I agree, the state should kill anyone on the spot if they expressed disrespectfull views.k3v1n said:
The state should regulate who is allowed to speak freely and who isn't. This can't backfire.k3v1n said:
Man pepper sprays Westboro Protesters
- Thread starter theSovietConnection
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Im going on the basis that you can think what yopu want, you can say what you want. But when you actively invade someones FUNERAL to SCREAM what you want in their ears and wave signs during a sombre occasion, thats not freedom of speach. Thats freedom of harassment and forcing your opinions on others. Freedom is about being able to live WITHOUT having views forced on you where ever you go. Having hate screamed at us is not acceptable. They can think it. Hell they can say it to eachother all they want. They cant try and force their views into MY life if i dont want to.Tarrok said:
They can if you are in public or near the streets, and graveyards are rarely secluded private places sheltered from the public space.BiscuitTrouser said:
So they can, and there is nothing the state can or should do about it.
I'm left to use the old logic with this, which I have always associated with our implied rights. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD (Quoted the above for stating my opinion perfectly).Irridium said:
The entire gay community should start following these people, mincing and prancing in the most stereotypical way possible wherever the Westboro Bapists protest. Muffle their hatefull voices with overused gay anthems, reschedule pride parades to pass their church weekly, shove it in their evil faces until they retreat back into whatever slime-pit spawned them.
I fear them being a family of lawyers they've researched every little loophole with the aim of knowing they're *just* on the safe side of the law when it comes to ruining funerals because of their fear of gay people.
I still can't believe there's not some kind of law to prevent harrassment. Surely if I just went into town with a placard saying 'I HATE YOU AND YOU WILL DIE',picked someone at random and just followed them around hurling abuse, I've gotta be breaking some law?
Kudos to the biker gangs who do all they can and give up their free time to protect funerals from this fuckwits however, it's amazing the bad reputation and fear bikers tend to have when most of them just want to live their life and will leave you be if you don't harrass them.
One option, if racial abuse is illegal, next time it's a black soldier's funeral, play the race card, accuse them of picketing because he was black and get em banged up for racism. It's not a particularly pleasant way of going about it, but you gotta fight fire with fire, and they're lawyers, playing the legal loopholes is possibly the only way you can nail them without getting jailed.
I still can't believe there's not some kind of law to prevent harrassment. Surely if I just went into town with a placard saying 'I HATE YOU AND YOU WILL DIE',picked someone at random and just followed them around hurling abuse, I've gotta be breaking some law?
Kudos to the biker gangs who do all they can and give up their free time to protect funerals from this fuckwits however, it's amazing the bad reputation and fear bikers tend to have when most of them just want to live their life and will leave you be if you don't harrass them.
One option, if racial abuse is illegal, next time it's a black soldier's funeral, play the race card, accuse them of picketing because he was black and get em banged up for racism. It's not a particularly pleasant way of going about it, but you gotta fight fire with fire, and they're lawyers, playing the legal loopholes is possibly the only way you can nail them without getting jailed.
No, while I understand why you would like it to be true (because you feel vicariously responsible as someone who worships a religion - no rational person is pointing at you for this though) - that's not the case.Outcast107 said:
If you ever speak to these people, or an islamic fundamentalist, or any other religious radical they believe DEVOUTLY that their religion tells them to do what they do. They quote scripture, they repeat it daily, they pray that it comes to fruition. These are not people intentionally abusing religion to achieve their goals, they earnestly believe they are right in the eyes of their god.
When rational people like Richard Dawkins (irrational people can say what they want, no one listens to them) suggest that Religion is dangerous and to be avoided - they are pointing at the inherent danger in being convinced of anything Absolutely / Infaliably: as inherent in divine messages.
Anything you are unwilling to accept as possibly being false, if actually false, causes your whole perception of reality to shift to account for the false "truth" you are unwilling to question. For example, when the Catholic church refused to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe, they held western thinking back for centuries before finally recanting - centuries we could have been advancing had we accepted this simple, now self-evident, theory.
Religion is dangerous, extraordinarily so - and you can't deny the faith of radicals of any religion because their interpretations lead to 'evil' - they are deeply religious, perhaps too religious since they often become over-involved in a literal interpretation of specific phrases. They act out that which religion fails to allow: self-correction, human error.
As soon as you accept that some of it may be faliable, all of it falls into question. Maybe Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbour's Wife meant something completely different than is commonly believed - based on what is implied by 'covet' - that could mean adultry, or idolatry, it could mean don't begrudge your wife for not having the characteristics of other women - accept her for who she is - it only means one of those, but which? If the Ten Commandments - being as concretely written as they are - are questionable - try reading the Bible (or any Holy text, I've read nearly all of them) for a specific, concrete meaning of 'rule' to be gained: they aren't there, it's all subject to personal interpretation, and nearly anything can be justified with a sufficiently large enough divine text (enough ambigious terms).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire, (Attributed)
Free speech isn't just about allowing people say things YOU agree with.
