Christian group you can really dislike on sight:

Originally posted by sonhouse
I did and responded. I am pointing out this group of nutters should not be allowed to interfere with the funeral of a little girl BECAUSE she is catholic. They go around saying 'God hats Fags', God Hates Catholics and the like. A nutter hate group who shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves christian. They recently picketed a funeral of a young gay man ...[text shortened]... hese nutters came on the scene at the funeral, I would consider a bit of hate killing myself.

free speech entitles them to free speak. even if it is hateful and retarded.

also they are not a group. stop calling them a group. they are as much a group as the 3 hobos that sit on a specific corner. the girl scouts that sell cookies in a single town have more more members than this gathering of weirdoes.

this is just the same as all the world stopping and craping their pants of what the muslims would do over the actions of one moron who threatened to burn a quran. by giving him attention, even negative attention you are making him important. the westboro baptist church is trolling. stop feeding the troll

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
free speech entitles them to free speak. even if it is hateful and retarded.

also they are not a group. stop calling them a group. they are as much a group as the 3 hobos that sit on a specific corner. the girl scouts that sell cookies in a single town have more more members than this gathering of weirdoes.

this is just the same as all the world st ...[text shortened]... on you are making him important. the westboro baptist church is trolling. stop feeding the troll

My friend, they are feeding themselves, they need no help from me. It is a group, however, mostly one family but there are several members, I was using the term group in a pejorative way, in no way was I ever going to actually call them christians.
I would call them idiots but that would be tarnishing all the real idiots out there.

Originally posted by sonhouse
My friend, they are feeding themselves, they need no help from me. It is a group, however, mostly one family but there are several members, I was using the term group in a pejorative way, in no way was I ever going to actually call them christians.
I would call them idiots but that would be tarnishing all the real idiots out there.

they are not feeding themselves. they are harmless and should be treated as such. will youy be offended if a drunk insane hobo calls you an idiot on the street? no, you move on and probably feel sorry for him. picture this: that hobo calls you and idiot, then you call him an idiot, then you both start yelling at each other. from the outside, it looks like you are both pitiful.

never engage an idiot in argument. you have the disadvantage of feeling the need to make sense.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T1

It's bad enough this little girl, born on 9-11-2001 was killed by a nutter, now because she is catholic, the funeral is to be picketed by yet another.

She wasn't a real catholic. You are not born catholic. You have to be confermed catholic and that is about the ages of 17-18. But it is sad to see these false converts picket her funeral. 😞

Originally posted by RBHILL
She wasn't a real catholic. You are not born catholic. You have to be confermed catholic and that is about the ages of 17-18.

So it's ok to picket the funeral of a "fake" catholic?

Her having been a catholic is real enough to those idiots protesting.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
So it's ok to picket the funeral of a "fake" catholic?

Her having been a catholic is real enough to those idiots protesting.

Sorry you had to attack when I was editting.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Sorry you had to attack when I was editting.

Well, I withdraw any implied criticism from my post 🙂

I just think her being a catholic was likely very real to herself and just because she didn't have the opportunity to get confirmed doesn't make that any less real.

What it means to be a "real" anything with respect to religion seems to change from group to group even within a religion from what I can see in any case.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
they are not feeding themselves. they are harmless and should be treated as such. will youy be offended if a drunk insane hobo calls you an idiot on the street? no, you move on and probably feel sorry for him. picture this: that hobo calls you and idiot, then you call him an idiot, then you both start yelling at each other. from the outside, it looks like y ...[text shortened]...
never engage an idiot in argument. you have the disadvantage of feeling the need to make sense.

How far can the "hobo" harass you within his rights?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, I withdraw any implied criticism from my post 🙂

I just think her being a catholic was likely very real to herself and just because she didn't have the opportunity to get confirmed doesn't make that any less real.

What it means to be a "real" anything with respect to religion seems to change from group to group even within a religion from what I can see in any case.

Her going to a catholic church has nothing to do with there picketing. No matter where she went they would still do it.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Her going to a catholic church has nothing to do with there picketing. No matter where she went they would still do it.

I think I actually might agree with you. I was just going along the initial thread.

This church does tend to latch onto specific issues with certain deaths though. With the deaths of soldiers they claim that it is that our country condones homosexuality that causes the deaths in Iraq so they somehow deserve it.

I think they are at their core attention whores who want to try and remain relevant somehow by simply being in the news. They likely hope to gain supporters by doing so.

Originally posted by Palynka
How far can the "hobo" harass you within his rights?

depends what you mean by harassing. perhaps i might have chosen a wrong example. there might be laws against insulting someone deliberately. but so long as he is not breaking any laws (hitting me over the head with a shovel after calling me idiot) it is perfectly acceptable from a legal point of view.


in the case in question, it is the right of the retards to post hateful messages on public property. not quite morally right. but a necessary evil if we wish for free speech.




on a side note it is not fun to defend those despicable human beings. i am not. i defend their right to be despicable as long as they don't break any laws.

the main point i want to be clear is that noticing them being despicable and being outraged and showing them that does more harm than outright ignoring them.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
depends what you mean by harassing. perhaps i might have chosen a wrong example. there might be laws against insulting someone deliberately. but so long as he is not breaking any laws (hitting me over the head with a shovel after calling me idiot) it is perfectly acceptable from a legal point of view.


in the case in question, it is the right of the ret ...[text shortened]... despicable and being outraged and showing them that does more harm than outright ignoring them.

They are harassing a grieving family.

You keep bringing up free speech but that's idiotic. Nobody here has asked for them being censored. They could go picket in front of the city hall and nobody would stop them. But, no, they want to do it at some grieving family's funeral. For me, that's harassment.

Free speech is not about the right to harass a funeral.

Originally posted by Palynka
They are harassing a grieving family.

You keep bringing up free speech but that's idiotic. Nobody here has asked for them being censored. They could go picket in front of the city hall and nobody would stop them. But, no, they want to do it at some grieving family's funeral. For me, that's harassment.

Free speech is not about the right to harass a funeral.

actually it is.

the right to say or even do something someone else doesn't like (of course, as long as no laws are broken and nobody is getting hurt) is fundamental.

what is the big deal of being allowed to say what everyone agrees? in soviet russia you were allowed to do that.

sonhouse and others did ask for a form of censorship. he said that where he the father of that child he would engage in some hate crime himself against those retards. i can emphatize with that notion. in fact, i might not be able to restrain myself should i be in that little girl's father shoes. however what we like and what others like doesn't always coincide.


"But, no, they want to do it at some grieving family's funeral. For me, that's harassment"
they probably researched the law and behaved like aholes in a public place. like say the road most close to the cemetery. or just outside the fence of the cemetery if it was a private property. morally it is harassment. but because we do not have someone we can trust to say what is aholery and what is exercising free speech, we must allow(reluctantly) those retards to function in society/

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
actually it is.

the right to say or even do something someone else doesn't like (of course, as long as no laws are broken and nobody is getting hurt) is fundamental.

what is the big deal of being allowed to say what everyone agrees? in soviet russia you were allowed to do that.

sonhouse and others did ask for a form of censorship. he said that wh exercising free speech, we must allow(reluctantly) those retards to function in society/

My God, you're an idiot, aren't you?

NOBODY prevents them from saying the same things without harassing a family during a funeral. It's not about content. They could be singing Michael Jackson songs for all I care. So it has nothing to do with free speech.

Originally posted by Palynka
My God, you're an idiot, aren't you?

NOBODY prevents them from saying the same things without harassing a family during a funeral. It's not about content. They could be singing Michael Jackson songs for all I care. So it has nothing to do with free speech.

your point is made valid because you called me an idiot. without it, it just wouldn't have the same kick to it. i mean what other use could a debate forum have other than pointing out the idiocy of some random from the internet?