Author Topic: Free Speech? (Read 1301 times)

Kieran · « **Reply #15 on:** December 12, 2002, 03:30:50 PM »

Every bag of popcorn has some unpopped kernals.

Thrawn · « **Reply #16 on:** December 12, 2002, 03:52:04 PM »

Some people find the burning of your flag disturbing.

You can't have your free speech cake and not eat it to.

midnight Target · « **Reply #17 on:** December 12, 2002, 04:04:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Some people find the burning of your flag disturbing.

You can't have your free speech cake and not eat it to.

I think I have made myself clear in my various posts that I am all for freedom of speech etc.

My wife thought the picture was akin to an assault and wanted to call the police. I talked her out of it. (Yes I really am that open minded). I wonder though. There are obvious limits to freedom of speech, (yelling movie in a firehouse

). Does this sign constitute a form of pornography? If so is the bearer guilty of violating local ordinances against pornography? Especially pornography available to children?

whgates3 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 12, 2002, 04:41:26 PM »

if the picture is that nauseating, vomit on the guy

funkedup · « **Reply #19 on:** December 12, 2002, 06:23:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by whgates3
if the picture is that nauseating, vomit on the guy

Nice!

mrfish · « **Reply #20 on:** December 12, 2002, 06:36:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by festus
Mr. Fish would you please enlighten us on the eitiology and pathophysiology of cervical cancer.

i'd be glad to...... if i knew what the hell either of those words meant.

i do remember learning that (oddly) it is caused by a virus that many women carry and it can be discovered fairly easily by a regular checkup. is that incorrect?

-> a checkup btw, that even poor women can afford via clinics. the same clinics that usually have some fool standing out front praying at everyone.... the religious right can't wait to run those clinics out of town because they encourage sexual activity in their weird way of thinking by educating women about birth control and of course performing abortions-

what am i missing re: cervical cancer? correct me in english if you're gonna do it

funkedup · « **Reply #21 on:** December 12, 2002, 06:39:49 PM »

Yeah didn't you know all anti-fetus-murder people are anti-birth-control as well?

FunkedUp <----------- Opposed to fetus-murder, but in favor of birth control air strikes on certain parts of US cities.

Thrawn · « **Reply #22 on:** December 12, 2002, 06:50:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Yeah didn't you know all anti-fetus-murder people are anti-birth-control as well?

Don't you mean you a anti-rights-of-women-and-want-to-opress-them-and-and-turn-them-into-slaves?

And I am fights-for-the-rights-of-my-wife-and-daughter-and-am-unto-like-a-palladin.

Or we can use the terms that are accept as common usage for the to different beliefs? Pro-life, sounds good, for life and all. Pro-choice, sounds good, for choice.

Probably better to use those terms and argument the philosophies behind them, then to try and cloud the issue with different terms, isn't it?

funkedup · « **Reply #23 on:** December 12, 2002, 06:51:36 PM »

Holy straw man, Batman.

I'll use whatever terms I like to describe my own beliefs, thank you very much.

(Especially when the terms I use are completely accurate, assuming we are using the Queen's English here.)

mrfish · « **Reply #24 on:** December 12, 2002, 06:54:36 PM »

airstrikes funked??- hehe hey you don't happen to mean the marina district here in san fran do you? if so you'll have to act fast because i might be bringing all my fishy goodness to live in piedmont in the next few months

you represent a moderate view, most of the people out there with signs are a part of the religious movement against abortion which in most cases involves a parallel view against any form of birth control etc etc.

in fact, the "holy father" forbids bith control so i shall assume most catholics agree with him. maybe he reversed his holy word- anyone know for sure? i'm talking from memory so feel free to set me straight.

since i believe that there's no such thing as a soul, it doesn't bother me to see a fetus destroyed before the higher brain functions start- i know many don't agree but their constant protest does a lot of damage to young unfortunate girls who are already feeling low.

the supreme court's decision seems extremely considered and i think people ought to just back off and take the comprimise- i'd even like to see the viability date moved back even further, they should have to have abortions very early i think so i wouldn't mind seeing that change. but no one's going to budge so to end the BS we should all accept the comprimise.

personally though, i'd never want my wife to get an abortion, i love kids and even raised my friend's kid for a while when they were having a hard time- (2 years!) but everyone is not that way so why can't we comprimise and just get on with it. there's too many important things to worry about.

Kieran · « **Reply #25 on:** December 12, 2002, 07:16:07 PM »

Quote

the supreme court's decision seems extremely considered and i think people ought to just back off and take the comprimise- i'd even like to see the viability date moved back even further, they should have to have abortions very early i think so i wouldn't mind seeing that change. but no one's going to budge so to end the BS we should all accept the comprimise.

You're going to think this odd, but I am inclined to agree with this. In a practical sense, people are going to have those abortions anyway, so making it illegal will only kill more people. And since I believe it's God's place to judge this action (not mine), the compromise is the better way to go. Sure, I wish it wasn't legal, and I am against it, but I don't really believe the lines are going to move any more than you do.

midnight Target · « **Reply #26 on:** December 12, 2002, 07:46:03 PM »

Well, this may be a lost cause but...

I really don't care if you are pro choice or anti abortion. What about the picture?

Is it different than someone protesting a Catholic church by standing out front with a big picture of a man sodomizing a young boy?

Kieran · « **Reply #27 on:** December 12, 2002, 07:48:43 PM »

Let me ask you a question to answer your question; how do you feel about a picture of a crucifix in a glass of urine?

Second question: Yes, it's different. The clinics have as part of their express purpose for being the support and conducting of abortions. The Catholic church is not about sodomy in any way, and though it is lamentable how the priests are being shielded, it is definitely not what the churches are about. But to tell you the truth, if protesting in front of one of those churches will make the church get rid of the pedophile priest, then I am all for it.

midnight Target · « **Reply #28 on:** December 12, 2002, 07:55:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Let me ask you a question to answer your question; how do you feel about a picture of a crucifix in a glass of urine?

As they are both inanimate objects I think that most people would find the image less revolting than a mutilated corps or a graphic sex act with a child.

One other major difference. The photo you mention was placed in an art gallery. People were free to enter and view the objects there if they wished. Not the same as standing on a street corner with a huge blowup.

Kieran · « **Reply #29 on:** December 12, 2002, 07:57:26 PM »

Here's another major difference for you... my tax dollars helped pay for that picture, though I find it extremely offensive.