ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:38 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:30 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:17 am
Posts: 871
Location: New York City
If I were to attend one of their protests, in order to counter-protest, I would do it in an intelligent way in order to downplay the weight of their arguements.(not saying That the people who counter protest are not intelligent, im saying in the way that you have to be smarter than these people in your own protest, because you will not change their views, but you have a chance to discredit them as they are there.)

Just bring up the facts of how they protest so many different things a day and use their own staements to show how ridiculous they are.

That is if one wanted to waste their own time and energy to protest this clan, and I would only advise doing so if you wished to save the protested people some pain and/or to amuse yourself.

If you give them enough rope...

Please note, I also do this form of slient protest to those religious zealots who stand in public places and prnounce how the "white man" is "The devil". I like to spend some time and just watch them go on and on, and the longer I stand there without getting upset at them, the more upset and belligerent they become. Its quite fun.

Blue Sun Missile

_________________
Image
Pintsize wrote:
"If Aliens ever really tried to contact us, it'd be through the internet, then 4CHAN would probably scare them off"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:43 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10544
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
The problem with counter-protests is that eventually you'll get tired of it, for counter-protesters(I'm sure that should be spelt protestors but Firefox thinks otherwise) its a hobby, something to do once or twice for a laugh.
For the Phelps clan protesting everything is a lifestyle, they'll be doing it long after you give up. The first few times you might even 'win' and send them on their way, but after that it'll become a chore and you'd pretty much just leave it to them.
What we need is to get a rotating group of Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Swedes, Atheists, Veterans, Homosexuals, Bike Gangs, Pagans and those Protestant scumbags to rotate protesting duties every week.
It would be a good uniting idea and might get some interesting dialogue started between such disparate groups (except the Protestants they can go to hell and burn).

Actor.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
Sair wrote:
Ryven wrote:
We don't tolerate people who harass people in a sexual or racist fashion, why should be be lenient when people harass people in a religious way, to the point that the Phelps take it to?


Yes, we do. If you want to stand on a street corner and shout abuses at anyone and everyone, you have every right to do so.

Or at least we do in the US. I thought that's where you are?


There's certainly a difference between calling a jaywalker a fucker, and researching a dead soldier's family, including where they're going to have the funeral, buying plane tickets, flying across the country only to make a mourner's worst day even worse. The sheer thought and research alone make it harassment, reaching far past "freedom of speech". Based on the fact that these terms alone could justify a restraining order make it harassment.

Do we take away a person's right to drive a car when they've incurred too many tickets and infractions? Yes.

Do we take away a person's right to participate in society in general when said person has used his right to bear arms to kill someone? Yes.

Do we fire people who decide to make someone's life difficult based on race and sex, and sue them for harassment? Yes.

I don't see any difference between this and those examples. Rights require responsibility. Once your exercising of a certain right infringes severely upon someone else's, then it's passed over into abuse of said right.

RMG wrote:
And just who do you trust to decide where the line between an abuse of free speech and legitimate free speech?


The same people who already decide, most likely the judges. There are already laws in place for such things. Never once did I say anything about changing the statutes of the 1st amendment, only that we enforce what we already have in place.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:33 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
Ryven wrote:

There's certainly a difference between calling a jaywalker a fucker, and researching a dead soldier's family, including where they're going to have the funeral, buying plane tickets, flying across the country only to make a mourner's worst day even worse. The sheer thought and research alone make it harassment, reaching far past "freedom of speech". Based on the fact that these terms alone could justify a restraining order make it harassment.

Do we take away a person's right to drive a car when they've incurred too many tickets and infractions? Yes.

Do we take away a person's right to participate in society in general when said person has used his right to bear arms to kill someone? Yes.

Do we fire people who decide to make someone's life difficult based on race and sex, and sue them for harassment? Yes.

I don't see any difference between this and those examples. Rights require responsibility. Once your exercising of a certain right infringes severely upon someone else's, then it's passed over into abuse of said right.

RMG wrote:
And just who do you trust to decide where the line between an abuse of free speech and legitimate free speech?


The same people who already decide, most likely the judges. There are already laws in place for such things. Never once did I say anything about changing the statutes of the 1st amendment, only that we enforce what we already have in place.


You're right, the judges already decide these things. And from (Admittedly) what little I've read on the topic, the consensus is that fucking with these rights is a no no. Find case law that backs up a restriction of gatherings like what they do, and I'll show you anecdotal evidence to the contrary that the US does not distinguish between responsibility in this regard, provided you're not breaking any other laws. Despite the message, if it's a peaceful assemblage it's a peaceful assemblage.

In short, I'm not sure you understand what notions of assembly and free speech entail. As was said previously...

Sair wrote:
Remember kids: You don't have to respect the principle of freedom of speech if you don't like what's being said!

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:07 am 
Ryven wrote:
Sair wrote:
Ryven wrote:
We don't tolerate people who harass people in a sexual or racist fashion, why should be be lenient when people harass people in a religious way, to the point that the Phelps take it to?


Yes, we do. If you want to stand on a street corner and shout abuses at anyone and everyone, you have every right to do so.

Or at least we do in the US. I thought that's where you are?


There's certainly a difference between calling a jaywalker a fucker, and researching a dead soldier's family, including where they're going to have the funeral, buying plane tickets, flying across the country only to make a mourner's worst day even worse. The sheer thought and research alone make it harassment, reaching far past "freedom of speech". Based on the fact that these terms alone could justify a restraining order make it harassment.

Do we take away a person's right to drive a car when they've incurred too many tickets and infractions? Yes.

Do we take away a person's right to participate in society in general when said person has used his right to bear arms to kill someone? Yes.

Do we fire people who decide to make someone's life difficult based on race and sex, and sue them for harassment? Yes.

I don't see any difference between this and those examples. Rights require responsibility. Once your exercising of a certain right infringes severely upon someone else's, then it's passed over into abuse of said right.


Except for the fact that every example you cite involves public safety or infringement on personal freedom.

A person who gains a license hasn't proven shit about responsibility, but they have tested to show they are not a credible threat to society. Once they become a threat, said license is revoked. Anytime before that would be unconstitutional.

Killing somebody, short of in defense of oneself, shows you've become a threat to society, thus your right is revoked.

Stopping the employment of someone based on sex or race is impacting their personal freedom. They are physically being stopped from doing something.

Until the Phelps morons start harming or having the intent to harm people at the protests they stage, there really isn't much that can be done against them.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:43 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
Rusty wrote:
Ryven wrote:

There's certainly a difference between calling a jaywalker a fucker, and researching a dead soldier's family, including where they're going to have the funeral, buying plane tickets, flying across the country only to make a mourner's worst day even worse. The sheer thought and research alone make it harassment, reaching far past "freedom of speech". Based on the fact that these terms alone could justify a restraining order make it harassment.

Do we take away a person's right to drive a car when they've incurred too many tickets and infractions? Yes.

Do we take away a person's right to participate in society in general when said person has used his right to bear arms to kill someone? Yes.

Do we fire people who decide to make someone's life difficult based on race and sex, and sue them for harassment? Yes.

I don't see any difference between this and those examples. Rights require responsibility. Once your exercising of a certain right infringes severely upon someone else's, then it's passed over into abuse of said right.

RMG wrote:
And just who do you trust to decide where the line between an abuse of free speech and legitimate free speech?


The same people who already decide, most likely the judges. There are already laws in place for such things. Never once did I say anything about changing the statutes of the 1st amendment, only that we enforce what we already have in place.


You're right, the judges already decide these things. And from (Admittedly) what little I've read on the topic, the consensus is that fucking with these rights is a no no. Find case law that backs up a restriction of gatherings like what they do, and I'll show you anecdotal evidence to the contrary that the US does not distinguish between responsibility in this regard, provided you're not breaking any other laws. Despite the message, if it's a peaceful assemblage it's a peaceful assemblage.

In short, I'm not sure you understand what notions of assembly and free speech entail. As was said previously...

Sair wrote:
Remember kids: You don't have to respect the principle of freedom of speech if you don't like what's being said!


So it's free speech when you can stalk the family members of dead soldiers and parade around on their day of mourning? You can look up details about the members of this family and the dead soldiers funeral, fly to said funeral and intentionally upset hundreds of people? Funny, when someone does this to an individual, a restraining order is filed. Why is it suddenly okay with there are multitudes? Free speech doesn't protect the individual when they're pissed at another person, and decides to follow them around and harass them.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:35 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10544
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
Freedom of Speech is the hardest freedom to fight for considering that so many people are dicks.

Also after the French Revolution the Jacobin government enacted a law that slightly changed the wording, no longer was there freedom of speech there was only the freedom to tell the truth, and what the truth was was defined by those that lied the most.
You can't stifle speech just because its annoying and disrespectful, all you can do is let them scream till their hoarse and then let them leave.

I'd recommend watching "The Most Hated Family in America" its an astonishing look into the world of the Phelps clan.
Good News: None of the young girls look likely to spawn any time soon.
Bad News: Some of them aren't unattractive.
Great News: When I get to them they'll probably still be Virgins, so that'll be something to look forward to.

Actor.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:45 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:24 pm
Posts: 1100
Location: Holy Forest of Unfounded Speculation
I really can't see a way to stop these people without bending the constitution, which is somewhere I don't think we should go. Really, there's no reasonable or realistic way to curb them within the system as it is. Maybe if the family's sue for emotional trauma, they might be able to do that without affecting the constitution. I'm pretty sure if you start following someone down six blocks of public streets screaming obscenities at them it counts as harassment, and the fact they research the soldiers so specifically should add weight to a harassment claim.
But really, if the only way to stop them is to bend the constitution, it ain' worth it.

Much Love


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:52 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
Sorry for being snarky, guys >.<; I've been kind of stressed out lately, and I realized that I've been putting waaaay too much personal vitrol into this debate than I really should have.

Update
Didn't know they picketed the funeral of Coretta Scott King. Wow.

10.9 million. Yikes.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:40 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:17 am
Posts: 871
Location: New York City
Score one for the good guys

But the sad thing is...

they still wont change.

Blue Sun Missile
happy..yet sad.

_________________
Image
Pintsize wrote:
"If Aliens ever really tried to contact us, it'd be through the internet, then 4CHAN would probably scare them off"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:49 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
<font>Blue Sun Missile</font> wrote:
Score one for the good guys

But the sad thing is...

they still wont change.

<font>Blue Sun Missile</font>
happy..yet sad.


Probably not. But who knows, that's a lot of money to pay off. Maybe they won't be able to afford those long trips to other states anymore *L*

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:42 pm
Posts: 1012
Location: Indiana Spaceport
This makes me want to get a bunch of gay people together, go to their next picket, and counterpicket them with intrepretive dance, and/or anything else that might make them angry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:50 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

If it's good enough for one of the founders of Liberalism and Utilitarianism, it's good enough for me.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group