And they will know we are Christians by our...

[HuaiDan]

Good luck with that, I didn't realize in Shanghai you were protected under the first amendment of the US Constitution, such as the victims were in Alabama. Ya learn something new everyday I guess.

 

When someone's throwing stones at you, the first amendment isn't going to jump in and save your hide. The law of the jungle is the only one applicable at that juncture.

 

Having generic messages (which were much milder then many bumper stickers) on one's car doesn't fall under the category of "Doing something stupid".

(this is all assuming this whole thing wasn't staged) Context and perspective are everything. Is it possible to teach these people a lesson in tolerance to global diversity by driving around with slogans painted on your car? These messages could be considered generic in a gay rights parade in Soho village, but in the setting of rural Alabama, I have trouble seeing them as anything but inciteful.

Perhaps you think its justified to stone people and their property who advertise their disgust for NASCAR, and their support for Hillary. I'm thankful I'm not in your country if this is just and fairness, seems like a few steps ahead of the dark ages then the Taliban to me. I'm wondering if you believe all the millions of people who have Impeach W, or a W with a line thru it as bumper stickers should be hung or stoned if they happen to reside in a red state? They dare advertise their distain for the current Whitehouse occupants, off with their heads ??? Should they be beatin to a pulp, In Jail??? I dunno, Perhaps Bumper stickers should come with warning labels? Sound stupid? It's about How far you'd have to be willing to go to justify the attackers in this.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never justified the attackers. In my opinion, anyone who would throw rocks at a car with slogans painted on it is too ignorant to understand the ethical ramifications of their actions in the heat of the moment, whatever the implied meanings of the slogans are. In this sense, said actions from the attackers' perspective are to be considered amoral, because it is a cause/effect relationship, much like jumping off a high building will cause one to die, or offering one's hand to an angry dog will cause it to be lovingly chewed off. HOWEVER, from a social perspective, the attackers' actions are immoral, because whether they happened in the heat of the moment or with due consideration, these actions are specifically constrained by the laws and morals of society.

I once saw a video on some pre-youtube site where some kid, on a dare, runs up to a cop and in his face flips him off all the while talking trash. Cop pulls out his club and clocks the kid. Was it right for the kid to do this? Crying fire in a movie theater, disruption of public services, NO, it was not. Was it right for the cop to do what he did? No, a ticket for disruption of public services would've sufficed. Did the kid deserve it? Same answer as before, no. Should the kid have realized that getting clocked might've been a possible outcome of his actions, or might suffer some other repercussion, and reconsider his action? I have a feeling you'll drag out the first amendment on this one, but there are the laws of society, and the law of the jungle, and by the imperative of self preservation we must abide by both.

 

 

Because I respectfully disagree with you on certain issues that have nothing to do with gay rights, politics, or spectator sports, you want to defame my character by aligning me with those who would suppress your point of view. Could this be the reason you're so sensitive about this topic, becasue you mistakenly thought I was calling into question th TG guys' right to exress opinions about sexual orientation, politics, and sports? The meanings of these slogans were merely a facilitator to the stunt and irrelevent to the TG guy's real opinions on the issues.Had the slogans said anything else, my opinion on the whole ordeal would have been the same. Don't confuse my calling the TG guys' actions asinine with an attack on the right to express the views they pretended to espouse. It just ain't so.

[Japedo]

DISCLAIMER: The ***YOU'S*** in my hypothetical Situations are ***Hypothetical YOU'S*** and NOT the PERSONAL *** YOU HuaiDan**** Just as the They's are Hypothetical They's. Because you seem to be having difficulty deciphering the two, I'll put your name when I'm talking to you directly so their will no longer be the confusion, I apologize for not being more clear about his at the start.

 

 

When someone's throwing stones at you, the first amendment isn't going to jump in and save your hide. The law of the jungle is the only one applicable at that juncture.

 

Are you(HuaiDan) deliberately being obtuse here?

 

Physically attacking someone for what they are FREE to say is a CRIME no matter what state your in. If you punch someone's lights out because they are supporting Hillary Clinton you'll be arrested for assault. The 'antagonizers aka Hillary Clinton supporter can also sue you in addition to pressing charges.

 

(this is all assuming this whole thing wasn't staged) Context and perspective are everything. Is it possible to teach these people a lesson in tolerance to global diversity by driving around with slogans painted on your car? These messages could be considered generic in a gay rights parade in Soho village, but in the setting of rural Alabama, I have trouble seeing them as anything but inciteful.

 

I'm willing to bet their are people with gay pride stickers in their car that either live in or drive thru Alabama. Attacking the drivers in a stoning fashion would be construed as a "hate crime" in the States.

 

 

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never justified the attackers. In my opinion, anyone who would throw rocks at a car with slogans painted on it is too ignorant to understand the ethical ramifications of their actions in the heat of the moment, whatever the implied meanings of the slogans are. In this sense, said actions from the attackers' perspective are to be considered amoral, because it is a cause/effect relationship, much like jumping off a high building will cause one to die, or offering one's hand to an angry dog will cause it to be lovingly chewed off. HOWEVER, from a social perspective, the attackers' actions are immoral, because whether they happened in the heat of the moment or with due consideration, these actions are specifically constrained by the laws and morals of society.

 

I didn't put words in your (HuaiDan) mouth, I asked questions. You (HuaiDan) also said it was the victims fault they were stoned for driving in the hick town in the first place. Ignorance of the law will never hold up in court, it's just the way it is.

 

 

I once saw a video on some pre-youtube site where some kid, on a dare, runs up to a cop and in his face flips him off all the while talking trash. Cop pulls out his club and clocks the kid. Was it right for the kid to do this? Crying fire in a movie theater, disruption of public services, NO, it was not. Was it right for the cop to do what he did? No, a ticket for disruption of public services would've sufficed. Did the kid deserve it? Same answer as before, no. Should the kid have realized that getting clocked might've been a possible outcome of his actions, or might suffer some other repercussion, and reconsider his action? I have a feeling you'll drag out the first amendment on this one, but there are the laws of society, and the law of the jungle, and by the imperative of self preservation we must abide by both.

 

A) I haven't seen the video and can't comment as to what I'd say. What were the circumstances the kid was flipping him off and in his face in the first place? Was the kid given a ticket and flipped out? Is it a reaction to something that happened or did a kid just randomly walk up to the cop and start being abusive? Did the officer instigate it by abusing athority? Either way Sounds like the kid at least was changed with at least disorderly conduct ..

 

That being said,

 

B ) This has nothing what so ever to do with having bumper stickers on your car and being assaulted for it. The drivers of the car were not being violent or antagonistic such as the way you've described this kid.

 

Because I respectfully disagree with you on certain issues that have nothing to do with gay rights, politics, or spectator sports, you want to defame my character by aligning me with those who would suppress your point of view.

 

Wow... reach much? I never labeled you (HuaiDan) with any such label, and I apologize if that's how you (HuaiDan) read into it. I disagree that someone should get their ass kicked for having a bumper sticker, you (HuaiDan) are the one that takes the stance the divers were asking for it.

 

I asked you (HuaiDan) questions how far are you willing to take the stance is all? Where are you (HuaiDan) going to draw the line? I in no way said you TOOK THOSE POINT OF VIEWS.

 

Could this be the reason you're so sensitive about this topic, because you mistakenly thought I was calling into question th TG guys' right to express opinions about sexual orientation, politics, and sports?

 

Uhh NO, the Content of what the stickers/writing said is Moot. It's the justification of them having rocks thrown at them that outrages me. Such as your (HuaiDan) eye rolling comment of wearing a tee-shirt to get yourself (HuaiDan) killed in a different country and for us not to forget to send you (HuaiDan) flowers. I know nothing of the 'rights' you have in your country and can't argue any points regarding that. I can say however that killing someone because they have an offensive tee-shirt is a crime here. Why you even said that comment in the first place is a mystery to me.

 

 

The meanings of these slogans were merely a facilitator to the stunt and irrelevent to the TG guy's real opinions on the issues.Had the slogans said anything else, my opinion on the whole ordeal would have been the same. Don't confuse my calling the TG guys' actions asinine with an attack on the views they pretended to espouse. It just ain't so.

 

Again, I asked questions you have not answered, instead you have taken the argument to an "all about you (HuaiDan) and an attack "all against you (HuaiDan) " Which is not at all what I was saying. This is a debate of Bumper stickers and offended rock throwers, not your (HuaiDan)personal opinion of if you agreed with what the terminology was on the stickers. YOUR (HuaiDan) Personal feelings about Hillary, Man love or NASCAR are Irrelevant to the debate. Your (HuaiDan) personal feelings about the content of these things have nothing to do with my questions. Your point of view of what should be is what I was asking for. I was asking from a generic point of view, Should stickers have warnings or not? Should they only sell some stickers in some states(red/blue)?

 

 

Again, sorry for any personal attack you felt I did to you (HuaiDan), It wasn't my intention.

[HuaiDan]

DISCLAIMER: The ***YOU'S*** in my hypothetical Situations are ***Hypothetical YOU'S*** and NOT the PERSONAL *** YOU HuaiDan**** Just as the They's are Hypothetical They's. Because you seem to be having difficulty deciphering the two, I'll put your name when I'm talking to you directly so their will no longer be the confusion, I apologize for not being more clear about his at the start.

 

Thanks for making that obvious. It's an easily confused distinction, especially in the context given.

 

 

Are you(HuaiDan) deliberately being obtuse here?

 

I would no more admit to being obtuse than I would accuse you of it. Perspective is everything. We're just looking at it from a different perspective, as follows:

 

Physically attacking someone for what they are FREE to say is a CRIME no matter what state your in. If you punch someone's lights out because they are supporting Hillary Clinton you'll be arrested for assault. The 'antagonizers aka Hillary Clinton supporter can also sue you in addition to pressing charges.

As is the way it should be. Couldn't agree with you more. But prosecution for wrongdoing begins after the fact, after the stones have been thrown and the blood has been shed. Prosecution can do little to restore what's been lost. Sure the deterrence offers a slight measure of protection, but it didn't in this case.

 

As a corollary to "An ounce of prevention..." and "...be wiser in choosing your enemies", I would say be wise in choosing where to conduct certain actions.

 

 

A) I haven't seen the video and can't comment as to what I'd say. What were the circumstances the kid was flipping him off and in his face in the first place? Was the kid given a ticket and flipped out? Is it a reaction to something that happened or did a kid just randomly walk up to the cop and start being abusive? Did the officer instigate it by abusing athority? Either way Sounds like the kid at least was changed with at least disorderly conduct ..

 

The video just cut in when the kid runs up from out of nowhere, startles the cop, and begins his stunt. Looked like it was just on a dare to make a cool video. No idea the outcome, the video cuts out when the cop drops the kid.

 

B ) This has nothing what so ever to do with having bumper stickers on your car and being assaulted for it. The drivers of the car were not being violent or antagonistic such as the way you've described this kid.

This is one thing we'll just have to disagree on. While the cop in the video I describe is legally the victim of a crime (in reality the city the officer works for would be on the docket as the victim in the case, the officer would be a witness) and no one in the State of Alabama was made a victim of the TG stunt, both stunts were designed to antagonize, got the reaction that was expected, Mission accomplished. At the very LEAST they are not to be pitied for the slings and arrows they suffered, but to be congratulated for they themselves are the ones who instigated their outrageous fortunes.

 

you (HuaiDan) are the one that takes the stance the divers were asking for it.

They, quite literally, were asking for it.

 

 

Again, I asked questions you have not answered, instead you have taken the argument to an "all about you (HuaiDan) and an attack "all against you (HuaiDan) " Which is not at all what I was saying. This is a debate of Bumper stickers and offended rock throwers, not your (HuaiDan)personal opinion of if you agreed with what the terminology was on the stickers. YOUR (HuaiDan) Personal feelings about Hillary, Man love or NASCAR are Irrelevant to the debate. Your (HuaiDan) personal feelings about the content of these things have nothing to do with my questions. Your point of view of what should be is what I was asking for. I was asking from a generic point of view, Should stickers have warnings or not? Should they only sell some stickers in some states(red/blue)?

 

No, I just wondered whether the heat of your argument weren't stoked by a feeling of an attack against these ideas. In the case of the rockthrowers, yes, there was an attack against these beliefs and I was also quite offended by that. But I was also a bit offended that the TG guys would belittle these ideas by using them as a prop in a stunt just to get some cool video. My aim is to be entirely dispassionate about these or anything related to the content of the messages themselves, and merely consider the reaction of the Alabama residents' reaction to the messages as a cause/effect relationship.

 

So, we agree the content of the messages is irrelevant

 

 

Should stickers have warnings or not?

 

 

Now this really is a more practical question, which begs for a practical answer. How often does the Alabama Stoning actually occur? My guess, not often. It took millions of deaths before they started putting warning labels on cigarettes, I doubt we'll ever get to the point with bumper stickers. No, no, I just say one should be prudent about exercising one's first amendment rights as Mr. Samuel Clemens suggested and one should be admonished if one abuses those first amendment rights for the sake of some cool video or an opportunity to chest-beat.