News of the day

Land of the free, home of the sick. 

And the organization doing the study is a private one, by the way... 

Edited by The T - November 19 2010 at 11:23

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The slashing of the tires is pretty disgusting. But the refusal of the town-folk to repair it is very admirable. Good for them.

Disgusting is the word I reserve for the assclown's protests.  But I must admit that is an interesting point of view.

Exactly right Pat.  We may hate their beliefs, doesn't mean we should applaud destruction of their stuff.  Next step is vigilantism.  And if we go do that road there's a few million other criminals I'd like to deal with.....ha ha

No, in a civil society, we keep our hands off other people's property and we don't harm them physically.  Whoever slashed their tires should be charged for it just as if they slashed yours or mine.   


Edited by Finnforest - November 19 2010 at 15:20

Tire slashing isn't destroying their property.  They still had the tires.  Setting their van on fire would have been going too far.  Also keying the damn thing would have been fine with me.  These people are basically vandals and vandalism is the perfect retaliation.

Finnforest wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Tire slashing isn't destroying their property.  They still had the tires.  Setting their van on fire would have been going too far.  Also keying the damn thing would have been fine with me.  These people are basically vandals and vandalism is the perfect retaliation. Pathetic comment, Slart What if people hate one of your views on something....Ok to start trashing your stuff?   You guys support that level of discourse?

Well, I was partly joking and I did draw a line.  Now excuse me while I track you down and slash your tires for calling my comment pathetic.  This isn't about someone hating their views, it's about their blatant and active disrespect for other people.  They are probably lucky that was the worst thing that happened.

So destroying tires, bad. Destroying poor soldier parents' spirit in the day of the funeral of the lost one, good.

But I understand the need to protect both their right to spill hate and their tires. Don't lecture me on that. I'm just personally happy it happened. I can't help it.

Edited by The T - November 19 2010 at 17:16

stonebeard wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330860/Fury-Pete-Alisha-Arnolds-website-vote-aborting-unborn-child.html I don't think this is right, but these people are probably in the top 5 most effective trolls ever, behind WBC.

If they are putting that kind of thing up for a vote on the web it's probably in the best interests of unborn.

I'm sorry Brian, that was a dickish comment I made.   I shouldn't have said it to you.

It is true that I defend the right of these people to say what they say, without being assaulted or getting their tires slashed.  I'm glad the counter protesters shout them down, I'm glad the bikers block their view of the funerals, and I personally think the WBC sucks big time.  But I'm proud of a country that puts a high value on free speech, lest we become a nation that bans a conservative shock jock like Michael Savage, as our misguided Brit friends have.  The guy has committed no crime, yet he can't enter Britain. 

Is there a trend these days to give words too much power, and actions not enough weight?  Some people get so wound up about the WBC, about people who use slurs, racial, homophobic, whatever.  Yeah, I completely understand its wrong to do that, but people almost seem more aghast about that than about actual physical violence perpetrated by criminals.  I get this attitude sometimes about crime, where people are like.....ahh, kid had a bad upbringing, yeah, he stabbed the old lady, but he shouldn't go to jail forever, we shouldn't fry him, etc.......or they generally downplay how horrific crime is, and they don't approve of harsh punishment or harsh treatment of people.  They'll advocate compassion for dirtbags who have truly wrecked someone's life.  But the same people will then go absolutely batsh-t about speech they don't like.  I'm sorry, but the people who I hate are people who make a choice to commit crimes against others, much more so than people who say stuff I find abhorrent. 

I've been picked on as a kid, I know it sucks to be called names, but people just give it way too much power.  You can call me anything you want to call me, and in 10 minutes I'll be over it.  Because I don't give a damn about a person who would do that to me....so why would I give their words any power over me?   

Edited by Finnforest - November 19 2010 at 23:13

Finnforest wrote: It is true that I defend the right of these people to say what they say, without being assaulted or getting their tires slashed.  I'm glad the counter protesters shout them down, I'm glad the bikers block their view of the funerals, and I personally think the WBC sucks big time.  But I'm proud of a country that puts a high value on free speech, lest we become a nation that bans a conservative shock jock like Michael Savage, as our misguided Brit friends have.  The guy has committed no crime, yet he can't enter Britain.

Dean wrote: Every country excludes people, even the USA - in 2004 Yusef Islam was refused entry to the US.

"Two years later, in December 2006 Yusuf was admitted without incident into the United States for several radio concert performances and interviews to promote his new record.^[68] Yusuf said of the incident at the time, that, "No reason was ever given, but being asked to repeat the spelling of my name again and again, made me think it was a fairly simple mistake of identity. Rumors which circulated after made me imagine otherwise."

I don't know about the Fisk issue so can't comment.

And correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't Savage permanently denied entry to the UK, whereas your first example was a stupid error on the part of US authorities but was ultimately resolved.

I'll leave you with a quote from the mayor of London:

Of the banning, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, wrote: "America still has a constitutional protection of free speech, and I have been amazed... to see how few people in this country are willing to stick up for that elementary principle... a country once famous for free speech is now hysterically and expensively sensitive to anything that could be taken as a slight."