DwayneEMTP Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Yeah Mike, from that article it sounds as if he made his ruling and then offered an opinion, as is common in any court. Had he offered the opinion that tormenting women is bad, he would not be seen as a judge ruling his bench from a sexist point of view, but being he said so of a Muslim, then he needs to be crucified. (yeah, words chosen for the irony) DEFIB, I absolutely get what you're saying. But we seem to have become a country where being victimized is the rule and defending yourself the exception. And my history as a behaviorist probably has more to do with my opinion than Dylan's autism. I just see the purposeful antagonizing of others, simply for the purpose of antagonizing them, related to free speech in the same way that yelling 'fire' in a theater is. Do we wish that all speech was worthy of protection? Of course, and the vast majority of it is. Should it all be protected? Not when it's a verbal form of assault directed at certain people or populations and it's sole intent is to hurt and provoke response. When we disallow yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater are we showing out contempt for free speech, or simply drawing logical boundaries based on the expected behavior when that is done? As chbare said, I've definitely gone off in the ditch where keeping my comments story specific is concerned. I just have issues, and maybe emotionally so, when we watch victimizers revel in the power of free speech as a tool to victimize others with what could be long lasting mental and emotional pain but then cry when they become the victim of minor, transient physical pain. I know. I've been pushed and punched. (I know that's hard to imagine.) It's really not that big of a deal. When you say that there are other ways to deal with such people. What ways would that be? I mean a way that is going to change their behavior and make them less likely to victimize others in the future.
Eydawn Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Don't'cha hate it when the person you're trying to engage in debate runs off and says "nah, I'm bored" instead? Passive aggressive indeed... lol... but we'll come back to this thought. Hang tight. I think the judge's explanation makes sense. I also applaud the judge for wishing to be sensitive to those of various faiths, and for trying to educate a couple of doofi. Too bad the interwebs took the story and bulshitted it out of proportion. As far as nasty, awful demonstrations go, yeah... they get our ire up, especially when they target those who can't defend themselves. But I know you're a smarter bear than you make yourself out to be, and I know you'd rather teach your son how to handle things like an adult... the sentiment of wishing to beat the shit out of someone and the ability to restrain ourselves are two different things. I know you would not land yourself in jail just to make a point, because that's not what's best for your boy. And, offense is in the eye of the offended... some people just overreact. A zombie Muhammad seems innocuous to us... but it's a matter of different cultural lenses here. Anyway. Sometimes, the best offense is simply TO walk away, and deprive the person trying to bait you of an audience. Oop. Wait. That's what AK did. But, I think he walked away from a valid interchange... I think it's a tactic best used against those you truly wish to shut out, or those who need to take it down a few notches before you can engage meaningfully with them. I think AK jumped the gun a little... but maybe he just didn't feel it... *shrugs* I'll always fight with you... (isn't that what female friends are for?? LOL) Wendy CO EMT-B
DFIB Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Dwayne, By behaviorist are you saying that your behavior is conditioned to punch him out or the behavior of the jerk that is behaving badly is conditioned by society? I am not sure I understand. The problem with regulating free speech is that who gets to define what is offensive and what is not? I know that the intent of offense would be key but two people in different settings could say the exact same words, one intending to offend and the other intending to express an idea. How could we legally define the difference between a person screaming in the street or screaming in a pulpit? Why can a white guy sit under racist speech and be tarred and feathered but when a black guy does it he is elected president. It is not a fair world. In a different thread someone said they use border jumpers for target practice. I find that profoundly offensive and a dangerous admission on a public forum. I have not seen that anyone else cared except for you. But you see my point. This is way too complex for my limited intellect. Would I like to go kick the Woodsboro types in the nuts? Heck yea! They are haters and the poorest representation of the doctrines of Jesus ever! It is too bad that no one has found a loophole to stop them. I guess kicking them in the crotch would not be a WWJD moment either. One thing is admirable in your post. You love your family enough to be willing to risk your freedom to defend even their feelings. Although I favor restraint sometimes there are things you have to do if you are going to be a man.
paramedicmike Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 In a different thread someone said they use border jumpers for target practice. I find that profoundly offensive and a dangerous admission on a public forum. I have not seen that anyone else cared except for you. But you see my point. At the threat of derailing this discussion, you know what I find interesting? I called out that same poster for inflammatory, profoundly offensive comments in another thread recently and caught all sorts of hell for doing so. You do the same thing and not a peep from the peanut gallery. We all make a stink about presenting a professional image on this forum. It's amazing the lack of consistency when applying that professional image to comments made here. It's also amazing the excuses some will make as to why offensive behaviour is acceptable. Just thinking out loud.
DwayneEMTP Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Wait...was that me? Not the shooting, even I'm not dumb enough to make fun of that, but the calling out?
DFIB Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 At the threat of derailing this discussion, you know what I find interesting? I called out that same poster for inflammatory, profoundly offensive comments in another thread recently and caught all sorts of hell for doing so. You do the same thing and not a peep from the peanut gallery. We all make a stink about presenting a professional image on this forum. It's amazing the lack of consistency when applying that professional image to comments made here. It's also amazing the excuses some will make as to why offensive behaviour is acceptable. Just thinking out loud. You are just lucky.
Richard B the EMT Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Momma B is reminiscing a lot, about a time my sister reamed me for saying, when I was 4 or 5, that a black school safety patrol crossing guard shouldn't have been in the position. She yelled at me that he had just as much right to hold the position as a white kid. Took her a few minutes to understand that I felt the kid, who happened to be black, was too SMALL. He was black, and I simply used the word "black"as descriptive of his appearance, not as racial prejudice at his position. I now stand ready to get the slings and arrows of outrageous scorn from the altitudinally challenged.
MongoMedic2 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 After reading the threads from this article, I am just simply amazed. First off, this was during an ATHEIST parade. In order to have a parade (at least in any community that I have ever lived in) you have to have some type of permit in order for that parade to take place. truth be known, that is not even the most important factor in this debate and that is that this person (a Muslim) attacked this other guy (an Atheist) for his dressing up like a zombie Mohammad. The judge in this case (according to the article) ruled in favor of the Muslim, because he was acting in accordance with Sharia law. The First Ammendment of the Constitutions of the United States strictly prohibits this. This is from my extensive research via Wikipedia (sorry did not take from the actual document) The establishment clause is "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another." Which this was interpeted by the US Supreme Court as meaning "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." This judge acted in accordance with the fact that the US recognizes Sharia Law (which governs a sect of the Muslim religion) over that of the US Constitution. This is wrong, anyway that you look at it. Could the act of dressing up like a zombie Mohammed be offensive to someone, well sure? Just as all the jokes about Catholics could be, or making fun of someone’s kid. The point is that we live in a country that allows for this freedom of speech, expression, religion, and that of the press. Legally speaking, we cannot go hitting folks for things that “offend us”. If that was the case I would be hitting a lot of folks every day, and telling the judge they offended me. Now if someone made fun of my child, hurt my child, or did something that I found offensive enough would I hit them? Maybe, but then I would have to face the consequences legally. The simple point in this debate, is the judge ruled in favor of one religion over another. By the US Constitution, which is what our land is governed by, is wrong. Mongomedic
paramedicmike Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Mongo, I suggest you review the comments provided by me and Asys on page three of this discussion. I think after reading those comments and the link provided, especially the information provided by Asys regarding what the judge in question actually said (as opposed to being referenced by a third party blog post which is hardly considered news) you'll find the arguments you just presented are not based in anything resembling what actually happened. The case was dismissed for lack of evidence. Sharia law had nothing to do with it.
DwayneEMTP Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Yeah man, the follow up articles show that the first was desperately slanted. The judge decided the case on the evidence based on American law, and then gave a personal opinion regarding purposely desecrating anyone's faith or beliefs. His opinion included Muslim specific commentary only from the point of view of his doing tours in the Army in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and his experiences with them there. Personal opinions are not uncommon following legal rulings. In fact, I once heard from a friend of a friend, we'll call him Dwayne for the purposes of this conversation, that after one ruling a judge looked down at him from the bench in front of a packed court room and yelled, "You disgust me!! If I could give more pain to your stupid ass I would do it in a heartbeat! Do you hear me!!" Of course, that's just hearsay.... Though I've also heard that his friend's grown up a bit since that's happened..... In a later statement the judge makes it clear that he is, and has for a long time been, a Christian.
Recommended Posts