[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/mKlNb.jpg[/img]
This sign speaks the truth. It has it all figured out while the WBC runs around troubling themselves with bullshit.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30789094]You're a joke. If you're not going to take the argument seriously and you're just going to condescend to me and claim I must be being dense on purpose because you CAN'T BEAR TO BELIEVE that someone should believe we shouldn't be arresting people for words, just give up. It's pathetic.[/QUOTE]
I say "dense on purpose" when someone pretends not to understand something or when he takes what I said and spawns some astronomically exaggerated example to ridicule what I said again pretending he doesn't know what I'm talking about. And I never said you are dense on purpose for believing we shouldn't be arresting people for words, I said that every time you pretended not to understand or tried to ridicule what I said making a mockery of it.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30789094]Justify that. You can't just say, "It's dangerous and has no place." Argue it.[/QUOTE] I did later in my post. Why are you pretending I didn't?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30788282]Silly opinions like "Kill all niggers! They are an inferior race!" which might reinforce or even teach racism.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30789094]Why is physical violence not the fault of the person performing it? I don't believe in free will but if I used that as the basis for my political philosophy like you seem to be we wouldn't be imprisoning anyone for anything since it's not their fault. They were forced to do it. If words can force someone to be violent, why does your environment not force your words? Accountability should end in the actions you perform. If you are violent, you are accountable. Otherwise we get stuck in a ridiculous chain of determining what's to blame and in the end, it's nobody.[/QUOTE]
When did I say that people resorting to violence because they were encouraged to do so wouldn't be held responsible for their actions? It's not mind control, what are you talking about? However, preaching racial hatred lets say through radio, can reinforce someone's racism which later can get someone hurt. This is the only point of hate speech, it's not "voicing your opinion".
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30789094]Why is that your responsibility to know what your words are going to do to someone? Say you're in a relationship with someone and you break up with them. They were depressed and too afraid to tell anyone. They kill themselves. Why should you be to blame for that? Say someone insults you, and you insult them back. You're perfectly fine but what you say to them strikes a nerve and they hurt themselves somehow. Why is it your job to watch everything you say just because you might possibly hurt someone maybe? It's absurd.[/QUOTE]
Uh I don't know, because I think we should care about each other at least a little bit?
Also the example you make with breaking up is wrong. You didn't break up with someone to hurt them, it was not your intention. The intent of hate speech is to hurt the group you are talking against. And someone who would be talking shit about people without giving a fuck at all if it hurts others is "not very nice guy", who will either end up without friends or with a group of other "not very nice guys".
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30789094]Yes I can. And if I can't, I am to blame. [/QUOTE]
So if I walk up to you and punch you in the face, and you fail to block my punch, it's your fault for getting hurt?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30789094]Why is it you seem to think that someone who says something that incites someone to violence is more to blame than the violent person? I don't understand this but it seems to run through all of your argument.[/QUOTE]
He's not more to blame but he is to blame too. Charles Manson wouldn't be in prison if what you're saying would be true. He didn't kill anyone, he just casually talked people into it. Same happens with hate speech, it just doesn't have that strong signal, but it reaches more people. Someone will listen.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30789094]I don't understand why you're not able to argue and maintain any sort of civility. All you've been doing the whole time is talking down to me, as though anyone who could possibly disagree with you must be being stupid on purpose. I argue with people I like all the time but you have to make it personal. Stop it. It's pointless and not constructive. It's no wonder you seem concerned with the effect of words on people. You don't seem capable of arguing in a mature manner without leveling insults at the other party.[/QUOTE]
How is pretending not to understand and ridiculing what I say by spawning ridiculous examples (megaphone at 4am) constructive? I am telling you to stop doing it so that we can have an actual argument instead of you making up stupid stories and me trying to explain again what I'm talking about again and again. How is this not constructive?
And one time I did suggest you might be stupid, that was when you tried to argue that words can't hurt people, and I was completely justified on this.
[QUOTE=Levithan;30788755]lmao bringing up a five day old argument[/QUOTE]
I was out for 3 days, I didn't want to bump the thread from page x, but since someone did bump it, I replied. Thanks for not bringing anything to this thread other than a shit post.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30795383]I say "dense on purpose" when someone pretends not to understand something or when he takes what I said and spawns some astronomically exaggerated example to ridicule what I said again pretending he doesn't know what I'm talking about. And I never said you are dense on purpose for believing we shouldn't be arresting people for words, I said that every time you pretended not to understand or tried to ridicule what I said making a mockery of it.[/QUOTE]
Assuming I'm pretending not to understand you is a bit silly.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30795383]I did later in my post. Why are you pretending I didn't?[/QUOTE]
I just broke your post up into chunks and that was the first bit I responded to.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30795383]When did I say that people resorting to violence because they were encouraged to do so wouldn't be held responsible for their actions? It's not mind control, what are you talking about? However, preaching racial hatred lets say through radio, can reinforce someone's racism which later can get someone hurt. This is the only point of hate speech, it's not "voicing your opinion".[/QUOTE]
How is the Westboro Baptist Church saying gays and soldiers will burn in hell etc. etc. forcing people to attack them? It's one thing if they're saying, "We should beat up homosexuals," and then people do it because them, but why should saying something unpopular and having people attack you for it be punishable? What I'm arguing here is apparently pretty unpopular.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30795383]Uh I don't know, because I think we should care about each other at least a little bit?
Also the example you make with breaking up is wrong. You didn't break up with someone to hurt them, it was not your intention. The intent of hate speech is to hurt the group you are talking against. And someone who would be talking shit about people without giving a fuck at all if it hurts others is "not very nice guy", who will either end up without friends or with a group of other "not very nice guys". [/QUOTE]
But the same thing applies to Westboro unless you can prove it's they don't believe what they preach, and are only doing it to incite attacks against them. And we all know people believe crazy shit.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30795383]So if I walk up to you and punch you in the face, and you fail to block my punch, it's your fault for getting hurt?[/QUOTE]
Again, if people are not, in the end, responsible for their actions and whether or not they are violent, why are we holding these people responsible? Does a person have control over their actions or not? If people should be in control of themselves and are responsible for their own violence, why are we blaming the person saying things for it? If people are not responsible for what they've done, and it's their environment's fault, why are we blaming either person?
If the answer is both, and we're diffusing responsibility among both of them, why does a murderer who kills people due to less well-defined causes in his environment given all the blame?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30795383]He's not more to blame but he is to blame too. Charles Manson wouldn't be in prison if what you're saying would be true. He didn't kill anyone, he just casually talked people into it. Same happens with hate speech, it just doesn't have that strong signal, but it reaches more people. Someone will listen.[/QUOTE]
But what Manson did wasn't just saying he thinks people should be killed and people listening to him and doing it, it was very specifically targeted and orchestrated conspiracy to murder. It's the difference between Hitler shouting that Jews should be exterminated on a street corner, and Hitler ordering people to exterminate Jews.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30795383]How is pretending not to understand and ridiculing what I say by spawning ridiculous examples (megaphone at 4am) constructive? I am telling you to stop doing it so that we can have an actual argument instead of you making up stupid stories and me trying to explain again what I'm talking about again and again. How is this not constructive? [/QUOTE]
A "ridiculous" example that tries to illustrate why a principle is bad is not ridiculous. It's like, "Killing is wrong!" "What if it's to prevent yourself from being killed?" "Then it's okay." You have to establish where the principle applies. Completely apart from that, how was the megaphone thing ridiculous. All I was using it for was to say I don't disagree that harassment that should be punished exists and giving an example.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30795383]And one time I did suggest you might be stupid, that was when you tried to argue that words can't hurt people, and I was completely justified on this.[/QUOTE]
Because it hurt my feelings? Lol. Words can hurt feelings. I accept that words can cause actual harm as far as your Charles Manson example or if you told someone standing on the edge of a bridge to just kill themselves. In a case where the words themselves are directly at fault for causing someone injury, they should be legislated, but words have to be filtered through a person. If I walked up to someone on the street and said, "Kill Jews," the average person would look at me funny and run the other way. It takes a fault in the person to go, "Yeah, that's a good idea," and go do it. It wasn't the words that caused the violence, it was the violence in the person, even if the words finally triggered it.
[editline]30th June 2011[/editline]
If you continue from here, I may not respond. Leaving for a couple days tomorrow. So uh, good argument. Just try not to use so many personal insults.
[quote= JohnnyMo1 and Silly Sil]
*Insert whole story*
[/quote]
Forgive my stupidness for not reading
[QUOTE=darth-veger;30802971][img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmph8cjgVY1qclt3z.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Never been to in the news, have we
I'm fine with most religion, but it's things like people who don't even think about what they are reading/doing (E.g all the contradictions in the bible) and like this really piss me off. Do they have their own version of the Bible or something? They claim to be preaching what it says but what they do seems like the exact opposite of what the Bible says.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30806008]Never been to in the news, have we[/QUOTE]
Afraid not :smith:
This is so fucking depressing :smith:
I wish that I lived around the area that they wave their signs so that I can throw slushies at them and shit. Also, I wouldn't mind doing something like waving my own signs next to them, mocking them.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30795667]Assuming I'm pretending not to understand you is a bit silly.[/QUOTE]
If I make a point and you actually didn't understand it and then you make a reply based on your wrong understanding you are missing the point. I'll just say you didn't think it through then.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30795667]How is the Westboro Baptist Church saying gays and soldiers will burn in hell etc. etc. forcing people to attack them? It's one thing if they're saying, "We should beat up homosexuals," and then people do it because them, but why should saying something unpopular and having people attack you for it be punishable? What I'm arguing here is apparently pretty unpopular.[/QUOTE]
It's not forcing it's provoking. Having a unpopular opinion is one thing, going to someone's funeral to harass people is another thing, and encouraging people to hatred is yet another thing. Having an unpopular opinion, lets say "I don't like black people" is fine because you shouldn't get punished for [I]opinions[/I]. However going to someone's funeral with a sole purpose of upsetting people is [I]harassment [/I]and should be punished. WBC isn't protesting funerals to "voice their opinion" they are harassing people.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30795667]But the same thing applies to Westboro unless you can prove it's they don't believe what they preach, and are only doing it to incite attacks against them. And we all know people believe crazy shit.[/QUOTE]
Why does it apply only if they don't believe what they preach? Why does it matter? They are going to funerals to upset people and they know what they are doing, they know something like that will probably get a response.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30795667]Again, if people are not, in the end, responsible for their actions and whether or not they are violent, why are we holding these people responsible? Does a person have control over their actions or not? If people should be in control of themselves and are responsible for their own violence, why are we blaming the person saying things for it? If people are not responsible for what they've done, and it's their environment's fault, why are we blaming either person?[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously implying that everything that other people do to you or around you does not influence your behavior? You are not in complete control. Unless you are a robot you can't "turn off" your feelings. Lets say there is a guy, living with his mother, he's harassing her but only verbally, treats her like trash, calls her a whore etc etc, the mother goes into depression and takes 50 sleep pills too many. Would you seriously say that it's the mother's fault?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30795667]If the answer is both, and we're diffusing responsibility among both of them, why does a murderer who kills people due to less well-defined causes in his environment given all the blame?[/QUOTE]
Charles Manson is in prison even tho he didn't kill anyone, he made his "family" kill people. If someone encourages or even makes a guy kill people, he should be punished too. If he doesn't get punished it's probably due to the same reasons that allow WBC to harass people.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30795667]But what Manson did wasn't just saying he thinks people should be killed and people listening to him and doing it, it was very specifically targeted and orchestrated conspiracy to murder. It's the difference between Hitler shouting that Jews should be exterminated on a street corner, and Hitler ordering people to exterminate Jews. [/QUOTE]
So are you admitting that words can make someone else kill people?
Also you don't actually have to give a specific target for someone to get hurt. "niggers are the scum of the earth, etc etc" is enough for someone to hurt a black person, given enough time and effort.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30795667]A "ridiculous" example that tries to illustrate why a principle is bad is not ridiculous. It's like, "Killing is wrong!" "What if it's to prevent yourself from being killed?" "Then it's okay." You have to establish where the principle applies. Completely apart from that, how was the megaphone thing ridiculous. All I was using it for was to say I don't disagree that harassment that should be punished exists and giving an example.[/QUOTE]
The extreme example is fine as long as it's within the parameters I mentioned. I only said verbal harassment, you went for verbal harassment + stalking. Which means that you either didn't get my point or you did and overexaggerated my argument to ridicule it on purpose.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30795667]Because it hurt my feelings? Lol. Words can hurt feelings. I accept that words can cause actual harm as far as your Charles Manson example or if you told someone standing on the edge of a bridge to just kill themselves. In a case where the words themselves are directly at fault for causing someone injury, they should be legislated, but words have to be filtered through a person. If I walked up to someone on the street and said, "Kill Jews," the average person would look at me funny and run the other way. It takes a fault in the person to go, "Yeah, that's a good idea," and go do it. It wasn't the words that caused the violence, it was the violence in the person, even if the words finally triggered it.[/QUOTE]
Yes the hateful message must be filtered through a person I agree with that. I also agree that it takes a fault in the person to actually harm people over what someone said. But remember that people's psyche isn't constant. You can actually convince people to follow you. And it will not happen with saying "kill Jews" on the street to random a person. And to your example (that has never happened and never will), maybe the guy wouldn't hurt anybody in his life if you wouldn't have encouraged him.
Lets say a guy has a radio station, he constantly talks shit about gays (without actually saying to kill/attack them). Now the people who listen to him can get convinced by him to follow his ideas. It won't happen in one day, and the person who would start following that guy would have to have a bit of homophobia to start with. But that person with just a bit of homophobia can have it unwrapped by the messages from the radio. Now the hate speech from the radio can change someone who was unsure about homophobia into someone who will consider gays inferior people. Another person like that can even resort to physical violence with the encouragement from the radio. And of course that people would be to blame for their actions if they would actually attack gays. But homophobia or any other kinds of discrimination have no place in society in my opinion. That's why I think that encouraging to hatred and discrimination should not be legal. Because hate speech can advance or even teach hatred and discrimination, which later can result in someone getting hurt, one way or another.
[QUOTE=SabreGrub;30789092]Bam and the other jackasses are really really upset about Dunn's death. I would not be surprised if they attacked WBC or messed up their vehicles, etc.[/QUOTE]
In Viva La Bam, they did that shit for laughs. Now I don't even want to know what they will do out of anger/revenge.
"Who goes to hell?"
"Uh.. gays, faggots, sluts... hundreds of jews."
I hate religion, because religion IS ignorance. It benefits nothing and nobody. Comfort? It'd be comforting to tell myself that shit was chocolate, but it wouldn't make it true.
I was religious for most of my life, and getting out from under that brought me INFINITELY more comfort than religion EVER did.
WBC once came to picket a showing of "The Laramie Project" I attended at a college. I wish I had the same convictions then that I do now, because I'd have arrived a lot earlier specifically to shout abuse at these fuckers, and I'd make my OWN three-sided sign. The panels would say:
Fuck Westboro
AND
Fuck their God
what.. the fuck?
[QUOTE=J-Dude;30815386]I hate religion, because religion IS ignorance. It benefits nothing and nobody. Comfort? It'd be comforting to tell myself that shit was chocolate, but it wouldn't make it true.
I was religious for most of my life, and getting out from under that brought me INFINITELY more comfort than religion EVER did.
WBC once came to picket a showing of "The Laramie Project" I attended at a college. I wish I had the same convictions then that I do now, because I'd have arrived a lot earlier specifically to shout abuse at these fuckers, and I'd make my OWN three-sided sign. The panels would say:
Fuck Westboro
AND
Fuck their God[/QUOTE]
That's the number 1 thing that erks me with Modern Society.
The moment you see an extremist using Religion or Political siding as a backup, it automatically brands the entire faction the same way.
Do I want Gay men to be sent to hell? No, I don't.
Idiots do not represent the whole, and I myself as a Christian think that the WBC is just a bunch of Jackasses.
Religion on it's own never harmed anyone. The Extremists did.
Pennsylvania is one of the good states.
[QUOTE=mac338;30816070]Pennsylvania is one of the good states.[/QUOTE]
Unlike Illinois
:sigh:
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;30654841]I can't fathom why are these people protected by the law and police. They are a religious sect causing public disturbance and using the justice system as means to earn money. Why is that allowed?![/QUOTE]
They have every right to speak out against it, whether you like it or not. They can protest a funeral but states do have rules on how far the protest has to be away from the funeral, so the family or friends have space to mourn.
Hey, I know it's disgusting and I highly disagree with everything this church does but in a way, it's good because it shows how free we are as a society and that people still exercise the right that they have.
I wouldn't want people to be shot in the head for speaking their mind.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;30815786]That's the number 1 thing that erks me with Modern Society.
The moment you see an extremist using Religion or Political siding as a backup, it automatically brands the entire faction the same way.
Do I want Gay men to be sent to hell? No, I don't.
Idiots do not represent the whole, and I myself as a Christian think that the WBC is just a bunch of Jackasses.
Religion on it's own never harmed anyone. The Extremists did.[/QUOTE]
The WBC are merely the more evident symptoms of a subtler disease. Religion as a whole is parasitic, breaking down the spirit of a human being and then building it up with the religion at it's center, until they're dependent on it.
Children are brainwashed before they can weigh the evidence for themselves, bigotry is merely the will of the great Mafia boss in the sky, and sticking to a belief in exact odds with what ALL the evidence says, is treated as a virtue rather than patent insanity and willful ignorance.
You give me ONE reason why religion ought to exist. ONE.
The point is, religious extremism wouldn't be a problem if religion didn't exist. Extremists can only remain as they are because they can make excuses for why they believe they're in the right. Religion offers nothing BUT excuses for why somebody who's ass-backwards can be made out to be immaculate and righteous. None of those excuses hold up to scrutiny.
Without religion, the only place extremists would be able to hide is in the realm of personal philosophy, and personal philosophy isn't as defensible as religion in the eyes of the modern world. Religion gets a pass on a lot of bullshit because a LOT of people buy IN to that bullshit.
Without the numbers, crazy ideas remain crazy ideas, and rationality wins out, because philosophy CAN'T throw reason out of the equation.
Westboro's been to Illinois, as well. Protesting soldier funerals. They're a bunch of dispicable fucking people. That's why I'm glad we've got these guys:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZbix25Oy0&feature=related[/media]
I recommend you watch this, It's incredibly interesting it also made me hate WBC so much more.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ticxD0GfewA[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDXu3aMAc0[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gXSlZ45GX4[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ua1Y7dLtIQ[/media]
when are they going to blow these people up
[editline]1st July 2011[/editline]
i really don't care about all the free speech arguments or anything i get from this, because let's be honest. it's pretty much a unanimous agreement that these people are in fact some of the worst people on the planet
HURR GAYS R GOING TO HELL DURR!!!! I wonder why Fred has such a burning hatred for gays...
I kind of want to go to Westboro and partake in one of their mini-riots. Looks like fun, and I also hate the fuckers who are part of the Westboro church, so busting a few windows and wrecking their vehicles is a win-win situation.
As a side note, this is why so many creationists piss me off; they take the bible literally, but people like these extremist creationists need to be wiped off the face of the planet. That daughter is an amazing person, being able to still love her family even after they disowned her and essentially hate her. I wouldn't give a shit if I was in her shoes, infact I would probably be one of the people leading a riot against my own family if I was her.
They hate homosexuals and Jews, and on one of the picket signs, I saw a swastika...
I think that pretty much sums up who they are and what they actually represent. They are a hate group hiding under the guise of a religion. These people are in no way Christian. Not a single Christian person I know acts like that or shares the same thought process these turds do.
I also saw the vandalism on their property from the OP's video. It's amazing no one has shot that place up or burned it down.
[QUOTE=wingless;30823614]I recommend you watch this, It's incredibly interesting it also made me hate WBC so much more.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ticxD0GfewA[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDXu3aMAc0[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gXSlZ45GX4[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ua1Y7dLtIQ[/media][/QUOTE]
Added to OP :v:
While I believe that everyone has a right to say what they think, no matter how absurd or retarded, I wouldn't be opposed to someone mowing them down with a minivan.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;30826413]Added to OP :v:[/QUOTE]
That's it.
I'm packing my bags, I'm going to go kill these fuckers.
It's amazing how they claim how "God hates fags," and other bullshit like that yet doesn't the Bible say God doesn't hate?
[img]http://wernerswereld.web-log.nl/mijn_weblog/images/2009/02/26/god_hates_nl.jpg[/img]
[highlight]Well fuck it thats it i am going to be gone for a while :argh:[/highlight]
[QUOTE=kloaz;30829407]It's amazing how they claim how "God hates fags," and other bullshit like that yet doesn't the Bible say God doesn't hate?[/QUOTE]
They are a religious sect, they don't have anything to do with christianity anymore.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
