Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> If they are Nazi's, are they still not human beings deserving to access food in the market?

No, they can stop being nazi's at any point. Literally in less than a second.

Blacks, jews, gays, disabled people can't.

Stop trying to equate the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance



People can abandon their religion at any time, but we still protect peoples' religious rights, no matter how odious their beliefs.


No we don't, not when the religion (badly interpreted) promotes murder, ie radical islam.

Are you pretending that nazism can be interpreted charitably?

I can kill someone and claim it's for buddhism or my local sports team, but there is no basis for either of those promoting murder.

Nazism not so.


The penalty for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death. Many muslims believe it (like, the majority of the populations of places like Pakistan and Egypt). I guarantee you that you could not, consistent with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, deny service to Muslims merely for expressing the belief that apostates should be put to death.


I actually agree with you, and Christianity has the same problem in writing.

But the difference (or similarity?) is that only a diminishingly tiny fraction of practitioners for either religion believes in stoning.

If I asked you to give me a few key points of the tenets of Islam and Christianity, would any be about killing, eradicating, or persecution of people?

If I asked you to do the same for Nazism? Are you going to pretend it's comparable?


First, that's not true: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi.... In Bangladesh, where my family is from, 82% of Muslims favor making Sharia the law of the land. Of those, 55% (over 40% of the population) believe in stoning as a punishment for adultery. 44% (over 30% of the population) believe that apostates should be executed.

Second, it's irrelevant. In my hypothetical, I'm talking about specific individuals who have conceded to believing that apostates should be executed. If they invoke their religion as a shield for having that view, and have done nothing otherwise illegal, you can't refuse to serve them under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Alright, I'll gladly concede that I did not know that, but I strongly disagree that my comparisons you neglected are "irrelevant". I think that's the key discriminator.

The view on stoning in Bangladesh could be religious, but it could also be cultural, as it's not equal elsewhere where practicing muslims reside.

And if it, as I posit, isn't a core tenet of the religion, and if it is, as I posit, one in nazism, it can't be solved through cultural tolerance.


An atmosphere of free speech that allows for satire and conversation are the best weapons against extremist ideology.


I agree. I'm glad that's not challenged here.


I dispute your point - not everyone could have chosen to stop being nazis and live.

"Approximately 77,000 German citizens were killed for one or another form of resistance by Special Courts, courts-martial, People's Court and the civil justice system. "

"Almost every community in Germany had members taken away to concentration camps. As early as 1935 there were jingles warning: "Dear Lord God, keep me quiet, so that I don't end up in Dachau." (It almost rhymes in German: Lieber Herr Gott mach mich stumm / Daß ich nicht nach Dachau komm.)[17] "Dachau" refers to the Dachau concentration camp"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism


Which would still be a technicality because it's a specific edge case to the rule

- Given EXTENUATING circumstances, the choice may be difficult to exercise.

And even then - many people exercised that right, even knowing the risks - because it was just the right thing to do, and being a nazi wasn't.


I think the time to address the "staving Nazi" problem is when there are staving Nazis. Until then, keeping them out seems fine.

I'd note that I'm pretty sure by the time Nazi's owned the government in Germany it was too late.


I thought this was about the present.


The comment I replied to mentioned: "let's say a German business owner in the 1930s".


And how do you know they are not nazis anymore?

They may stop looking and acting like nazis, but still believe the same ideas.

What do you really oppose? Nazis? People who look and talk like Nazis? People who perform horrible actions like the horrible actions the Nazis did?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: