Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Phelps clan barred from entering Britian
I Read This
November 18, 2018, 19:28:21 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Lupinia Hosting Community, which hosts I Read This, is supported by donations!  Please contribute if you're able, click here for details.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Phelps clan barred from entering Britian  (Read 12565 times)
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2009, 16:08:19 EDT »

Something people seem to be accepting here is that it is reasonable to have laws against hate speech, it is not.  The problem is how can perceptions of hate be fully removed from any form of political opinion.  For example, if you disagree with me on some subject you may "hate what I stand for".  How different then is that from hating me?  (This is the differentiation Geert Wilders makes below).

Really the important thing is incitement to violence.

Claiming that it's impossible to be a moderate Muslim is incitement to violence;
Have you read what you have said about religion yourself in the past?

Yes. What do my character and past actions have to do with this? Why even bother with an attempt at hiding an ad hominem?
I wasn't trying to make an ad hominem attack.  My point was some of the things you have said about religion before are not exactly friendly.  If the same standards were applied to you as to Wilders those remarks may have led to you being excluded from the visiting the UK.  Do you agree with that?

Claiming that someone is not moderate is not an incitement to violence.  Both major parties in the UK have at one time or other labeled the supporters of the other as dangerous radicals.  Many other groups have being labeled so too.

Claiming that a Muslim is not a moderate is a claim that the same Muslim is a radical in most people's eyes. Even those who accept that the vocal minority of Muslims are not representative of the moderates, see that calling someone a radical Muslim is the similar to calling them a terrorist. This is an invitation for vigilante justice.

Saying "politicians call each other radicals all the time" is no counter to this. A radical politician is still a part of what is seen as a rational body. When a politician actually is a radical, they usually get thrown out of whatever analogue of Parliament they're in and raise a rogue army. At that point, they're no longer thought of as a politician. Hell, even radical Christians are still seen as part of society.
To begin with the word radical seems to have changed meaning a lot recently.  It's original meaning was very different.

Anyway, I agree to some extent with your assessment of the situation.  I don't think that Wilder is inviting "vigilante justice" though, he specifically rejects that.

What I'd point out about your comments above though is how woolly they are.  Remember, whenever we talk about something minor like this and law or government it's the general case that is most important.  The precedent that a decision like this sets is more important than the decision.

Let's say the public agree with you and we say that what constitutes incitement is something very complicated.  Something based on things which are "understood" but not spoken.  Can you imagine the way such a law would be abused?

Claiming that gays will end civilisation is an incitement to violence. I shouldn't have to explain that one.
It isn't incitement to violence until they actually come and incite some violence.

They have. Their stated intention is to incite more. What's the problem?
Have they?  I fail to see how saying "God hates Fags" or something similar is anything more than an insult.

But it's not: they've said what they're coming into the country for. They've released statements to the press about it. And they'll do exactly what they've said, if the past is any indication.
If they break the law while protesting they can be arrested and extradited when they do.

So, if a guy has a knife at your neck, it's not a crime? He hasn't actually injured you yet, so it's pre-judgement to think that he will, in fact, slit your throat.
That situation is an entirely different one.  To begin with it involves physical harm.  Intent to insult someone or something is hardly a crime of a similar magnitude.  Secondly it is a person to person situation with clear evidence.  Thirdly it should be dealt with by the law not by politicians.  See my response to Andrei.

Intent to start a riot isn't a physical threat? Bragging about it in advance isn't clear evidence?
Is this intention publicised anywhere?

You'd feel more comfortable having a brand new department of the police set up just to reject visa applications? Why are police more able than politicians?
Yes.  But really it is a job for the judiciary.  Partisan politicians should be kept out of it.

If they're wrong, you get the chance to question and challenge them.

Did rational arguments ever work against demagoguery? In a battle between the two, I'd bet my money firmly on the latter.
It may not work on the supporters of such demagoguery.  However, it's almost unnecessary for the rest of the population to even go as far as arguing.  Phelps and his family are a walking comedy show.


Hardly. You might laugh at such displays, but your gay friends are much less likely to. Nor are your American friends. Phelps is taken seriously by a lot more people than you might otherwise think.
I'll put to you a question I often ask Wodan.  If you believe that the public are morons then why do you advocate democracy at all.  Surely what is needed is a wise and noble group of leaders who would not be taken in by such demagoguery?

I don't believe the public are morons. I believe that groupthink means that the group IQ is that of the smartest person among the group, divided by the number of people in it. Thus decisions made on a group level are nearly always stupid.
Well, I wouldn't give it such mathematics.  But, I see your point and agree to some extent.

However, were you to arrive at a conclusion yourself, and argue that conclusion with other people who did the same... Convincing others, or being convinced, with the best arguments available would eliminate the groupthink. Thus, climate change would be argued with facts, not ideology. We'd already be on the "so what the hell do we do" phase, and probably be well into the "now fixing shit" phase. Instead, ideology and groupthink mean that we're still arguing over whether it exists.
Well, regarding climate change I don't think the debate is as foolish as you do.  The questions "Is it man made?" and "Is it actually economic to do anything about it?" are still up for serious debate in my view.

I do think that a meritocracy would be better than a democracy, if merit was an objective measure. It's not, so we're stuck with a system that would work in the real world, if people would actually take an interest. And because people don't, no system is going to work.
Yes, I agree with you there.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2009, 16:34:27 EDT »

In regards to my etiquette demands I have, in fact.  As a matter of fact (as someone who has been beaten and arrested a few times) I am very polite even during riots.  I am even polite when I am beating someone into a bloody heap.  The rules of proper etiquette are not subjective.

Anyway...(a more relavent point)
The eco-movement was a joke for a long time because it was a joke, and like other perfectly valid movements which allow the most insipid to speak for them (I'm looking at you MPC (Pot party in Canada), and you RNC (Limbaugh, really?)).  David Suzuki was a national treasure and ruined his reputation with over-exaggeration.  Gore committes scientific homocide in his movies.  The underlying facts may be true, but the arguments they use are spurious.

This is the same sort of contempable behavior as a baptist telling me I will surely go to hell for lust (and thus there must be a god).

No, I oppose this sort of discourse and all it's proponents and would happily see them tilled into the red earth.  I take the same position on victimspeak.  Political discourse is for adults, and if you cannot discuss like an adult, you can go sit with Sarah Palin.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2009, 16:42:08 EDT »

I think it was an english person who once said "Manners are for including a person in a group, etiquette is for keeping them out".
Quote from: Heq
I am even polite when I am beating someone into a bloody heap.
That wasn't what they meant.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2009, 17:45:16 EDT »

Current, you just don't understand the upper class.

The purpose of etiquette is to serve as a replacement for morality, as anyone who's attended high level private schooling can attest, especially if they came from the British system.

If you think there isn't an ettiquette to a good fist-fight, or even a bar room brawl you are sadly mistaken.  There are a whole slew of rules underwriting everything but the most primative of societies.  Have you ever been in a good hockey fight, or seen one?  There are certain things in a brawl that are just a no-go because they would actually hurt someone rather then just knock them about, you might get cut in a proper fight, or knocked out, but only someone who can't defend themselves in any way will be seriously injured (and if you're fighting such an abject wuss, expect someone who can fight to give you an utter thrashing unless such a wuss did something which deserves a beatdown).

The example most people would be familiar with is not hitting a downed man, unless the offense is one which warrants such an attack (a fairly small list actually), and you certainly wouldn't hit him in any case once he was out as that would be counter-productive to the goal of communicating an intolerance for certain behaviors in society.

Intolerance, by the way, cuts both ways.  It can be good.  Drugging drinks at bars should be intolerable to society, as an example.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2009, 20:30:47 EDT »

Something people seem to be accepting here is that it is reasonable to have laws against hate speech, it is not.  The problem is how can perceptions of hate be fully removed from any form of political opinion.  For example, if you disagree with me on some subject you may "hate what I stand for".  How different then is that from hating me?  (This is the differentiation Geert Wilders makes below).

Really the important thing is incitement to violence.

Claiming that it's impossible to be a moderate Muslim is incitement to violence;
Have you read what you have said about religion yourself in the past?

Yes. What do my character and past actions have to do with this? Why even bother with an attempt at hiding an ad hominem?
I wasn't trying to make an ad hominem attack.  My point was some of the things you have said about religion before are not exactly friendly.  If the same standards were applied to you as to Wilders those remarks may have led to you being excluded from the visiting the UK.  Do you agree with that?

If it was judged that my past behaviour was a potential incitement to violence, I'd be unhappy about it. But I'd also see their point. I've heard it described as this, in relation to Christian missionaries during the Beijing Olympics: It's like going over to someone else's house and smoking in their living room. If they don't want you to do it, they're likely to kick you out and send you the bill for deodorising. In this case, the Phelps clan, and Wilders, have expressed a desire to smoke in living rooms. Were it decided that what I was doing was smoking in living rooms, so be it.

I thought accepting consequences was part of the libertarian deal?

Claiming that someone is not moderate is not an incitement to violence.  Both major parties in the UK have at one time or other labeled the supporters of the other as dangerous radicals.  Many other groups have being labeled so too.

Claiming that a Muslim is not a moderate is a claim that the same Muslim is a radical in most people's eyes. Even those who accept that the vocal minority of Muslims are not representative of the moderates, see that calling someone a radical Muslim is the similar to calling them a terrorist. This is an invitation for vigilante justice.

Saying "politicians call each other radicals all the time" is no counter to this. A radical politician is still a part of what is seen as a rational body. When a politician actually is a radical, they usually get thrown out of whatever analogue of Parliament they're in and raise a rogue army. At that point, they're no longer thought of as a politician. Hell, even radical Christians are still seen as part of society.
To begin with the word radical seems to have changed meaning a lot recently.  It's original meaning was very different.

Anyway, I agree to some extent with your assessment of the situation.  I don't think that Wilder is inviting "vigilante justice" though, he specifically rejects that.

What I'd point out about your comments above though is how woolly they are.  Remember, whenever we talk about something minor like this and law or government it's the general case that is most important.  The precedent that a decision like this sets is more important than the decision.

Let's say the public agree with you and we say that what constitutes incitement is something very complicated.  Something based on things which are "understood" but not spoken.  Can you imagine the way such a law would be abused?

I can imagine the abuse of any law that was defined in a vague manner. However, sometimes this is required. Parliaments move slowly, by design. Society does not.

Let's put it this way; a statement that there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim would have made no impact with any group large enough to form a mob, in 2000. Most people thought of Muslims as foreign people from the Middle East, and many thought of them as a race more than people with a particular religion.

In 2002, the same statement says that every Muslim is a potential suicide bomber. In the intervening year, no-one would think to change the law until it becomes necessary. And by then it's too late. And owing to the slow movements of parliament, the law is at least a year away from being gazetted. Since then, there have been many attacks, and saying that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim is inviting everyone to see every Muslim as a suicide bomber. Requests that the public not act on these statements, vis a vis vigilante justice, are ridiculous.

Claiming that gays will end civilisation is an incitement to violence. I shouldn't have to explain that one.
It isn't incitement to violence until they actually come and incite some violence.

They have. Their stated intention is to incite more. What's the problem?
Have they?  I fail to see how saying "God hates Fags" or something similar is anything more than an insult.

"Gays will end civilisation" is another of their favourites. Same problem as "no moderate Muslims". They're saying that gays have their hands on the button, and could act to save the world but, instead, are acting to destroy it.

And they make no statements on vigilante justice, so they can't even hide behind that.

Additionally, several of the Phelps clan have been prosecuted for assault during their pickets, including at least one for spitting in a passer-by's face. There is a current trial whereby a member of the Phelps clan is being accused of incitement to violence in Nebraska.

But it's not: they've said what they're coming into the country for. They've released statements to the press about it. And they'll do exactly what they've said, if the past is any indication.
If they break the law while protesting they can be arrested and extradited when they do.

So, if a guy has a knife at your neck, it's not a crime? He hasn't actually injured you yet, so it's pre-judgement to think that he will, in fact, slit your throat.
That situation is an entirely different one.  To begin with it involves physical harm.  Intent to insult someone or something is hardly a crime of a similar magnitude.  Secondly it is a person to person situation with clear evidence.  Thirdly it should be dealt with by the law not by politicians.  See my response to Andrei.

Intent to start a riot isn't a physical threat? Bragging about it in advance isn't clear evidence?
Is this intention publicised anywhere?

Their website, countless newspapers.

You'd feel more comfortable having a brand new department of the police set up just to reject visa applications? Why are police more able than politicians?
Yes.  But really it is a job for the judiciary.  Partisan politicians should be kept out of it.

As opposed to partisan judges? Or partisan police?

However, were you to arrive at a conclusion yourself, and argue that conclusion with other people who did the same... Convincing others, or being convinced, with the best arguments available would eliminate the groupthink. Thus, climate change would be argued with facts, not ideology. We'd already be on the "so what the hell do we do" phase, and probably be well into the "now fixing shit" phase. Instead, ideology and groupthink mean that we're still arguing over whether it exists.
Well, regarding climate change I don't think the debate is as foolish as you do.  The questions "Is it man made?" and "Is it actually economic to do anything about it?" are still up for serious debate in my view.

The "Is it man made" question has been answered thoroughly. The question of economics is... a flawed view in my opinion. There are numerous things threatened by global warming that are not useful to a businessman.

Then again, with the worst projections suggesting the extinction of man, it's hard to see how preventing that would be a bad thing at any cost from an economic point of view.

I do think that a meritocracy would be better than a democracy, if merit was an objective measure. It's not, so we're stuck with a system that would work in the real world, if people would actually take an interest. And because people don't, no system is going to work.
Yes, I agree with you there.


I suppose I'd go one further than you would in saying that I think people can be fixed, and that democracy is the system that is easiest to make work in the interim.

This is the same sort of contempable behavior as a baptist telling me I will surely go to hell for lust (and thus there must be a god).

No, I oppose this sort of discourse and all it's proponents and would happily see them tilled into the red earth.  I take the same position on victimspeak.  Political discourse is for adults, and if you cannot discuss like an adult, you can go sit with Sarah Palin.

Two problems: AGW isn't a political issue, though solving it is. Opponents of AGW show behaviour that is even more contemptible than your baptist example: "Global warming isn't man made, and it's going to be glorious! Why? Because I said so, so ner!"
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Ibian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 483


« Reply #35 on: March 09, 2009, 20:50:48 EDT »

Quote
The "Is it man made" question has been answered thoroughly.
Bullshit. We dont know how big a change we have made. We dont even know what kind of change we have made. But you disagree with that, of course, so you will have no problem answering the following question, complete with scientific sources (I remind you that the IPCC is a political source (not that they would have anything to say about this), if you wish to debate this point do start another thread for it so we can keep things focused. I further remind you that throwing out links and expecting me to wade through dozens or hundreds of pages with little more than a snarky remark from your side is not debate.):

What would the climate be like, right now, if we had never burned a drop of oil or any coal?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 21:21:46 EDT by Ibian » Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2009, 08:34:10 EDT »

Quote
The "Is it man made" question has been answered thoroughly.
Bullshit. We dont know how big a change we have made. We dont even know what kind of change we have made. But you disagree with that, of course, so you will have no problem answering the following question, complete with scientific sources (I remind you that the IPCC is a political source (not that they would have anything to say about this), if you wish to debate this point do start another thread for it so we can keep things focused. I further remind you that throwing out links and expecting me to wade through dozens or hundreds of pages with little more than a snarky remark from your side is not debate.):

What would the climate be like, right now, if we had never burned a drop of oil or any coal?

Quote
Thus, climate change would be argued with facts, not ideology. We'd already be on the "so what the hell do we do" phase, and probably be well into the "now fixing shit" phase.
Or maybe, just maybe, we would be on the "what a colossal waste of time and money that was, now what else can we scare the public with" phase.

You are a groupthinker yourself. Every single person who is convinced global warming is a problem that something should be done about is. We dont know enough yet.

You fail.

When you grow up, and bother to listen to arguments, come back. I'll be waiting.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2009, 14:20:14 EDT »

Oh no, a rational argument...

*rubs his chin*
*Prays to Roland Burress*

It's clear that you hold this view for racist reasons which I will not specify, and I will not stand for it!  I feel personally victimized because you do not hold my political views, and as this is about my feelings I demand you change to hold the views I desire so I will feel less injured by your racial bias (of which you are unaware).

We can get through your unknown and unexplained bias, you just need to agree with everyone else, who needs to agree with me.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2009, 19:16:26 EDT »

Nice. Very nearly Swiftian. Two thumbs up Tongue
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2009, 11:39:11 EDT »

Quote from: Current
No, but neither is insulting of a police officer similar to the situation we're discussing (Phelps family activity).
Indeed.

Insulting a police officer is at worst a very mildly subversive act.
Insulting a person at his funeral is a slanderous attack on the deceased and practically a form of assault on his family members who have come to mourn him.

If the first can earn you an evening in jail, the second should earn you a few weeks at least.

Quote from: Current
We as members of the electorate should work deprive government of them and insure they are not used.
Quote from: Current
It's hardly the same thing. The mathematics community refuse to talk to this nut, that is their decision. The mathematics community don't make any laws or bar anyone from traveling or send anyone to prison. Any other group or person who wants to listen to him can do so.
You don't get it.

My point is that, sometimes, debate needs to be stifled. In this case, it was only whithin the mathematical community that the debate was a waste of time and energy. It could be tolerated beyond it.

I claim that any debate the Phelps's behavoiur could incite would be a waste of time and energy, and a possible liability. It had to be stifled wherever it took place, and the government was the only body that could do so.

