This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
right but does being a holocaust denyer mean you belong to a hate group or are yourself a hate group? Anyway let's not derail. Potok's defense of Hebdo and accusation of this woman's group essentially amounted to Hebdo made fun of corporations too so they are ok.
The problem is decency is subjective. I guess we will just take a general consensus and go with that like everything else.
Certainly not anyone in here. I'd do it out of principle, because I believe we have a pretty good thing going on America. Freedom isn't guaranteed. It's a relatively new concept in human history and a lot more fragile than most people realize.
Eh, fair enough if that's the story. I lumped them in with all the other radical groups that indeed are trying to lower the age of consent so they can have man-boy love and sexualize children.I know. As if Bronski Beat were advocating having sex with children like NamblaThey were just trying to get the age of consent in the UK, which was 21 at the time, in line with other nations.
And actually this was a mainstream gay issue in the UK, hardly a radical one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Consent
By 1984, many European countries had reduced the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16, but it remained at 21 in the United Kingdom, having only been decriminalised in 1967; the wording of the legislation to decriminalise also included wording that placed restrictions such as making illegal the use of a hotel room for sex.[4][5] Homosexuality was further stigmatised beyond the restrictions placed on homosexual individuals, and homophobia was a danger to gay individuals.
Against this background, Bronski, Steinbachek, and Somerville met in Brixton in 1983, and soon formed Bronski Beat.[4] They signed a recording contract with London Records in 1984 after doing only nine live gigs.
Aside from the legal implications, of course people aren't going to be cool with it. But I'm not showing up with a gun and shooting people either. I mean, how many people got shot over the Piss Christ?
Very well said Ivan.
The effort to change the age of consent would primarily affect homosexual (more than heterosexual) relations?Eh, fair enough if that's the story. I lumped them in with all the other radical groups that indeed are trying to lower the age of consent so they can have man-boy love and sexualize children.I know. As if Bronski Beat were advocating having sex with children like Nambla
And actually this was a mainstream gay issue in the UK, hardly a radical one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Consent
By 1984, many European countries had reduced the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16, but it remained at 21 in the United Kingdom, having only been decriminalised in 1967; the wording of the legislation to decriminalise also included wording that placed restrictions such as making illegal the use of a hotel room for sex.[4][5] Homosexuality was further stigmatised beyond the restrictions placed on homosexual individuals, and homophobia was a danger to gay individuals.
Against this background, Bronski, Steinbachek, and Somerville met in Brixton in 1983, and soon formed Bronski Beat.[4] They signed a recording contract with London Records in 1984 after doing only nine live gigs.
Obviously a picture of a child being raped isn't going to fly anywhere, much less in view of a school. It's a silly example.
Exactly. The picture would be rejected because it depicted a heinous crime. The inclusion of Jesus would be irrelevant.
You could wear a red shirt on saturday. You're free to do everything else on that friday. Out of principle you'd risk your life to exercise your right to wear a certain color shirt on one random day? Sorry general i just don't get that. Easy to say you would in this make believe hypothetical but another thing to actually wear it.
I doubt that. I'm simply saying that the political advocates for extreme lowering of consent laws tend to be radical gay groups.The effort to change the age of consent would primarily affect homosexual (more than heterosexual) relations?Eh, fair enough if that's the story. I lumped them in with all the other radical groups that indeed are trying to lower the age of consent so they can have man-boy love and sexualize children.I know. As if Bronski Beat were advocating having sex with children like Nambla
And actually this was a mainstream gay issue in the UK, hardly a radical one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Consent
By 1984, many European countries had reduced the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16, but it remained at 21 in the United Kingdom, having only been decriminalised in 1967; the wording of the legislation to decriminalise also included wording that placed restrictions such as making illegal the use of a hotel room for sex.[4][5] Homosexuality was further stigmatised beyond the restrictions placed on homosexual individuals, and homophobia was a danger to gay individuals.
Against this background, Bronski, Steinbachek, and Somerville met in Brixton in 1983, and soon formed Bronski Beat.[4] They signed a recording contract with London Records in 1984 after doing only nine live gigs.
True that may be over the top but my point is what is deemed offensive to one group of people may not be to others.
You no longer have the right to choose your wardrobe. What you wear on any given day will now be determined by someone else. Are you OK with that?
No. That was not my example. The people offended by the cartoons are not killing anyone who just draws anything.
Would you honestly be scared to wear a red shirt on a Friday if you were threatened by a terrorist to do so? Are you really that afraid to die? I guess you are far different from myself and thankfully many others. If that scenario didn't spark a modern day revolution then nothing would.
that is your example. You said, "if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot," and you would simply make the rational choice to not wear red. By doing so, you allowed someone else to dictate your shirt color...you no longer have free and complete control of what you wear.
If I could jump In here bc it's where I was going to go, do you have any sort of line if a terrorist promises compliance will keep you alive
If the threat was credible then yes, I would be afraid that I could die. What about all of those residents near DC who dealt with the beltway sniper? They shouldn't have been afraid? Should have just gone about their business like everything was normal?
Great. I decided not to wear a certain color shirt on one specific day. I'll get over it. I do not believe I gave up much of anything, you think I gave up everything. The fact is I could have worn red but chose not to. I was always free and always in control. I just chose to be smart instead of doing something reckless "out of principle". Again, imagine your family going on without you because you had to prove to the world that you don't take orders from anyone and therefore wore the most red shirt the make as a middle finger to whoever made the threat. You sure showed everyone. We'll give you a toast in the bar after your funeral.
Not everybody is as comfortable with being bullied as you are. But you are right, being a chicken #### doormat of a human being is less risky.
That's perfectly rational. You are fine with allowing your wardrobe be dictated. What about what kind of car you are allowed to drive? Food you can eat? Who you marry? Church you go to? What you are allowed to read? What kind of job you get? Who you are allowed to associate with?
haha. ok. Personally I think wearing the red shirt would be a selfish act. You are putting you rep and a matter of principle ahead of your family and their future. But hey, nobody tells you what to do.
I'm drawing the line at whatever the specific issue is. In this case it's drawing Muhammad cartoons or the red shirt hypothetical.
Then you have no will.
I'm giving up nothing. This has turned into some kind of weird internet macho thing. Nobody is taking your freedom away. Choosing to potentially put yourself directly in harms way as a matter of principle doesn't make you brave, it makes you selfish and stupid. The people at the cartoon contest weren't being brave, they were being #######s.
It's not an event I would have wanted to attend and it's not that I even care about this organization. But what I think the point is that when you start letting threats of violence/terrorism dictate your way of life then you have trouble distinguishing where the line can be drawn. It's not going to stop at wearing a shirt, what if it's where you can worship or whether your daughter has the right to attend school? If you object to that being dictated to you then it's basically only a question of how much freedom you are willing to surrender. You are either free or you aren't, and if you are saying you acquiesce your freedom to threats of violence in some regard, then it calls in to question where the exact line is you are willing to be pushed to.
I'm thinking the same thing. If you're the sort of person who's going to murder somebody over a cartoon, you're going to get triggered somewhere along the line regardless.
Nobody is dictating anyone's way of life. You guys keep making this slippery slope argument. Stop. You can draw as many Muhammad cartoons that you want. Just know there are some people out there who could try to murder you because of the cartoons. You are free to make your own decision. I am free to wear my team's nfl jersey into an opposing stadium like Oakland. I know there is risk involved with that. There could be drunks that will fight me because of what I'm wearing but it's my call. Nobody is saying you can't do what you want but choosing to be prudent in certain situations does not mean that you are no longer free.
I just don't want to play the hypothetical slippery slope game. Women will never not be allowed to attend school here, we'll always be able to attend the church of our choosing. This specific instance is about a group of people drawing religious cartoons for the first time as to piss people off.
I disagree. This specific instance is about two religious zealots whose aim was to kill Americans. If it wasn't for the Muhammad cartoon, I contend they'd have found another cause because they hate most aspects of the Western way of life. They may have even chosen something you or someone you know was involved in that you didn't see as particularly risky.
I don't think you're agenda driven willie, but you did try to engage the hypothetical game in a borderline absurd matter so there's no so much thing as a slippery slope to pretend that a blue shirt could get you killed as easily a red one could.
But he got involved with a bad crowd in high school (drink, smoking and stuff) and then he found Islam. By the time he was in his early twenties, he was exploring violent jihad.
I believe I, and the two other heterosexual fellas on my cul-de-sac have been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, as have any who have honked at a Prius owner, or those who refused to read Mr. Yoshida's Bookstore to its conclusion after having started it.
This is a valid reason. And it's Mr. Ishida. Your deliberate misspelling is a clear anti-Japanese slur.
That seems to be the type of Muslim most likely to become radicalized.
Nelson is everything that is wrong with America. Where were you born Nelson? Obviously you are not from America.I'm assuming you are French since your moto seems to be roll over and take it.
