jbg Posted February 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 actually jbg, no part of an individuals freedom could be described as , you have the freedom to be insulted or the recepient of insult or injury, as another party sees fit! are you kidding?! Are you for real? Kuzadd, I don't mean this sarcastically or as an insult, but I really tihnk you need to learn something about the English roots of American and Canadian lliberty. That's why we have such things as libel and slander laws.? right jbg?No, to protect parties against deliberate falsehoods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestViking Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) No one has the right not to be offended. Certainly there is commentary that some people find offensive. There is behaviour that some people find offensive. However, trying to shild people from offensive behaviours or commentary is a fool's errant that winds up severely restricting our liberty, freedoms and rights. Libel and slander, that is the deliberate attempt to use untrue statements to damage another person's reputation, is a form of assault and actionable at law. Edited February 6, 2008 by WestViking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 These people who would be so insensitive are the very same people that picked on the retarded/fat/ugly/loner/ethnic kid in school.Bullying is different since it's action rather than speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Sure, but Kuzadd's message suggests he has a legal right to not be insulted. See what she wrote?"what jbg fails to grasp is a right to insult or injure extends ONLY as far as anothers' right NOT to be insulted or injured." In actuality, my right to insult another extends up to the point where it falls within the strict legal definition of libel/slander. Aside from that, I can say any damned thing I want. *my* common decency causes me to not cruelly taunt hobos, but that's an issue of my common decency, *not* any legal right of the hobo to not have his feelings hurt. Some comedians have made lucrative careers of having less common decency than most people; I can't recall any successful lawsuits or criminal proceedings against any of them. -k and there you go , the legal defintion of slander and libel are as far as anyone's rights go to insult. There are then also hate speech limitations, and civil suits if necessary. Therefore jbg's unlimited right to insult in a free society is still wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) There is no such right. The circumstances under which the exercise of free speech can be considered to cause injury are clearly defined and do nothing to restrict the eating of cookies.Valuable Kimmy-Points for anybody who can demonstrate a legal precident either in Canada or the United States that shows otherwise. -k It certainly seemed this had moved on in topic as always from specifically being about cookie eating, upon reading it. We weren't specifically talking about 'cookies' anymore, just a general right to insult, as a general behavioural right, or a "freedom" was what jbq implied. in this statement from him Part of freedom includes the freedom to insult and be insulted. note jbg say's PART OF FREEDOM ( in general) includes freedom to insult and be insulted, (not specifically mentioning eating cookies.) Part of freedom to insult includes being held accountable for insult and resulting injury. Therefore my statments , speaking in a general manner to quote you kimmy In actuality, my right to insult another extends up to the point where it falls within the strict legal definition of libel/slander. and that's as far as your right, or jbg's or societies as a wholes', right to insult, extends, up to the point, where it falls within the strict legal definition of libel/slander. Or someone else's right not to bre insulted and injured by such insult, as I already stated. Therefore, Thanks for reiterating! what I had already said: That's why we have such things as libel and slander laws.? I am going to include this section here: it address's the right to free speech: http://www.cba.org/BC/public_media/rights/240.aspx What about the right to free speech? The law protects a person's reputation but this protection can restrict other rights, such as the right to free speech. The law tries to balance these competing interests. Edited February 6, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 btw : see new thread http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=10814 Canadian "white nationalist" jailed for hate crime another impediment to unfettered freedom to insult, and freedom to be insulted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 What a great idea. Mohammad cookies sound delicious. I'd say they should eat Jesus cookies on the next episode, but there really are Christians who do this. Perhaps they could burn a crucifix or something, that might be equally as inflammatory. Heck, why stop there? They should insult all the other religions while their at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) What a great idea. Mohammad cookies sound delicious. I'd say they should eat Jesus cookies on the next episode, but there really are Christians who do this. Perhaps they could burn a crucifix or something, that might be equally as inflammatory. Heck, why stop there? They should insult all the other religions while their at it. Actually there are christians who already eat the "body of christ" it's called Eucharist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist Roman Catholic Church Eucharist (Catholic Church) In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments. The institution of the Eucharist is one of the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary. The Eucharist not only commemorates the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, but also makes it truly present. The priest and victim of the sacrifice are one and the same (Christ). The only difference is how the Eucharist is offered: as unbloody.