|
Forum Moderator
42734 cr points
Send Message:   20 / F / District of Columbia
 Offline
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide BearSol wrote:
LosingOrbit wrote:
BearSol wrote:
Freedom of Speech. Love it or hate it, it's our way of life.
If not for it, women and black people would never have come this close to equality.
Russell Brand had those nuts on his show. When the audience boo'd them, Russell said, "If you can't tolerate intolerance, than you're not really tolerant, are you?"
Blame the media. If it wasn't for them, these dumbasses would never have received so much attention, or had been galvanized to take their hate speech to such an extreme.
I'm going to have to disagree.
The First Amendment protects you from the persecution of the government, yet it does not protect you from public backlash or as I like to put it: Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence. People should not tolerate intolerance, if they did than all the known movements that have been fought throughout this country to earn woman and minorities rights would not have been fought. They would have been tolerating their mistreatment of the intolerant people who denied them their rights. Disapproving of intolerant behavior is in fact being progressive and these people have every right to be not only offended, but to counter such abhorrent displays of bigotry.
Are you kidding me? You think you can stop them with public backlash? Are you NOT familiar with this situation?
I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement.
People who don't tolerate intolerance aren't tolerant. You've dug yourself into being intolerant. Now you're one of them.
You think the majority has the right to regulate what the minority are allowed to say? If that was the case, only Christians would have the right to speak about religion. I'm sorry but nobody, but you, apparently, wants the US this way.
Yeah, they're retarded, but so are people who like The Jersey Shore. (In my opinion, because that's just what they're spouting, opinions)
That doesn't mean I should take away people's right to watch The Jersey Shore because I think it's the worst thing to happen to the US in the last 30 years, other than Jr. Bush.
Yeah...first of all, I have no idea how you got any of that out of my post.
Secondly, I never stated that people are going to "stop them with public backlash." What I was trying to state was no matter how abhorrent or intolerant the reason may be, they have the right to protest. The government has no right to interfere, yet that does not protect them from public disagreement such as counter protesting or in this case, emergency personnel creating a wall between the WBC protestors and the people attending the funeral, which is also within their right. This obstructs no Freedom of Speech and I'm happy that they're doing it.
And yes, I guess I am "intolerant" in the sense that I cannot agree with such blatant disrespect for the death of these children and their loved ones, yet it is not within my right to stop them from doing so. Neither is it within anyone else.
|
52951 cr points
Send Message: M / Яɛʌιʌιиɢ ιи Ħα∂ɛƨ
Offline
|
This would have to be one of those times we all root for the bad guy, kind of like the movie Payback. You have people who live a criminal life but the way they carry themselves sometimes causes people to root for them. I think this is definitely one of those times.
I hate the WBC more than I dislike Anon and it's practices.
|
11695 cr points
Send Message: F / Urban South
Offline
|
"Until we are all free, we are none of us free." -Emma Lazarus-
That includes mean-hearted, hateful douchebags who whore out their faith for negative attention by picketing the tragedy of others. I find it repulsive that the WBC does this, and even more so that they involve their children.
HOWEVER, I'm sure that those shameful excuses for Jesusites don't appreciate me bringing my son to the Atlanta Gay Pride Festival. I will teach my kid right from wrong and they can teach their kids whatever f*cked up version of morality they choose. It's the meaning of freedom.
(My kid and Boba Fett at the end of the parade route after the crowds thinned out.)
 |
29739 cr points
Send Message: 30 / M / So Cal
Offline
|
LosingOrbit wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide BearSol wrote:
LosingOrbit wrote:
BearSol wrote:
Freedom of Speech. Love it or hate it, it's our way of life.
If not for it, women and black people would never have come this close to equality.
Russell Brand had those nuts on his show. When the audience boo'd them, Russell said, "If you can't tolerate intolerance, than you're not really tolerant, are you?"
Blame the media. If it wasn't for them, these dumbasses would never have received so much attention, or had been galvanized to take their hate speech to such an extreme.
I'm going to have to disagree.
The First Amendment protects you from the persecution of the government, yet it does not protect you from public backlash or as I like to put it: Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence. People should not tolerate intolerance, if they did than all the known movements that have been fought throughout this country to earn woman and minorities rights would not have been fought. They would have been tolerating their mistreatment of the intolerant people who denied them their rights. Disapproving of intolerant behavior is in fact being progressive and these people have every right to be not only offended, but to counter such abhorrent displays of bigotry.
Are you kidding me? You think you can stop them with public backlash? Are you NOT familiar with this situation?
I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement.
People who don't tolerate intolerance aren't tolerant. You've dug yourself into being intolerant. Now you're one of them.
You think the majority has the right to regulate what the minority are allowed to say? If that was the case, only Christians would have the right to speak about religion. I'm sorry but nobody, but you, apparently, wants the US this way.
Yeah, they're retarded, but so are people who like The Jersey Shore. (In my opinion, because that's just what they're spouting, opinions)
That doesn't mean I should take away people's right to watch The Jersey Shore because I think it's the worst thing to happen to the US in the last 30 years, other than Jr. Bush.
Yeah...first of all, I have no idea how you got any of that out of my post.
Secondly, I never stated that people are going to "stop them with public backlash." What I was trying to state was no matter how abhorrent or intolerant the reason may be, they have the right to protest. The government has no right to interfere, yet that does not protect them from public disagreement such as counter protesting or in this case, emergency personnel creating a wall between the WBC protestors and the people attending the funeral, which is also within their right. This obstructs no Freedom of Speech and I'm happy that they're doing it.
And yes, I guess I am "intolerant" in the sense that I cannot agree with such blatant disrespect for the death of these children and their loved ones, yet it is not within my right to stop them from doing so. Neither is it within anyone else.
I'm sorry that I made the mistake of referring to things you said. Next time I'll make stuff up so that you can illegitimately cry out about not knowing how I referred to what you said.
Secondly, nobody is saying this isn't horrible and that they're awful people. You took my saying that they have the right to say what they want and responding with they shouldn't.
Next time you reply, perhaps you can counter what I was actually saying instead of taking it in a different direction. This isn't Fox News and you are not Bill O'Reilly.
Thanks.
|
|
Forum Moderator
42734 cr points
Send Message: 20 / F / District of Columbia
Offline
|
BearSol wrote:
LosingOrbit wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide BearSol wrote:
LosingOrbit wrote:
BearSol wrote:
Freedom of Speech. Love it or hate it, it's our way of life.
If not for it, women and black people would never have come this close to equality.
Russell Brand had those nuts on his show. When the audience boo'd them, Russell said, "If you can't tolerate intolerance, than you're not really tolerant, are you?"
Blame the media. If it wasn't for them, these dumbasses would never have received so much attention, or had been galvanized to take their hate speech to such an extreme.
I'm going to have to disagree.
The First Amendment protects you from the persecution of the government, yet it does not protect you from public backlash or as I like to put it: Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence. People should not tolerate intolerance, if they did than all the known movements that have been fought throughout this country to earn woman and minorities rights would not have been fought. They would have been tolerating their mistreatment of the intolerant people who denied them their rights. Disapproving of intolerant behavior is in fact being progressive and these people have every right to be not only offended, but to counter such abhorrent displays of bigotry.
Are you kidding me? You think you can stop them with public backlash? Are you NOT familiar with this situation?
I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement.
People who don't tolerate intolerance aren't tolerant. You've dug yourself into being intolerant. Now you're one of them.
You think the majority has the right to regulate what the minority are allowed to say? If that was the case, only Christians would have the right to speak about religion. I'm sorry but nobody, but you, apparently, wants the US this way.
Yeah, they're retarded, but so are people who like The Jersey Shore. (In my opinion, because that's just what they're spouting, opinions)
That doesn't mean I should take away people's right to watch The Jersey Shore because I think it's the worst thing to happen to the US in the last 30 years, other than Jr. Bush.
Yeah...first of all, I have no idea how you got any of that out of my post.
Secondly, I never stated that people are going to "stop them with public backlash." What I was trying to state was no matter how abhorrent or intolerant the reason may be, they have the right to protest. The government has no right to interfere, yet that does not protect them from public disagreement such as counter protesting or in this case, emergency personnel creating a wall between the WBC protestors and the people attending the funeral, which is also within their right. This obstructs no Freedom of Speech and I'm happy that they're doing it.
And yes, I guess I am "intolerant" in the sense that I cannot agree with such blatant disrespect for the death of these children and their loved ones, yet it is not within my right to stop them from doing so. Neither is it within anyone else.
I'm sorry that I made the mistake of referring to things you said. Next time I'll make stuff up so that you can illegitimately cry out about not knowing how I referred to what you said.
Secondly, nobody is saying this isn't horrible and that they're awful people. You took my saying that they have the right to say what they want and responding with they shouldn't.
Next time you reply, perhaps you can counter what I was actually saying instead of taking it in a different direction. This isn't Fox News and you are not Bill O'Reilly.
Thanks.
What you did was misinterpret my post. I have no idea why you're being brash, but I responded to you appropriately. I neither insulted, nor disrespected you in any way.
|
29739 cr points
Send Message: 30 / M / So Cal
Offline
|
LosingOrbit wrote:
BearSol wrote:
LosingOrbit wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide BearSol wrote:
LosingOrbit wrote:
BearSol wrote:
Freedom of Speech. Love it or hate it, it's our way of life.
If not for it, women and black people would never have come this close to equality.
Russell Brand had those nuts on his show. When the audience boo'd them, Russell said, "If you can't tolerate intolerance, than you're not really tolerant, are you?"
Blame the media. If it wasn't for them, these dumbasses would never have received so much attention, or had been galvanized to take their hate speech to such an extreme.
I'm going to have to disagree.
The First Amendment protects you from the persecution of the government, yet it does not protect you from public backlash or as I like to put it: Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence. People should not tolerate intolerance, if they did than all the known movements that have been fought throughout this country to earn woman and minorities rights would not have been fought. They would have been tolerating their mistreatment of the intolerant people who denied them their rights. Disapproving of intolerant behavior is in fact being progressive and these people have every right to be not only offended, but to counter such abhorrent displays of bigotry.
Are you kidding me? You think you can stop them with public backlash? Are you NOT familiar with this situation?
I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement.
People who don't tolerate intolerance aren't tolerant. You've dug yourself into being intolerant. Now you're one of them.
You think the majority has the right to regulate what the minority are allowed to say? If that was the case, only Christians would have the right to speak about religion. I'm sorry but nobody, but you, apparently, wants the US this way.
Yeah, they're retarded, but so are people who like The Jersey Shore. (In my opinion, because that's just what they're spouting, opinions)
That doesn't mean I should take away people's right to watch The Jersey Shore because I think it's the worst thing to happen to the US in the last 30 years, other than Jr. Bush.
Yeah...first of all, I have no idea how you got any of that out of my post.
Secondly, I never stated that people are going to "stop them with public backlash." What I was trying to state was no matter how abhorrent or intolerant the reason may be, they have the right to protest. The government has no right to interfere, yet that does not protect them from public disagreement such as counter protesting or in this case, emergency personnel creating a wall between the WBC protestors and the people attending the funeral, which is also within their right. This obstructs no Freedom of Speech and I'm happy that they're doing it.
And yes, I guess I am "intolerant" in the sense that I cannot agree with such blatant disrespect for the death of these children and their loved ones, yet it is not within my right to stop them from doing so. Neither is it within anyone else.
I'm sorry that I made the mistake of referring to things you said. Next time I'll make stuff up so that you can illegitimately cry out about not knowing how I referred to what you said.
Secondly, nobody is saying this isn't horrible and that they're awful people. You took my saying that they have the right to say what they want and responding with they shouldn't.
Next time you reply, perhaps you can counter what I was actually saying instead of taking it in a different direction. This isn't Fox News and you are not Bill O'Reilly.
Thanks.
What you did was misinterpret my post. I have no idea why you're being brash, but I responded to you appropriately. I neither insulted, nor disrespected you in any way.
What you did was misinterpret mine, mine was to comment on what you said. I'm not being brash, I'm being defensive.
I never insulted or disrespected you in any way.
Hugs? 
|
|
Forum Moderator
42734 cr points
Send Message: 20 / F / District of Columbia
Offline
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide BearSol wrote:
LosingOrbit wrote:
BearSol wrote:
LosingOrbit wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide BearSol wrote:
LosingOrbit wrote:
BearSol wrote:
Freedom of Speech. Love it or hate it, it's our way of life.
If not for it, women and black people would never have come this close to equality.
Russell Brand had those nuts on his show. When the audience boo'd them, Russell said, "If you can't tolerate intolerance, than you're not really tolerant, are you?"
Blame the media. If it wasn't for them, these dumbasses would never have received so much attention, or had been galvanized to take their hate speech to such an extreme.
I'm going to have to disagree.
The First Amendment protects you from the persecution of the government, yet it does not protect you from public backlash or as I like to put it: Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence. People should not tolerate intolerance, if they did than all the known movements that have been fought throughout this country to earn woman and minorities rights would not have been fought. They would have been tolerating their mistreatment of the intolerant people who denied them their rights. Disapproving of intolerant behavior is in fact being progressive and these people have every right to be not only offended, but to counter such abhorrent displays of bigotry.
Are you kidding me? You think you can stop them with public backlash? Are you NOT familiar with this situation?
I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement.
People who don't tolerate intolerance aren't tolerant. You've dug yourself into being intolerant. Now you're one of them.
You think the majority has the right to regulate what the minority are allowed to say? If that was the case, only Christians would have the right to speak about religion. I'm sorry but nobody, but you, apparently, wants the US this way.
Yeah, they're retarded, but so are people who like The Jersey Shore. (In my opinion, because that's just what they're spouting, opinions)
That doesn't mean I should take away people's right to watch The Jersey Shore because I think it's the worst thing to happen to the US in the last 30 years, other than Jr. Bush.
Yeah...first of all, I have no idea how you got any of that out of my post.
Secondly, I never stated that people are going to "stop them with public backlash." What I was trying to state was no matter how abhorrent or intolerant the reason may be, they have the right to protest. The government has no right to interfere, yet that does not protect them from public disagreement such as counter protesting or in this case, emergency personnel creating a wall between the WBC protestors and the people attending the funeral, which is also within their right. This obstructs no Freedom of Speech and I'm happy that they're doing it.
And yes, I guess I am "intolerant" in the sense that I cannot agree with such blatant disrespect for the death of these children and their loved ones, yet it is not within my right to stop them from doing so. Neither is it within anyone else.
I'm sorry that I made the mistake of referring to things you said. Next time I'll make stuff up so that you can illegitimately cry out about not knowing how I referred to what you said.
Secondly, nobody is saying this isn't horrible and that they're awful people. You took my saying that they have the right to say what they want and responding with they shouldn't.
Next time you reply, perhaps you can counter what I was actually saying instead of taking it in a different direction. This isn't Fox News and you are not Bill O'Reilly.
Thanks.
What you did was misinterpret my post. I have no idea why you're being brash, but I responded to you appropriately. I neither insulted, nor disrespected you in any way.
What you did was misinterpret mine, mine was to comment on what you said. I'm not being brash, I'm being defensive.
I never insulted or disrespected you in any way.
Hugs?
Hmm...ok
|
Post Reply
Firefighters and police support "Stand the Wall" 
