I'm curious to know what some of the pro life people think of the right to die with dignity (euthanasia)?
The arguments being made for pro life would seem to oppose the idea of assisted dying.
I haven't thought too hard about it. But I've thought about suicide a bit and think it's ridiculous that it's illegal. I think people should have control on their own fate. But document that shit so the person helping doesn't look like a murderer! Haha!
I'm curious to know what some of the pro life people think of the right to die with dignity (euthanasia)?
The arguments being made for pro life would seem to oppose the idea of assisted dying.
I haven't thought too hard about it. But I've thought about suicide a bit and think it's ridiculous that it's illegal. I think people should have control on their own fate. But document that shit so the person helping doesn't look like a murderer! Haha!
I haven't thought too hard about it. But I've thought about suicide a bit and think it's ridiculous that it's illegal. I think people should have control on their own fate. But document that shit so the person helping doesn't look like a murderer! Haha!
I'm sorry for the rude comment you received earlier to this. I've thought about suicide / assisted dying myself. Maybe at this point, moreso for others who have little to no quality of life, but also what I would want to have happen should I be in that same position (terminally ill, ALS, Alzheimers, etc.).
Anyway, I wanted to say that your open-mindedness combined with being well-spoken is quite refreshing. Being able to state your views civilly is becoming a lost art. Keep it up, young man.
(I am also quite enamored with the pooch in your av)
I have s close friend who's a year younger than me, she's 20, and she got pregnant at 16. She was scared and didn't know what to do. And she was dabbling with the abortion route. She told me that when she was speaking to the doctor she had the realization that the baby inside of her didn't have anyone standing up for it and she decided to keep it.
I haven't thought too hard about it. But I've thought about suicide a bit and think it's ridiculous that it's illegal. I think people should have control on their own fate. But document that shit so the person helping doesn't look like a murderer! Haha!
I'm sorry for the rude comment you received earlier to this. I've thought about suicide / assisted dying myself. Maybe at this point, moreso for others who have little to no quality of life, but also what I would want to have happen should I be in that same position (terminally ill, ALS, Alzheimers, etc.).
Anyway, I wanted to say that your open-mindedness combined with being well-spoken is quite refreshing. Being able to state your views civilly is becoming a lost art. Keep it up, young man.
(I am also quite enamored with the pooch in your av)
Hey thank you! I really appreciate your kind words. There's a lot of great people in the world, you included, that keep a smile on my face every day I really appreacate it.
And that's my doggy. I rescued her when I was 18 in Alaska, and when I moved to Washington I couldn't find a landlord to let me bring her, so we do long distance now. It's "ruff" but we make it work she wouldn't leave me alone when I went home at Christmas!
I have s close friend who's a year younger than me, she's 20, and she got pregnant at 16. She was scared and didn't know what to do. And she was dabbling with the abortion route. She told me that when she was speaking to the doctor she had the realization that the baby inside of her didn't have anyone standing up for it and she decided to keep it.
I haven't thought too hard about it. But I've thought about suicide a bit and think it's ridiculous that it's illegal. I think people should have control on their own fate. But document that shit so the person helping doesn't look like a murderer! Haha!
I'm sorry for the rude comment you received earlier to this. I've thought about suicide / assisted dying myself. Maybe at this point, moreso for others who have little to no quality of life, but also what I would want to have happen should I be in that same position (terminally ill, ALS, Alzheimers, etc.).
Anyway, I wanted to say that your open-mindedness combined with being well-spoken is quite refreshing. Being able to state your views civilly is becoming a lost art. Keep it up, young man.
(I am also quite enamored with the pooch in your av)
Hey thank you! I really appreciate your kind words. There's a lot of great people in the world, you included, that keep a smile on my face every day I really appreacate it.
And that's my doggy. I rescued her when I was 18 in Alaska, and when I moved to Washington I couldn't find a landlord to let me bring her, so we do long distance now. It's "ruff" but we make it work she wouldn't leave me alone when I went home at Christmas!
I wanted to say a couple things to you:
1. You displayed a humble approach to introducing yourself to this topic and this forum. 2. Stick around this place and participate in other threads as well- very challenging for a number of reasons, but worth the efforts.
I'm curious to know what some of the pro life people think of the right to die with dignity (euthanasia)?
The arguments being made for pro life would seem to oppose the idea of assisted dying.
I haven't thought too hard about it. But I've thought about suicide a bit and think it's ridiculous that it's illegal. I think people should have control on their own fate. But document that shit so the person helping doesn't look like a murderer! Haha!
I have s close friend who's a year younger than me, she's 20, and she got pregnant at 16. She was scared and didn't know what to do. And she was dabbling with the abortion route. She told me that when she was speaking to the doctor she had the realization that the baby inside of her didn't have anyone standing up for it and she decided to keep it.
I haven't thought too hard about it. But I've thought about suicide a bit and think it's ridiculous that it's illegal. I think people should have control on their own fate. But document that shit so the person helping doesn't look like a murderer! Haha!
I'm sorry for the rude comment you received earlier to this. I've thought about suicide / assisted dying myself. Maybe at this point, moreso for others who have little to no quality of life, but also what I would want to have happen should I be in that same position (terminally ill, ALS, Alzheimers, etc.).
Anyway, I wanted to say that your open-mindedness combined with being well-spoken is quite refreshing. Being able to state your views civilly is becoming a lost art. Keep it up, young man.
(I am also quite enamored with the pooch in your av)
Hey thank you! I really appreciate your kind words. There's a lot of great people in the world, you included, that keep a smile on my face every day I really appreacate it.
And that's my doggy. I rescued her when I was 18 in Alaska, and when I moved to Washington I couldn't find a landlord to let me bring her, so we do long distance now. It's "ruff" but we make it work she wouldn't leave me alone when I went home at Christmas!
I wanted to say a couple things to you:
1. You displayed a humble approach to introducing yourself to this topic and this forum. 2. Stick around this place and participate in other threads as well- very challenging for a number of reasons, but worth the efforts.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
Perhaps they should designate an area for him to protest to avoid these sorts of instances.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Don't punch Nazis in protest. Don't burn the flag in protest. Don't block traffic in protest. Don't yell at the speaker in protest. Don't quietly kneel in protest. Don't tweet scientific facts from your government Twitter account in protest.
Pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate way to protest?
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Don't punch Nazis in protest. Don't burn the flag in protest. Don't block traffic in protest. Don't yell at the speaker in protest. Don't quietly kneel in protest. Don't tweet scientific facts from your government Twitter account in protest.
Pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate way to protest?
Even during a protest, those you are protest still have rights. Some of your list is ridiculous. You cant physically assault someone even if they are a Nazi. You can't yell at the someone to the point you are a disturbance. Would you support a group of people showing up to a PJ concert and protest what PJ stands for, to the point they couldn't perform their show? Would you sit back and just say they are exercising their right? That's why people who show up to speeches and prevent the speaker from presenting are removed.
No one said you can't kneel. Many say it is disrespectful and should find another method, but no one has ever said he doesn't have the right to.
Work accounts, and especially public government ones, should be free from personal protest. Do your job, protest on your own.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Don't punch Nazis in protest. Don't burn the flag in protest. Don't block traffic in protest. Don't yell at the speaker in protest. Don't quietly kneel in protest. Don't tweet scientific facts from your government Twitter account in protest.
Pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate way to protest?
You are being ridiculous. Are you saying it's okay for people to punch people that they do not agree with and that it would be an acceptable form of protest if the tables were turned? If you harm others or put other innocent bystanders in danger, you are most definitely exercising an inappropriate form of protesting and should be promptly arrested and charged with either assault or endangerment. All of the other things on your list are not equivalents.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Don't punch Nazis in protest. Don't burn the flag in protest. Don't block traffic in protest. Don't yell at the speaker in protest. Don't quietly kneel in protest. Don't tweet scientific facts from your government Twitter account in protest.
Pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate way to protest?
You are being ridiculous. Are you saying it's okay for people to punch people that they do not agree with and that it would be an acceptable form of protest if the tables were turned? If you harm others or put other innocent bystanders in danger, you are most definitely exercising an inappropriate form of protesting and should be promptly arrested and charged with either assault or endangerment. All of the other things on your list are not equivalents.
I've said it before: If punching Nazis is wrong, I don't want to be right.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Don't punch Nazis in protest. Don't burn the flag in protest. Don't block traffic in protest. Don't yell at the speaker in protest. Don't quietly kneel in protest. Don't tweet scientific facts from your government Twitter account in protest.
Pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate way to protest?
You are being ridiculous. Are you saying it's okay for people to punch people that they do not agree with and that it would be an acceptable form of protest if the tables were turned? If you harm others or put other innocent bystanders in danger, you are most definitely exercising an inappropriate form of protesting and should be promptly arrested and charged with either assault or endangerment. All of the other things on your list are not equivalents.
I've said it before: If punching Nazis is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Then go punch a Nazi if you think you need to, but do not call it "protesting". You assaulting someone out of anger still does not mean that punching people should be an acceptable form of protesting...unless you would accept it if a Nazi punched you. Peaceful does not = assault. What's the word for people that try to push their agendas through acts of violence....oh yeah, "terrorists".
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Don't punch Nazis in protest. Don't burn the flag in protest. Don't block traffic in protest. Don't yell at the speaker in protest. Don't quietly kneel in protest. Don't tweet scientific facts from your government Twitter account in protest.
Pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate way to protest?
You are being ridiculous. Are you saying it's okay for people to punch people that they do not agree with and that it would be an acceptable form of protest if the tables were turned? If you harm others or put other innocent bystanders in danger, you are most definitely exercising an inappropriate form of protesting and should be promptly arrested and charged with either assault or endangerment. All of the other things on your list are not equivalents.
I've said it before: If punching Nazis is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Then go punch a Nazi if you think you need to, but do not call it "protesting". You assaulting someone out of anger still does not mean that punching people should be an acceptable form of protesting...unless you would accept it if a Nazi punched you. Peaceful does not = assault. What's the word for people that try to push their agendas through acts of violence....oh yeah, "terrorists".
Inciting violence is not protected speech.
And punching a Nazi's in the face is not protected speech either.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but Nazi's should expect to be punched in the face. And punchers should expect to be arrested for assault. That's the risk both sides take.
I wouldn't consider it terrorism, maybe call it a preemptive strike.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Don't punch Nazis in protest. Don't burn the flag in protest. Don't block traffic in protest. Don't yell at the speaker in protest. Don't quietly kneel in protest. Don't tweet scientific facts from your government Twitter account in protest.
Pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate way to protest?
You are being ridiculous. Are you saying it's okay for people to punch people that they do not agree with and that it would be an acceptable form of protest if the tables were turned? If you harm others or put other innocent bystanders in danger, you are most definitely exercising an inappropriate form of protesting and should be promptly arrested and charged with either assault or endangerment. All of the other things on your list are not equivalents.
I've said it before: If punching Nazis is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Then go punch a Nazi if you think you need to, but do not call it "protesting". You assaulting someone out of anger still does not mean that punching people should be an acceptable form of protesting...unless you would accept it if a Nazi punched you. Peaceful does not = assault. What's the word for people that try to push their agendas through acts of violence....oh yeah, "terrorists".
Inciting violence is not protected speech.
And punching a Nazi's in the face is not protected speech either.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but Nazi's should expect to be punched in the face. And punchers should expect to be arrested for assault. That's the risk both sides take.
I wouldn't consider it terrorism, maybe call it a preemptive strike.
I don't even know what you are trying to prove...you are starting to contradict yourself and your implied stance on the issue of acceptable means of protesting..,
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Sure.
He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.
Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Don't punch Nazis in protest. Don't burn the flag in protest. Don't block traffic in protest. Don't yell at the speaker in protest. Don't quietly kneel in protest. Don't tweet scientific facts from your government Twitter account in protest.
Pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate way to protest?
You are being ridiculous. Are you saying it's okay for people to punch people that they do not agree with and that it would be an acceptable form of protest if the tables were turned? If you harm others or put other innocent bystanders in danger, you are most definitely exercising an inappropriate form of protesting and should be promptly arrested and charged with either assault or endangerment. All of the other things on your list are not equivalents.
I've said it before: If punching Nazis is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Then go punch a Nazi if you think you need to, but do not call it "protesting". You assaulting someone out of anger still does not mean that punching people should be an acceptable form of protesting...unless you would accept it if a Nazi punched you. Peaceful does not = assault. What's the word for people that try to push their agendas through acts of violence....oh yeah, "terrorists".
Inciting violence is not protected speech.
And punching a Nazi's in the face is not protected speech either.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but Nazi's should expect to be punched in the face. And punchers should expect to be arrested for assault. That's the risk both sides take.
I wouldn't consider it terrorism, maybe call it a preemptive strike.
I don't support violence of any kind unless it's self defense, but I do agree that Nazis should expect to be punched in the face. I don't think anyone should punch them in the face, but they should still expect it, because not every non--racist-rat-fuck is a pacifist, lol. And as a pacifist myself.... I still feel some pleasure when a Nazi gets punched in the face, lol. I understand and agree with the arguments that say it is counterproductive to the puncher's cause, but a punched Nazi will still put a smile on my face in the heat of the moment, haha.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I worry about the person that punches them though. Sometimes that little stubby Hitler moustache is coarse and the puncher's hand might become abrased.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Sure.
He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.
Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.
Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Sure.
He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.
Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.
Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.
That behaviour has exhibited itself from the other side of the fence many times, friend (abortion clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, etc.).
And I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the guy's 'peaceful protest'. His insistence and repeated behaviour was passive aggressive if it wasn't overtly aggressive.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Sure.
He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.
Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.
Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.
That behaviour has exhibited itself from the other side of the fence many times, friend (abortion clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, etc.).
And I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the guy's 'peaceful protest'. His insistence and repeated behaviour was passive aggressive if it wasn't overtly aggressive.
He was getting in people's faces.
I'm trying to understand your logic. So are you saying that the person smashing his shit was justified? So when a group starts waving dildos to protest guns, wound it be justified for someone to become aggressive and start breaking their shit and smash their tables and what not because they found it "too in your face"? Seems awefully hypocritical if not...
You said that 'the road goes both ways' to which I commented on- it certainly does and let's be honest... the pro life side of this debate has the advantage in the 'acting poorly' department. Smashing signs doesn't balance the scales when the oppositional weight is dead doctors and blown up medical facilities.
What I am saying is it was inevitable that someone was going to get agitated with track pants man and respond aggressively given his persistence. It's human nature. If people get pissed off and angry because somebody never signalled to enter the lane in front of them... someone was going to get agitated that some dork was flaunting their holiness and values when such might contradict their own.
The guy who took exception to track pants man's heightened efforts to convince people abortion is wrong should be held accountable for his actions, but I get where he was coming from.
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Sure.
He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.
Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.
Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.
That behaviour has exhibited itself from the other side of the fence many times, friend (abortion clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, etc.).
And I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the guy's 'peaceful protest'. His insistence and repeated behaviour was passive aggressive if it wasn't overtly aggressive.
He was getting in people's faces.
I'm trying to understand your logic. So are you saying that the person smashing his shit was justified? So when a group starts waving dildos to protest guns, wound it be justified for someone to become aggressive and start breaking their shit and smash their tables and what not because they found it "too in your face"? Seems awefully hypocritical if not...
Justified: yes Legal: no That's not necessarily hypocritical
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".
Sure.
He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.
Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.
Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.
That behaviour has exhibited itself from the other side of the fence many times, friend (abortion clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, etc.).
And I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the guy's 'peaceful protest'. His insistence and repeated behaviour was passive aggressive if it wasn't overtly aggressive.
He was getting in people's faces.
I'm trying to understand your logic. So are you saying that the person smashing his shit was justified? So when a group starts waving dildos to protest guns, wound it be justified for someone to become aggressive and start breaking their shit and smash their tables and what not because they found it "too in your face"? Seems awefully hypocritical if not...
Justified: yes Legal: no That's not necessarily hypocritical
Whether or not it was socially justified is a matter of opinion, which are like assholes...you know the rest. But I guess you could say he was not "legally justified" in his actions.
So, if I am reading this correctly, it's murder, or a double homicide if a woman was pregnant (no matter the stage of development) unless dealing with abortion..? That makes a lot of sense. At this point its more the consistency of the issue im questioning.
I am tired right now, so if I read it wrong or I am misinterpreting, my bad. Will revisit it later.
Post edited by drakeheuer14 on
Pittsburgh 2013 Cincinnati 2014 Greenville 2016 (Raleigh 2016) Columbia 2016
Comments
Anyway, I wanted to say that your open-mindedness combined with being well-spoken is quite refreshing. Being able to state your views civilly is becoming a lost art. Keep it up, young man.
(I am also quite enamored with the pooch in your av)
And that's my doggy. I rescued her when I was 18 in Alaska, and when I moved to Washington I couldn't find a landlord to let me bring her, so we do long distance now. It's "ruff" but we make it work
1. You displayed a humble approach to introducing yourself to this topic and this forum.
2. Stick around this place and participate in other threads as well- very challenging for a number of reasons, but worth the efforts.
Have a nice day.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Keep up the good fight.
Cheers...
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/pro-life-display-destroyed-at-texas-state-universi/
If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?
I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.
Don't burn the flag in protest.
Don't block traffic in protest.
Don't yell at the speaker in protest.
Don't quietly kneel in protest.
Don't tweet scientific facts from your government Twitter account in protest.
Pray tell, what exactly is the appropriate way to protest?
You cant physically assault someone even if they are a Nazi.
You can't yell at the someone to the point you are a disturbance. Would you support a group of people showing up to a PJ concert and protest what PJ stands for, to the point they couldn't perform their show? Would you sit back and just say they are exercising their right?
That's why people who show up to speeches and prevent the speaker from presenting are removed.
No one said you can't kneel. Many say it is disrespectful and should find another method, but no one has ever said he doesn't have the right to.
Work accounts, and especially public government ones, should be free from personal protest. Do your job, protest on your own.
If punching Nazis is wrong, I don't want to be right.
And punching a Nazi's in the face is not protected speech either.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but Nazi's should expect to be punched in the face. And punchers should expect to be arrested for assault. That's the risk both sides take.
I wouldn't consider it terrorism, maybe call it a preemptive strike.
He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.
Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.
I worry about the person that punches them though. Sometimes that little stubby Hitler moustache is coarse and the puncher's hand might become abrased.
Ain't nobody got time for that.
And I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the guy's 'peaceful protest'. His insistence and repeated behaviour was passive aggressive if it wasn't overtly aggressive.
He was getting in people's faces.
You said that 'the road goes both ways' to which I commented on- it certainly does and let's be honest... the pro life side of this debate has the advantage in the 'acting poorly' department. Smashing signs doesn't balance the scales when the oppositional weight is dead doctors and blown up medical facilities.
What I am saying is it was inevitable that someone was going to get agitated with track pants man and respond aggressively given his persistence. It's human nature. If people get pissed off and angry because somebody never signalled to enter the lane in front of them... someone was going to get agitated that some dork was flaunting their holiness and values when such might contradict their own.
The guy who took exception to track pants man's heightened efforts to convince people abortion is wrong should be held accountable for his actions, but I get where he was coming from.
http://www.sciencealert.com/new-type-of-male-contraceptive-not-only-prevents-babies-it-s-completely-reversible
Legal: no
That's not necessarily hypocritical
So, if I am reading this correctly, it's murder, or a double homicide if a woman was pregnant (no matter the stage of development) unless dealing with abortion..? That makes a lot of sense. At this point its more the consistency of the issue im questioning.
I am tired right now, so if I read it wrong or I am misinterpreting, my bad. Will revisit it later.
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-type-of-male-contraceptive-not-only-prevents-babies-it-s-completely-reversible