[20] The only minister of the Eucharist, that is, one authorized to celebrate the rite and consecrate the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest (either bishop or presbyter) acting in the person of Christ (in persona Christi). In other words the priest celebrant represents Christ, who is the Head of the Church, and acts before God the Father in the name of the Church. The matter used must be wheaten bread and grape wine; this is essential for validity.[21] According to the Roman Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the body and blood of Christ." Having eaten "the body of christ" many times myself,( in a past life, LOL) I find the whole thing now a bizarre and canabilistic concept. But whatever?! Edited February 6, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 What a great idea. Mohammad cookies sound delicious. I'd say they should eat Jesus cookies on the next episode, but there really are Christians who do this. Perhaps they could burn a crucifix or something, that might be equally as inflammatory. Heck, why stop there? They should insult all the other religions while their at it.You wouldn't have riots over "Jesus cookies". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 You wouldn't have riots over "Jesus cookies".Because it's not inflammatory in the same way as making an effigy of mohammad, then desecrating it. There's effigies of Jesus everywhere, it's just not insulting to the religion. So, making Jesus cookies is not comparing apples to apples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 You wouldn't have riots over "Jesus cookies". christians already eat 'jesus cookies'! Making it a non-issue totally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 note jbg say's PART OF FREEDOM ( in general) includes freedom to insult and be insulted, (not specifically mentioning eating cookies.)Part of freedom to insult includes being held accountable for insult and resulting injury. Therefore my statments , speaking in a general manner (...) Therefore, Thanks for reiterating! what I had already said: "That's why we have such things as libel and slander laws.?" Your complete quote was: "actually jbg, no part of an individuals freedom could be described as , you have the freedom to be insulted or the recepient of insult or injury, as another party sees fit! are you kidding?! Are you for real? That's why we have such things as libel and slander laws.? right jbg?" It conveys the impression that you think libel and slander laws are a general remedy to any sort of hurt feelings, when in fact slander and libel have legal definitions that have to be satisfied before any statement could be considered slander or libel. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 What a great idea. Mohammad cookies sound delicious. I'd say they should eat Jesus cookies on the next episode, but there really are Christians who do this. Perhaps they could burn a crucifix or something, that might be equally as inflammatory. Heck, why stop there? They should insult all the other religions while their at it. Because it's not inflammatory in the same way as making an effigy of mohammad, then desecrating it. There's effigies of Jesus everywhere, it's just not insulting to the religion. So, making Jesus cookies is not comparing apples to apples. christians already eat 'jesus cookies'!Making it a non-issue totally. I think you guys are being funny little monkeys. Christians do not riot or burn stuff when they're upset. When their faith is insulted, they protest, they boycott, they write letters, they make their views known in legal and non-violent ways. To reiterate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davinci_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temp...rist_%28film%29 -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Your complete quote was:"actually jbg, no part of an individuals freedom could be described as , you have the freedom to be insulted or the recepient of insult or injury, as another party sees fit! are you kidding?! Are you for real? That's why we have such things as libel and slander laws.? right jbg?" It conveys the impression that you think libel and slander laws are a general remedy to any sort of hurt feelings, when in fact slander and libel have legal definitions that have to be satisfied before any statement could be considered slander or libel. -k It was not intended to convey the impression, YOU chose to take from it. It was chosen to demonstrate to jbg, that there are limitations to our perceived "right" to insult and injure as seen fit by the party perpetuating the insult and injury. which is why I cited slander, libel, laws as restraints to unfettered insult and injury & defamation, hate crimes in later posts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 I think you guys are being funny little monkeys. Christians do not riot or burn stuff when they're upset. When their faith is insulted, they protest, they boycott, they write letters, they make their views known in legal and non-violent ways. To reiterate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davinci_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temp...rist_%28film%29 -k christians do eat jesus cookies , though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) I think you guys are being funny little monkeys. Religious people think we are not *monkeys* Christians do not riot or burn stuff when they're upset. When their faith is insulted, they protest, they boycott, they write letters, they make their views known in legal and non-violent ways. Some people would let insults just roll off their backs -- does this fact make it "okay" to taunt those who take insults to heart? OF course not. Posters keep touting "But Christians would not be offended by *such and such*!" How 'bout if I go into yer church this Sunday and start strippin' and rubbin' my little naked bod all over the guy on the crucifix? Would any Christians be offended? The hypocritcal men would looove it -- the women, not so much This isn't about pitting Islam against Christianity, it's about people being ignorant sob's. Edited February 6, 2008 by Drea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 How 'bout if I go into yer church this Sunday and start strippin' and rubbin' my little naked bod all over the guy on the crucifix? Would any Christians be offended? The hypocritcal men would looove it -- the women, not so much Grace Church on the Hill. I recommend the 9:15 sung Eucharist as it will give you some rhythm to rub by. Bring a ladder, the Crucix is quite high up. I will not be offended and whether I love it or not is still up in the air.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Christians do not riot or burn stuff when they're upset. -k I'm not really a fan of playing the "who's worse" game because it's a no contest. Muslim violence is disgusting and so is every other type of violence. Christians have murdered abortion doctors. It's really not rioting or burning stuff, but it is still violent and it is because of religious conviction.It's really not fair to say Christians do not (read: never) riot or burn stuff. They have shown violence and residential schools are another example of that violence and abuse. There's violence everywhere, but it is safe to say no religious fanatics carry it out with quite the same zeal as Islamofascists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Grace Church on the Hill. I recommend the 9:15 sung Eucharist as it will give you some rhythm to rub by. Bring a ladder, the Crucix is quite high up. I will not be offended and whether I love it or not is still up in the air.... hahaha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 But they were wanting to eat the cookie in front of regular (non crazy) Muslims.This thread is not a pissing contest of whose religion is worse... it is about people deliberately inciting others to violence. Then pointing and laughing and saying "see, told you they were fanatics!". Grow the frig up already. ALL religion should be erradicated from this beautiful planet in my opinion. ALL of them. How many times do I need to repeat this.. Jeeezus Keeryst. People.. there is no such thing as a sky daddy. You are on your own, grow up and start acting like adults (only childish bullies would think inciting others to be "fun". The communist party shared that view of eradicating religion and tried pushing it on people how did that turn out for them? How many people died? Those non crazy muslims can refer to the cookie eating people as assholes and can make them look ridiculous in public. Evangelical Christians have that happen to them on a regular basis. IMO, I can't prove there is a "sky daddy" I also can't prove there ISN'T one either. Given that Science changes all the time and that there are numerous theories out there, I nor anyone around has the mental capacity to make that call. I don't think people go to church, a mosque, or a synagogue to get brainwashed; they go to learn that being a good person and treating other people properly is a good thing to do. How is believing in that a bad thing? If some girl wants to stroll in to church and rub her naked body all over a crucifix, I'll take as much offense as she would when I would call that person a two dollar trash bag whore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 OOooOOOOooooOOO! See you WOULD be HIGHLY offended! So not all things will "roll off" the Christian's back! Even a hypothetical situation makes you so angry that you froth at the mouth. Yet in the same post you figure it's "fun" to make other people so angry that they froth at the mouth. Commies are long gone. Your new freaky enemy is (boooga boooga!) Islam. Please try to keep up... commies and hippies no longer exist. Ok? You up to speed now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 (edited) If some girl wants to stroll in to church and rub her naked body all over a crucifix, I'll take as much offense as she would when I would call that person a two dollar trash bag whore. My level of offense would depend on how good she looked and whether I was allowed to pretend to be a Crucifix. Isn't two dollars really expensive for a trash bag? Edited February 7, 2008 by AngusThermopyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 I personally would prefer you did it in an art gallery rather than a church. The difference being in a gallery the viewers have given consent while in the church they may be offended but not by reason of sacrilege..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Well I'd prefer my living room personally. Still, when those naked chicks rub themselves all over you, you take it where you can get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Well I'd prefer my living room personally. Still, when those naked chicks rub themselves all over you, you take it where you can get it. ...'cept in a nursing home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.