Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
you have the freedom to ignore them.Just speaking for myself, here, but when I ignore people like this and in so doing grant my complicit acceptance of their tactics and antics, I feel really dirty on the inside. And not sexy-dirty. More like corrupt-dirty.
And providing them with free publicity and the opportunity to air their ideas in a wider forum makes you less complicit than just ignoring them in what way?
I think the causal link between the two sets of actions needs to be reconsidered...
|
And providing them with free publicity and the opportunity to air their ideas in a wider forum makes you less complicit than just ignoring them in what way?
I think the causal link between the two sets of actions needs to be reconsidered...
OK, I reconsidered, and I still think that voicing my disagreement with their message gives me a clearer conscience than simply ignoring them and letting them go about their business - especially considering that they're going to go about their business whether or not I personally dissent, be it vocally or silently.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
OK, I reconsidered, and I still think that voicing my disagreement with their message gives me a clearer conscience than simply ignoring them and letting them go about their business - especially considering that they're going to go about their business whether or not I personally dissent, whether vocally or silently.And providing them with free publicity and the opportunity to air their ideas in a wider forum makes you less complicit than just ignoring them in what way?
I think the causal link between the two sets of actions needs to be reconsidered...
So, to recap, one of your actions has the effect of causing their message to spread further than it otherwise would've, thereby causing additional people anger, possibly causing like minded people to increase their funding, and generally providing them additional opportunities to spread their hate speech, but it makes you feel better because you're opposing them (in what way, I'm not clear).
The other act actually achieves what you say you want to achieve (oppose their cause), but doesn't feel as good.
I'd characterize this as actions speaking louder than words...
OK, I reconsidered, and I still think that voicing my disagreement with their message gives me a clearer conscience than simply ignoring them and letting them go about their business - especially considering that they're going to go about their business whether or not I personally dissent, be it vocally or silently.And providing them with free publicity and the opportunity to air their ideas in a wider forum makes you less complicit than just ignoring them in what way?
I think the causal link between the two sets of actions needs to be reconsidered...
And that's fine. They are free to spout off about whatever it is they're spouting off about, and you're free to yap on about your disagreement with whatever it is they're spouting off about.
And I'm free to ignore the endless shouting of both sides. All is as it should be.
That may be. However, let's go back a couple hundred years. Suppose someone wanted to protest a slave auction with signs that state Blacks are the same as Whites. Surely, some (many?) people would have thought that disgusting.
Americans were rioting in opposition to that notion as recently as the 1970s.
But I quite like the Supremes' ruling. I think Voltaire said something about being serious about freedom of speech always putting one on the side of the bastards, since virtually nobody is inclined to ban generally accepted, flattering speech.
you have the freedom to ignore them.Just speaking for myself, here, but when I ignore people like this and in so doing grant my complicit acceptance of their tactics and antics, I feel really dirty on the inside. And not sexy-dirty. More like corrupt-dirty.
With these clowns...all they are saying is just to get attention and provoke a reaction. I doubt very much that they even believe what they are saying. I think they are entirely funded by money won in law suits from them provking a reaction such as a puch to the face. Almost all of the members of this 'church' are family members.
So really in my opinion ignoring this particular bunch of....(insert word that filters won't allow) is the best way of destroying them.
It bwecomes a slippery slope...and I really don't want to see us going down that path.
|
Actually the United States has a lot in common with Nazi Germany. The Republican Party is using the same propaganda tactics in a horrible economic climate giving thier followers an entire class of people to blame for thier troubles. Replace Unions and Democrats with Jew and your pretty close to that mark. The Patriot act was a big step towards a Nazi America.
The government is designed to be True Neutral how ever the people who run it vary in alignment.
|
The founders may have thought themselves Neutral Good but then they thought that slaves were not people either. EDIT: Not all but enough of them.
Freedom of speech is generally protected in the US when it does not have a meaningful impact on the oligarchy, thus the ruling in favor of the WBC.
Really?? There are other responses but this was the one I knew to get to easiest.
|
|
So, to recap, one of your actions has the effect of causing their message to spread further than it otherwise would've, thereby causing additional people anger, possibly causing like minded people to increase their funding, and generally providing them additional opportunities to spread their hate speech, but it makes you feel better because you're opposing them (in what way, I'm not clear).
The other act actually achieves what you say you want to achieve (oppose their cause), but doesn't feel as good.
I'd characterize this as actions speaking louder than words...
Well, fair enough. It's not like your viewpoint on this is complete rubbish, regardless of how you feel about mine. The thing is, by logical extension, if everyone in the US followed your approach, the only vocalized viewpoint would be that of the WBC and the rest of the world would think that the rest of us agreed with them because we would be sitting on our hands. If everyone spoke out against the ridiculousness that the WBC espouses, what would be the worst case scenario?
Well, fair enough. It's not like your viewpoint on this is complete rubbish, regardless of how you feel about mine. The thing is, by logical extension, if everyone in the US followed your approach, the only vocalized viewpoint would be that of the WBC and the rest of the world would think that the rest of us agreed with them because we would be sitting on our hands. If everyone spoke out against the ridiculousness that the WBC espouses, what would be the worst case scenario?So, to recap, one of your actions has the effect of causing their message to spread further than it otherwise would've, thereby causing additional people anger, possibly causing like minded people to increase their funding, and generally providing them additional opportunities to spread their hate speech, but it makes you feel better because you're opposing them (in what way, I'm not clear).
The other act actually achieves what you say you want to achieve (oppose their cause), but doesn't feel as good.
I'd characterize this as actions speaking louder than words...
Actually if the US followed his approach (god I feel filth for agree with the pony), then the world wouldn't even know anything about WBC because they wouldn't get any press at all. They are a small church of almost entirely one family and their spouses and children. The only reason anyone outside of their immediate neighbors know anything about them or give a damn about them is because people keep getting upset and protesting their protests. Just ignore them, pretend they don't exist, give them no publicity, and let them fade into the background. When they find that they can't get money from suing people anymore we'll see how strong their convictions are.
EDIT: Freaken 3O0 ninjas.
Actually the United States has a lot in common with Nazi Germany. The Republican Party is using the same propaganda tactics in a horrible economic climate giving thier followers an entire class of people to blame for thier troubles. Replace Unions and Democrats with Jew and your pretty close to that mark. The Patriot act was a big step towards a Nazi America.
The government is designed to be True Neutral how ever the people who run it vary in alignment.
Um...sure because the democrat never would do such a thing....sigh.
Also you mean the same Patriot Act that the Democrats continue to pass...and even tried to expand it's powers? That one?
Ah another brain washed stooge for the Democrats...
Note: I am not really a a Republican either...I hate both parties equaly as both prosper from the death of people thinking for themselves...so don't just discount me as some mindless republlican...it would very much wrong.
They want to be total asshats? Fine, knock yourself out.
HOWEVER, DON'T MAKE ME PAY FOR IT!
Churches should pay taxes just like every other business or land holder. They should also be subjected to the same laws that all of us other folks get screwed over with. In my hometown there was a pediphile priest who molested a bunch of kids. After he was "busted" they shipped him to another state where he pulled the same horrible s!#~. Had this been something like "drugs" they would have broken out the RICO laws, three strikes, etc., etc. But apparently it is OK to get special treatment from The State for your Religion.
Separation of Church and State. Is America ready to live up to all the talk?
Frank Zappa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLVUHknb-Is
|
|
Crimson Jester that is why I edited my original post. Obviously not all of anything is ever one thing. Clearly enough of the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was ok or else there would not have been slavery or would you like to debate that point? At any rate my point is that I would not characterize people who owned slaves as "good".
My family owned slaves.
My family has a memorial dedicated to them. It is at the end of a tunnel, dug by the sweat and blood not only of my relatives but also their slaves.
The tunnel allowed for the beginnings of a trail from the deep south to the north to remove not only the slaves my family owned but many others as well to get them out of the south. My family freed slaves and stole slaves to free them.
I will never characterize slavery as good. I will however think that with most issues it is not ever one sided, and being good, being called good, is in the eye of the beholder.
|
OK, I reconsidered, and I still think that voicing my disagreement with their message gives me a clearer conscience than simply ignoring them and letting them go about their business - especially considering that they're going to go about their business whether or not I personally dissent, whether vocally or silently.So, to recap, one of your actions has the effect of causing their message to spread further than it otherwise would've, thereby causing additional people anger, possibly causing like minded people to increase their funding, and generally providing them additional opportunities to spread their hate speech, but it makes you feel better because you're opposing them (in what way, I'm not clear).
The other act actually achieves what you say you want to achieve (oppose their cause), but doesn't feel as good.
I'd characterize this as actions speaking louder than words...
Yes but where is the fun in that? It's damn satisfying to tell an asshat that his choice in head gear is odoriferous. For exhibit A, i will present the months of fun we called the edition wars (4th ed suxors! j/k)In fact, I may have to get upset with you for denying me the hours of giggling caused by their self-righteous indignation and consternation at being ridiculed. While I understand your point, I would suggest that ridicule can sometimes do more to destroy a position than confrontation or non-engagement.
Besides, am i seriously supposed to accept wisdom from a pretty pony?
|
The WBC have homes...the rest of the population should exercise its free speech with random air horn blasts of disapproval at constant and completely random hours of the day....
All day, every day, every week of every day, every week of every month, every month of every year.
After a while of no sleep etc...well...jus' sayin'...
Unfortunately there are probably noise ordinances that prohibit that. Otherwise a good idea.
Replace Unions and Democrats with Jew and your pretty close to that mark.
For the record, I do not think the Republican party are a bunch of Nazis. I do think illegal immigrants, Mexicans in particular, are being used as a scapegoat like the Jews were. That is as far as I am comfortable making a comparison.
Regarding 'just ignore them', I offer up this entire board when a troll appears. It is contrary to human nature.
Hooray for the Supreme Court, they got this one right. Restriction of free speech isn't good for anybody.
If someone is emotionally damaged from the WBC protesting then they should sue the WBC's assets off in civil court where stuff like this belongs instead of trying to take away all Americans right to free speech.
Hooray for the Supreme Court, they got this one right. Restriction of free speech isn't good for anybody.
If someone is emotionally damaged from the WBC protesting then they should sue the WBC's assets off in civil court where stuff like this belongs instead of trying to take away all Americans right to free speech.
I believe that is where this case came from.
|
|
I blame The Poodle for starting this thread. Now these people are ghetto-interwebz-famous, since we all know that all important and relevent discussion that takes place on the interwebz actually takes place here, in OTD. I merely played an unwitting role in the rise of the WBC to world fame.
It's The Poodle's fault.
I believe that is where this case came from.Hooray for the Supreme Court, they got this one right. Restriction of free speech isn't good for anybody.
If someone is emotionally damaged from the WBC protesting then they should sue the WBC's assets off in civil court where stuff like this belongs instead of trying to take away all Americans right to free speech.
But the plaintiffs where suing over the right of the WBC to protest at funerals not about monetary compensation for emotional stress caused by the WBC protesting.
It's The Poodle's fault.
But...I'm...not Mexican.
It's The Poodle's fault.But...I'm...not Mexican.
Worse...you're French.
Worse...you're French.It's The Poodle's fault.But...I'm...not Mexican.
Birther!
Birthr!Worse...you're French.It's The Poodle's fault.But...I'm...not Mexican.
I demand a official AKC pedigree be issued.
I demand a official AKC pedigree be issued.
I think I left it at your mom's.
I had a very visceral response to this supreme court ruling, as I do whenever the WBC is brought up in conversation or media. Having grown up in a baptist family (my grandfather was a pastor), with a very small minority of relatives who are almost as crazy as the Phelps, I have extreme anger issues with religion in general and wackos like this in particular.
I agree that the WBC are as much a litigation-centered scam as they are a legitimate religious organization. I would point out, though, that members of the Phelps family who have distanced themselves from Fred & Shirley have assured media outlets of the genuine nature of their warped piety. They may be making money hand over fist doing what they do, but I also think they believe the ideology they're professing.
At the end of the day, though, whether they are zealots or charlatans really matters very little to anyone who is directly victimized by their actions - such as the families of dead service members who are disrespected and assaulted by the WBC's vitriol. In this, Justice Scalia is correct - the law provides for exceptions to freedom of speech with regard to defamation, libel, and slander, and this situation probably merits a similar exception.
As a secular humanist of good moral conscience, and a taxpayer who is tired of seeing frivolous litigation eat up our money, the WBC offends me on just about every possible level. If they are free to spew forth their hatred and cause additional anguish to vulnerable people who have already suffered so much, then certainly I am free to wish upon them a fiery death by meteor impact (or maybe just a grisly church van accident).
As I said I agreed with the supreme court ruling. But I also would agree if a law was passed that banned protests within a 1 mile of a cemetry...though that can cause issues...so maybe add the line during a funeral..
As the law stands now...they have that right. But that does n't mean we can't change the law. And I would perfer to do it in such a way that does not say,"You can't say that"...I would really pefer to do it in such a way as "You can't do it there."
The difference is rather minor maybe but it is very profound to me atleast.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh SNAPI demand a official AKC pedigree be issued.I think I left it at your mom's.
It would be a 'SNAP' if my mother wasn't a vet nutering a poodle.
It would be a 'SNAP' if my mother wasn't a vet nutering a poodle.
That's an interesting euphemism.
An interesting take on this ruling from the Slacktivist.
An interesting take on this ruling from the Slacktivist.
Better link to Slacktivist (Supreme Court strikes down key argument of same-sex marriage foes)
Interesting article, well thought out and reasonable but completely wrong in it's assumptions.
Churches and pastors will continue to use the same fear of gay police taking away their free speech rights to inflame anti-gay policies and agendas. Simply put god doesn't hate gays but the people speaking in him name do and they will use any argument no matter how irrational to make sure that everyone else fears and hates gays also.
America's alignment? Oooooooooh the sheer possibilities of patriotic flame wars, AND an alignment debacle too? There is a god. At least some god would find this hilarious. =)
Okay, I just have to. A society that currently has the world's biggest population of lawyers is NOT a chaotic society. America is lawful with the absolute best of them. The fabled volume of federal laws is... intimidating. Yes, definitely lawful.
As for moral alignment: A society that employs waterboarding, sorry, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and invades countries at costs of tens of thousands of lives, where they can't even give a good explanation why, that push for abolishment of freedom of speech across the world by sneaking through international treaties, that chooses to destabilize countries so these countries will no longer become strong democratic societies that could become a threat, and so on, and so on, and so forth... that is not a good society. Not even a neutral one, except on the very best days. Sorry.
But this ruling proves that some people actually understand what freedom of speech is.
|
|
America's alignment? Oooooooooh the sheer possibilities of patriotic flame wars, AND an alignment debacle too? There is a god. At least some god would find this hilarious. =)
Okay, I just have to. A society that currently has the world's biggest population of lawyers is NOT a chaotic society. America is lawful with the absolute best of them. The fabled volume of federal laws is... intimidating. Yes, definitely lawful.
As for moral alignment: A society that employs waterboarding, sorry, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and invades countries at costs of tens of thousands of lives, where they can't even give a good explanation why, that push for abolishment of freedom of speech across the world by sneaking through international treaties, that chooses to destabilize countries so these countries will no longer become strong democratic societies that could become a threat, and so on, and so on, and so forth... that is not a good society. Not even a neutral one, except on the very best days. Sorry.
But this ruling proves that some people actually understand what freedom of speech is.
+1
I totally agree.
|
As for moral alignment: A society that employs waterboarding, sorry, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and invades countries at costs of tens of thousands of lives, where they can't even give a good explanation why, that push for abolishment of freedom of speech across the world by sneaking through international treaties, that chooses to destabilize countries so these countries will no longer become strong democratic societies that could become a threat, and so on, and so on, and so forth... that is not a good society. Not even a neutral one, except on the very best days. Sorry.
Except that America as a society didn't employ waterboarding, a subset of people in power used waterboarding and were opposed by another portion of society. In otherwords actions taken during a short period of time by a subset of the "ruling class" however you define it does not represent the society as a whole. Not to mention that your view is narrowly defined leaving out the wealth of positive things the country has done in the past and continues to do. I'll agree with you on lawful, but to claim that america isn't at the very least neutral on the moral axis is nothing short of silly.
I think someone has been drinking some of these guys kool-aid. LOL
The U.S. government is behind the campaign to remove Gadhafi, he added.
"The United States has already said it's ready to invade Libya, don't you see? And almost all the countries of Europe are condemning Libya ... What do they want? They are rubbing their hands together. Oil is what's important to them," he said.