Strasbourg Court: Communist Red Star is OK (!)

Remove all ads!

True, Ragusa's persistent reiteration "argument" was either that he can't afford the free time to answer my arguments, or that those arguments are "utter nonsense". Too bad that his allegedly factual Orbán criticism seemed to have come to a miserable end when he received my factual points in another topic in post #97, so he could only answer with a joke in post #98 in his emberassment. Now he'll probably answer that this is off-topic (which is true, it's just a quick side note from me), so yes, persistent reiteration of "I don't want to answer utter nonsense" is a good debate "tactic". Probably much better than mine.

 

So...

Religious Symbols = Good
Political Symbols = Bad

... In a nutshell.

Because everyone knows nobody has used religion to commit atrocities! Nobody has used their faith to cause deaths, suffering and humiliation, right?

Mass killings may not be in vogue anymore, but many governments are still guilty of scapegoating, removing freedoms and directly responsible for deaths of their countrymen. Whatever banner they rally to.

 

When did they kill a few million people in the name of Christianity (in the name of the cross) in the 20th century?
When did they kill a few million people in the name of the Swastika in the 20th century?

Sensitivity is also about time. When people are still alive who had to experience terrible things in their life, the society should care for them. Disgusting how people babble about the freedom of speech regarding the Communist red star or the Swastika, instead of trying to live a bit in concentration camp circumstances or in a dictature. But no, instead they happily admit they never lived in dictature and at the same time they know many things better than those who actually experienced dictature on their own skin.

 

There is a difference between providing care for someone and punishing someone for what is simply a common symbol.

If someone or a group rallies behind a symbol to commit attrocities should other brands, organisations and people be forced to change their own icons? Should a symbol with multiple meanings simply be vilified because it has one particularly bad connotation in one of its interpretations?

What people do in the name of an ideal is disgusting and repulsive - and I do not believe in in letting their power live on by instilling fear into their symbols and idols. Their legacy should not be to terrorise generations after their fall but to turn to ash.

Respect the victims and survivors and never forget the damage caused - but do not fuel the regimes with the respect of terror.

Spoiler

And there are many brutal murders occuring in Africa in the name of Christianity at the moment, not in the millions yet, most are undocumented and hidden away. Most of them are not even classified as murders - and that's the 21st century.

 

Baronius,
you don't win a debate by having the last post.

 

Interestingly enough, that's the only post from me which you made to be "a last post" in a debate, the only post which you didn't answer. Since then, you reacted to very many posts of mine, but that one, with those 4 factual questions, is somehow neglected by you.
Ragusa, Ragusa, even the blind can see: your arguments were tore apart into pieces by that post of mine. So you are cowardly even to react to any part of it.
First you argue with the lack of free time, then you argue that you don't react to utter nonsense, and now you say that a debate cannot be won by having the last post. No, it cannot be, but if the last post disproves your arguments in 100% by offering factual counter-arguments and arguments of perfect accuracy, then I have bad news: the debate is won, the truth was found out.

That's the problem usually: you who never lived it consider yourself superior in knowing "democracy"; as if you were an experts of democracy. Let's just the see an example: The Netherlands. In Western Europe, Orbán is often accused of cooperating with the extreme-right party Jobbik (even Ragusa said/implied so several times), and the Western press is talking about the danger due to the antisemitic and racist Jobbik. First, it is not true, Second: they should urgently clean on their own household first: the Dutch prime minister is cooperating with an extremist party, otherwise he would lose the majority and the government couldn't operate in Holland. He cooperates with an extreme party which opened a webpage where Dutch people can report (!) Eastern European workers who cause "trouble" in Holland. A few days ago, most parties of the European Parliament demanded that the Dutch president distances himself from the extremists -- which he refused to do.

Yes, that is what 90% of the Western press was lying about Orbán (even if you were talking only hipothetically). They were f***ing liars, good pets. And the "funny" is, the simple citizens ate all the lies (just like the Hungarian people in 2006). It makes me laugh when certain members on BoM too think that they see the reality from their press and we Hungarians are the one who're misled. Yes, true, yesterday there was a public execution -- a person who tried to throw a stone at Orbán last week was executed publicly, and I agree with it. You know, the new law in Hungary allows death penalty since 2010, to terrorists too, and his deed was considered as a terrorist act against the Constitution by the judge.

Nonetheless, the Kádár vs. Orbán comparison is funny one; its usage is typical to socialists/leftliberals nowadays in Hungary, and of course the Western press occassionally repeats/publishes their writings.

Do you know the sort of people who write for the Western press nowadays about Hungary and Orbán? Just let's take a look at this "gentleman", Paul Lendvai. He writes for Der Standard as well, which is an influential German newspaper. This gentleman was a f***ing communist, a servant of the Soviet regime until he left the country! A f***ing agent! Yes, such former communist agents are writing in your press, dear Western citizens.
Hey Ragusa, would you like if a Stasi agent, who perhaps maintained the file of your father, was reporting about the current state of German democracy in the international press? (But yes, Germany is powerful enough to protect its public image. Hungary had a bit harder job, but things are getting cleaner now, fortunately.)

