Am I overreacting?
-
I do not know if I have to say it again, the porn does nothing more than promoting sex, right? Do we need to find the relation between sex and abortion? Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
Please do, because IMO it's just a matter of education...
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
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.
No, you're just reacting inconsistently. If 'abortion is murder' doesn't engender this reaction from you, and you know their are hundreds of thousands of abortions every year, then why would you not already realize the logical extension that 'abortion constitutues a modern genocide'. If it is ammounting to hundreds of thousands of deaths every year, sponsored and legalised by the state all directed at one one vulnerable sector of the population (in this case the < 0 days old ) then what would you call this but a 'modern holocaust'? The fact that it takes these words specifically to make you react implies either that you never understood the message of the previous posters, don't think logically about what you read, or don't understand what the holocaust was. I suspect the middle option which would place you in the same bracket as most people who read, emote, subconciously absorb and then consiously forget. This may seem like a simple criticism but it's far more than that. It's why advertising works, why you almost certainly don't know about the work of the Rand Coporation, why so many people will vote for Obama, for Camaron, for Cheese if it's dressed right and not understand why they don't get what they mistakenly think they've been promised.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
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
But it took free speech to create those laws in the first place. Someone said "Hey, I think we need a law protecting the flag from abuse" and then someone else said "Hey, I think thats a good idea", so t hey made a little law for their little town. See, that is free speech which allows free people to actually define and immediately affect the parameters of their own society. It is free speech with teeth. You still have not answered or explained why that free speech is bad and 'flag burning' free speech is good. I simply do not understand the reasoning behind that. It makes no sense at all to me.
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.
-
How is an action considered speech? Freedom of speech should be just that - the freedom to voice one's opinion without fear of retribution. Burning a flag is an overt action that ought to be condemned. The argument saying that burning a flag is expressing freedom of speech is like saying freedom of speech allows me to punch someone in the face. It has ceased being speech and become an action... Commence flaming now...
-------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!!
_Damian S_ wrote:
Freedom of speech should be just that - the freedom to voice one's opinion without fear of retribution. Burning a flag is an overt action that ought to be condemned.
Maybe it should be (and maybe it is, I know jack shit about us law system) called freedom of expressing ideas, opinions and feelings. As long as it's your flag you are burning its ok (unless you burn it in a crowd in a way that the smoke and fire endanger other people :P) It's not only voice how you express yourself, written word, drawings, gestures too... As long as you are not breaking any other law (and that is important part, see your example about punching someone in the face).
[My Blog]
"Visual studio desperately needs some performance improvements. It is sometimes almost as slow as eclipse." - Rüdiger Klaehn
"Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe -
Oakman wrote:
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."
But as I recall, the flag he burned wasn't even his but one being displayed in front of City Hall. Seems like it would have saved us all a lot of time and drama if he had been arrested for destroying public property instead of burning the flag. I know the point is moot in some ways; if it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else to raise the issue. But still, every time I think of that case, I get infuriated not so much because of the flag burning but because the destruction of public property was somehow tacitly approved of as free speech. I can remember afterwards protesters celebrating the case by burning the flag and running it up a flag pole at a post office. EDIT: Ok, I just looked this up on Wikipedia: Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain companies based in Dallas. They marched through the streets, shouted chants, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag taken from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.[^]
Leslie Sanford wrote:
I get infuriated not so much because of the flag burning but because the destruction of public property was somehow tacitly approved of as free speech.
A very, very good point. Anyone should be allowed to run out, buy a flag, and burn it, on their own property, or public property where the general public is in agreement with the sentiment.
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. (Siddhartha Gautama - The Buddha), 563-483 B.C.
-
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.
Ilíon wrote:
homosexual behavior
Just what is homosexual behaviour? Surely it is purely sexual behaviour, the moral weight of which is in any reasonable person's eyes much less than that of public lying and bigotry?
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. (Siddhartha Gautama - The Buddha), 563-483 B.C.
-
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:
Now, we are back to it being exclusively about being offensive. I wish people could make their minds up.
I only saw this now, long after posting the above One man, one insult, thread. :laugh:
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. (Siddhartha Gautama - The Buddha), 563-483 B.C.
-
Yep - dead and cremated.
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
-
So waving a flag is freedom of speech. Burning a flag is wilful destruction of property?
-------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Yes - you're overreacting. For someone who honestly believes that abortion is murder, legalized abortion easily equates to state sanctioned murder. With nearly a million legal abortions per year in the US alone since 1973 that puts the number of these "state sanctioned murders" pretty high. Throw in the rest of the world and it makes the holocaust look downright tame. Disclaimer - The above statements are not necessarily my beliefs just a logical understanding given a specific belief.
-
But it took free speech to create those laws in the first place. Someone said "Hey, I think we need a law protecting the flag from abuse" and then someone else said "Hey, I think thats a good idea", so t hey made a little law for their little town. See, that is free speech which allows free people to actually define and immediately affect the parameters of their own society. It is free speech with teeth. You still have not answered or explained why that free speech is bad and 'flag burning' free speech is good. I simply do not understand the reasoning behind that. It makes no sense at all to me.
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:
You still have not answered or explained why that free speech is bad
Stan, I'm pretty sure you're just playing dumb. You know as well as I do that the majority of the Bill of Rights amendments specify powers that the government doesn't have and cannot exercise. Originally the specification only covered the Federal Government, but 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that the provisions of these amendments deny that power to the states as well. That's all settled law and will not change if every other judge on the Supreme Court is to the right of Roberts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
homosexual behavior
Just what is homosexual behaviour? Surely it is purely sexual behaviour, the moral weight of which is in any reasonable person's eyes much less than that of public lying and bigotry?
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. (Siddhartha Gautama - The Buddha), 563-483 B.C.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Surely it is purely sexual behaviour, the moral weight of which is in any reasonable person's eyes much less than that of public lying and bigotry?
Not in Ilion's eyes. He disapproves of homosexual behavior but public lying and bigotry are his stock in trade.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Surely it is purely sexual behaviour, the moral weight of which is in any reasonable person's eyes much less than that of public lying and bigotry?
Not in Ilion's eyes. He disapproves of homosexual behavior but public lying and bigotry are his stock in trade.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Exactly the point of my rhetorical question. :-\
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. (Siddhartha Gautama - The Buddha), 563-483 B.C.
-
I do not know if I have to say it again, the porn does nothing more than promoting sex, right? Do we need to find the relation between sex and abortion? Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
Exactly the point of my rhetorical question. :-\
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. (Siddhartha Gautama - The Buddha), 563-483 B.C.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Now, we are back to it being exclusively about being offensive. I wish people could make their minds up.
I only saw this now, long after posting the above One man, one insult, thread. :laugh:
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. (Siddhartha Gautama - The Buddha), 563-483 B.C.
Brady Kelly wrote:
I only saw this now, long after posting the above One man, one insult, thread.
Insults have nothing to do with it, at least in the U.S. Free Speech is a shorthand for the US Constitution denying the right to abridge freedom of speech to any governmental body. Doesn't protect me from having Chris decide when to asterisk my words or when to delete a post, or ban me altogether. Somehow, Stan gets confused over this.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Even the bible says that Abortion is not murder! It defines the killing of an unborn child as crime against property, not against the individual. So all the Bible-Bashing Cretins are hypocritical tossers who can f#'& off telling others how to live by their self imposed biblical rules when even they can't!
------------------------------------ We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop
Dalek Dave wrote:
Bible-Bashing Cretins
You might want to take a deep breath and think a little before you go off on a rant. I think the word you are looking for is "Bible-Thumping," not "Bible-Bashing."
Dalek Dave wrote:
Even the bible says that Abortion is not murder! It defines the killing of an unborn child as crime against property, not against the individual.
Where does it say that?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Bible-Bashing Cretins
You might want to take a deep breath and think a little before you go off on a rant. I think the word you are looking for is "Bible-Thumping," not "Bible-Bashing."
Dalek Dave wrote:
Even the bible says that Abortion is not murder! It defines the killing of an unborn child as crime against property, not against the individual.
Where does it say that?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Thumping, Yes! Sorry. Try Exodus 21:22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide" Fined! not Executed. Execution was a punishment for murder, Fining was for a Civil Offence. Hope that helps.
------------------------------------ We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop
-
Thumping, Yes! Sorry. Try Exodus 21:22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide" Fined! not Executed. Execution was a punishment for murder, Fining was for a Civil Offence. Hope that helps.
------------------------------------ We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop
What do you make of the next couple of verses?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
What do you make of the next couple of verses?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Eye for an Eye etc... This only applies to the wife. If you take her unborn child you get fined, but if you do her other damage you are punished accordingly. This means that God thinks a wife is important, but the child isn't. Thanks for clarifying that for others.
------------------------------------ We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop