jesus is a c**t

As long as you ignore all those really explicit bits about how the universe was created.
Click to expand...

Right. Or treat them as proper metaphores, which is what most believers do, except for the really hardcore, stupid part.

What? Please explain to me how creationism answers a "WHY" question and not "HOW" the universe came to be.
Click to expand...

I was responding to Stern's comment about religion not creationism. Ya retard.
 
Idiot.

If you took time to read up on my views, you would easily see that I'm not a religious person.

So yes, by all means, go kiss that ass of yours, once you get your head out of it, of course.
 
This thread is pure lol'z :LOL:
 
holy shit...i was gone few hours and all shit broke loose!

anyway...Stabby

yes the article was referring to blasphemy. and i hardly doubt if only the boobs caused such outrage. i mean come one...there are tons of naked people on ads. at least in my part of Europe.

ace....stop being a dumbass


i posted this article because it needs attention, since "our" liberal values are being hunted down one by one because of irrational fears.

stop referring to atheist, like some monsters or a group of bad guys.


i totally agree with stern. i'm not supporting that kid who wore the shirt, but it's his right.

i think that we consider sexuality as evil. due to the religious background. look at countries with less religious roots. japanese for instance. they seem to be comfortable with it, and their kids seem to do well.
seriously...stop being such prudes. kids can be taught to understand these things, keeping them in the dark is a bad practice.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Idiot.

If you took time to read up on my views, you would easily see that I'm not a religious person.

So yes, by all means, go kiss that ass of yours, once you get your head out of it, of course.
Click to expand...

Why the **** do you think I was talking to you or about you ?
 
Let's see: post underneath mine, form identical to one used when referring to the person posting above you, general manner...

You should make more precise costs.

A propos, Stern, tell me, does a shirt "HOLOCAUST LOLZ" fit into your free speech definition?
 
Are you christian ?


Yes - I told that to you.

No - I didn't tell that to you.
 
Are you oversimplifying? Yes, so stop being a **** Jesus was.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Right. Or treat them as proper metaphores, which is what most believers do, except for the really hardcore, stupid part.
Click to expand...
Please, interpret these metaphors for us. You see, as a student of literature, I can tell you that if there is one thing humanity is very good at, apart from all the killin' and civilisin', it's art. There is no excuse in the word of God for art that does not work. Further, I find it very difficult to understand precisely on what basis a Christian should decide which parts of the Bible are explicity, and which parts of the bible are metaphorical.
 
Sulkdodds said:
Please, interpret these metaphors for us. You see, as a student of literature, I can tell you that if there is one thing humanity is very good at, apart from all the killin' and civilisin', it's art. There is no excuse in the word of God for art that does not work. Further, I find it very difficult to understand precisely on what basis a Christian should decide which parts of the Bible are explicity, and which parts of the bible are metaphorical.
Click to expand...

That's the Catch-22.

Yes. Why?
Click to expand...

Thank M'Atra the law isn't written by you.
 
I admit that I know very little on the matter itself, but even a simpleton such as myself should be able to see that there must be a more rational explanation than GOD DID IT LOL to explain the intricacies of the Universe.

But I have read the Bible, because I live in South Carolina and we are basically given one when we are born, and If the the God that is described in the Bible exists, he is an evil mutha.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Thank M'Atra the law isn't written by you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fuck personal freedom, who needs it?

If you think the holocaust is funny, then by all means: continue being ignorant. But ignorance is not punishable by law and neither is a bad sense of humor.

Punishing such behavior is also ignorant though, because it just fights a symptom of ignorance rather than the actual ignorance. If someone thinks the holocaust is funny, then he's poorly educated on the subject which is the actual problem, not that he is expressing it. If you forbid him expressing his ignorance, he'll still be an idiot and he'll continue to think the holocaust is funny.

But if we're going to outlaw offensive things then I'd like to cast a vote on the outlawing of furries.
 
Ennui said:
can't we all just love one another?
Click to expand...

nah...long term relationships don't work that good.


whoring around is much more fun, and infectious :)


wtf...i'm derailing my own thread..


anyway, personal freedom over ridiculous fairy tales. if you don't harass the person you're offending, than he has no right to call the cops on you.


i'm deeply offended by advertisement boards, that literally block nice views. i find them appalling, they are insulting me and they are hurting my (imaginary) kids.

who should i call the cops on?
 
PvtRyan said:
Yeah, fuck personal freedom, who needs it?
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I was wrong, let's make freedom of speech an ABSOLUTE right! After all, it's bad to criminalize false bomb alarms or people shouting "FIRE" in the cinema. Hey, it's their freedom to do so, we can't infringe on that!

Nice thinking, Sherlock.

If you think the holocaust is funny, then by all means: continue being ignorant. But ignorance is not punishable by law and neither is a bad sense of humor.
Click to expand...

Law protects everyone, like it or not. If someone displays an image that's offensive to you (say, Cpt. Stern goatse'd) you have the right to demand action to be taken, just as much as anyone else.

Seriously guys. Are religious people some kind of untermensch to you?

Punishing such behavior is also ignorant though, because it just fights a symptom of ignorance rather than the actual ignorance. If someone thinks the holocaust is funny, then he's poorly educated on the subject which is the actual problem, not that he is expressing it. If you forbid him expressing his ignorance, he'll still be an idiot and he'll continue to think the holocaust is funny.
Click to expand...

Using this logic, we shouldn't punish murderers, as its only fighting a symptom.

But if we're going to outlaw offensive things then I'd like to cast a vote on the outlawing of furries.
Click to expand...

I suggest outlawing you. That ought to be funny.

i'm deeply offended by advertisement boards, that literally block nice views. i find them appalling, they are insulting me and they are hurting my (imaginary) kids.

who should i call the cops on?
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, some cities have laws regulating it's looks/area planning (I don't know the exact terms). Look up if yours has, if it has, you can see if any action can be taken. You could also try getting the neighbour to remove by appealing to the local authorities claiming that it's done in a malicious way.
 
CptStern said:
it's relative to who you are. would you argue that a cartoon depicting mohammed as a terrorist is offensive? no? well there's plenty of people who would find it offensive


personally I dont find it offensive
Click to expand...

So i could wear a shirt saying That your moms a **** and have pictures of her naked on my shirt?
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Oh yes, I was wrong, let's make freedom of speech an ABSOLUTE right! After all, it's bad to criminalize false bomb alarms or people shouting "FIRE" in the cinema. Hey, it's their freedom to do so, we can't infringe on that!

Nice thinking, Sherlock.



Law protects everyone, like it or not. If someone displays an image that's offensive to you (say, Cpt. Stern goatse'd) you have the right to demand action to be taken, just as much as anyone else.

Seriously guys. Are religious people some kind of untermensch to you?



Using this logic, we shouldn't punish murderers, as its only fighting a symptom.



I suggest outlawing you. That ought to be funny.



If I recall correctly, some cities have laws regulating it's looks/area planning (I don't know the exact terms). Look up if yours has, if it has, you can see if any action can be taken. You could also try getting the neighbour to remove by appealing to the local authorities claiming that it's done in a malicious way.
Click to expand...

Nice job on missing the point of freedom entirely, it must have taken some effort to do that.

Like I said before, this is what freedom should entail:

You have the right to think, say and do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else to do the same thing.

That doesn't mean that you should be an asshole, it just means it's up to your personal discretion to decide what's appropriate and that the government can't enforce niceness and "decency" because that's a slippery slope.

A fake bomb threat is not covered by this because it hinders freedom of others.

Murder is not covered by this because it hinders the freedom of someone else.

You can't even say that a fake bomb threat is freedom in a society where everyone has equal freedom because the "freedom" to make the threat is at the cost of someone else's freedom. You can almost say it's a zero sum system!

Azner said:
So i could wear a shirt saying That your moms a **** and have pictures of her naked on my shirt?
Click to expand...

Depends, if you somehow got a hold of naked pictures of my mom in a legal way then there's not much I can legally do (but that doesn't mean I wouldn't shove you down a flight of stairs) unless you followed me around with it, taking away my choice to see the shirt or not or if you called her by her name on the shirt (slander). But since Jesus isn't a living person nor does he have any relatives I don't think it can be called slander. And neither does anyone have copyright on the use of his name as a fictional character.
 
Azner said:
Ignore
Click to expand...

:upstare: just because I dont find that t-shirt particurarily offensive it doesnt mean there isnt a single image that I couldnt find offensive .....why do I even have to explain this? it's such an asinine question that really doesnt need to be asked but here we are



Mikael Grizzly said:
Oh yes, I was wrong, let's make freedom of speech an ABSOLUTE right! After all, it's bad to criminalize false bomb alarms or people shouting "FIRE" in the cinema. Hey, it's their freedom to do so, we can't infringe on that!

Nice thinking, Sherlock.
Click to expand...

slippery slope; he's not saying that under every circumstance free speech should be protected ..and ifree speech does not cover shouting "fire" in a crowded theater


Mikael Grizzly said:
Law protects everyone, like it or not. If someone displays an image that's offensive to you (say, Cpt. Stern goatse'd) you have the right to demand action to be taken, just as much as anyone else.
Click to expand...

no you dont, unless that person is breaking the law the best you can do is get angry over it but in no way shape or form do you have the right to stop the person from displaying that image ..again so long as it doesnt break any laws


Mikael Grizzly said:
Seriously guys. Are religious people some kind of untermensch to you?
Click to expand...

I'm offended by that statement because of it's historical/horrific significance; you're labeling us as no better than nazis/eugenicists ..you have every right to say what you like and I have a right to be offended but you'e not going to make that statement disappear just because I'm offended

see how that works?



oh and for the record other sites have also run this story, hl2 reaction to this issue is tame in comparison to the majority I've seen on the internets. For the most part our members are far more tolerant than some of the community members in some of the threads I've read in the past day or so. that goes for both christians and non christians ..this story really brings out a lot of anger (mostly from the religious side of things; "jesus is a c*nt" has hit a nerve)
 
tl;dr

I love how it is so easy to bait you people into posting blocks of text.
 
Right, so you realize you haven't got a foot to stand on and suddenly you have been trolling all along? Uhuh.

Besides, your block of text (the so called 'bait') was 958 characters while my response was only 890. Fail troll.
 
Just saw this thread. I'd see a person in his situation be given a warning at the most, but arrested no. What really offends people though would be the naked nun, honestly, it insults both Christians and Women, kills two birds with one stone. And yeah religion does play a bit of a part in this I'd say. The Policeman was probably a Christian, and in his half-assed state arrested him. Imagine if the shirt had read "All*h is a ****" and showed some horrible image, I actually think the police would have ignored him (at first glance)
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
tl;dr

I love how it is so easy to bait you people into posting blocks of text.
Click to expand...

the least you could do is stand up for the statements you've made. backing off by saying you've been baiting us makes you look bad not us
 
I'm with Sulkdodds on this one... wtf, Grizzly.
 
Grizzly you're an idiot, seriously, re-read all what you've said here .
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Oh yes, I was wrong, let's make freedom of speech an ABSOLUTE right! After all, it's bad to criminalize false bomb alarms or people shouting "FIRE" in the cinema. Hey, it's their freedom to do so, we can't infringe on that!

Nice thinking, Sherlock.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think the state should legislate against any form of speech. A cinema is private property, so if the cinema company don't want people screaming fire in their cinemas, they have every right to kick them out, and sue them for any loss of revenue. Similarly with a bomb threat, that would shut down a city centre or other building and waste the police/ emergencies services time, would allow the business to sue for loss of revenue and wasting police/ emergency services time should be illegal. I don't think the panic caused to an individual is really grounds for criminalization, unless it causes a heart attack or severe inconvenience, then a civil suite could be brought for inconvenience and reckless endangerment of life for a heart attack.
 
Mr Stabby said:
I personally don't think the state should legislate against any form of speech. A cinema is private property, so if the cinema company don't want people screaming fire in their cinemas, they have every right to kick them out, and sue them for any loss of revenue. Similarly with a bomb threat, that would shut down a city centre or other building and waste the police/ emergencies services time, would allow the business to sue for loss of revenue and wasting police/ emergency services time should be illegal. I don't think the panic caused to an individual is really grounds for criminalization, unless it causes a heart attack or severe inconvenience, then a civil suite could be brought for inconvenience and reckless endangerment of life for a heart attack.
Click to expand...

it's no different than calling 911 under false pretenses; they could fine you, it's at best a misdemeanor ..anyways you're thinking in absolutes on principle alone without thinking about the practicality around the issue of free speech
 
CptStern said:
it's no different than calling 911 under false pretenses; they could fine you, it's at best a misdemeanor ..anyways you're thinking in absolutes on principle alone without thinking about the practicality around the issue of free speech
Click to expand...

What practicality issues around free speech?

If a man is standing on the edge of a cliff, and I sneak up behind him and shout 'BOO', which startles him and causes him to fall to his death. Should the act of shouting BOO be illegal, or causing the man to fall to his death. Speech in itself is harmless but if the repercussions of your actions are not, then you are responsible for such repercussions.
 
Mr Stabby said:
What practicality issues around free speech?
Click to expand...

why is it so hard to follow what I say?

the "fire" in a cinema? we were just discussing it

Mr Stabby said:
If a man is standing on the edge of a cliff, and I sneak up behind him and shout 'BOO', which startles him and causes him to fall to his death. Should the act of shouting BOO be illegal, or causing the man to fall to his death. Speech in itself is harmless but if the repercussions of your actions are not, then you are responsible for such repercussions.
Click to expand...

if I tell someone to kill someone else I am not in the least guilty according to your absolutist ideology ..the law disagrees with you
 
CptStern said:
why is it so hard to follow what I say?

the "fire" in a cinema? we were just discussing it
Click to expand...


I've already addressed that. If I were to shout fire in a cinema and everyone ignored me, is it still a crime?

if I tell someone to kill someone else I am not in the least guilty according to your absolutist ideology ..the law disagrees with you
Click to expand...

I disagree with the law, I disagree with many laws. I'm sure there are laws you disagree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
America's Education System Is Fine
Replies
31
Views
2K
Escaep
Escaep
Back
Top