Back to the question of the Western press (especially French press -- which is dominated by the 1969 generation of extreme communists): it pretends to be the protector of democracy and the provider of credible information, while in the reality, it serves financial interests when it's about Eastern Europe. And you, Western citizens, just believe most of the cr** you read.

I merely reminded you that talking about Utopia/Dystopia/whatever is a bit funny when we talk about restrictions. There ARE restrictions everywhere in the democratic world, even in the USA, and these restrictions do affect freedom of speech, just to different extents. There is an anarchy without restrictions (rules).

Young lady, you don't know much about life yet, you still need to learn. "One of its interpretations?". The Swastika and the Communist red star have an unambigious interpretation, and terrible deeds tied to them. These facts are not just "one" from the many interpretations, they ARE the interpretations of the 20th (and 21st) century for many millions of people who lost their mothers, father, sisters, brothers and so on due to these regimes. Welcome to the real world, milady.

 

Monty, he will reply to that, you know.

 

Baronius, it's really hard to listen to you imply that all of your opponents and westerners in general are naive, especially when you can believe that governments wouldn't abuse the power of censorship. You can dismiss what we say by calling us inexperienced, misled by media propaganda, etc, but until you address the fundamental flaw we see in banning symbols, namely the power of censorship being abused by the state to silence things it doesn't like, nobody is going to agree with you.

 

It could be worse, I could have used a completely arbitrary means to discredit an argument on a debate which is in a public forum, I could perhaps imply a person in such a discussion is unworthy of consideration due to a personal prejudice about what a certain characteristic entails.

I do not have the arrogance to believe myself correct in every situation, instead I have the conviction to write as coherently as possible about my own opinions and experience with the full expectation that not everyone will agree, and the risk that a conversational partner will indeed decide to participate in belittling my person.

I am well grounded in the real world, thank you for your concern, which interestingly enough, contains many countries - though sources are conflicting in numbers, there seem to be roughly 200. Many of which have faced monstrous political beings and wholesale slaughter over the decades and centuries and millenia of civilisation. Quite a few of which make use of symbols which other countries have vilified for the people that have used them. Or simply used to represent those they despise (Black Triangle anyone?)

Your lack of empathy surprises me, for someone who claims sympathies your arguments lack both emotively and factually. Instead deciding to turn on participants in an open debate in the hopes of demeaning them. If you disagree with facts you could perhaps be civil and find some source information that is preferably unbiased. If you disagree with opinion, well, welcome to the real world, boy.

 

damedog, you speak like a typical teenager with his head stuck in the clouds. Here, let me try something different, since I'm older and clearly more mature:

Baronius, it's really hard to listen to you imply that all of your opponents and westerners in general are naive, especially when you can believe that governments wouldn't abuse the power of censorship. You can dismiss what we say by calling us inexperienced, misled by media propaganda, etc, but until you address the fundamental flaw we see in banning symbols, namely the power of censorship being abused by the state to silence things it doesn't like, nobody is going to agree with you.

 

Thanks Splunge, I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

Hey guys, you missed your Brezhev kiss to each other. Who will start?



This typical "horde" behavior, where you thank each other for the good "arguments" against Baronius -- it reminds to communist times. You are not better than the servant-spirited mob which thinks itself to be independent and "democratic". It's the "horde" that gives you the power (like for ignorant masses, usually), not the actual correctness of your arguments. You need to support each other, because your arguments don't stand in-themselves. You had some good points, but generally, your self-important pedant attitude nullifies your credibility. Exactly how I predicted:

Some of you who've posted here think you're the big democracy-champions, while you are the most dictatoric: you've based your opinion on half-truths; half-truths that your biased media was telling about Hungary. Half-truths: exactly one of the elements of how Hitler manipulated the masses. In this sense, those who believed the lies about Orbán are no better than those Germans who were misled by Hitler.

No, not all westerns, just those who I was addressing my posts to; the context is always clear. And I never doubted governments wouldn't abuse power: if the system is bad, there is place for abuse. (It's another question that constitutional balances still work in Hungary, and the allegedly undemocratic changes can't affect them -- this is my opinion, but that's beyond of the scope of the present thread.) Regarding "censorship": no, the censorship of Communist and Nazi symbols is t he same as the "censorship" of firearms and hand grenades -- there is a law, and it's your problem that you ultraliberals cannot accept that there is limits in your freedom.

1) This "nobody is going to agree with you" is again the horde spirit; and -- of course -- an educating, superior tone. You think yourself to be totally clever. After 10 years, let's talk again -- but probably you'll be too cowardly to face me, because reality will prove my points (just like Ragusa is cowardly to reply to that certain post of mine which I linked to; he runs away like a little child when his toy was taken, i.e. all his arguments were disproved). But you did have the courage to state how others will agree or not agree with me -- this is a truly uneducated behavior, because intelligent people talk only in their own names.
2) "it doesn't like" -- this is ridiculous, because then all the "freedom" restrictions included in the laws (not just about symbols) are for censoring? No, it is not about "liking", just like judges do not make a verdict based on what they "like". They have arguments, based on the law. For banned symbols, there are arguments, too. For Coca-Cola, it would be hard to find an argument to ban its symbol AND find a majority in the parliament to vote it.

Yes, I have bad news for you ultraliberals: LAWS are made by parliaments, and represent the interests of the people (because MPs are elected by people to represent them). You are the one who are chasing utopia: by thinking that some big general law exists which allows every type of freedom to an unlimited level, and exceptional cases are not needed at all. Such an unlimited freedom would lead to anarchy, so there must be some restrictions.

I thought that you (= you who keep coming with this liberal cr** that "every restriction by law = censorship") were more conscious, educated thinkers. But I was wrong. By implying that there is no difference between a Communist Red Star / Swastika and some other symbol which doesn't have such historical meanings, you are proving that you're rootless, ultraliberal, self-appointed cleverheads. I wonder what your grandparents think about you. Ultraliberalism seems to have raped the notion of "democracy". Democracy is not equal to eternal freedom, and this is what you don't seem to understand.

 

And you dismiss our arguments yet again, this time because of "horde behavior" and the typical leftliberalism, without addressing the actual points themselves. I'll say it again for convenience: How do you trust governments to not censor things which it would be in their interests to censor, while using the excuse of it offending people? A lot of ideas, beliefs, and other things can be considered offensive to one small group or another, and that can easily be used as a pretext to have the state shut down things they don't like. You speak a lot about people pursuing interests, what makes you think the government would not pursue their own interests with the power of censorship that you would so gladly give them?

But that wouldn't be so hard if it was a majority party censoring another party now would it?

 

1) I answered it already. The "state" doesn't create laws. The Parliament does. It is rational to assume that the Parliament represents the interests of all voters, and therefore, it is their RESPONSIBILITY to accept laws that represent the voters. It's not the "state" doesn't like something -- it must be established properly.
2) "one small group" -- this is the problem, damedog; are millions of live people, and tens of millions of dead people, a small group?

I think the point where we disagree is whether we should allow exceptions or not. I agree that uncontrolled censorship can be abused and I don't support it. But the world is not black-white: some things are more significant than others (e.g. Nazi crimes and Communist crimes in certain areas, countries), so historical and cultural reasons must be taken into account as well.

Don't be an idealist; there is no universal general solution. Yes, the majority decides, eventually. Since there are constitutional balances and general atmosphere (e.g. we Hungarians are a rebelling nation and if our government tried to create a dictature, we would destroy it with our own hands!), the majority cannot just do anything. Eventually, however, the truth is: the majority, the strongest makes the decisions -- between predefined limits and conventions (consitutions, culture, traditions, etc.) Wake up! What is happening in Europe? The strongest states dictate. What is happening in the world? USA dictates, and Russia.

There is still no better way to make a final decision in something than the will of the majority -- combined with checks and rules. Or should the MINORITY decide instead of the majority? Or should EVERYONE decide -- ok, how?

 

Well, when they absolutely don't, it's handled by constitutional checks & balances.

There is no other way. SOMEONE must make the decisions, laws.

But we can't go back to the ancient age, where it was true "democracy" -- every person/group was making decisions for himself/itself. Total freedom, no law, no "censorship".

 

You may want to reconsider that assertion; it can be falsified. Look at Iraq, where we have a Shiite majority lording it over the Sunni minority. Apartheid South-Africa had a parliament that empowered the white minority. I could find more. To put it that way: It is naive in the extreme to assume that a parliament represents the interests of all voters, without taking into account the context, like, among other things, the constitution, or voting.

Having a parliament doesn't mean anything more than having a constitution. It doesn't give the assumption of democracy or liberty. There also is democratic culture i.e. the extent to which constitutional values are lived. What distinguishes a good constitution from a bad one is safeguards that prevent majority rule from becoming the tyranny of the majority. Fidecz and Orbán have been chipping away at that.

Considering the resentment that oozes from your posts, what guarantees me that your understanding of democracy does not mean your party of choice lording it over them dastardly left-liberal Socialists? I recall you gleefully remarked, and I paraphrase: And they will not be in power for a very long time ...

Fidecz and Orbán have done number of things that in sum eerily look like game rigging - very long term appointments, gerrymandering, the media council, mass reappointment of judges through forced retirement of their predecessors at a relatively young age (at a time when everybody else's retirement age was raised - because to the fiscal stress Hungary is under). Honi soit ...

But fortunately I then have you yelling at everybody that that's all lies, lies, I tell you, lies. Yeah, shame on me.