Hackers Release Information on Westboro Baptist Church Members After CT Threat

[supergoat52]

That is admirable, at it's very best. You forget to think about the psychological and societal damage that can and does happen as a result of these people, as small of a crowd they may be. It's not always about the presence of physical violence.

We simply no longer have the wish to protect ourselves in the most fundamental of ways. Our priorities are definitely out of order.

I agree with the majority of what you are saying, but the point many of us are trying to make is that if you and i were arguing whether these were peaceful protests or not in a court of law, i would win hands down. Many protests cause some degree of psychological damage, often that's the point (see pro-life demonstrations). I am not forgetting these things, none of us are.

From what i understand you agree that i would win the peaceful argument in court, but you think those laws should be changed. Perhaps, but i don't think you are grasping, or at least acknowledging how big of a shift in philosophy that is for the constitution. That quote Malt posted would no longer apply and would have to be amended. You would literally be changing the Bill of Rights for the sake of 40 people. My point, and from what i understand the other people in this thread arguing with you, is that the bill of rights and what it stands for is more important than pissing these 40 people off, who would just find a new avenue to annoy/psychologically harm people.

[Jack Brickman]

I agree with the majority of what you are saying, but the point many of us are trying to make is that if you and i were arguing whether these were peaceful protests or not in a court of law, i would win hands down. Many protests cause some degree of psychological damage, often that's the point (see pro-life demonstrations). I am not forgetting these things, none of us are.

From what i understand you agree that i would win the peaceful argument in court, but you think those laws should be changed. Perhaps, but i don't think you are grasping, or at least acknowledging how big of a shift in philosophy that is for the constitution. That quote Malt posted would no longer apply and would have to be amended. You would literally be changing the Bill of Rights for the sake of 40 people. My point, and from what i understand the other people in this thread arguing with you, is that the bill of rights and what it stands for is more important than pissing these 40 people off, who would just find a new avenue to annoy/psychologically harm people.

I just find it funny that he thinks a couple of funeral protests mean that the laws regarding freedom of assembly must be changed, but dozens of mass shootings haven't had the same effect on him regarding the right to bear arms.

[Ignatius]

I agree with the majority of what you are saying, but the point many of us are trying to make is that if you and i were arguing whether these were peaceful protests or not in a court of law, i would win hands down. Many protests cause some degree of psychological damage, often that's the point (see pro-life demonstrations). I am not forgetting these things, none of us are.

From what i understand you agree that i would win the peaceful argument in court, but you think those laws should be changed. Perhaps, but i don't think you are grasping, or at least acknowledging how big of a shift in philosophy that is for the constitution. That quote Malt posted would no longer apply and would have to be amended. You would literally be changing the Bill of Rights for the sake of 40 people. My point, and from what i understand the other people in this thread arguing with you, is that the bill of rights and what it stands for is more important than pissing these 40 people off, who would just find a new avenue to annoy/psychologically harm people.

I disagree and I've given plenty of reasons why. It would not be for the sake of 40 people.

[Ignatius]

I just find it funny that he thinks a couple of funeral protests mean that the laws regarding freedom of assembly must be changed, but dozens of mass shootings haven't had the same effect on him regarding the right to bear arms.

I would find it funny as well if I actually believed that.

We are simply on 2 different wavelengths pertaining to these issues.

[Jack Brickman]

I would find it funny if I actually believed that as well.

Based on this topic, you're totally for changing rules regarding freedom of assembly. Based on the gun control topic, you're vehemently against any laws that add restrictions to the right to bear arms, and in fact seem to think the solution is more people carrying guns. I'd say that's pretty cut and dry.

[Ignatius]

Based on this topic, you're totally for changing rules regarding freedom of assembly. Based on the gun control topic, you're vehemently against any laws that add restrictions to the right to bear arms, and in fact seem to think the solution is more people carrying guns. I'd say that's pretty cut and dry.

Unfortunately, your comprehension of what I have said in this forum is misconstrued.

The solution is rather complex, but it indeed starts with the normal, otherwise law abiding citizen to responsibly protect themselves by arming themselves and allowing them to do so.

Please do not say I am vehemently against any laws that add restrictions. I am for removing nonsensical laws (there are plenty of them in place already) and placing better and more appropriate laws, if necessary.

[Ignatius]

[supergoat52]

I just find it funny that he thinks a couple of funeral protests mean that the laws regarding freedom of assembly must be changed, but dozens of mass shootings haven't had the same effect on him regarding the right to bear arms.

BigMar, I believe you are literally the only person i have ever met with these two, normally opposed, stances. Perhaps you have a unique and well thought-out perspective, or maybe you are being hypocritical without knowing it. Assuming the former, I don't think you have adequately justified such a monumental change to the bill of rights. It takes more than just "these guys are huge assholes, why are we protecting them?", at least for me, and i think much of America.

Ultimately we all hate them and wish they would just shut up. I guess myself and others just value the consistency of laws/rights more as they contribute to society, while you feel that making exceptions for giant assholes would improve society rather than undermine those foundations. I can respect that, though i strongly disagree.

[Ignatius]

BigMar, I believe you are literally the only person i have ever met with these two, normally opposed, stances. Perhaps you have a unique and well thought-out perspective, or maybe you are being hypocritical without knowing it. Assuming the former, I don't think you have adequately justified such a monumental change to the bill of rights. It takes more than just "these guys are huge assholes, why are we protecting them?", at least for me, and i think much of America.

Ultimately we all hate them and wish they would just shut up. I guess myself and others just value the consistency of laws/rights more as they contribute to society, while you feel that making exceptions for giant assholes would improve society rather than undermine those foundations. I can respect that, though i strongly disagree.

I'll go even a step further to explain that I believe we are already making an exception FOR these assholes by allowing them to protest a funeral in the first place.

It takes more than just "these guys are huge assholes, why are we protecting them?", at least for me, and i think much of America.

- And unfortunately, it would probably take another 5,000 funeral protests, maybe. Maybe they hit you? Hopefully it won't be you.

I'm not sure how you can strongly disagree when the very laws you want to uphold do no good to society. The protesting of a funeral does absolutely nothing for anybody. I've made that distinction in this thread before.

Protesting of a funeral should be punishable by death. I would throw your ass right in the ground alongside the unfortunate soul that you want to make a mockery of.

Again, we continue to cater to these people. We are not infringing upon their rights. We are catering to their beck and call. And again I will say...it's quite the mockery.

Even in death, we can't understand the value of life.

[Backstage]

Protesting of a funeral should be punishable by death.

I was already wary about posting on this topic, but how can anyone take you seriously, much less you take yourself as sincere, when you say things like that?

The WBC is an abomination of anything attached to religion (coming from someone who hasn't sniffed a church since he was 6), but to associate protesting something (even a funeral) with rape and murder is grossly misjudged.

[Jack Brickman]

Protesting of a funeral should be punishable by death. I would throw your ass right in the ground alongside the unfortunate soul that you want to make a mockery of.

[Ignatius]

I was already wary about posting on this topic, but how can anyone take you seriously, much less you take yourself as sincere, when you say things like that?

The WBC is an abomination of anything attached to religion (coming from someone who hasn't sniffed a church since he was 6), but to associate protesting something (even a funeral) with rape and murder is grossly misjudged.

No one is associating the act with rape or murder. You are only looking at it from a physical harm standpoint. I'm looking at it from not only a societal standpoint and the advancement of our ideals, but from a psychological standpoint of those affected (those who have their funerals protested [come on man, everyone goes to funerals]) as well as those stupid enough to protest a funeral (deterrence).

Protesting funerals serve no purpose, to anyone, at all (unless you're in the WBC....lol again, mockery I say). Please, please please, somebody prove me otherwise.

I don't give a shit if you take me seriously or not. I do not care what your opinion is in the end. My conscience is clear, my friend.

And with that, may you have a good night

[Backstage]

No one is associating the act with rape or murder. You are only looking at it from a physical harm standpoint. I'm looking at it from not only a societal standpoint and the advancement of our ideals, but from a psychological standpoint of those affected (those who have their funerals protested [come on man, everyone goes to funerals]) as well as those stupid enough to protest a funeral (deterrence).

Protesting funerals serve no purpose, to anyone, at all (unless you're in the WBC....lol again, mockery I say). Please, please please, somebody prove me otherwise.

I don't give a shit if you take me seriously or not. I do not care what your opinion is in the end. My conscience is clear, my friend.

And with that, may you have a good night

YOU are associating protesting a funeral (yes, I agree that it benefits no one but those using it as free exposure) with rape and murder by suggesting those who do so deserve death. Pretty sure those those two crimes are the only ones punishable via execution in America.

Lemme watch some more SVU, and I'll get back with confirmation.

[supergoat52]

You asked to proven otherwise, he is where I do that:

Ok here's some. The WBC has benefited society because it has allowed us to engage in a conversation and draw some clear ethical boundaries. It has provided thousands of people the chance to unite against clear bigotry. It gives christians who oppose gay marriage a chance to show that they still believe in a loving god who does not in fact hate fags. It allows our population to really show support for our troops by turning out by the dozens/hundreds to block the hate. In fact, at events where opposition is organized, it could even be a net POSITIVE for the families!

Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1693548.html
Quotes from the family of the fallen, this literally took 5 seconds to find:

Several times, Wyatt's parents, Randy and Sherry, and brother Chandler, came out of the church before the 1 p.m. service to greet and hug attendees.

"Thank you so much," Sherry Wyatt said on one occasion, holding a bouquet of red roses.

"The outpouring of love has been overwhelming," said Judy Baker, a close family friend. "It's so great to live in a community that is willing to honor the fallen. … This is what Americans are made of, and to see it on display is an experience I'll never forget."

Baker said her son summed it up when he said Columbia typically feels like a small city, "but today it feels like a town with everybody coming together," she said.

But the biggest prize of allowing groups like the KKK and WBC to exist is that it grants us something called a Free Country. A Free Country where i can state my opinions on everything without worrying about some nutjob sentencing me to death over it because i offended his god. A Free Country where i can build a temple for and openly worship my personal god, who happens to be made almost entirely of spaghetti. A Free Country where i can shoot a deer on Thursday, get drunk and hookup with a chick on Friday, bang a dude in his ass on Saturday, and blog about it Sunday while eating whatever the fuck i want to eat. A Free Country that, ironically, many soldiers fought and died to save, and they deserve to be honored... by keeping this flawed, but ultimately fucking fantastic country Free.

[Tlyons]

And close thread



Edit: But seriously that was a great post and I agree 100%.