Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Where is that happening?
Originally posted by Astner
That's the point I'm defending. I don't think anyone should be held liable for burning political symbols. If you disagree with a particular ideology (for whatever reason) you should be allowed to voice that disagreement any way you see fit, as long as you're not threatening, inciting, or harming another person.
Agreed with Astner here, flag burning should be allowed as a protected form of expression, as long as it's done in a safe manner.
I personally find it to be a silly practice in most cases.
Originally posted by cdtm
Dunno why anyone tries punching someone in the hardest parts of the body. Me, I always go for the soft bits, a hyper extended arm is an invitation to rip up those ligaments and soft tissue around the armpits and rotator cuff.Maybe people subconsciously just avoid areas that do real damage.
You'd be doing yourself a solid favor in not pretending that the anime you watch is real and you live it 👆
Originally posted by Robtard
You'd be doing yourself a solid favor in not pretending that the anime you watch is real and you live it 👆
If only walking around with 100 extra lbs of weights actually got you buff, instead of destroying your knees and back and heart as happens to morbidly obese people. 😛
There's definitely a line, no one really agrees where it is though. Up in Keene New Hampshire a guy brandishes a shotgun to some college girls, they tell the police, and they just say "Well, didn't use it did he? So no harm done." No clue of laws against brandishing even exist there, they may have had the right of it but sounds crazy to me.
Personally I think the line should end at insults though. No one owes respect, and no one really has the right to retaliate for not being respected. And saying "words have real harm" is just another tactic to retaliate, you can't really prove saying "God hates such and such" causes other people to enact violence, and it would be real easy to apply that standard to anyone and everything because the cause and effect is speculative.
Was complimented by a guy who raises and breeds dogs, the way I had Callie playfully chasing after a biscuit in my hand and then allowing me to take it back from her to continue the game impressed him, said it shows she wants to engage me more then she wants to eat, even thought she was drooling all over the place. Said it proves I put great care and attention in raising her.
I dunno, I think Callie is just a very good dog and I got lucky. 🤒
Originally posted by Smurph
Re: the flag stuff, context is everything. Freedom of expression doesn't (or shouldn't, depending on where you live) extend to threats or hate speech. It's easy to imagine scenarios where burning a flag doesn't fall under either category, but it's also easy to imagine scenarios where it does.
Of course not, just like Freedom of Speech has limitations, like threatening people or putting people in danger.
But flag burning specifically, while I agree that someone burning a Gay Equal Rights flag is probably doing it as a threat and to intimidate gay people and their supporters, hard to prove though.
Originally posted by Astner
That's the point I'm defending. I don't think anyone should be held liable for burning political symbols. If you disagree with a particular ideology (for whatever reason) you should be allowed to voice that disagreement any way you see fit, as long as you're not threatening, inciting, or harming another person.
You are defending against something that is not happening. Since you are such a staunch defender of the First Amendment, you should put that energy into defending against violations that are actually happening like book and speech bannings.
Originally posted by RobtardYeah, freedom of expression and freedom of speech are synonyms
Of course not, just like Freedom of Speech has limitations, like threatening people or putting people in danger.But flag burning specifically, while I agree that someone burning a Gay Equal Rights flag is probably doing it as a threat and to intimidate gay people and their supporters, hard to prove though.
Sure, but proof is a separate issue.
Originally posted by AstnerFor not caring that a reasonable American would see the burning of a Pride flag as a threat of violence or dehumanization of those who identify as LGBTQ.
For not wanting dissenters jailed?
You're free to believe what you want. But your freedom of belief is different from your freedom of speech. Speech is a two-way street. You're expressing a message to an audience. Accordingly, the reaction of the audience must matter. You cannot possibly declare that you don't care how people react to your speech and act like you're still engaging in speech. At that point, you're just talking to yourself. And if that's what you want to do, then keep it to yourself. I'm all for that. Otherwise, you're just some guy screaming and yelling on the subway to nobody. In which case, don't waste my time.
Originally posted by cdtmProbably far more than you think I would.
But you're ok with protesting against the government.
Originally posted by cdtmNo problem so long as you're not waving a burning pride flag in their face. Because any reasonable American is going to take that as a threat of violence.
So if the government says "People who chop their dicks off are women" and you wanna protest it, where's the problem?
Originally posted by AstnerActing like your intolerance is solely limited to 5-yr old trannies is disingenuous. The internet doesn't erase your posting history.
I'm with you 100% about the crosses burning thing because that's a clear threat, being anti-tranny when kids are involved is another thing.
Not unless your some pedophile who tries to get an entire thread nuked over your public embarrassment.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are defending against something that is not happening. Since you are such a staunch defender of the First Amendment, you should put that energy into defending against violations that are actually happening like book and speech bannings.
Speech bannings! 😂
You mean like "dead names" or pronouns? Compelled speech is as anti-1st amendment as it gets.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
you should put that energy into defending against violations that are actually happening like book and speech bannings.
You know what, I'm just gonna say it. Ban me if you want, but here goes. You're obv taking about teaching kids about gay sex in the class room. Ok, so they wanna teach Cisgender isn't the only kind if lovin', fine. But why does that require step by steps about acts if intimacy? Why the books, or the innuendo, or the descriptives?
You want people to know you exist, FINE! Congrats, we know you exist. But do I go and tell you about our gross hetero sexcapades? Being a straight white male myself, I don't think I'd do that, because I'd assume you wouldn't be interested. I'd assume you'd maybe find it a little bit gross.
So [b]WHY THE **** WOULD YOU THINK A STRAIGHT PERSON WANTS TO KNOW WHAT GOES ON BETWEEN QUEER FOLK IN THE BEDROOM??!
Seriously, we're just not into that, and you know this or you wouldn't try and wind up some person you don't like too much with gay imagery, as you HAVE on this forum
And fair play if there's a ton of sexual stuff going around the forum, that's only fair then, but just saying forcing that down peoples throat because "tolerance" is absolutely bullshyte.
Rant over.
^ I find it hard to believe any reasonable American believes that the progressive agenda is teaching pre-teens how LGBTQ people have sex. Particularly, given sex-ed education doesn't even occur until high school in the most "woke" states like NY.
In certain States, the LGBTQ community is currently fighting against conservative legislation that bans any mention of a person's gender identity before middle school. So if somebody ever wanted to mention that a student's parents are two women or that Alan Turing was gay... banned. Whether or not they're a part of the community, it's actually true or that it is history.
That's one small step removed from banning any discussion of biraciality and that a student's father and mother are white and black respectively. "Dont Say Biracial". Why? Because people of different races cannot coexist? Does that engender tolerance or hatred? Then flip it back to "Don't Say Gay."
You either get it, or you don't.
Originally posted by cdtmPromise?
Rant over.