Black Ops Swastika Emblems Will Earn Xbox Live Ban

[Sneaklemming]

The logic underlying your argument, as I understand, it, is:

Many of the posters here would never use a swastika as an emblem therefore those posters shouldn't care if use of a swastika is banned.

The same logic, if I extend it, appears in this argument:

Males would never have a need for an abortion therefore males shouldn't care if abortion is banned.

The logic of the first argument repeats itself in the second argument, doesn't it? If it does, then I've not made a leap in logic but, rather, an extension of your logic. Haven't I? And if I have, I can only hope that it's one which illustrates to you the invalidity your argument.

No I'm afraid this is not true. I am not a woman, therefore I would never need womans rights, or the right for women to vote. So then do you think I shouldn't care if women were banned from voting, and stripped of their rights?!

I hope you understand how flawed your argument is.

Let's go into the topics focus. I don't care about opinion X, but I do care that others are free to express opinion X. This is the principle that liberal democracies are built on. Go way back to the English Civil war (1600s) - that is when this started to become a norm of society.

The issue has always been how to balance societies desire to express freely, and how to quell incitement to hatred (or hate speech). That is the topic of this thread.

Let's assume Male X unintentionally impregnates Female Y. Both conclude that neither is interested in having the pregnancy come to delivery because neither, for whatever reasons, wants the responsibilities associated with child-rearing and that an abortion is their best alternative. Despite the fact that Male X obviously cannot have the abortion which would terminate this unwanted pregnancy, isn't his interest in having Female Y obtain that abortion just as substantial as the interest of Female Y who will be the the one among them to actually undergo the abortion? However, if abortion is banned and therefore unavailable, isn't Male X just as stymied by that ban as is Female Y? And shouldn't Male X therefore care just as much as Female Y whether or not the right to abortion is banned? I damn sure would be if I didn't want the responsibility for any frickin' snot-nosed kids.

Now that I read this again I am actually agreeing with you. w/e... I should have a lock on my posting after a certian hour... lol

 

[neoman10]

If people want to show their political alignment then use the damn Italian Fascist symbol

http://drkatesview.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fascism.jpg?w=126&h=150

to Nazis, ban those suckers to the depths of hell for their completely idiotic sense of logic and view of society

 

[Sh0ckFyre]

I remember seeing a hand jacking off a ball sack connected to another ball sack via a shaft with a cum shot dripping down the emblem.

FUCK it was funny.

 

[JDKJ]

The logic underlying your argument, as I understand, it, is:

Many of the posters here would never use a swastika as an emblem therefore those posters shouldn't care if use of a swastika is banned.

The same logic, if I extend it, appears in this argument:

Males would never have a need for an abortion therefore males shouldn't care if abortion is banned.

The logic of the first argument repeats itself in the second argument, doesn't it? If it does, then I've not made a leap in logic but, rather, an extension of your logic. Haven't I? And if I have, I can only hope that it's one which illustrates to you the invalidity your argument.

No I'm afraid this is not true. I am not a woman, therefore I would never need womans rights, or the right for women to vote. So then do you think I shouldn't care if women were banned from voting, and stripped of their rights?!

I hope you understand how flawed your argument is.

Let's go into the topics focus. I don't care about opinion X, but I do care that others are free to express opinion X. This is the principle that liberal democracies are built on. Go way back to the English Civil war (1600s) - that is when this started to become a norm of society.

The issue has always been how to balance societies desire to express freely, and how to quell incitement to hatred (or hate speech). That is the topic of this thread.

Let's assume Male X unintentionally impregnates Female Y. Both conclude that neither is interested in having the pregnancy come to delivery because neither, for whatever reasons, wants the responsibilities associated with child-rearing and that an abortion is their best alternative. Despite the fact that Male X obviously cannot have the abortion which would terminate this unwanted pregnancy, isn't his interest in having Female Y obtain that abortion just as substantial as the interest of Female Y who will be the the one among them to actually undergo the abortion? However, if abortion is banned and therefore unavailable, isn't Male X just as stymied by that ban as is Female Y? And shouldn't Male X therefore care just as much as Female Y whether or not the right to abortion is banned? I damn sure would be if I didn't want the responsibility for any frickin' snot-nosed kids.

Now that I read this again I am actually agreeing with you. w/e... I should have a lock on my posting after a certian hour... lol

And if you've never given much thought to the issue, you may want to put a Jimmy hat on Mr. Jimmy after a certain hour, too. : ]

 

[Spectre4802]

For all those who claim the swastika is a symbol of peace, it makes perfect sense to put it on a fucking AK-47.

Luck, I can understand, but it's still 'the Nazi symbol' and you should be delt with accordingly.

[Not sure if anybody's made this point, but I made it anyway.]

 

[Neonit]

. . . why? what does it change? by banning its use, what are they trying to achieve? make people forget about nazi's? act like they never existed? i just dont see the point of it....

 

[Teh_Dave]

Its suppose to be a mature rated gaming community meaning that it should in theory be populated by adults so freedom of expression (even the retarded one) should be allowed and should someone have an issue with their emblem they can take it up with them. X-box aren't you're nanny and they should stop being so domineering.

 

[Kill100577]

What about a Sauwastika

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauwastika

 

[ender214]

What if you just wanted to make your soldier a Nazi stormtrooper? Regardless of the regime they represented, they did manage to take over a good portion of Europe in a short amount of time.

Seriously, people should stop going ballistic every single time they see something offensive on the Internet.

 

[chickmagnet98849]

The swastika emblem has a really bad meaning for a lot of people. I guess I can understand why they would ban it. Who would be dumb enough to put something like that on there that would make so many people mad?

 

[cjneon]

Putting aside whether pot-stirring or not, it is, as I said, a logical extension, not, as you claim, a leap.

The logic underlying your argument, as I understand, it, is:

Many of the posters here would never use a swastika as an emblem therefore those posters shouldn't care if use of a swastika is banned.

The same logic, if I extend it, appears in this argument:

Males would never have a need for an abortion therefore males shouldn't care if abortion is banned.

The logic of the first argument repeats itself in the second argument, doesn't it? If it does, then I've not made a leap in logic but, rather, an extension of your logic. Haven't I? And if I have, I can only hope that it's one which illustrates to you the invalidity your argument.

And if your response is now going to be one along the lines of positing that the issue of an emblem's use in Xbox Live is not of equal importance to the issue of an abortion, you won't accomplish much in my book other than to leave me to wondering who you are to think that you should be the one to determine how much or how little importance anyone other than yourself should be attaching to an issue.

No my response would be quite simple in that males while not needing the abortion on their own physicality are directly affected by the act.

Having been in the situation where me and a partner have chosen to have an abortion and one also where i wasnt given a choice, i'd say that the matter of abortion is somewhat different, entirely disregarding levels of importance.

An abortion isnt just a decision which affects the female, it also affects the male who is the potential father, the argument is entirely different.

As an aside if you honestly think the ability to have an emblem on xbox live is of the same importance as choosing whether or not to bring a life into the world, you either place to much weight on XBL (and/or BLOPS) or far too little importance on the effect a child can have on a couple's/person's life.

 

[JDKJ]

Putting aside whether pot-stirring or not, it is, as I said, a logical extension, not, as you claim, a leap.

The logic underlying your argument, as I understand, it, is:

Many of the posters here would never use a swastika as an emblem therefore those posters shouldn't care if use of a swastika is banned.

The same logic, if I extend it, appears in this argument:

Males would never have a need for an abortion therefore males shouldn't care if abortion is banned.

The logic of the first argument repeats itself in the second argument, doesn't it? If it does, then I've not made a leap in logic but, rather, an extension of your logic. Haven't I? And if I have, I can only hope that it's one which illustrates to you the invalidity your argument.

And if your response is now going to be one along the lines of positing that the issue of an emblem's use in Xbox Live is not of equal importance to the issue of an abortion, you won't accomplish much in my book other than to leave me to wondering who you are to think that you should be the one to determine how much or how little importance anyone other than yourself should be attaching to an issue.

No my response would be quite simple in that males while not needing the abortion on their own physicality are directly affected by the act.

Having been in the situation where me and a partner have chosen to have an abortion and one also where i wasnt given a choice, i'd say that the matter of abortion is somewhat different, entirely disregarding levels of importance.

An abortion isnt just a decision which affects the female, it also affects the male who is the potential father, the argument is entirely different.

As an aside if you honestly think the ability to have an emblem on xbox live is of the same importance as choosing whether or not to bring a life into the world, you either place to much weight on XBL (and/or BLOPS) or far too little importance on the effect a child can have on a couple's/person's life.

I knew you were gonna to come with the "not of equal importance" play. My powers of prediction are not insubstantial. You should see me in action at a Vegas craps table, tearing up the house's ass.

And I argue that, despite the fact that I might never use one myself, if I just so happen to get a kick outta seeing other people using Nazi symbols in XBox Live, then a ban of those symbols also directly affects me. No more kicks. And this argument isn't entirely different from the argument you make in the case of abortion and a father and that a ban on abortion would also affect the father. In terms of the underlying logic, it's entirely the same.

 

[kickyourass]

I personally agree with these rule, most people who play online shooters aren't going to just sit there in the lobby while you explain the long list historical meanings behind the Swastika (Even if they WOULD like to have that conversation, an FPS is NOT the place for it). Sure I know that the Swastika isn't exclusivly a Nazi symbol, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that it's been associated with some of the absolute worst examples of humanity to ever walk the Earth, and it's been that way for close to a century.

 

[Necromancer1991]

.....Uh THAN WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, at least Rockstar had the sense to lock us out of the "Hot Coffee" content when they launched San Andreas

 

[cairocat]

What the hell ever happen to "Freedom of speech"? And honestly that nazi shit happened like over 100 years ago... GET OVER IT!!!

And, for the record, if someone murdered 2/3rds of your entire family, and then I told you to "Get over it", what do you think your response would be? Because the Nazi's murdered 2/3rds of mine. So screw you. Like I said, I will defend to the death your right to say stupid shit like what you said, but I don't have to like it.

Tactless internet teenager VS. indignant grieving jew!

FIGHT!!

 

[cairocat]

.....Uh THAN WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, at least Rockstar had the sense to lock us out of the "Hot Coffee" content when they launched San Andreas

You don't understand how the emblems work.

 

[Necromancer1991]

.....Uh THAN WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, at least Rockstar had the sense to lock us out of the "Hot Coffee" content when they launched San Andreas

You don't understand how the emblems work.

Oh.....well they still should have seen this coming

 

[cairocat]

.....Uh THAN WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, at least Rockstar had the sense to lock us out of the "Hot Coffee" content when they launched San Andreas

You don't understand how the emblems work.

Oh.....well they still should have seen this coming

I'm sure they did... and primed their aforementioned banhammer.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

I happen to know, unlike you, that the internet ain't serious business.

You have a funny way of showing it.