nice.

May I ask a side question? I don't mean to be rude, but I'm majoring in linguistics, so I find stuff like this interesting.

Are you a native speaker of English? I've never seen a construction like the one bolded above.

Bah, it was a typo. I was eating while typing and didn't pay attention. Let's clear it up--

"These anti-nazi laws that Germany and any other country possesses should be repealed."

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,591166,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/international/1,1518,404573,00.html

Don't take this too seriously. I mean, the court basically decided that it was a bad idea to use the Swastika and commercialise it, even in this form. You can display it in certain cases, and you won't automatically be arrested. You just have to make sure you're not glorifying the Nazi regime, because that's what the law is about.

Also neat: http://www.spiegel.de/international/1,1518,434399,00.html

When I went through Frankfurt airport in Germany, I was pulled aside and had to have a background check on me, because I looked like A. A neo-Nazis with my extremely short hair and black clothing. B. I resembled a suspected Neo-Nazis.

I kid you not. This is what the Polizei told me at the airport security terminals.

However, I assure you, they apologized thoroughly when they realized that I wasn't. :)

However, I assure you, they apologized thoroughly when they realized that I wasn't. :)
Well, they better.

Anyways, the Neonazis are a problem in Germany. They (especially the NPD) act like a party from the Weimar Republic, and modern "soft" Germany can't seem to deal with it properly.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,439493,00.html

Good /=/ Nice.

No, Good < Nice.
Which would be in english: Not all nice things are good, but all good things are nice.
And if God says that you can't kill someone in that kind of pain, he really is a jerk of the level of Hitler.

An analogy here:
(Probably should explain seppuku briefly first. First, the victim stabs himself, then the "second" cuts the victim's head off to make it as unpainful as possible)
So anyway, you see some guy who wants to commit seppuku. He's gonna do it whether you want him to or not.
Would you:
1. Be his second and make it easier on him.
or
2. Leave him writhing on the ground and try to call an ambulance for what will likely be not much benefit.

BTW, I saw something before I think I should correct:
And if we get stem cells moving (I mean if they start researching with adult and umbilical cord stem cells rather than sitting and pouting about being refused the use of embryos)

First of all, only the US has any preventive measure on this at all.
Second, the only thing the US does is prevent the federal government from funding it.
So there will be embryonic stem cell cures, they'll just be made by the UK or South Korea instead of the US.

Which is one of the exact things Hitler wanted to do: get rid of those who "drained away resources."

That is not Peter Singer's justification.

In fact, Singer has loudly and repeatedly advocated using more resources for the preservation of the lives of people dying of starvation and easily treatable diseases in the developing world.

Good /=/ Nice.

The dictates of religion would coincide, in all cases, with those of utility, were the Being, who is the object of religion, universally supposed to be as benevolent as he is supposed to be wise and powerful.

A truly benevolent god would not sacrifice people's welfare for an abstract, useless glorification of mere survival.

They (especially the NPD) act like a party from the Weimar Republic, and modern "soft" Germany can't seem to deal with it properly.

The NPD doesn't look really Nazi, at least not on Wikipedia. They just seem like realists to me.

I disagree. There are only three times that a human being should be actively killed: self-defense (because someone going to die either way), execution (which is society defending itself), and war (which is a nation defending itself).

Question: do the death camps fit into definition #2?

The NPD doesn't look really Nazi, at least not on Wikipedia. They just seem like realists to me.
Then have a look at the German wiki article. Or indeed the dozens of stories the Spiegel has been running on them.

Then have a look at the German wiki article. Or indeed the dozens of stories the Spiegel has been running on them.

All I see is them being anti-immigrant, and that they refused to stand for that Holocaust thing (but that was because the German govt. refuses to acknowledge the Dresden bombings or something).

All I see is them being anti-immigrant, and that they refused to stand for that Holocaust thing (but that was because the German govt. refuses to acknowledge the Dresden bombings or something).
I gotta take a shower and then leave for work, so I won't have time for a lengthy discussion about this. If you could ask your mom to explain this article (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/debatte/0,1518,438225,00.html) for you, that'd probably be enough though.

You could also watch the video on that site, for an idea of how the NPD operates.

Also useful: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,439543,00.html (note them using symbols from the Nazi mythology)

Or, to quote wiki:
The 2005 report[5] (http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/publikationen/verfassungsschutzbericht/) of the federal Verfassungsschutz agency contains the following description (followed by extensive citations from NPD publications):

The party continues to pursue a "people's front of the nationals with NPD, DVU and forces not attached to any party", which is supposed to develop into a base for an encompassing "german people's movement". The aggressive agitation of the NPD unabashedly aims towards the abolishment of the parliamentary democracy and the democratic constitutional state, although the use of violence is currently still officially rejected for tactical reasons.
Statements of the NPD document an essential affinity with National Socialism; its agitation is racist, antisemitic, revisionist and intends to disparage the democratic and lawful order of the constitution.

And if you should still have doubts, I invite you to find their internet site, and especially the various forums their members meet in (which probably won't be linked to directly from the NPD website). A google search should find them.