Am I overreacting?
-
In my little town there is a house on the main drag with tons of anti-abortion stuff like signs saying "ABORTION IS MURDER." Never really cared about it before, however, today I drove by and there is a new sign. It says, "ABORTION IS TODAY'S HOLOCAUST" WTF? I understand that abortion gets a lot of people riled up, but I find this so totally offensive. I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
Blog link to be reinstated at a later date.
-
In my little town there is a house on the main drag with tons of anti-abortion stuff like signs saying "ABORTION IS MURDER." Never really cared about it before, however, today I drove by and there is a new sign. It says, "ABORTION IS TODAY'S HOLOCAUST" WTF? I understand that abortion gets a lot of people riled up, but I find this so totally offensive. I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
Blog link to be reinstated at a later date.
Heck no, everybody knows that the government is empowered to abitrarily define who is and who is not human, and can be killed without moral qualms. I think it is absolutely horrible that there are people in our society who question the right of the government to make such decisions. :rolleyes:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
In my little town there is a house on the main drag with tons of anti-abortion stuff like signs saying "ABORTION IS MURDER." Never really cared about it before, however, today I drove by and there is a new sign. It says, "ABORTION IS TODAY'S HOLOCAUST" WTF? I understand that abortion gets a lot of people riled up, but I find this so totally offensive. I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
Blog link to be reinstated at a later date.
I think it is offensive, but since it's on their own property, and it's in the good 'ol US of A, you will have a difficult time getting it removed... Try not to let it bug you - people with these signs are nutters, and getting people all worked up just makes them happy...
-------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!!
-
In my little town there is a house on the main drag with tons of anti-abortion stuff like signs saying "ABORTION IS MURDER." Never really cared about it before, however, today I drove by and there is a new sign. It says, "ABORTION IS TODAY'S HOLOCAUST" WTF? I understand that abortion gets a lot of people riled up, but I find this so totally offensive. I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
Blog link to be reinstated at a later date.
-
In my little town there is a house on the main drag with tons of anti-abortion stuff like signs saying "ABORTION IS MURDER." Never really cared about it before, however, today I drove by and there is a new sign. It says, "ABORTION IS TODAY'S HOLOCAUST" WTF? I understand that abortion gets a lot of people riled up, but I find this so totally offensive. I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
Blog link to be reinstated at a later date.
Unfortunately, it's when speech becomes incendiary that it must be protected. Burning the flag is something I'd like to physically punish everytime I read about it, but I understand why the Supreme Court permits it and why I'm supposed to grit my teeth and walk on by.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Unfortunately, it's when speech becomes incendiary that it must be protected. Burning the flag is something I'd like to physically punish everytime I read about it, but I understand why the Supreme Court permits it and why I'm supposed to grit my teeth and walk on by.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
when speech becomes incendiary
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Unfortunately, it's when speech becomes incendiary that it must be protected. Burning the flag is something I'd like to physically punish everytime I read about it, but I understand why the Supreme Court permits it and why I'm supposed to grit my teeth and walk on by.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
leckey wrote:
[.]
Not at all -- after all, your defense of abortion is unreasonable (the indefensible cannot be otherwise), so of *course* you will wish to decree it "totally offensive" if others speak the truth about what is involved.
Ilíon wrote:
after all, your defense of abortion is unreasonable (the indefensible cannot be otherwise),
I guess that can't be said of you, because you never defend your views, not even when they are shown to be at odds with the bible. Instead you just call names.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
In my little town there is a house on the main drag with tons of anti-abortion stuff like signs saying "ABORTION IS MURDER." Never really cared about it before, however, today I drove by and there is a new sign. It says, "ABORTION IS TODAY'S HOLOCAUST" WTF? I understand that abortion gets a lot of people riled up, but I find this so totally offensive. I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
Blog link to be reinstated at a later date.
I get the impression that a lot of abortion protesters, like a lot of anti gay protesters ( like the Phelps church ) are just looking to create outrage so they can feel self righteous about it all. I can see the parallel tho, they are saying that abortion represents state sanctioned mass murder. I would find that less offensive than placards with ( what I hope are reproductions of ) aborted babies tied to them being waved in the faces of people walking past a clinic, which I have seen.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Unfortunately, it's when speech becomes incendiary that it must be protected. Burning the flag is something I'd like to physically punish everytime I read about it, but I understand why the Supreme Court permits it and why I'm supposed to grit my teeth and walk on by.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I understand why the Supreme Court permits it and why I'm supposed to grit my teeth and walk on by.
I don't. Wasn't free speech used to create the laws against flag burning in the first damned place? How did the supreme court become empowered to arbitrarily decide that my right to state my political opinion about flag burning in a way that actually affects my society become less important that someone else's right to burn a flag? The court's decision suppresses free speech, it doesn't expand it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I understand why the Supreme Court permits it and why I'm supposed to grit my teeth and walk on by.
I don't. Wasn't free speech used to create the laws against flag burning in the first damned place? How did the supreme court become empowered to arbitrarily decide that my right to state my political opinion about flag burning in a way that actually affects my society become less important that someone else's right to burn a flag? The court's decision suppresses free speech, it doesn't expand it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Surely you're allowed to use your freedom of speech to comment, just not to smack them in the face ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Surely you're allowed to use your freedom of speech to comment, just not to smack them in the face ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
Surely you're allowed to use your freedom of speech to comment, just not to smack them in the face ?
Not more than I week ago I was being assured by Jon, and others, that freedom of speech was not about being offensive. Now, we are back to it being exclusively about being offensive. I wish people could make their minds up. For my part, the reason I have freedom of speech is specifically so that I can state that flag burning should be illegal and actually have it become illegal if enough of my neighbors agree with me. Unless, that is, there is specific language in the constitution stating that burning a flag is protected free speech. Freedom of speech is not about making comments, it is about making law.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I thought it was illegal?
When Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag as part of a political protest in 1989, he was convicted for flag desecration under Texas law, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction on First Amendment grounds and the Supreme Court confirmed that physically damaging the flag constituted symbolic--and protected--speech. In it's decision the Court said, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Surely you're allowed to use your freedom of speech to comment, just not to smack them in the face ?
Not more than I week ago I was being assured by Jon, and others, that freedom of speech was not about being offensive. Now, we are back to it being exclusively about being offensive. I wish people could make their minds up. For my part, the reason I have freedom of speech is specifically so that I can state that flag burning should be illegal and actually have it become illegal if enough of my neighbors agree with me. Unless, that is, there is specific language in the constitution stating that burning a flag is protected free speech. Freedom of speech is not about making comments, it is about making law.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not more than I week ago I was being assured by Jon, and others, that freedom of speech was not about being offensive
Huh? wtf are you talking about? Freedom of Speech is about one thing: the Government is prohibited from abridging the right to Free Speech. The only exception that has been allowed is when "fighting words" - a direct exhortation to violence - are used.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Freedom of speech is not about making comments, it is about making law.
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." The words of the First Amendment should be simple enough for even you to understand.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
after all, your defense of abortion is unreasonable (the indefensible cannot be otherwise),
I guess that can't be said of you, because you never defend your views, not even when they are shown to be at odds with the bible. Instead you just call names.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
It is a waste of time to defend one's views to intellectually dishonest persons, such as you.
Regular as clockwork. See, I defend my view to you, despite all of your flaws, because I understand that on a public forum, others will also read what I said, and see that I am able to respond intelligently and that I am the one with a viewpoint that is defensible. As you lack these things, I guess name calling is your best option.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not more than I week ago I was being assured by Jon, and others, that freedom of speech was not about being offensive
Huh? wtf are you talking about? Freedom of Speech is about one thing: the Government is prohibited from abridging the right to Free Speech. The only exception that has been allowed is when "fighting words" - a direct exhortation to violence - are used.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Freedom of speech is not about making comments, it is about making law.
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." The words of the First Amendment should be simple enough for even you to understand.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
the Government is prohibited from abridging the right to Free Speech.
For what purpose?
Oakman wrote:
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." The words of the First Amendment should be simple enough for even you to understand.
I'm pretty sure I do understand it. What part of "YOu can't make a law against flag burning" can't you understand is an abridgment of free speech?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
when speech becomes incendiary
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Oakman wrote:
the Government is prohibited from abridging the right to Free Speech.
For what purpose?
Oakman wrote:
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." The words of the First Amendment should be simple enough for even you to understand.
I'm pretty sure I do understand it. What part of "YOu can't make a law against flag burning" can't you understand is an abridgment of free speech?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What part of "YOu can't make a law against flag burning" can't you understand is an abridgment of free speech?
The part where it directly contravenes the First Amendment. In other words, all of it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I thought it was illegal? I thought it can only be disposed of in a certain way only?
How these things work, in practice, is that if a person perfoms an act which is approved by "liberals" -- say, burning the flag, or harrassing the patrons of the public library with one's massively unwashed body odors -- then it counts are "free speech". But on the other hand, if a person perfoms an act which is disapproved by "liberals" -- say, displaying a picture of the results of abortions, or stating that abortion is murder, or stating that homosexual behavior is immoral -- then it does not count as "free speech," but rather is an incitement to "hatred" and ought to be suppressed.