Westboro Baptist church gets their asses fucking chased out of tornado damaged town. - Polidicks - Facepunch Forum

Westboro Baptist church gets their asses fucking chased out of tornado damaged town.

287 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=benfailed;44495776]You are one of the worst posters that I have seen.[/QUOTE] Care to elaborate? If you don't have any actual information or perspective on the topic then you're just flaming/shitposting. [editline]9th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Pelican;44494469]explosions is everything bad about america in one autistic person[/QUOTE] You're also flaming/shitposting. You've obviously not met him. He is far from autistic. Just because somebody is logical and states actual truths backed by evidence, that doesn't mean they are "autistic." That is pretty offensive in my opinion. [editline]9th April 2014[/editline] The First Amendment is supposed to be ideological. It may contain ridiculous ideas according to human thought, but it is supposed to supercede any prejudice. It is meant as a plain statement. Literally anything is supposed to be acceptable, unless in endangers another person's well being. What the Westboro Baptist Church does is not endangering anybody, thus it is allowed. That is the end of the argument. If you are trying to say that people should be allowed to approach or attack the WBC then you are speaking outside of the law. If you say that the WBC should expect an attack or strong opposition, then I do not disagree with you. But this is a discussion of legality, not morality. [QUOTE=benfailed;44495776]You are one of the worst posters that I have seen.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pelican;44494469]explosions is everything bad about america in one autistic person[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SexualShark;44493489]I love how much you love to thread shit.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;44487493]I'm super late but fuck it, a retarded comment like this make my blood boil. I'd just like to exercise my country's apparent lack of free speech by telling you to take a long walk off a short pier. AMERICA THE BASTION OF FREE SPEECH! IF IT AIN'T IDENTICAL TO THEIRS IT AIN'T THE REAL DEAL![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Death_God;44485440]do you just go into every thread and play devils advocate[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bridger;44484127]Explosions is already leading the charge for them[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Rika-chan;44484584]Somebody just needs to bomb them already[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;44483731]:downs:[/QUOTE] All of these quotes consist of flaming/shitposting against Explosions in this thread. Its pretty sad to see if you ask me. The crux of this argument comes down to this. You must have high ideals to protect those with low ideals. [QUOTE=FingerSpazem;44483092]I'm fine with this. I think legally they should be allowed to say what they want and picket what they want. They still have to deal with the consequences of an angry community, you can't control hordes of people like that.[/QUOTE] Yes, [B]of course[/B] you should be angry at the WBC. Their ideas are totally flawed. But to attempt to suppress their views simply means that you lack the ability to defend your own views.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;44495882] Yes, [B]of course[/B] you should be angry at the WBC. Their ideas are totally flawed. But to attempt to suppress their views simply means that you lack the ability to defend your own views.[/QUOTE] As I've said multiple times already: It's not WHAT they are saying, it's WHERE and WHEN they chose to say it that has so many people enraged. It's their complete lack of decency while using "muh free speech" to justify being massive cunt waffles that makes them so despicable.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;44497660]As I've said multiple times already: It's not WHAT they are saying, it's WHERE and WHEN they chose to say it that has so many people enraged. It's their complete lack of decency while using "muh free speech" to justify being massive cunt waffles that makes them so despicable.[/QUOTE] Except the vast majority of protests I've ever heard of also do this. People purposely pick more divisive spots to protest because that's the entire point. You could say "the Occupy Protests caused people to be enraged by protesting outside banks and the NYSE/Chicago Board of Trade!" Because that's the point. The WBC thinks that the people who died in the tornadoes are going to hell for whatever reason. That's why they're protesting there.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;44495882] All of these quotes consist of flaming/shitposting against Explosions in this thread. Its pretty sad to see if you ask me.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that, comparatively, what I said was pretty fucking tame. Also, I was making a point but since you're too busy being a white knight for Explosions I guess it flew over your head. But hey, I guess I should just shut-up when some dink says that my country's free speech isn't free speech as if America's free speech is fucking perfect and the standard for which the world should use, because the world revolves around America! Explosions that scamp, he was just showing everyone the true light! Oh woe how we could be so mislead without his words of wisdom!

If your country doesn't allow all dissenting opinions to be expressed then it's not free speech. It's something else. Maybe that something else is actually better than free speech, and we can have that argument. But it's not free speech. Stop trying to claim that phrase just because it sounds good.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44497844]If your country doesn't allow all dissenting opinions to be expressed then it's not free speech. It's something else. Maybe that something else is actually better than free speech, and we can have that argument. But it's not free speech. Stop trying to claim that phrase just because it sounds good.[/QUOTE] Oops, sorry. I forgot America owned the copyright.

damn they got owned

Sorry for the dumb, but I feel really poorly educated on free speech and its relation to hate speech. Can I be educated on what explosions got hundreds of dumbs? Why aren't his claims valid? Not being snide, genuinely want knowledge.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44480701]Who cares about free speech right?[/QUOTE] This still is free speech They made the free speech and then got completely ostracized by the public for what came out of their mouths

[QUOTE=Explosions;44480861]Lol "fuck their rights."[/QUOTE] If it's a person's right to be an asshole to the point of offending everyone then you are certainly exercising that right so much you've pulled a muscle

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;44500228]This still is free speech They made the free speech and then got completely ostracized by the public for what came out of their mouths[/QUOTE] So an angry mob attempting to and almost succeeding at overrunning a police line to attack the WBC is "ostracization" then?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;44500074]Sorry for the dumb, but I feel really poorly educated on free speech and its relation to hate speech. Can I be educated on what explosions got hundreds of dumbs? Why aren't his claims valid? Not being snide, genuinely want knowledge.[/QUOTE] Defending a group which is picketing in a tornado-ravaged town and saying that deceased persons, some of which were innocent children, are basically "burning in hell" as "free speech". The WBC is defined as a hate group by the American Defamation League and is even denounced by numerous major baptist denominations. Free speech=/=hate speech, as another poster stated earlier. Just to cut it short: He was defending some of the worst assholes on the planet as "free speech". And while you can spew all of the crap you want, people can react however they want to your speech.

[QUOTE=benfailed;44501959]Just to cut it short: He was defending some of the worst assholes on the planet as "free speech". And while you can spew all of the crap you want, people can react however they want to your speech.[/QUOTE] You really can't though. You can't attack people over their beliefs, and while that's not what happened here, I actually really wish that the WBC had stayed around. I wish I could see what the angry mob surrounding them would have done if they had gotten to the WBC protesters.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44480701]Who cares about free speech right?[/QUOTE] Where do you live so I can picket your house? Because it's free speech you don't care riiiight [editline]9th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;44502169]You really can't though. You can't attack people over their beliefs[/QUOTE] But isn't that exactly what WBC does? [editline]9th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;44501093]So an angry mob attempting to and almost succeeding at overrunning a police line to attack the WBC is "ostracization" then?[/QUOTE] Uh, yes? Telling people they're not welcome here and trying to "remove" them one way or another is certainly a fine example of that.

[QUOTE=gk99;44502311]But isn't that exactly what WBC does?[/QUOTE] I meant physically attacking. [QUOTE=gk99;44502311]Uh, yes? Telling people they're not welcome here and trying to remove them is certainly a fine example of that.[/QUOTE] So if a bunch of Republicans storm a Democrat rally and drive them out it's fine? If not, explain the difference.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44502355]So if a bunch of Republicans storm a Democrat rally and drive them out it's fine? If not, explain the difference.[/QUOTE] Democrats usually aren't picketing funerals and shouting hatespeech. Unless ofc they're part of one of these types of organizations, that is.

[QUOTE=gk99;44502405]Democrats usually aren't picketing funerals and shouting hatespeech.[/QUOTE] That's not what I was talking about. hypno-toad said that it's OK to ostracize people for their speech. He didn't specify the content of that speech at all. And you agreed that that's and OK thing to do. [editline]9th April 2014[/editline] Regardless, I already covered why it's impossible to try and figure out what types of speech is so outrageous that it has to be banned because outrage is completely subjective. Should flag burning be banned because soldiers find it completely outrageous and offensive? How about my communists protesting at the banks example? I may find the Tea Party rallies to be outrageous due to the racist undertones. Tea Partiers might find the Occupy protests to be outrageous because they, quite literally, think that these people are trying to destroy the country. So who's right? Who gets to make these rules and draw these lines?

[QUOTE=Explosions;44502446]That's not what I was talking about. hypno-toad said that it's OK to ostracize people for their speech. He didn't specify the content of that speech at all. And you agreed that that's and OK thing to do.[/QUOTE] Depending on what the speech is, yes. It's like discrimination: say a dude with no experience and a broken leg wants to walk the tightrope in a circus. Are you going to let him or a fully healthy professional do it? If you want a non-simile: I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been an issue ostracizing Hitler over his speeches and beliefs. [editline]asdf[/editline] You can't expect to have black friends if you're any other race and a racist dick. [editline]9th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;44502446]Should flag burning be banned because soldiers find it completely outrageous and offensive?[/QUOTE] Banned? Of course not: but it's still your own damn fault when you get punched in the nose for it. [QUOTE]How about my communists protesting at the banks example? I may find the Tea Party rallies to be outrageous due to the racist undertones. Tea Partiers might find the Occupy protests to be outrageous because they, quite literally, think that these people are trying to destroy the country. So who's right? Who gets to make these rules and draw these lines?[/QUOTE] Those all fall under the First Amendment. None of them are illegal, and none of them should be: but who's fault is it when the people call for a witch hunt?

[QUOTE=Explosions;44497688]Except the vast majority of protests I've ever heard of also do this. People purposely pick more divisive spots to protest because that's the entire point. You could say "the Occupy Protests caused people to be enraged by protesting outside banks and the NYSE/Chicago Board of Trade!" Because that's the point. The WBC thinks that the people who died in the tornadoes are going to hell for whatever reason. That's why they're protesting there.[/QUOTE] Except Occupy didn't say/do anything that caused severe emotional distress other than occupying a park for weeks on-end, which they were allowed to up to a certain time, and blocking traffic. What ruined Occupy was the media's mis-interpretation of their original message, which was "Why hasn't anyone been arrested for causing the recession when we know who's responsible?". They protested on Wall Street because it's pretty much the epicenter where wealthy people shove The Invisible Hand of the "free market" around in order to make the most money. And we all know what happened next: Eventually, a bill was signed that banned protests within a certain distance of the president, so there's "freedom of speech" for you and another nail in your "you can legally do it where-ever you want" argument's coffin. [QUOTE=Explosions;44502446] Regardless, I already covered why it's impossible to try and figure out what types of speech is so outrageous that it has to be banned because outrage is completely subjective. Should flag burning be banned because soldiers find it completely outrageous and offensive? How about my communists protesting at the banks example? I may find the Tea Party rallies to be outrageous due to the racist undertones. Tea Partiers might find the Occupy protests to be outrageous because they, quite literally, think that these people are trying to destroy the country. So who's right? Who gets to make these rules and draw these lines?[/QUOTE] Why not? They've already banned prayer in schools and during foot-ball games because somebody got their rectum ruined because "RABBLE RABBLE I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT BOLOGNA RABBLE RARGH GRR". And just for note, I'm not religious but even I find that to be complete and utter bullshit.

[QUOTE=gk99;44502509]Depending on what the speech is, yes. It's like discrimination: say a dude with no experience and a broken leg wants to walk the tightrope in a circus. Are you going to let him or a fully healthy professional do it? If you want a non-simile: I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been an issue ostracizing Hitler over his speeches and beliefs.[/QUOTE] Yes you ostracize Hitler by counter protesting and arguing against his psychotic beliefs. You don't charge at him and try to attack him. [quote]You can't expect to have black friends if you're any other race and a racist dick.[/quote] What the fuck? [quote]Banned? Of course not: but it's still your own damn fault when you get punched in the nose for it.[/quote] Are you being serious right now? You believe that it's OK to react to political expression with violence? You're insane. [quote]Those all fall under the First Amendment. None of them are illegal, and none of them should be: but who's fault is it when the people call for a witch hunt?[/quote] The WBC's protesting also falls under that amendment. And it's the fault of the witchhunters, not the hunted. Are you seriously saying that it's the speaker's responsibility to make sure his speech is accepted by everyone, otherwise he's liable to get attacked? So if I say that everyone should have healthcare, it's my fault if I get attacked by someone who was offended by my statement? Insanity. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;44502651]Except Occupy didn't say/do anything that caused severe emotional distress other than occupying a park for weeks on-end, which they were allowed to up to a certain time, and blocking traffic.[/QUOTE] You're completely wrong. Many people were outraged and frustrated over the protests. I've personally heard more than a few people say that they should have been kicked out for protesting. Maybe you were unaware of this, but it actually happened. [quote]Why not? They've already banned prayer in schools and during foot-ball games because somebody got their rectum ruined because "RABBLE RABBLE I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT BOLOGNA RABBLE RARGH GRR". And just for note, I'm not religious but even I find that to be complete and utter bullshit.[/quote] This is completely irrelevant, but how is wanted prayer removed from schools "complete and utter bullshit"?

[QUOTE=Explosions;44502992] You're completely wrong. Many people were outraged and frustrated over the protests. I've personally heard more than a few people say that they should have been kicked out for protesting. Maybe you were unaware of this, but it actually happened.[/quote] The people I encountered who were enraged about Occupy were those who didn't even know what Occupy was about, they assumed it was just a bunch of "welfare maggots" and "moochers wanting a hand-out". [quote]This is completely irrelevant, but how is wanted prayer removed from schools "complete and utter bullshit"?[/QUOTE] Freedom of religion? Did you just stop at the 1st amendment or something? Mind you I'm not talking about teachers preaching or praying, I'm talking about kids praying before lunch/breakfast and at football games.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;44503074]The people I encountered who were enraged about Occupy were those who didn't even know what Occupy was about, they assumed it was just a bunch of "welfare maggots" and "moochers wanting a hand-out".[/quote] So what? I heard people who weren't dumb who also wanted them gone. Ha ha! Why does their ignorance matter anyway? We're talking about offense taken, and the truth usually has little to do with that. Also, I could use your same argument to actually justify the WBC's protesting. You could argue that most Christians are ignorant of the Bible's position on homosexuality, and that being offended by the WBC's protests is just ignorant of the truth. [quote]Freedom of religion? Did you just stop at the 1st amendment or something?[/quote] This is fucking hilarious.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44503206]So what? I heard people who weren't dumb who also wanted them gone. Ha ha! Why does their ignorance matter anyway? We're talking about offense taken, and the truth usually has little to do with that.[/quote] Care to divulge what it was that offended them? [quote]Also, I could use your same argument to actually justify the WBC's protesting. You could argue that most Christians are ignorant of the Bible's position on homosexuality, and that being offended by the WBC's protests is just ignorant of the truth.[/quote] No shit. Heard tell Phelp's daughter had a child out of wedlock before she was married. According to the Bible, that's a stonin'. But they like to conveniently forget that part. Also the part about wearing different fabrics, that's another good 'un. [quote]This is fucking hilarious.[/QUOTE] Care to divulge why? Should've worded that as "Did you just pick out the 'freedom of speech' part and ignore the rest", my mistake.

WBC are really dumb, but I don't see why they should be physically stripped of their right of freedom of speech. As someone said earlier (think Explosions), in many African nations they would try to do the same to pro-gay protesters. If you don't like what they are saying and honesty think whatever speech their doing is illegal then take legal action, not physical.

It's amazing that this guy is still defending hate speech.

[QUOTE=Dukov Traboski;44503628]It's amazing that this guy is still defending hate speech.[/QUOTE] Confused at whom this was directly.

People thinking they should restrict anything about freedom of speech and expect it to end well are hilariously naive.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;44503248] Care to divulge why? Should've worded that as "Did you just pick out the 'freedom of speech' part and ignore the rest", my mistake.[/QUOTE] Schools are government institutions generally speaking. The government and religion are to have no official relationship or interference with one another. School prayers is a direct violation of this.

I don't even understand what is being debated in this thread. People are giving logical arguments about the legality of this situation, and they are being opposed by people who are talking about morality and what "should" happen and saying that "they had it coming". You can't debate logic with emotion and what "feels right". I think you need to read and think about what you're talking about before you post.

Why are these threads always so long and full of people arguing about hate speech?

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.