Femen members throw water at arch bishop during speech - Polidicks

[QUOTE=archangel125;40398164] They're exemplary citizens and free spirits because they aren't afraid to break laws, and at the same time they won't go too far. They wield the power to rally many to their cause, even if they're not interested in pleasing everyone.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but "exemplary citizens" do not break laws because they think their cause is better than other people's rights (yes, even if those other people are bigots, and yes there are some exceptions). [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40398171]alright so we'll assume the "average" facebook retard is that majority of people, so you're saying the majority of people who see a picture of naked women, with or without signs displaying their causes, that the majority of that majority, are going to take the time to look them up and understand their cause? I hope so but I haven't seen that happen on any of my news feeds, or my friends news feeds.[/QUOTE] I'm willing to bet that most people on FB see this and just see them assaulting someone.

hey guys rosa parks was breaking the law when she refused to sit at the back of the bus

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40398171]alright so we'll assume the "average" facebook retard is that majority of people, so you're saying the majority of people who see a picture of naked women, with or without signs displaying their causes, that the majority of that majority, are going to take the time to look them up and understand their cause? I hope so but I haven't seen that happen on any of my news feeds, or my friends news feeds.[/QUOTE] To be fair the trending topic on Facebook right now seems to be about the Boston marathon bombings being a conspiracy. It's probably not the best sample of general society, let alone Ukrainian politics. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;40398139] They also don't have "considerable" power, whether they have any power at all is a debatable point.[/QUOTE] They have the power to make crybabies in north america complain about radical feminism because they make international headlines.

I've always wondered why there aren't any gay people flaunting their cocks around arch bishops in similar fashion to FEMEN and try to raise awareness to homophobia. Just a thought that crossed my mind.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398150]I forgot that your opinion's mattering is correlated to how much sex you have. Is "virgin-shaming" a thing?[/QUOTE] You're puting far more emphasis on the insult than the more descriptive term I used. Which was casual sexism. I don't care why someone is being casually sexist, but my assumption would be that their lack of experience in the sex department has made them bitter. it doesn't matter though, this thread is still filled with casual sexism [QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398150]But it is as far as we know? If you want to claim that it isn't, find the Belgian laws that say so. You've made this claim twice, but you haven't backed it up.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter what you call it when all they did was pour water on him. You could call it triple super assault hitler extreme and show me all kinds of sources which prove that it is called that and it would still be an act of pouring water one someone. It's only slightly more harmful than farting in his face. And fuck, if you want to be pedantic about words, it'd be called public shaming way before anyone would take it seriously as physical assault.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40398187]hey guys rosa parks was breaking the law when she refused to sit at the back of the bus[/QUOTE] The fact that she denied a white person their seat means she might as well have denied everyone their seat. By blowing up the bus. Same effect really, no one can sit down on the bus anymore. Fucking radicals.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398178]I'm sorry, but "exemplary citizens" do not break laws because they think their cause is better than other people's rights (yes, even if those other people are bigots, and yes there are some exceptions).[/QUOTE] yr full of qualifiers but no reasoning

[QUOTE=wewt!;40398193]You're puting far more emphasis on the insult than the more descriptive term I used. Which was casual sexism. I don't care why someone is being casually sexist, but my assumption would be that their lack of experience in the sex department has made them bitter.[/QUOTE] Petty insults do not help your point. They just make you look like you don't have an argument, so you've resorted to flaming. [QUOTE=wewt!;40398193] It doesn't matter what you call it when all they did was pour water on him. You could call it triple super assault hitler extreme and show me all kinds of sources which prove that it is called that and it would still be an act of pouring water one someone. It's only slightly more harmful than farting in his face.[/QUOTE] So, definitions are meaningless now? Assault is assault is assault. If what they did is assault, you can't say it isn't.

[QUOTE=Hullu V3;40398191]I've always wondered why there aren't any gay people flaunting their cocks around arch bishops in similar fashion to FEMEN and try to raise awareness to homophobia. Just a thought that crossed my mind.[/QUOTE] because FEMEN show their breasts in defiance of the male patriarchy it's not the same. homosexuals throw glitter on people because their defiant symbol is the rainbow

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40398187]hey guys rosa parks was breaking the law when she refused to sit at the back of the bus[/QUOTE] what a rabid bitch this sort of thing just hurts your cause and WHAT WAS SHE TRYING TO ACHIEVE nobody's going to see this and understand they'll just notice her blackness

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40398171]alright so we'll assume the "average" facebook retard is that majority of people, so you're saying the majority of people who see a picture of naked women, with or without signs displaying their causes, that the majority of that majority, are going to take the time to look them up and understand their cause? I hope so but I haven't seen that happen on any of my news feeds, or my friends news feeds.[/QUOTE] They already get their cause, it's written in two big bold words saying [B]"STOP HOMOPHOBIA"[/B], which is all they wanted them to understand, what their other cause or main movement is, is irrelevant to the individual protest as it was meant for only the stopping homophobia bit, get it?

Never understood protesting like this, Or the kind where people stand outside with signs and screaming bloody murder over whatever thing they think has wronged them or what they "represent". You want to change something, you GO and DO something about it and not harass officials with ridiculous signs and hoarsing voice. Insights, people? I wish to understand why people take it up IN THE STREETS and not WITH THE OFFICIALS.

and can everyone calling this assault find me the legal definition of assault in belgium/the EU

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398178]I'm sorry, but "exemplary citizens" do not break laws because they think their cause is better than other people's rights.[/QUOTE] Let me quote Mark Twain here. [quote][I]For in a republic, who is "the Country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant--merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Who, then, is "the Country"? Is it the newspaper? is it the pulpit? is it the school superintendent? Why, these are mere parts of the country, not the whole of it; they have not command, they have only their little share in the command. They are but one in the thousand; it is in the thousand that command is lodged; they must determine what is right and what is wrong; they must decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Who are the thousand--that is to say, who are "the Country"? In a monarchy, the king and his family are the country; in a republic it is the common voice of the people. Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. And it is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catch-phrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country--hold up your head! You have nothing to be ashamed of. Only when a republic's life is in danger should a man uphold his government when it is in the wrong. There is no other time.[/I][/quote] Read that carefully. I still maintain that while FEMEN committed an assault, they did not harm their target. And that is to be applauded. Laws only bind those who agree to be constrained by them, but those who live in a free and egalitarian society have a DUTY to be civilly disobedient, even if it means breaking the law, even if it means offending a few people with sticks up their asses, even if it means dousing a public official with - Oh, the humanity - bottled water, when they fight against injustice. In India, if the government tries to pass laws that limit freedoms, crowds riot and destroy public property. And the government falls in line. You who live in the West, and particularly those of you with conservative beliefs, have forgotten that the people wield great power over their government, if only they are not afraid to break laws in protest of injustices. 'Decency' is a mechanism of control, and should always be the first casualty when engaging in civil disobedience. You condemn FEMEN, but you really should be saluting them. They break laws, they break rules of common decency, and they hurt nobody.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40398164]Laws against assault are meant to protect the rights of individuals and their dignity. In this case, they committed assault against an official of an organization known to commit many injustices in the name of god. The point is that they didn't beat this guy up, they just poured water on him. He's not going to catch pneumonia and die. Breaking laws in protest is called civil disobedience, and I very much admire the restraint of Femen in their civil disobedience. Nine times out of ten they never lay a hand on anyone, and when they do, it seems pretty much harmless, as it was in this case. If the law keeps them from getting their message out, then fuck the law. Because nobody died, nobody was badly injured, and they'll happily serve their time for their cause. They're exemplary citizens and free spirits because they aren't afraid to break laws, and at the same time they won't go too far. They wield the power to rally many to their cause, even if they're not interested in pleasing everyone.[/QUOTE] Assault goes beyond [i]civil[/i] disobedience. Just because you don't like the Catholic Church, or because they've committed atrocities and crimes in the past and present, does not make assaulting a bishop acceptable. It doesn't matter how severe the assault, it is unacceptable, and chances are, since you mentioned the laws are meant to help preserve dignity as well, that bishop feels rather undignified being in public in soaking wet robes. Assault doesn't become acceptable just because you don't like who is being assaulted.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40398226] You condemn FEMEN, DaCommie, but you really should be saluting them. They break laws, they break rules of common decency, and they HURT NOBODY.[/QUOTE] It's startling how opposed people are to nonviolent protests nowadays.

I hope the bishop recovers soon I got wet once and it was awful

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40398229]It's startling how opposed people are to nonviolent protests nowadays.[/QUOTE] because it's hard to be complacent and uncaring when people get up in your grill about social issues [editline]24th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=MisterMooth;40398232]I hope the priest recovers soon I got wet once and it was awful[/QUOTE] i wonder if you can retroactively have your priest done for assault for baptizing you?

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398210]Petty insults do not help your point. They just make you look like you don't have an argument, so you've resorted to flaming. So, definitions are meaningless now? Assault is assault is assault. If what they did is assault, you can't say it isn't.[/QUOTE] This is like the second time you've ignored my point. I said myself that bit was an insult. I am aware. I then restated my main point, this threads casual sexism. You've ignored that again Then you managed to ignore my second point, which is that it doesn't fucking matter if it's called assault, [B][I]it's pouring water on someone[/I][/B], focusing on it's definition as assault is magnifying the act as if it was violent and dangerous and moving attention away from the purpose of their protest.

[QUOTE=Nitro836;40398221]Never understood protesting like this, Or the kind where people stand outside with signs and screaming bloody murder over whatever thing they think has wronged them or what they "represent". You want to change something, you GO and DO something about it and not harass officials with ridiculous signs and hoarsing voice. Insights, people? I wish to understand why people take it up IN THE STREETs and not WITH THE OFFICIALS.[/QUOTE] politicians can give less shit unless his constituents tells them to or get replaced by another during the next election people like femen don't 'think' they have been wronged, they either know or felt it, sexism is a still gigantic issue in society, i wouldnt be surprised if the protestor spilling the water was prevented marrying their loved ones because of the man's organization that prevented it if there was a regular feminism protest, no one could care, if there's several all the time but the media can give less shit about it but we have femen doing this, there's suddenly an article on facepunch all the time about them along with major media covering it

we don't know if there were other substances in the water so let's not rule out a salt just yet guys!!

[QUOTE=Hullu V3;40398191]I've always wondered why there aren't any gay people flaunting their cocks around arch bishops in similar fashion to FEMEN and try to raise awareness to homophobia. Just a thought that crossed my mind.[/QUOTE] You have little power left in this discussion. Your complete loss of authority occured the instant you chose the words to title this thread. I think that everyone is acutely aware of your biases, and will take them into account with every word you write. They will be driven to disregard your arguments entirely because of this. I can address your argument here. It is a double standard that it is not as taboo for men to go topless as it is for women. Their breasts are not genitalia, but from Femen's perspective - and I tend to agree - The sexualization of women's breasts and the expectation of society at large that they keep them covered is a relic of systemic oppression against females.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40398226]Let me quote Mark Twain here. Read that carefully. I still maintain that while FEMEN committed an assault, they did not harm their target. And that is to be applauded. Laws only bind those who agree to be constrained by them, but those who live in a free and egalitarian society have a DUTY to be civilly disobedient, even if it means breaking the law, even if it means offending a few people with sticks up their asses, even if it means dousing a public official with - Oh, the humanity - bottled water, when they fight against injustice. In India, if the government tries to pass laws that limit freedoms, crowds riot and destroy public property. And the government falls in line. You who live in the West, and particularly those of you with conservative beliefs, have forgotten that the people wield great power over their government, if only they are not afraid to break laws in protest of injustices. 'Decency' is a mechanism of control, and should always be the first casualty when engaging in civil disobedience. You condemn FEMEN, but you really should be saluting them. They break laws, they break rules of common decency, and they hurt nobody.[/QUOTE] I condemn them because legally assault is hurting someone. They hurt that bishop. If you want an example of both effective and harmless civil disobedience, the Canadian gun registry is a perfect example, because the people who protested by not registering their rifles never harmed anyone, legally or technically, and it was effective at getting the law repealed. I do not salute people who assault someone just because they don't like them, or don't agree with them.

[QUOTE=wewt!;40398193]You're puting far more emphasis on the insult than the more descriptive term I used. Which was casual sexism. I don't care why someone is being casually sexist, but my assumption would be that their lack of experience in the sex department has made them bitter. it doesn't matter though, this thread is still filled with casual sexism It doesn't matter what you call it when all they did was pour water on him. You could call it triple super assault hitler extreme and show me all kinds of sources which prove that it is called that and it would still be an act of pouring water one someone. It's only slightly more harmful than farting in his face. And fuck, if you want to be pedantic about words, it'd be called public shaming way before anyone would take it seriously as physical assault.[/QUOTE] I think it's "casual sexism" to assume peoples sexual history entirely based on how they talk or "jokes" they make.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40398228]Assault goes beyond [i]civil[/i] disobedience. Just because you don't like the Catholic Church, or because they've committed atrocities and crimes in the past and present, does not make assaulting a bishop acceptable.[/QUOTE] why is not acceptable

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40398269]I condemn them because legally assault is hurting someone. They hurt that bishop. If you want an example of both effective and harmless civil disobedience, the Canadian gun registry is a perfect example, because the people who protested by not registering their rifles never harmed anyone, legally or technically, and it was effective at getting the law repealed. I do not salute people who assault someone just because they don't like them, or don't agree with them.[/QUOTE] please provide the legal definition of assault for beligium/the EU

[QUOTE=wewt!;40398220]They already get their cause, it's written in two big bold words saying [B]"STOP HOMOPHOBIA"[/B], which is all they wanted them to understand, what their other cause or main movement is, is irrelevant to the individual protest as it was meant for only the stopping homophobia bit, get it?[/QUOTE] oh sorry, i forgot everyone was unaware of the pledge to stop homophobia, what brave warriors femen are for bringing this to light for the first time in a way that no one could possibly miss the point of, no one thank you, I forgot all of that magically [editline]24th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;40398264]You have little power left in this discussion. Your complete loss of authority occured the instant you chose the words to title this thread. I think that everyone is acutely aware of your biases, and will take them into account with every word you write. They will be driven to disregard your arguments entirely because of this.[/QUOTE] This is stupid thinking and you're better than it.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40398269]I condemn them because legally assault is hurting someone. They hurt that bishop. If you want an example of both effective and harmless civil disobedience, the Canadian gun registry is a perfect example, because the people who protested by not registering their rifles never harmed anyone, legally or technically, and it was effective at getting the law repealed. I do not salute people who assault someone just because they don't like them, or don't agree with them.[/QUOTE] Your point is valid, but you and I must agree to disagree on what constitutes 'acceptable conduct' and what constitutes a 'harmless' assault. In the end, the response to such protests will be left up to the tolerances of the individual, and some are less easily offended than others.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40398272]I think it's "casual sexism" to assume peoples sexual history entirely based on how they talk or "jokes" they make.[/QUOTE] And I think you're socially inept because you keep dodging my main argument with pedantic nit picking. But that doesn't decrease or increase the already high level of casual sexism in this thread nor has anything to do with the protesters goal and thus like your statement has nothing to do in this discussion.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40398226] You condemn FEMEN, but you really should be saluting them. They break laws, they break rules of common decency, and they hurt nobody.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying them not harming anyone is a bad thing. I agree that it's good that they have enough self-control to not go around really hurting someone. However, the model citizen upholds the law instead of throwing it away because he thinks he has a point that can't be said without assaulting his opposition. [QUOTE=Yahnich;40398252]this isn't assault in belgium, it's only assault when there is injury (whether it be minor or major), it's civil disobedience/disturbance of the peace which is i think the fucking point of a protest?? so you can stuff your definition of assault back up your buttocks[/QUOTE] Please provide your definition for assault (I'm assuming you actually have what we're all looking for, since you're giving specifics). No one so far has been able to provide an actual Belgian legal definition for it. [QUOTE=wewt!;40398293]And I think you're socially inept.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Yahnich;40398252]pasty nerds[/QUOTE] Again, petty insults just make you look childish. They don't make your argument look any better.