The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Ah, got it. If I intentionally surround a place, for the specific purpose of preventing you from entering or exiting that place, then it's your fault that you didn't get where you wanted to go before I intentionally prevented you from moving. I dont understand what you arent getting about what they did...what right do they have? A bunch of people are standing in an orderly line, WBC shows up and they think they can head to the front of the line? Should I be allowed to skip in front of everyone in line at the Redskins game? What if I went to the Rally to Restore Sanity in DC where all those people gathered. I show up late and decide I dont feel like standing at the back, so I walk around and get in front of the other people. I highly doubt security is going to allow me to do this. 9dzZbOgWq1A They could have stood anywhere they wanted to with everyone else it looks like...hyperbole on the writers part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 Larry, they lacked the courage of their convictions. If they believe that strongly in what they are doing, they should have pushed their way through the crowd. I wonder how god feels about their lack of courage in doing his good work? Larry, a few simple questions. Would you go to a soldier's funeral and protest in the manner that these people protest? How would you feel if this happened to a family member or friend of yours? If you are intellectually honest with yourself on these questions, then I believe you will come to see what I meant about morality. You know, that little "devil and angel" on the shoulder thing. Or for a non-believer, conscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 See, that's my point. That your right to express your opinion stops when you start denying rights to other people. You mean like denying the rights of the family to bury their son without emotionally torturing them? No one has denied Westboro's right to protest. They could have gone down the block and done it. They can drive to the DC and protest in front of the white house. They can and do have a website to voice their views. Having the right to protest does not give you the right to invade a boardroom or the oval office, or torture a grieving family at the funeral of their son. Furthermore, the counter protesters have every bit as much right to those sidewalks as the sick ****s from Westboro. Every single one of them had as much right to the sidewalk as the westbboro people. They are under no obligation to move out of the way. What happened in La Plata is freedom of speech and democracy at work. The idiots from westboro were more than fairly represented. It's not the fault of the counter protesters that the westboro morons are too stupid and insane to attract enough people to support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 You mean like denying the rights of the family to bury their son without emotionally torturing them? No one has denied Westboro's right to protest. They could have gone down the block and done it. They can drive to the DC and protest in front of the white house. They can and do have a website to voice their views. Having the right to protest does not give you the right to invade a boardroom or the oval office, or torture a grieving family at the funeral of their son. Furthermore, the counter protesters have every bit as much right to those sidewalks as the sick ****s from Westboro. Every lsingle one of them had as much right to the sidewalk as the westbboro people. They are under no obligation to move out of the way. What happened in La Plata is freedom of speech and democracy at work. The idiots from westboro were more than fairly represented. It's not the fault of the counter protesters that the westboro morons are too stupid and insane to attract enough people to support them. that should about end this thread. how can anyone argue that WBC's right of passage was violated when they never even attempted to get anywhere near??? that was their decision not to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 that should about end this thread. how can anyone argue that WBC's right of passage was violated when they never even attempted to get anywhere near??? that was their decision not to go. it won't be the end of the thread because larry, no matter how outnumbered he is, will always insist that others are just being obtuse or are unwilling / unable to see it the "correct way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 it won't be the end of the thread because larry, no matter how outnumbered he is, will always insist that others are just being obtuse or are unwilling / unable to see it the "correct way." Nope. Y'all are right. Your superior logic has convinced me that A person's right not to hear things he doesn't want to hear is more important than freedom of speech. Any political action group has the full authority to intentionally prevent any person they chose, from going anywhere they doesn't want them to go. If I intentionally assemble for the specific purpose of preventing you (or anyone else) from going where I don't want you, and you chose not to fight the mob I've assembled, then I have not infringed on your rights in any way. Freedom of Speech means "the right of the big group to prevent the little group from speaking". Or "the right of the little group to speak, as long as they don't do it where the big group doesn't want them to". I'm not sure which. Preventing dissident political groups from speaking is morality . Because I've underlined it. If I intentionally prevent someone from traveling where they want to go, then it's their fault, because they should have gone there before I fully established my blockade. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 My community really did a great thing this morning. Kudos to everybody involved. I wish I could have been there. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Telling-the-Westboro-Baptist-Church-to-go-to-hell-in-La-Plata-108164089.html?ref=nf I like this strategy, it avoids the free speech issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Larry, the loonies were denied the right to stand where they wanted to stand because someone else was already there. If I'm standing on a spot on the sidewalk, you don't have the Constitutional right to make me move so you can stand there, do you? And I knew if anyone would get my reference, you would. Well done sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Sorry Larry, you're wrong on this one. The WBC got out-maneuvered by legitimate means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Got it. 'Bout time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 i told you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted November 18, 2010 Author Share Posted November 18, 2010 Nope. Y'all are right. Your superior logic has convinced me that A person's right not to hear things he doesn't want to hear is more important than freedom of speech. Any political action group has the full authority to intentionally prevent any person they chose, from going anywhere they doesn't want them to go. If I intentionally assemble for the specific purpose of preventing you (or anyone else) from going where I don't want you, and you chose not to fight the mob I've assembled, then I have not infringed on your rights in any way. Freedom of Speech means "the right of the big group to prevent the little group from speaking". Or "the right of the little group to speak, as long as they don't do it where the big group doesn't want them to". I'm not sure which. Preventing dissident political groups from speaking is morality . Because I've underlined it. If I intentionally prevent someone from traveling where they want to go, then it's their fault, because they should have gone there before I fully established my blockade. Got it. The problem I have with your argument, is that you are only seeing the issue in black or white. The people in La Plata standing on the roadway did not prevent these people from access to their homes, or medical care, any other public place that common sense dictates they have the right to go without obstruction. This isn't the same as blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic. You really can't see the difference here? This is going to a soldier's funeral, when you have no good reason to go there, and standing outside the building yelling obscenities and absurdities for no other purpose then to inflame the family and friends of the deceased. (or to get them to react so you can sue them) There is nothing honorable about these people. They are despicable. The fact is, they were beaten, and they were beaten legally. Are the people of La Plata supposed to get off of the roadway, just in case somebody else might want to stand there instead? Absurdity They were there first, end of story. Edit: Actually, since they knew "Westboro Baptist Church" was coming to the funeral. They should have "saved them a space" so they could protest along side...in the name of free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Larry is a card carrying member of Westboro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Larry, the loonies were denied the right to stand where they wanted to stand because someone else was already there. If I'm standing on a spot on the sidewalk, you don't have the Constitutional right to make me move so you can stand there, do you? This is it. WBC were not prevented from going somewhere. They were not prevented from saying what they wanted to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 i really haven't figured you out in all these years. my theory is that you don't actually believe these things, but more you just like to be contrary. Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.