Your statement directed towards drkitten-"Going out of her way" to offend or exclude Jews? The implication of that statement is clear enough.
Drkitten was arguing from extremes, as though the
only choices were to exclude the Star of David from consideration or for someone to adopt a swastika. Just like previously he suggested tank commanders would start adopting red cross symbols as their regimental insignia, even though that’s illegal now.
Is that anti-Semitic? I doubt it, I think a more likely explanation is just over-enthusiasm, but it’s still fallacious. In real life real people are able to come to reasonable solutions or adopt reasonable compromises and we don’t need to assume such extremes.
I think you may have become over-sensitive to charges of anti-Semitism, so that you see them where they are not.
Kindly keep away from rude personalizations.
You too.
I'm not advancing that- I'm pointing out the absurdity of saying one group is being "reasonable" for not using their ancient religious symbols, but expecting another group to do the same is racist.
Apples and oranges. On one hand, we have the swastika, which for hundreds of millions of people represents hatred, genocide, racism, fascism, and a war in which tens of millions died. On the other hand we have a Star of David which is just a religious symbol like the Crescent or the Cross already in use, which is apparently being excluded merely because of an adherence to an arbitrary bureaucratic rule.
And let me make one important correction here. You’re arguing as though my point of view were a case of special pleading for Judaism. It’s not. I’m in favor of everyone being able to use a symbol that’s important to them.
For example, suppose a Native American who owned an ambulance company that serviced a region with a high concentration of Native Americans, felt that a cross was an offensive symbol as it represented those that oppressed his ancestors and brought his civilization to the bring of genocide.
I’m not saying many Native Americans feel that way, but if one did, wouldn’t he have a point?
He looks among the alternative symbols available and finds…an Islamic crescent as his only alternative?! That makes no sense! Should his only choices be to either adopt the cross, which he finds offensive, or exclude himself from the IRC organization?
You applaud Freakshow when he says:
Yes. Who do you think he was talking about?
The swastika is only offensive in the context of Nazism, so having it on an ambulance would obviously not be offensive.
Yes, it would.
I believe there will come a time when the swastika as a symbol is rehabilitated, and people will be able to see it outside the context of Nazism. That day hasn’t come yet.
Yet it's "sensitive" not to use it? So to use the same logic, it would have been "reasonable" for the MDA to forgoe the Star of David because of it's political association with Zionism, which means to many, ethnic cleansing and other oppression.
By the same logic, Islamic countries should forgo the Crescent because of it’s association with sexism, terrorism, war, ethnic cleansing, and oppression. Even if we restrict ourselves to just modern times, Islam has a pretty nasty history attached to it.
Fair is either for all people to be allowed to choose a symbol that is significant to them or for nobody to have the choice. My personal preference is for all, because I think it’s cool when people express their cultural identity, but giving nobody that choice is a close second.
In short, your statements indicate a double standard that minimizes the importance of other people's religions and symbology relative to that of Jews.
No. I’ve stated just the opposite. You really have to twist to come to that conclusion.
How delightful. I knew I could count on some good racist disparagement of other people's symbology here.
What was being disparaged was not the symbol, but the person who claims its use would not be offensive to Jews.