Now, does this mean I agree with these (barely) functioning retards from Westbro Baptist Church?
Heck no!
Do I think the man who did this should go to jail...no.
Do I think the man who did this should get a fine...yes.
Free speech isn't just about allowing people say things YOU agree with.
Now, does this mean I agree with these (barely) functioning retards from Westbro Baptist Church?
Heck no!
Do I think the man who did this should go to jail...no.
Do I think the man who did this should get a fine...yes.
Because they're cowards. They wouldn't enlist in the army and still they attack those that defend the country they live in. One time Fred Phelps talked about the Grey Hound bus incident in Canada, he called the Canadians running off the bus cowards, this made me think what the hell would you have done differantly? The man had a machete, would you stand up to him?Traun said:
It isn't a choice, you are born that way.Outcast107 said:
OT: I'm glad WBC is banned from entering my country. I don't like them much a.k.a they are on my
I applaud that man. Not only did he stand up to bigots, but he stood up to bigots who were desecrating a funeral in the name of their bigotry. If I was there I would have joined him.
When peaceful protest escalates beyond that, we leave the important realm of "why".
I don't condone any action that suppresses anyone's right to peaceful protest, no matter what the reason, no matter what the cause.
The instant we cross that line into forceful measures, then we can only assume that the other party isn't interested in 'why' any more.
This is why it's important to keep bias out of civil discussion. It's a core component for free speech and free thought to work.
I hate what these Phelps protesters are doing, and I disagree with their message... but that does not give anyone the right to assault them. Period.
If you believe in free speech, then don't condone such actions, because you are in fact, agreeing to a double standard ("protesters' rights should be protected...as long as I don't disagree with their message").
I don't condone any action that suppresses anyone's right to peaceful protest, no matter what the reason, no matter what the cause.
The instant we cross that line into forceful measures, then we can only assume that the other party isn't interested in 'why' any more.
This is why it's important to keep bias out of civil discussion. It's a core component for free speech and free thought to work.
I hate what these Phelps protesters are doing, and I disagree with their message... but that does not give anyone the right to assault them. Period.
If you believe in free speech, then don't condone such actions, because you are in fact, agreeing to a double standard ("protesters' rights should be protected...as long as I don't disagree with their message").
That's true, I my beliefs are no more valid than yours. Except mine are based on evidence (or lack thereof) and reason. I could get into details, but frankly, I just don't care.The Austin said:Wow. "Your welcome". Didn't see that coming.BlackWidower said:
Don't you dare tell me that my beliefs are wrong, because they are just as valid as yours, weather you can admit it or not.Hows that not irony? i'm just saying, that the guy constantly spouts that everyone is going to hell, so I'm just saying that it would be funny if he ended up going to hell.stinkychops said:
Thats irony!
But I will say this. When I was young I was jumping around from religion to religion, before I heard Penn Jillette's essay on atheism, it clicked for me, and I never truly realized that was an option, that it was okay to be an atheist. It never clicked for me. Call me stupid or whatever.
Anyway, my point is thus. I seem to have made you angry, and that was not my intention. I apologize, I have this snarky side to me that I find hard to control. But the reason I mentioned that I'm an atheist is the same reason I first got into atheism. Through the sharing of ideas. Honestly, I'm hoping more people will realize it's okay to be an atheist and sign up.
You know I'm open to the idea of Christianity, I'm just looking for evidence. So far I haven't seen it.
By the way, I agree, it would be ironic for Phelps to end up in hell. But I think deep down the man's an atheist, because I refuse to believe anyone would pray for people to die, while believing prayer is not bullshit.
here's what I would have done:
1. get a TON of hot sauce (like habenero, the kind where if ou ingest too much you need to go to a hospital)
2. fill water balloons
3. MAKE IT RAIN.
1. get a TON of hot sauce (like habenero, the kind where if ou ingest too much you need to go to a hospital)
2. fill water balloons
3. MAKE IT RAIN.
I share your sentiments. As much as I would love for them to get assulted again and again, everything theyve done is legal and I regretfully accept that.Worgen said:
Hopefully theyre also the type of christian that refuses medical care becuase it would be an insult to God (sadly the show enough cunning that its highly doubtfull).
It's also a felony...Shockolate said:
So instead of misdemeanor assaults it would be a felony for each one.
Much worse and isn't nearly as painful.
Personally, he shoul dhave drove into them instead.
Acting as bad, or in this case worse, than the WBC, is not something I would do, or condone doing.