View Poll Results: Is protesting at funerals 'Free Speech'?

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, this was never the intent of the founding fathers!

    2 3.64%
  • It's harassment and should be illegal

    24 43.64%
  • It's open to interpretation

    4 7.27%
  • It's most certainly a form of protected free speech

    18 32.73%
  • Other, please explain

    7 12.73%
Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 260

Thread: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

  1. #231
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    Holy ****. You said "A PERSON" Not a ****ing "organized" protest which makes it sound like a lot of people. You didn't say organized once. Grow a ****ing pair of balls and admit your mistake and stop acting like a silly little twat.
    Yeah.

    Go be obtuse with someone else. I'm not interested.

  2. #232
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    04-15-10 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,303

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If you are confused about something, you can't possibly understand it. The two are mutually exclusive conditions.

    But even allowing for your somewhat contradictory explanation, my words were specifically chosen to point out that I was interpreting your statement to mean what it looks like it means, and what the definition of the words used imply that it means.

    Hence, my addition of the word "seem" in "even though you don't seem to understand".

    This means "appear". The appearances of your statement are very clear based on the fact that being confused and having an understanding are mutually exclusive conditions.

    But I allowed for a possible misinterpretation of your words on my part by making sure to include that qualifier in my sentence. This is because, as they say, appearances can be deceiving.

    So in any case, the truth of the matter, what any objective observer would have to attest to, is that I made a valid, although incorrect, interpretation of your statements and allowed for my incorrectness by including the word "seem" in my interpretation.

    this clearly indicates that:

    1. It was not a label I was placing upon you. It was only a description of what my perceptions about your "confusion" meant.

    2. It was not an attack.
    I allow for misunderstandings on either parties part. I made a confusing state about being confused, I agree and accept that. Hopefully, I clarified what I meant. The attack part came from your statement about me not "understanding", but I see how you thought that now.

  3. #233
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    Apparently I am. I just explained it to you. It is the context that you are ignoring. Now, you can think that I am lying, that would be better than trying to prove that I only said confused because I was only confused about that one aspect in that one said and not in a broader context, as I explained. Either way, this conversation is nearing its end out of shear stupidity.
    That one aspect was "why" according to the context of the sentence.

    Simple fact: Confusion and understanding are mutually exclusive conditions. If you say you are confused about the "why" of something, you cannot possibly have any understanding about the "why" of something.

    No context exists for the word "confused" that conveys that which you wished it to convey.


    I made up a scenario that helped put his scenario into perspective.
    And then you argued against that made up scenario. Look up what a strawman is. You just admitted that you made one.

    [quote]He brought up some person going ten miles past some boondock to talk bad about his grandad from WWII. How that person would get an asswhoopin. How does an Italien vet talking bad about American Forces (vets from WWII, his grandad) NOT MAKE SENSE? If you guys don't like my "straw man" then don't set up silly scenarios that can be so easily proven ridiculous.[/QUOTe

    What part of "over his grave" does not make sense to you?

    He said a person, and then tried to claim he said "organized protest" when he specifically said a "person" walking ten miles down some hilly billy sounding place to disrespect his dead grandad. I changed nothing about content. I only added context to show how ridiculous his statements are. He didn't say, if some 25 year old tough guy walks down the road and talks ****, he'll get an asswhoopin, he made it open ended. A person

    Does that help?

    EDIT: Did you read post #224?
    You added a context that was entirely different from the one he had already given.

    The problem here appears to be that you are confused (read: do not understand) as to what a strawman is.

    You've just admitted twice that you did create a strawman.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #234
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    04-15-10 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,303

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    Yeah.

    Go be obtuse with someone else. I'm not interested.
    Those are fighting words genius. Holy cow, what a tool.

  5. #235
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    04-15-10 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,303

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Swearing a lot is not what was "pissy". It was your stated refusal to continue reading the post based on your erroneous assumption that my description of my perceptions was an attack.
    Oh. OK. Neither of us is a dick or anything. Basic miscommunication. You are more open than Coronado and Kali, sorry to lump you in with them.

  6. #236
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    I allow for misunderstandings on either parties part. I made a confusing state about being confused, I agree and accept that. Hopefully, I clarified what I meant. The attack part came from your statement about me not "understanding", but I see how you thought that now.
    Just to clarify: I didn't make a statement about you not understanding. I made a statement about my perceptions of your understanding. That's why I put the "seem" in there.


    I'm tend to be very fastidious about my word choices. If I put a word like "seem" in there, it's there for a specific reason. Think about it. The sentence works without the inclusion of seem to, and in that case it would definitely be a claim that you do not understand: "Even though you don't understand why" has a different meaning from "even though you don't seem to understand why".

    If I had intended for it to be a claim about your level of understanding, I would have made sure to exclude the superfluous "seem to" from the sentence.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #237
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    You also think we have a right to healthcare. Neither of these "rights" are constitutional.
    i do think that, but our constitution can be interpreted many ways, and i believe "promoting the general welfare" covers the affordable access to healthcare.

    it also seems to me there is a right to privacy when burying our dead.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  8. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i do think that, but our constitution can be interpreted many ways, and i believe "promoting the general welfare" covers the affordable access to healthcare.
    Really. In almost 300 years, it's never been interpreted that way.

    it also seems to me there is a right to privacy when burying our dead.
    The right to privacy applies to GOVERNMENT intrusions, not private ones.

  9. #239
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    04-15-10 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,303

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    [quote=Tucker Case;1058689387]That one aspect was "why" according to the context of the sentence.

    Simple fact: Confusion and understanding are mutually exclusive conditions. If you say you are confused about the "why" of something, you cannot possibly have any understanding about the "why" of something.

    No context exists for the word "confused" that conveys that which you wished it to convey.




    And then you argued against that made up scenario. Look up what a strawman is. You just admitted that you made one.

    He brought up some person going ten miles past some boondock to talk bad about his grandad from WWII. How that person would get an asswhoopin. How does an Italien vet talking bad about American Forces (vets from WWII, his grandad) NOT MAKE SENSE? If you guys don't like my "straw man" then don't set up silly scenarios that can be so easily proven ridiculous.[/QUOTe

    What part of "over his grave" does not make sense to you?



    You added a context that was entirely different from the one he had already given.

    The problem here appears to be that you are confused (read: do not understand) as to what a strawman is.

    You've just admitted twice that you did create a strawman.
    I didn't misrepresent what he said and I didn't create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a similar proposition. The context I added complimented his existing information. I did not add anything that did not change his intended position or the outcome. The position is still the same, a guy talking bad about his grandad would get an asswhoopin, and I didnt create an illusion of anything out of context. You are free to continue to think that I created a straw man though.

  10. #240
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    They aren't at the cemetery I don't think, and they aren't in the Church. So they're not disrupting the services; you just see them as you go too and from the services. Assembly, association, and protest are essential and if Phelps and Co. are the price of admission to keep it; I'll take it.
    well, it seems i've swallowed my foot. evidently snyder did't see OR hear them at the funeral.

    The protesters -- Phelps and six family members -- broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.

    i still loathe them.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •