Femen members throw water at arch bishop during speech - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40398282]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[/QUOTE] No problem.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398294]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] You may disagree with the assault on principle, and I can respect that, even if I don't agree. However, I completely disagree with the assertion that a model citizen will uphold the law, even in protest. A good citizen of a democracy or a republic will be unafraid to break laws to protest them.

[QUOTE=Yahnich;40398311]- Purposefully damaging with physical injury as after effect ----Injury being illness, wounds, etc etc in the netherlands there's a seperate thing for 'mental assault' meaning humiliation etc, but there doesn't seem to be such a thing in belgium (i am belgian)[/QUOTE] Can you cite an actual source for that (a law site, anything)? No offense, but being Belgian doesn't make you an expert on law.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398294]Again, petty insults just make you look childish. They don't make your argument look any better.[/QUOTE] I miss the bad reading rating. This is a bit off topic, but I just think you should know that an insult doesn't validate you ignoring the entire argument, that wont get you anywhere in life.

[QUOTE=wewt!;40398293]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] Dodge your argument how? What have I dodged? I disagree with you that they are effective. You have not provided an argument that actually explains anything about why you think the "average facebook retard" is going to understand the point of this completely, that they can't be misunderstood, that they aren't ineffective. What am I dodging pal so you're not dodging my argument because it's "pedantic nitpicking?" okay then

[QUOTE=wewt!;40398322]I miss the bad reading rating. This is a bit off topic, but I just think you should know that an insult doesn't validate you ignoring the entire argument, that wont get you anywhere in life.[/QUOTE] If we still had it, I'd give it to you for that. I didn't say that it invalidates your argument and I didn't present that as a rebuttal. I said they don't enhance your argument. The only purpose they serve is to be a personal attack against whoever you disagree with, which doesn't reflect well on you. [QUOTE=Yahnich;40398331]ok Strafwetboek in Titel VIII. - "Misdaden en wanbedrijven tegen personen", and Afdeling II. - "Opzettelijk doden, niet doodslag genoemd, en opzettelijk toebrengen van lichamelijk letsel" (article 398-405, 409 and 410). did this help you (the book is in dutch what do you want from me)[/QUOTE] Yes, that was actually helpful, since now we have an actual source for it. [QUOTE=Yahnich;40398331] [URL]http://www.europeansourcebook.org/chapter_0/app2.pdf[/URL] this site kinda gives a general view but it confirms assault is ONLY when there is bodily harm[/QUOTE] We've already put that site into question, but I'll trust you on what the actual penal code says about it.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40398309]You may disagree with the assault on principle, and I can respect that, even if I don't agree. However, I completely disagree with the assertion that a model citizen will uphold the law, even in protest. A good citizen of a democracy or a republic will be unafraid to break laws to protest them.[/QUOTE] I agree, but in committing civil disobedience, you cannot violate a law that is put in place to protect someone against physical, emotional, or reputational harm, if you do it's no longer civil disobedience, it's violent protest or slander, depending on the law broken (no, I'm not saying FEMEN slandered anyone, general example). If someone poured Alberta crude oil on Thomas Mulcair in protest of his attitude towards the oil sands, would you consider that acceptable? I wouldn't.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40398350]I agree, but in committing civil disobedience, you cannot violate a law that is put in place to protect someone against physical, emotional, or reputational harm, if you do it's no longer civil disobedience, it's violent protest or slander, depending on the law broken (no, I'm not saying FEMEN slandered anyone, general example). If someone poured Alberta crude oil on Thomas Mulcair in protest of his attitude towards the oil sands, would you consider that acceptable? I wouldn't.[/QUOTE] crude oil isn't water

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40398354]crude oil isn't water[/QUOTE] Neither was whatever their "Jesus semen" was from awhile back, but wouldn't you defend that?

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398358]Neither was whatever their "Jesus semen" was from awhile back, but wouldn't you defend that?[/QUOTE] jesus semen isn't crude oil

They won't achieve anything with this kind of behaviour.

[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;40398369]They won't achieve anything with this kind of behaviour.[/QUOTE] Well, they've gotten media attention, at least.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398358]Neither was whatever their "Jesus semen" was from awhile back, but wouldn't you defend that?[/QUOTE] that was baby powder

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40398326]Dodge your argument how? What have I dodged? I disagree with you that they are effective. You have not provided an argument that actually explains anything about why you think the "average facebook retard" is going to understand the point of this completely, that they can't be misunderstood, that they aren't ineffective. What am I dodging pal so you're not dodging my argument because it's "pedantic nitpicking?" okay then[/QUOTE] Let's just drop the irrelevant part of this discussion ok. We can assume that the 100% of the average facebook retard population can read. They're going to see a photo on facebook, this photo: [img]http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/04/24/1226628/596127-topless-protesters.jpg[/img] On this photo they will see a person from the church being attacked (with water) by women, one of them holding a sign that says "Stop homophobia". They can then assume that they are protesting against homophobia, and that they are probably directing this towards the church. It is literally [I]impossible[/I] to misinterpret that. Do you get it now?

[QUOTE=Yahnich;40398375]you've put that site into question? the sourcebook is backed up a lot of governments and was initiated by the council of europe though?? it's aim is to standardize the laws in europe as a step towards a european federation[/QUOTE] It's not a global definition used in all EU nations. It is designed to standardize the laws, but it's not actually putting its definitions into use yet. Otherwise it wouldn't have that disclaimer at the beginning, since the definitions would be the legal ones.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40398363]jesus semen isn't crude oil[/QUOTE] No fundamental difference, really. You're getting covered in something that isn't of immediate or urgent harm to you, but that you'd much rather not be covered in.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40398385]No fundamental difference, really. You're getting covered in something that isn't of immediate or urgent harm to you, but that you'd much rather not be covered in.[/QUOTE] And either way it's something that's not good for your health, and that you have to wash off your clothes/skin.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40398350]I agree, but in committing civil disobedience, you cannot violate a law that is put in place to protect someone against physical, emotional, or reputational harm, if you do it's no longer civil disobedience, it's violent protest or slander, depending on the law broken (no, I'm not saying FEMEN slandered anyone, general example). If someone poured Alberta crude oil on Thomas Mulcair in protest of his attitude towards the oil sands, would you consider that acceptable? I wouldn't.[/QUOTE] If it were not a harmful substance, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Like I said, this is where we will disagree. Public office (or even leadership of a church) is a position of power. Those who seek this power will also be given many responsibilities. It is my belief that a person who takes public office must be willing to make sacrifices to serve the people, and that they implicitly give up certain things enjoyed by private individuals - Like much of their privacy and much of their time. While we certainly can't ask them to give up their health or lives, I do not think a little public shaming for having failed in their responsibility is such a terrible thing. Why? Because I believe that those who seek office solely for the sake of political influence and prestige are exactly the sort who we do not want wielding power, while those who have humility and want, foremost, to serve the people will accept the sacrifice and responsibility wholeheartedly. You will not agree with me, but that is my take on public/religious office.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40398385]No fundamental difference, really. You're getting covered in something that isn't of immediate or urgent harm to you, but that you'd much rather not be covered in.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards-public.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40398385]No fundamental difference, really. You're getting covered in something that isn't of immediate or urgent harm to you, but that you'd much rather not be covered in.[/QUOTE] Water is the same as crude oil. Throwing water is the same as blowing up bombs. Did I have a stroke? Am I still alive? Holy fuck this thread.

Even if I technically agree with femen i still think they are fucking stupid

is yr justification for disagreeing with femens methods really based entirely on the toxic classification of baby power v crude oil if its not you should prob drop it [img]http://cdn.compliancesigns.com/media/NFPA/NFPA_PRINTED_1400_150.gif[/img] yeah have you ever seen a bottle of baby powder with that NFPA classification? i havent

whats the flash point of baby powder!?!?

[QUOTE=Yahnich;40398410]crude oil is nearly impossible to get off your clothes and is terrible for your health baby powder water is neither of these so i'm saying this is a false analogy[/QUOTE] The reason the baby powder was brought up though, was: [QUOTE=Lachz0r;40398354]crude oil isn't water[/QUOTE] The crude oil isn't worse than water part is flawed, but the "What about baby powder?" point is still there. [QUOTE=thisispain;40398446] yeah have you ever seen a bottle of baby oil with that NFPA classification?[/QUOTE] So, "Jesus semen" just went from baby powder, to baby powder in water, to baby oil? Which was it?

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398457]The reason the baby powder was brought up though, was: So, "Jesus semen" just went from baby powder, to baby powder in water, to baby oil? Which was it?[/QUOTE] its baby powder i just wrote oil on accident

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40398399][url]http://www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards-public.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] I stand corrected, I thought the risk was only from ingestion.

[QUOTE=Yahnich;40398480]water with baby powder in it is neither harmful nor even mildly annoying, once the water dries up only a dry powder remains that can easily be cleaned up by dusting yourself off[/QUOTE] Well actually baby powder is toxic that's why we put it on babies delicate skin oh wait

[QUOTE=wewt!;40398378]Let's just drop the irrelevant part of this discussion ok. We can assume that the 100% of the average facebook retard population can read. They're going to see a photo on facebook, this photo: [img]http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/04/24/1226628/596127-topless-protesters.jpg[/img] On this photo they will see a person from the church being attacked (with water) by women, one of them holding a sign that says "Stop homophobia". They can then assume that they are protesting against homophobia, and that they are probably directing this towards the church. It is literally [I]impossible[/I] to misinterpret that. Do you get it now?[/QUOTE] i like her boots

[QUOTE=wewt!;40398491]Well actually baby powder is toxic that's why we put it on babies delicate skin oh wait[/QUOTE] Of course, that's why talcum powder used to have asbestos in it. To make the babies fireproof, and therefore extra safe!

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40398371]Well, they've gotten media attention, at least.[/QUOTE] You mean attention about a topic that everyone knows about?