|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
The atheist was an equal opportunity offender because there were other people in the parade dressed as religious figures. That meant they weren't attacking a specific religion
|
The corollary of this is that the attacker should get off lightly if the atheists in the parade had been non-violently, non-harassingly attacking only one religion instead of two. I reject this completely, as should anyone who values the 1st Amendment. |
How do you attack someone non-violently and non-harassingly? More to the point what is he doing that is illegal? |
Ugh, read more carefully (I bolded a word in the quote above to help you out) and see what I've been saying post after post in this thread. Geezus. |
Fine...I'll rephrase my question.How do you attack a religion non-violently and non-harassingly but in a way that is still illegal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Fine...I'll rephrase my question.How do you attack a religion non-violently and non-harassingly but in a way that is still illegal? |
I certainly can't think of any examples. After banging away on this point through the whole thread, how can you fail to see that this is exactly my point? (or are you just trolling?)
Tell it to Steelrails, ok? It's really tedious to have to restate my case just because you read it negligently. If it helps, when I said "the attacker" I meant the Muslim who physically attacked the atheist; maybe that's what you misunderstood. I am arguing that he (the violent attacker) should be punished the same whether the atheists were causing an affront only to Islam, or to Islam and Catholicism both. Steelrails puzzlingly disagrees.
Clear now??
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| the attacker was not being harassed. The atheists were not on trial for harassing anyone. |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| It's not a question of whether only Muslims were being harassed or whether Muslims and Catholics were both being harassed. No one was being harassed by the people in costumes. |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
The atheists had just as much right to be disrespectful to Islam specifically, if they had so chosen. |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| The only "harasser" in this case was the Muslim man who assaulted someone. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Fine...I'll rephrase my question.How do you attack a religion non-violently and non-harassingly but in a way that is still illegal? |
I certainly can't think of any examples. After banging away on this point through the whole thread, how can you fail to see that this is exactly my point? (or are you just trolling?)
Tell it to Steelrails, ok? It's really tedious to have to restate my case just because you read it negligently. If it helps, when I said "the attacker" I meant the Muslim who physically attacked the atheist; maybe that's what you misunderstood. I am arguing that he (the attacker) should be punished the same whether the atheists were causing an affront only to Islam, or to Islam and Catholicism both.
Clear now??
] |
It's always been crystal clear to me. I was just pointing out the contradictions in your claim. You say he should be punished the same even if he attacked a religion "non-violently and non-harrassingly". I asked HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE. You respond by saying that you can't think of any examples yet in the next breath say that was your point.
I understand that you are arguing that the attacker should be punished the same. What I am asking about is your specific claim here
| Quote: |
| The corollary of this is that the attacker should get off lightly if the atheists in the parade had been non-violently, non-harassingly attacking only one religion instead of two. I reject this completely, as should anyone who values the 1st Amendment. |
It is not possible for someone to "non-violently non-harassingly" attack another person. Taunting words and gestures would qualify as harassment and physical assault would qualify as violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| It's always been crystal clear to me. |
The forensic evidence indicates otherwise...
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| . You say he should be punished the same even if he attacked a religion "non-violently and non-harrassingly". I asked HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE. You respond by saying that you can't think of any examples yet in the next breath say that was your point. |
No, you didn't ask me that. You asked "How do you attack a religion non-violently and non-harassingly but in a way that is still illegal". In doing so, you were asking me to defend a position that is diametrically opposed to what I have been arguing from the start. I responded that I can't think of any examples, because my point from the beginning has been that their non-violent non-harassing conduct was not illegal.
How do you attack a religion "non-violently and non-harassingly?" Ideally, in some intelligent form in print, art, or public speech; in this case, it was with costumes in a Halloween parade, that were arguably tasteless but still not harassing of an individual.
At this point I'm 75 percent sure you're trolling me. I mean is it even possible for someone to be this obtuse? Can you not see what a ridiculous time waster this is, and how much better it would be for you to simply read with attention instead of getting tangled up in incompetent misreadings of my (fairly obvious) point?
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| It is not possible for someone to "non-violently non-harassingly" attack another person. |
Well duh. The only person who attacked another person in any capacity was the angered Muslim who took matters to a physical level.
The atheists were attacking (or disrespecting, blaspheming, etc) a religion, not attacking an individual. That is what they were doing "non-violently, non-harassingly". Get it?? That's the gist of my point and has been from the start. I have never said otherwise.
If you're going to respond again, please take an extra few moments before hitting "submit" and make sure you understand wtf you're responding to. It's exasperating to do this with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
Maybe soon we'll be excusing rapists because she "should have known" what that provocative outfit would result in. |
I thought we did that already... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
