Vandalism is Morally Wrong and a Criminal Offense

[MRC_Hans]

Interesting how "two wrongs" give reasons to people think it is only "one right".

Two wrongs don't make a right, but 'wrong' is not unambiguously defined. We are only a few hundred generations out of the jungle, and there 'wrong' means anything whoever is stronger than you doesn't like just now.

We have come quite some way, and wrong now is whatever a fluffy entity called 'the majority' is supposed to not like. I very much like maritime law, because it starts by stating that no law can predict any situation, and no part of the maritime law should keep anybody from showing 'good seamanship' in a given situation. In other words, even if the law says 'turn left' there are situations where you should, and must, turn right instead.

Actually, I think a more powerful message would have been to walk up to these pricks, and pee on them.

Hans

 

[Quad4_72]

Freedom of speech is reprehensible?

Lol. Yes that's EXACTLY what I said and meant. I said "Freedom of speech is reprehensible." Let's go ahead and take a closer look at my post just to make sure:

They disrupt Ground Zero, which is also technically a grave site. They basically piss all over it every time they spew their nonsense at the site or even post in this forum. To me, even as a soldier, that is equally reprehensible

Well now that I look closer, I came NO WHERE NEAR saying that freedom of speech is reprehensible. I actually said twoofers spewing their nonsense at Ground Zero is reprehensible. Am I not allowed to have an opinion on them spewing nonsense? Yes I am. It is through freedom of speech that I am also allowed to condemn the actions of a few morons. Please go back to elementary school and relearn reading comprehension. It's obviously not your strong suit.

 

[brenn]

headed to their minivan

I just take it as even more proof of my opinion of people who drive minivans. I could have guessed that.

I mainly wonder why nothing worse ever happens to the WBC people. Is it because they are only attacking decent people who won't kill them?

 

[brenn]

Interesting how "two wrongs" give reasons to people think it is only "one right".

More interesting would be an explanation of why it is "wrong." Certianly illegal, but not necessarily "wrong."

 

[InfidelSavant]

I just take it as even more proof of my opinion of people who drive minivans. I could have guessed that.

I mainly wonder why nothing worse ever happens to the WBC people. Is it because they are only attacking decent people who won't kill them?

I think it's because most people are aware that the whole family are lawyers who are just looking for an excuse to sue.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

These winners are coming to a local high school as of a few days ago, and the article I read said they hadn't given a reason for their choice of location.

I may go. What I may see, I may report.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Freedom of speech is reprehensible?

I noticed there was some discussion of this. It is really quite simple, IMHO:

Free speech= Not reprehensible.
The things some people say under free speech= Reprehensible.

See?

Hans

 

[Crossbow]

But Heaven help me... I just can't come up with the tears for these victims.



I hope the criminal assailants behind the vicious attack on a fellow americans private property rights get everything they deserve.

So, I guess their new motto is:

GOD HATES TIRES!

 

[Kestrel]

These winners are coming to a local high school as of a few days ago, and the article I read said they hadn't given a reason for their choice of location.

I may go. What I may see, I may report.

Fred Phelps and his merry band show up wherever they can get publicity. Knowing that is his motive, your task is to figure out how to minimize the press coverage and exposure given to his little hate filled gang.

My one encounter with Fred Phelps was almost a decade ago at the memorial service for victims of the Columbine Massacre. The WBC gang had set up just after dawn along the path from the parking area. They were carrying their usual signs and hurling insults at everyone that passed.

A few of us came up with a simple idea. We sent a couple of volunteers back to talk to people heading for the memorial. Asking them to please ignore the protesters. Don't respond to the insults, just walk past them as if they are not even there.

The tactic worked. If you watched TV coverage of the memorial, you didn't see any mention of the WBC gang. The newspapers the next day had only a brief mention of Phelps and no photos.

 

[SnakeTongue]

On a side note...there is a possibility they slashed their own tires to get sympathy and play the martyrs.

I wouldn't put it past them.

You made a clever argument.

Indeed, it is a chance that they did it.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but 'wrong' is not unambiguously defined. We are only a few hundred generations out of the jungle, and there 'wrong' means anything whoever is stronger than you doesn't like just now.

We have come quite some way, and wrong now is whatever a fluffy entity called 'the majority' is supposed to not like. I very much like maritime law, because it starts by stating that no law can predict any situation, and no part of the maritime law should keep anybody from showing 'good seamanship' in a given situation. In other words, even if the law says 'turn left' there are situations where you should, and must, turn right instead.

Actually, I think a more powerful message would have been to walk up to these pricks, and pee on them.

Hans

Interesting...

So, "wrong now is whatever a fluffy entity called 'the majority' is supposed to not like."

So, "protest in funerals" is whatever a fluffy entity called 'JREF forum community' is supposed to not like.

So, "in other words, even if the law says 'do not physically and morally attack private property or people' there are situations where you should, and must," do physically and morally attack private property or people.

Yes, indeed...

 

[SnakeTongue]

I came NO WHERE NEAR saying that freedom of speech is reprehensible. I actually said twoofers spewing their nonsense at Ground Zero is reprehensible. Am I not allowed to have an opinion on them spewing nonsense? Yes I am. It is through freedom of speech that I am also allowed to condemn the actions of a few morons. Please go back to elementary school and relearn reading comprehension. It's obviously not your strong suit.

Yes, you are.

Thank you by the clarification, but I refuse your advice.

 

[fuelair]

Freedom of speech is reprehensible?

I never tire of pointing out that freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard, nor is it freedom to speak anywhere you happen to be, nor does it mean you can't be prosecuted for that speech. A lot of people seem to think it means you are free to say what you want to, where you want to, without any legal repercussions. 'Taint so.........

 

[MikeMangum]

The one thing you can say about the Phelps gang: they are uniters, not dividers. I can't think of any issue that unites a more diverse group of people (in opposition!) than the WBC. Just about everyone is in broad agreement that the WBC gang is repugnant.

 

[WildCat]

And a fine of several dollars.

Payable by January 1, 2075 OR ELSE!

 

[Thunder]

Westboro Church will be protesting outside a playhouse in Nyack, NY..on Saturday.

Ive thought about stopping by, with a sign saying "God hates the Westboro Baptist Church".

 

[Finn McR]

To correct the elementary school level understanding of "freedom of speech": The federal government of the United States is highly constrained in making laws restricting the freedom of citizens to express opinions (and make art involving nude people, pay big money to political campaigns, but that's a different topic). Individuals and groups of individuals reacting negatively, but within the bounds of law, against speech that they disagree with is in no way restricted.

Freedom of speech does not mean that I have to agree with what you say, or accept that you are free to have that opinion. A person can suffer consequences of what they say so long as it is not the government doing it (subject to various restrictions such as the well-known shouting-fire-in-a-theater). If I decide to stop being your friend because you spew holocaust denial, that is not an infringement on your right to free speech.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Interesting...

So, "wrong now is whatever a fluffy entity called 'the majority' is supposed to not like."

So, "protest in funerals" is whatever a fluffy entity called 'JREF forum community' is supposed to not like.

So, "in other words, even if the law says 'do not physically and morally attack private property or people' there are situations where you should, and must," do physically and morally attack private property or people.

Yes, indeed...

I was musing on a more general level. However, if you wish, then yes I do believe there are cases where breaking the law is the right thing to do.

Let us take a slightly less controversial example:

You are on the beach.
You see someone out in the water, yelling for help.
It is too far for you to swim, but there is a boat on the beach.

Now, interpreting the law strictly, since it isn't your boat, you cannot use it, that would be theft.

However, you will take the boat to try to save the person in the water.

QED: There are cases where breaking the law is the right thing to do.

Now, which cases is surely debatable, and there will be many different opinions.

Hans

 

[Aepervius]

The KKK used to hold a rally in Denver every Martin Luther King day.

One year, my friend Norm took MLK day off so he could mess with the Klan. Norm showed up early and watched the KKK guys park their cars. While the rally was in progress, he unscrewed the valve caps on their tires, removed the tire valve and replaced the cap. The tires would look OK when the Klansmen returned from the rally, but they were unlikely to remain inflated all the way home.

That is criminally dangerous, as when the tire slowly deflate , you can reach a point where you lose control of your car, especially at high speed. And hit an innocent 3rd party car.

I suggest slashing and making sure all 4 are deflated BEFORE they can even start : much safer , no risk of losing live.

 

[caniswalensis]

It's a very emotional issue. We all love to see jerks get a come-uppance, and these WBC people are some of the biggest jerks around. I was happy to hear that they were inconvienianced.

...BUT, I am disturbed by the story too. Same goes for the the police turning their backs on the sign theft complaints.

What this is saying is that if you are unpopular, you do not deserve protection or justice under our laws. That is just plain wrong.

Ask yourself: What if I had an unpopular belief that I wanted to promote? What if someeone attacked me or my property for doing so?

I turned this over in my mind for awhile, and I came up with another example of this sort of thing. I remembered three people that spoke out about their views and were denied protection under the law for doing so. The only differences I can see is the actual message, and the degree of injury done to them.

I am thinking of the three Mississippi civil rights workers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman & Michael Schwerner who were murdered in 1964.

Other than the degree of injury, I can't see a distinct difference between the injustice they suffered and what was done to the WBC in terms of moral or legal principals.

I would like to hear others thoughts on this comparison.

Regards, Canis