Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2015, 05:28 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 04:47 PM)Dom Wrote:  We live in a country with free speech. Everyone can say whatever they want, with some small limitations.

It perfectly legal and within my rights to wear a shirt to a black neighborhood with the words "all niggers are parasites", if people get angry, and violent it's their fault, i'm just an innocent victim, defending my right to offend.

If I get hurt, or assaulted most people would say I had that coming, it's typically when we offend religious sensibilities, that we expect folks to act differently.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 04:47 PM)Dom Wrote:  We live in a country with free speech. Everyone can say whatever they want, with some small limitations.

It perfectly legal and within my rights to wear a shirt to a black neighborhood with the words "all niggers are parasites", if people get angry, and violent it's their fault, i'm just an innocent victim, defending my right to offend.

If I get hurt, or assaulted most people would say I had that coming, it's typically when we offend religious sensibilities, that we expect folks to act differently.

The main difference, though not necessarily relevant towards the point you are getting at, is that race based criticism is irrational but Mohammad really was a child molesting piece of shit Tongue

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 05:46 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 04:47 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 01:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is it just religious people that you believe don't deserve to be free from getting offended, or all people?

Are you just trying to say that, people shouldn't be offended by words of pictures, or that they shouldn't be offended to the point of violence over words or pictures?

We live in a country with free speech. Everyone can say whatever they want, with some small limitations.
Limitations? What limitations? There is freedom of speech but not freedom from consequence, which is what I think you mean.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 06:05 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 04:47 PM)Dom Wrote:  We live in a country with free speech. Everyone can say whatever they want, with some small limitations.

It perfectly legal and within my rights to wear a shirt to a black neighborhood with the words "all niggers are parasites", if people get angry, and violent it's their fault, i'm just an innocent victim, defending my right to offend.

If I get hurt, or assaulted most people would say I had that coming, it's typically when we offend religious sensibilities, that we expect folks to act differently.
Are you trying to make a point? Are you saying it is wrong for someone to hurt you for inflamed or expressed speech? Yes it is. Is it wrong that you said or expressed it? No. Maybe more clarification is in order.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 06:09 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 04:47 PM)Dom Wrote:  We live in a country with free speech. Everyone can say whatever they want, with some small limitations.

It perfectly legal and within my rights to wear a shirt to a black neighborhood with the words "all niggers are parasites", if people get angry, and violent it's their fault, i'm just an innocent victim, defending my right to offend.

If I get hurt, or assaulted most people would say I had that coming, it's typically when we offend religious sensibilities, that we expect folks to act differently.

That would be hate speech, one of the exceptions. The other one is yelling"fire" in a place crowded full of people.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 06:09 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It perfectly legal and within my rights to wear a shirt to a black neighborhood with the words "all niggers are parasites", if people get angry, and violent it's their fault, i'm just an innocent victim, defending my right to offend.

If I get hurt, or assaulted most people would say I had that coming, it's typically when we offend religious sensibilities, that we expect folks to act differently.

That would be hate speech, one of the exceptions. The other one is yelling"fire" in a place crowded full of people.
Then why is the KKK and westboro allowed to assemble and spill out thier hatred?
And if there is actually a fire? (I know that's not what you meantTongue) Broadway can do it on stage. Now if the someone in the audience does it and causes a panic they should be prosecuted. Consequence. All within context is what I'm saying.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 09:19 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 02:28 PM)yakherder Wrote:  It's come out that it was a single officer, 60 years old, that took them both out. Two shots two kills within seconds of the security guard being attacked. Most articles are saying a .45 Glock, one says a .357. Either way, phenomenal shooting. That's some movie shit right there.

The weapon doesn't matter nearly as much as the man wielding it, as I'm sure you already know. Sumbitch handled his business.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 09:28 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 06:22 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 06:09 PM)Dom Wrote:  That would be hate speech, one of the exceptions. The other one is yelling"fire" in a place crowded full of people.
Then why is the KKK and westboro allowed to assemble and spill out thier hatred?
And if there is actually a fire? (I know that's not what you meantTongue) Broadway can do it on stage. Now if the someone in the audience does it and causes a panic they should be prosecuted. Consequence. All within context is what I'm saying.

Hate speech is not regulated in America. There is no right to be free from offense here.

That's the way it ought to be, in my mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
05-05-2015, 09:30 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It is perfectly legal and within my rights to wear a shirt to a black neighborhood with the words "all niggers are parasites", if people get angry, and violent it's their fault, i'm just an innocent victim, defending my right to offend.

If I get hurt, or assaulted most people would say I had that coming, it's typically when we offend religious sensibilities, that we expect folks to act differently.

Facepalm

I.. really am in many minds about how to respond to this post.

You can not be genuine in your comments with such a post.

Or are you actually saying you do not understand the difference between giving an opinion and slandering some one?

Is your grasp of language such? I do not think it is. I would hazard a guess that you are deliberately being disingenuous in your use of the language so as to 'get a rise' out of people.

Please, show me to be wrong.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 10:03 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 09:19 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 02:28 PM)yakherder Wrote:  It's come out that it was a single officer, 60 years old, that took them both out. Two shots two kills within seconds of the security guard being attacked. Most articles are saying a .45 Glock, one says a .357. Either way, phenomenal shooting. That's some movie shit right there.

The weapon doesn't matter nearly as much as the man wielding it, as I'm sure you already know. Sumbitch handled his business.

I just wish I could accurately emphasize to all the non gun people how much skill it really takes to pull off what he did. Dispatching two body armored guys with such speed and efficiency, with no prior warning that a confrontation was about to take place, starting the fight with his weapon holstered, and a weapon likely carrying ammo with very limited penetration (urban setting and all), making center mass not a viable option, and dropping both combatants before they even had a chance to finish off their first target whom they had already began shooting at. Those dipshits had every advantage you can possibly think of except for two very important factors. 1: They were dipshits. 2: They started their jihad right in front of a guy that as far as I can tell pretty much exemplifies the cliché Texas gunslinger.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like yakherder's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: