Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Free speech, Garland Tx.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tRidiot" data-source="post: 2745271" data-attributes="member: 9374"><p>Strange, Lurker....</p><p></p><p>I'd have to go back and find the quote, but you said something about Geller and her ilk having the right to hold their annoying or insulting celebration or exhibit. That is, until the magnitude of the response becomes a public hazard. This is illogical and not in keeping with the First Amendment. You are saying she has rights, UNTIL people disagree with her ENOUGH.</p><p></p><p>So it has nothing to do with her or her demonstration or her free expression - it is 100% totally dependent upon the response of others to her.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Curious - you have degrees in Philosophy and Religious Studies? Do you support the right of the KKK to hold a rally or a march, provided they are not actively disruptive and are not actually inciting violence? Do blacks have a right to riot in the midst of a KKK rally? Or can Jews storm a Nazi Party or Communist Party private meeting? Do you actually support the right of those with whom you disagree to peacefully and lawfully assemble and declare their views?</p><p></p><p>If the "mooslims" - an intentionally derogatory misspelling you are actively using while you advocate getting along with them and not offending their sensibilities (for which the hardcore ones would kill YOU, as well) - if the "mooslims" decided that the pornography industry was safe to attack, if it offended them enough, and they staged an assault on their filming studios, would you blame the pornography industry? If they decided eating pig was an abomination and that they should attack all BBQ joints with AK47s and slaughter anyone who dared to consume an unclean animal, would you blame the patrons? Or blame the cooks? I mean without the cooks, the patrons couldn't partake - but without the patrons, the cooks would be out of business. So they are both equally guilty of inciting the "mooslims" by publicly consuming something so obviously offensive to the "mooslim" radicals out there.</p><p></p><p>At what point does the magnitude of the response to a non-violent message become illegal or unacceptable in American society? Well... usually, the measuring stick we use is when the response becomes violent. But then, when do we blame a non-violent speaker for the actions of those responding to him?</p><p></p><p>I'm just not seeing the "rightness" of determining the limits placed on someone's rights based on the improper and intolerant actions of responders. Perhaps you can help clear that up. I don't know.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have to point out, however... your very use of the derogatory spelling of "mooslim" is doing EXACTLY WHAT PAMELA GELLER'S GROUP DID. Exactly. Completely. Totally. WITHOUT any difference.</p><p></p><p>Just sayin'.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tRidiot, post: 2745271, member: 9374"] Strange, Lurker.... I'd have to go back and find the quote, but you said something about Geller and her ilk having the right to hold their annoying or insulting celebration or exhibit. That is, until the magnitude of the response becomes a public hazard. This is illogical and not in keeping with the First Amendment. You are saying she has rights, UNTIL people disagree with her ENOUGH. So it has nothing to do with her or her demonstration or her free expression - it is 100% totally dependent upon the response of others to her. Curious - you have degrees in Philosophy and Religious Studies? Do you support the right of the KKK to hold a rally or a march, provided they are not actively disruptive and are not actually inciting violence? Do blacks have a right to riot in the midst of a KKK rally? Or can Jews storm a Nazi Party or Communist Party private meeting? Do you actually support the right of those with whom you disagree to peacefully and lawfully assemble and declare their views? If the "mooslims" - an intentionally derogatory misspelling you are actively using while you advocate getting along with them and not offending their sensibilities (for which the hardcore ones would kill YOU, as well) - if the "mooslims" decided that the pornography industry was safe to attack, if it offended them enough, and they staged an assault on their filming studios, would you blame the pornography industry? If they decided eating pig was an abomination and that they should attack all BBQ joints with AK47s and slaughter anyone who dared to consume an unclean animal, would you blame the patrons? Or blame the cooks? I mean without the cooks, the patrons couldn't partake - but without the patrons, the cooks would be out of business. So they are both equally guilty of inciting the "mooslims" by publicly consuming something so obviously offensive to the "mooslim" radicals out there. At what point does the magnitude of the response to a non-violent message become illegal or unacceptable in American society? Well... usually, the measuring stick we use is when the response becomes violent. But then, when do we blame a non-violent speaker for the actions of those responding to him? I'm just not seeing the "rightness" of determining the limits placed on someone's rights based on the improper and intolerant actions of responders. Perhaps you can help clear that up. I don't know. I have to point out, however... your very use of the derogatory spelling of "mooslim" is doing EXACTLY WHAT PAMELA GELLER'S GROUP DID. Exactly. Completely. Totally. WITHOUT any difference. Just sayin'. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Free speech, Garland Tx.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom