> > I use the term "Jew-hatred." Much more precise.
>
> i use the term "nazi asshole", which is even better...
Hmmm, hatred might have been a tad too strong a descriptor as such relates to feelings of dislike for a particular race. Hatred usually implies obsessive machination or rumination. The same would be true when considering Nazi ass holes. Unless one were to focus an "excessive" amount of attention or time thinking negatively about Jews or Nazi ass holes, I'm not sure hatred is the word most suited to describing the phenomenon in general.
Example: I really, really dislike modern-day liberals and conservatives. I dislike them for the same reason. Both of them wish to use government to impose their twisted brand of morality on me. Even so, I don't spend a great deal of time thinking about how I don't like them. In this respect, I do not hate them. The over-all intensity of emotion is an issue here as well.
Both are "kosher" I would say. Aren't you glad this is the free world. . .
Nevertheless, choices always have consequences. I may be "free" to express my point of view in public (no matter how "benignly" vehement my views may be), but I will surely pay a high price for my freedom if my words are not in compliance with social dictates.
and
we can be "anti" so as to express ourselves this way? There is NO LAW
AGAINST HATRED.
Have you never heard of hate crimes? A white man who kills another white man in anger may get 20 years to life, whereas a white man who kills a black man in anger may get life to capital punishment. Add the use of racial epithets to the mix and the sentence, where not the latter, will be compounded typically two-fold.
How it is expressed may be illegal, however, eg "inciting
a riot".
Yes and no; expression alone will not get you tossed in jail. Such expressions in conjunction with a crime, however, will increase your punishment (in the USA anyway).
"Anti" can be to any DEGREE and expressed in MANY WAYS. Semites are
protected by the laws here just like any other group.
Equal protection under the law, if it hasn't always been so, is becoming more an idyllic myth every day. Sentences on the whole are twice as harsh for black men as they are for whites given the same crime. Issues of civil redress are almost always decided, preferentially, on the basis of one's socio-economic group. E.g., a white male who pursues a sexual harassment claim against a female supervisor is half as likely to win compensation than is his female counterpart under the same conditions.
But should they be
ABOVE EVEN CRITICISM, ie outside any form of "anti" whatsoever? That is
the question.
The answer is obviously no, were such value considerations relevant. They are not.
Edward ><+>
If you have fifty problems and one of them is government, you have only one problem.
http://www.global-connector.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reality_pump/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