You act as if any stifling of debate is necessarily bad. I disagree.

Quote from: Current
If they (the Phelpses) incite violence they can be arrested, it's very simple.
You're right. And since disruptive activity at a funeral can be seen as inciting the mourners to violence against you, I say that the English government could have let them come and then throw them in jail as soon as the set foot in the airport, accusing them of conspiracy to incite violence.

Keep them in jail for the maximum amount of time the law allows, make sure their cellmates have... tendencies, then make it clear they would be prosecuted -and the government has deeper pockets than the Phelpses- unless they take their complimentary plane tickets home and don't come back.

I like this alternative, how about you?

Quote from: Current
My point is that the decision is being made by a politician. (...) But a judge has (at least) no reason to decide on the basis of popular prejudice.
Not convinced. High-profile judges are often nominated based on political interests, so they would have reasons to decide on the basis of their patron politician's prejudice.

Quote from: Current
Besides, this "documented disruptive behaviour", is hardly very major.  They go to funerals of gays with placards saying "God hates fags".  So what?  If that's an offence it's barely a misdemeanor, certainly not something to ban someone from traveling for.
You've picked the wrong guy to pitch this argument to.

To begin with, I have very little tolerance for people who behave like, pardon the term, assholes in public. Remember my stance on protesters?

Furthermore, just as manners are a sticking point for Heq, respect for the dead is a sticking point for me.

To put it bluntly, people who protest at the funerals of others are people in whose case I would tolerate a lot of police brutality, and I have a naturally high degree of tolerance for that stuff.  In their case, anything short of the iron maiden is fine by me...
(comic exaggeration, for those who can't tell)
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2009, 17:19:15 EDT »

I'd forgotten about this piece of silliness...

Quote from: Current
No, but neither is insulting of a police officer similar to the situation we're discussing (Phelps family activity).
Indeed.

Insulting a police officer is at worst a very mildly subversive act.
Insulting a person at his funeral is a slanderous attack on the deceased and practically a form of assault on his family members who have come to mourn him.

If the first can earn you an evening in jail, the second should earn you a few weeks at least.
Are you saying that every time someone throws an insult like the Phelps family do they should get jailed?  If they should then a whole load of other people should get jailed too.  Half the population of Ireland would have trouble staying out of jail.  I don't like chavs but I don't want to pay for them all to be jailed.

What about Gypsys who go to the funerals of their enemies to insult them?

Even if you are I'm not really disagreeing with you that much.  I'm just saying that police must wait until the crime has been committed.

Quote from: Current
We as members of the electorate should work deprive government of them and insure they are not used.
Quote from: Current
It's hardly the same thing. The mathematics community refuse to talk to this nut, that is their decision. The mathematics community don't make any laws or bar anyone from traveling or send anyone to prison. Any other group or person who wants to listen to him can do so.
You don't get it.

My point is that, sometimes, debate needs to be stifled. In this case, it was only whithin the mathematical community that the debate was a waste of time and energy. It could be tolerated beyond it.

I claim that any debate the Phelps's behavoiur could incite would be a waste of time and energy, and a possible liability. It had to be stifled wherever it took place, and the government was the only body that could do so.

You act as if any stifling of debate is necessarily bad. I disagree.
If government can stifle that debate then they can stifle any debate.  We may agree that the Phelp's family have nothing important to say.  That is beside the point.

Unless we agree to defend all reasonable free debate then there will be no free debate.  Governments will simply suppress any viewpoint unfavourable to their own interests.

Quote from: Current
If they (the Phelpses) incite violence they can be arrested, it's very simple.
You're right. And since disruptive activity at a funeral can be seen as inciting the mourners to violence against you, I say that the English government could have let them come and then throw them in jail as soon as the set foot in the airport, accusing them of conspiracy to incite violence.

Keep them in jail for the maximum amount of time the law allows, make sure their cellmates have... tendencies, then make it clear they would be prosecuted -and the government has deeper pockets than the Phelpses- unless they take their complimentary plane tickets home and don't come back.

I like this alternative, how about you?
No.  The Phelp's have not incited any violence until they actually do so.  The government cannot prosecute them reasonably before doing so.

Quote from: Current
My point is that the decision is being made by a politician. (...) But a judge has (at least) no reason to decide on the basis of popular prejudice.
Not convinced. High-profile judges are often nominated based on political interests, so they would have reasons to decide on the basis of their patron politician's prejudice.
You have a valid point there.  But that is more a reason to support steps to insure that Judges are more impartial.

I'd point out that even if a judge is appointed for a political reason it is normal for his term of office to be very long.  That means he can take a much longer term view than politicians.  He is not necessarily interested in gaining electoral capital from the latest moral panic.

Quote from: Current
Besides, this "documented disruptive behaviour", is hardly very major.  They go to funerals of gays with placards saying "God hates fags".  So what?  If that's an offence it's barely a misdemeanor, certainly not something to ban someone from traveling for.
You've picked the wrong guy to pitch this argument to.

To begin with, I have very little tolerance for people who behave like, pardon the term, assholes in public. Remember my stance on protesters?

Furthermore, just as manners are a sticking point for Heq, respect for the dead is a sticking point for me.

To put it bluntly, people who protest at the funerals of others are people in whose case I would tolerate a lot of police brutality, and I have a naturally high degree of tolerance for that stuff.  In their case, anything short of the iron maiden is fine by me...
(comic exaggeration, for those who can't tell)
Your character has little to do with the question.  That is, why should this be an offence?

I don't approve of people who are arseholes in public, neither do I approve of those who show no respect for the dead.  But I'm prepared to tolerate them.  As I think everyone should be.

You should think about what the alternative is.  In our current societies the only way that people could be made to be respectful towards the dead or be polite would be by almost totalitarian measures.  And such measures would never end up in practice used against the disrespectful or the impolite.
Logged
Ibian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 483


« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2009, 18:20:48 EDT »

Am i the only one who would just take a fist to the face of whoever disrupted the funeral of someone i liked? Problem solved.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 18:23:27 EDT by Ibian » Logged
Ihlosi
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #42 on: March 24, 2009, 04:22:56 EDT »

Am i the only one who would just take a fist to the face of whoever disrupted the funeral of someone i liked? Problem solved.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, there are some problems with this approach:

1. Apparently, these guys always appear in groups. Punching a lone loony is entirely different from starting a brawl with a bunch of them during a funeral.
2. They'll be the ones who will exploit such an event in the fullest and paint you as the evil villain.
3. Whether or not this is covered by self-defense laws strongly depends on the country you're in. However, if you're on good terms with the local police force, the latter may be persuaded to look the other way for a few moments.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #43 on: March 24, 2009, 07:57:17 EDT »

Current, you just don't understand the upper class.

The purpose of etiquette is to serve as a replacement for morality, as anyone who's attended high level private schooling can attest, especially if they came from the British system.

If you think there isn't an ettiquette to a good fist-fight, or even a bar room brawl you are sadly mistaken.  There are a whole slew of rules underwriting everything but the most primative of societies.  Have you ever been in a good hockey fight, or seen one?  There are certain things in a brawl that are just a no-go because they would actually hurt someone rather then just knock them about, you might get cut in a proper fight, or knocked out, but only someone who can't defend themselves in any way will be seriously injured (and if you're fighting such an abject wuss, expect someone who can fight to give you an utter thrashing unless such a wuss did something which deserves a beatdown).

The example most people would be familiar with is not hitting a downed man, unless the offense is one which warrants such an attack (a fairly small list actually), and you certainly wouldn't hit him in any case once he was out as that would be counter-productive to the goal of communicating an intolerance for certain behaviors in society.
I hadn't noticed this post until today.  Thank you for brightening my day.

I see what you mean about this sort of etiquette.  I certainly agree with you that this exists.  If a drunk person picks a fight with a bouncer outside an Irish pub they get hit just enough to persuade them to go somewhere else.  If a sober person picks a similar fight he would get hit much more.  Picking a fight with the other customers means you get thrown out and barred, the bouncer will treat you with a little more unnecessary violence than the person were just picking on him.  Fighting inside is much worse than fighting outside.  Men hitting women is an absolute no-no and will provoke a beating and a prosecution.  Fights are mano e mano unless someone pulls out a knife or broken bottle, in that case the onlookers are encouraged to intervene.  Many rules are loosened if the fight is with gypsys.

Now, remind me, why are we talking about the informal etiquette of brawling?

Intolerance, by the way, cuts both ways.  It can be good.  Drugging drinks at bars should be intolerable to society, as an example.
Oh yes, I'm not against that sort of intolerance.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2009, 08:04:19 EDT »

Am i the only one who would just take a fist to the face of whoever disrupted the funeral of someone i liked? Problem solved.
As Ihlosi points out, how does this solve anything?

All we can do is live with it, just as others live with us.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!