Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2016, 06:28 AM
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
(30-05-2016 01:24 PM)Vosur Wrote:  "You deserve rape" is a statement of opinion because it conveys a point of view rather than outlining negative consequences for (not) taking certain actions.
I'd have to disagree with this. Would you also agree that the claim that "homosexuality is a perversion of nature" as being simply an opinion? Or that "negroes have less intellectual abilities than do whites" is an opinion? I'd certainly hope not—or would you claim the right for an individual to voice those opinions in a public place? Do you not see the difference between privately-held and publicly-voiced opinions?

You're also missing the point that just because someone has a personal opinion, oftentimes it can be an assault on human decency, morals, or ethics. And because of this, it needs to be and should be censured by any half decent society such as ours. Holocaust deniers, for example, fit the classic need for censuring.

Quote:To be honest, I'm more disgusted by everyone in this thread who is advocating violence and censorship against people who are using their first amendment rights than I am at the people who are saying all this horrible stuff.
So you're maintaining that what this bloke was saying—although morally reprehensible to any rational thinker—was perfectly okay under the circumstances? That hundreds of immature, impressionable teenagers should be unavoidably exposed to this sort of violent diatribe without their (or their parents) agreement or acceptance? Would you be happy if he'd called your 14-year-old daughter a slut because of the clothes she was wearing—in public?

If you seriously believe that the bloke was merely exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, then you need to check on the legal definition of "fighting words"—which are not protected by the First Amendment:
Quote: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Quote:You know what people like you are called? The Regressive Left.
And people like you could be called laissez-faire libertarians?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
31-05-2016, 06:47 AM
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
(31-05-2016 06:28 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Would you also agree that the claim that "homosexuality is a perversion of nature" as being simply an opinion? Or that "negroes have less intellectual abilities than do whites" is an opinion? I'd certainly hope not—or would you claim the right for an individual to voice those opinions in a public place? Do you not see the difference between privately-held and publicly-voiced opinions?
Freedom of speech does come at a price Undecided I do believe that someone expressing these same revolting views should be protected by law.

Quote:You're also missing the point that just because someone has a personal opinion, oftentimes it can be an assault on human decency, morals, or ethics. And because of this, it needs to be and should be censured by any half decent society such as ours. Holocaust deniers, for example, fit the classic need for censuring.
TBH... as satisfying as it would be even holocaust denial is not something that I'd be comfortable censoring. Censorship is, I believe, a necessary evil, in that for example expressing certain opinions may actually cause a riot - in the end I'm not looking to ride some moral high horse off into the sunset, it's just about society being relatively free and relatively peaceful. But censorship should be an absolute last resort. It's better for stupid ideas to be refuted than their expression to be quashed. (Used 'quash' in a sentence. +10 points for me!)

Quote:If you seriously believe that the bloke was merely exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, then you need to check on the legal definition of "fighting words"—which are not protected by the First Amendment:
Quote: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

That's an interesting thing - I didn't know there was a legal precedent. Hopefully el kiddo who whacked this boy might be able to show good cause that he needed a loving tap Consider Certainly my sympathies are more with her than with him. ETA: Although... grievous bodily harm??? Good grief. Couldn't she have been satisfied with a tomato? Or a punch on the nose???

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
31-05-2016, 06:57 AM
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
Violence and speech inciting violence begets...brace yourselves...violence.

Didn’t see that coming (pun intended).

[Image: p-62954-roger-maris-new-york-yankees-8x1...f-9380.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2016, 07:38 AM
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
If he believes this was all part of gods' plan, then maybe in his own fucked up little mind, he'll change his tactics and not use a bullhorn near a school, yelling obscene messages at teenagers.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2016, 07:45 AM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2016 11:12 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
(30-05-2016 11:27 PM)DLJ Wrote:  How far should he have been allowed to go?

On what grounds could the police have removed him?

Should children (in this case, young adults) be protected by isolation or by inoculation?

Consider

Good questions all.

The whole episode, both in real life and now here, is a great teaching moment.
What constitutes free speech, hate speech, speech inciting violence etc.
I’m surprised and not surprised at the reactions here and at the scene.

Adults at the school should have immediately called the police. This would have had the effect of reducing the odds of a possible altercation between civilians and *protected the kids from doing what kids are apt to do, resort to gut reactions without first thinking things through (some people never get past this stage I’m afraid).

This incident touches on vigilante justice.

vigilante
n. someone who takes the law into his/her own hands by trying and/or punishing another person without any legal authority. Example: A mother who shoots the alleged molester of her child is a vigilante.

Assholes like this guy should be used as a segway to “teach the controversy” (sorry).

Disclaimer: It would have taken all my self-control (and I’m not sure I would have been able to stop myself) not to have physically tried to take away this guy’s bullhorn. This is coming from a guy who growing up always leaned towards physical confrontation.

I think in high school (15-18 year olds) the curriculum should discuss and teach about the responsibilities that come with free speech and how best to handle situations like this (Social Studies). A baseball bat should not be one of the options.

*PS I use the word “protected” not as keeping them from hearing this crap but instead of keeping them from reacting the way this one person did. Protecting them from themselves.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
31-05-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
Don't forget the baseball bat. Where did it come from? Did she bring it with intent to use as weapon or did it just happen to be there and she was so agitated by his words (PTSD from having been raped) that she used it?

Many nuances there.

[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
31-05-2016, 07:56 AM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2016 08:01 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
(31-05-2016 06:28 AM)SYZ Wrote:  I'd have to disagree with this. Would you also agree that the claim that "homosexuality is a perversion of nature" as being simply an opinion? Or that "negroes have less intellectual abilities than do whites" is an opinion? I'd certainly hope not—or would you claim the right for an individual to voice those opinions in a public place? Do you not see the difference between privately-held and publicly-voiced opinions?
These are indeed opinions and yes, of course an individual should be allowed to voice them in a public place. That's what free speech is all about. It doesn't just apply to points of view that you personally agree with.

(31-05-2016 06:28 AM)SYZ Wrote:  You're also missing the point that just because someone has a personal opinion, oftentimes it can be an assault on human decency, morals, or ethics. And because of this, it needs to be and should be censured by any half decent society such as ours. Holocaust deniers, for example, fit the classic need for censuring.
You're absolute scum in my eyes for wanting censor people just because they happen to publicly disagree with something that doesn't fit your subjective morals and ethics or because they want to question the historicity of an event. You're only okay with censorship because your views happen to align with those held by society at large. You certainly wouldn't be okay if someone tried to censor you because you disagreed with their moral views and that's what makes you a disgusting hypocrite.

(31-05-2016 06:28 AM)SYZ Wrote:  So you're maintaining that what this bloke was saying—although morally reprehensible to any rational thinker—was perfectly okay under the circumstances?
Yes.

(31-05-2016 06:28 AM)SYZ Wrote:  That hundreds of immature, impressionable teenagers should be unavoidably exposed to this sort of violent diatribe without their (or their parents) agreement or acceptance? Would you be happy if he'd called your 14-year-old daughter a slut because of the clothes she was wearing—in public?
I wouldn't be happy, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to do it. They could have called the police instead of assaulting him with a deadly weapon.

(31-05-2016 06:28 AM)SYZ Wrote:  If you seriously believe that the bloke was merely exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, then you need to check on the legal definition of "fighting words"—which are not protected by the First Amendment:
Quote: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Oh, look. Another attempt at mental gymnastics to twist a vague and subjective definition to fit this case. The same argument can be and has been made to silence any sort of protest or public disagreement with views held by the society you live in (e.g. someone protesting for women's rights in Saudi Arabia or LGBT rights in Russia).

(31-05-2016 06:28 AM)SYZ Wrote:  And people like you could be called laissez-faire libertarians?
I'd prefer "constitutionalists", "free-speech advocates" or simply "decent human beings." You sound more like a fascist to me than anything else.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2016, 08:29 AM
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
(31-05-2016 07:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(31-05-2016 06:28 AM)SYZ Wrote:  You're also missing the point that just because someone has a personal opinion, oftentimes it can be an assault on human decency, morals, or ethics. And because of this, it needs to be and should be censured by any half decent society such as ours. Holocaust deniers, for example, fit the classic need for censuring.
You're absolute scum in my eyes for wanting censor people just because they happen to publicly disagree with something that doesn't fit your subjective morals and ethics or because they want to question the historicity of an event. You're only okay with censorship because your views happen to align with those held by society at large. You certainly wouldn't be okay if someone tried to censor you because you disagreed with their moral views and that's what makes you a disgusting hypocrite.

I can’t tell if you are taking this moment to showcase the point by example or not. Consider

In either case Popcorn

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2016, 10:05 AM
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
The right to free speech was not established to protect popular opinions; it exists to protect unpopular speech.

Our rights have seen enough erosion as it is. I don't see personal offense as being anywhere near a sufficient reason to justify further weakening of a precious right.

We have the right to free speech. We do not have the right to be free of offense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
31-05-2016, 10:10 AM
RE: Preacher hit in head with baseball bat
Yeah, I don't feel bad for him because he got clobbered for saying something amazingly stupid. I don't believe he should have gotten hit, because 1) it certainly isn't going to change his mind or anyone else's and 2) he has a right to say whatever stupid shit he wants.

If someone says something stupid, don't hit them physically, but batter them verbally by pointing out the idiocy and the lunacy.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: