- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Is this the 3rd time you've agreed with me today?
:2razz:
Yes, and it ****ing pisses me off.
Is this the 3rd time you've agreed with me today?
:2razz:
In the OP, they didn't. But even if they did, as long as they were following local laws and ordinances, there is no guarantee that people aren't going to disrupt your life. Burying people without being offended isn't a protected right.
You didn't read the post I quoted and responded to? It wasn't all that extensive of a back and forth. Unless you consider two total posts as "extensive".
And in reality, you only had to read the words found in one post since it was quoted in that post. That was the extent of the back and forth on the fighting words discussion.
Read up on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and the "fighting words" doctrine. I was actually quoting the decision. Without that knowledge, you aren't equipped with the necessary tools to tell me what is or is not relevant.
I think it would bother anyone and I have seen them say far worse.
When you are at the funeral of someone you love you are not in your normal state. Probably the thing that is most important to you is to feel your warmth for them and that is shattered by these people from hell. Even the most together people would be hurt.
I doubt I would. Even in a state of loss, I would think that people saying that I or my dead loved one going to hell was hillbilly stupid at best.
I cannot believe you. Do you feel?
You call this disrupting your life. Have you ever lost someone you loved?
ummmm, is this a trick question?
I doubt I would. Even in a state of loss, I would think that people saying that I or my dead loved one going to hell was hillbilly stupid at best.
I refuse to engage you on the basis of a logical fallacy. Counter with actual arguments or forget it.
Is it heck a logical fallacy. You are avoiding looking at the situation because that is what the situation is.
and I am referring to all the goings on of these people I have seen at funerals.
So, maybe it's time to amend the Constitution to protect funeral goers from protests? This would solve the problem presented here.
Do you feel like a biscuit?
Do you feel like velvet?
It's an easy, unambiguous question.
:rofl
It's also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
True dat. But I resent the term hillbilly stupid. Most of my relatives are intelligent enough to let such comments slide off them like water off a duck.
Whether or not I've lost a loved one is irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing whether a protest at a funeral is free speech, not conducting a grief and loss survey/support group. hope that helps,sweetie.
That may be the title of the thread but the thread has gone into the implications of the effect of the right to hurl obscenities at people while going to or coming out of a funeral.
It has already been mentioned by one poster that your constitution already recognises that there may be limits to free speech and from what he said if not on this occasion then certainly on others it has been transgressed.
Possibly if one does not have the ability to have empathy or to imagine what it is like one may just think that a funeral is just like any other day.
If one is unable to imagine how one would feel were this to be done at the funeral of those one loves most, it is difficult to see how they could come to a rational decision.
There are two issues and two rights here.
The right to hurl abuses
The right to peace while you take your loved ones to their funeral and go home after.
My concern here is that the subjective nature of all of this will eventually lead to the notion that we have a "freedom from being offended", because to cause offense is to bring harm.
Do celebrities have the right to bring their newborns home without being nearly trampled by rude papparazi hurling rude questions about affairs? There is no precedent for your worries.
WE should do it in Florida. It can go next to the constitutional amendments dictating the size of cages holding pregnant pigs and setting class sizes by age.
it is not the same thing at all and celebrities usually love the limelight anyway. Now if you think that at the funeral of say Princess Dianna these phelps people would be there hurling abuses and obscenities and assuming her funeral was in the United States, what exactly do you think would happen?
Please remember the people who the phelps abuse have done no wrong.
This presumes that these will not change.That concern completely ignores the location/situation specific aspects of argument being presented, though.
Fow now.This is more than just freedom from being offended. This is freedom form having to deal with people deliberately trying to inflict emotional harm on you during a time of bereavement.
.What everyone needs to understand that there is no such thing as "measurable" harm. Harm to the individual cannot be quantified by any means
Only if this does not change.The situation-specific nature of whether or not the words are harmful precludes the slippery slope nature of your concerns.
Without a measureable standard of harm, as you argue, it is all subjective.It makes it non-subjective.
I doubt I would. Even in a state of loss, I would think that people saying that I or my dead loved one going to hell was hillbilly stupid at best.
I agree with that. Since 'hell' doesn't exist, I'd pretty much be apathetic about such silly comments. Such comments would only show me the idiocy of the person saying them and certainly not be a bother to me.
Possibly if one does not have the ability to have empathy or to imagine what it is like one may just think that a funeral is just like any other day.
If one is unable to imagine how one would feel were this to be done at the funeral of those one loves most, it is difficult to see how they could come to a rational decision.
The right to hurl abuses
The right to peace while you take your loved ones to their funeral and go home after.