|
|
|
|
The Westboro Baptist Church was sued for picketing the funeral of a fallen soldier. A federal jury awarded the soldier's family $10.9 million dollars! For those who are unaware, this is the church whose placards read "God Hates Fags".
Read the story at: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/iraq/bal-te.md.westboro01nov01,0,418843.story
I wonder if Pastor Phelps will ever get the message that God is not on his side?
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are the SOBs that picketed Matt sheaphards funeral. Can you imagine laying your son to rest after he was brutally beaten to death and having these godless creatures picket the funeral with god hates fags and Matts in hell signs. Im glad the jurry awarded the family. Phelps might get the message that god and the american people hate him.
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
A jury setting an amount is a far cry from the family collecting any damages...... you can rest assured that tieir assets are well hidden.....
People like fred phelps (small case intentional) can never be beaten.....
They are far too psychotic to realize when they are loosing.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... or at least I think I am. Probably.
Marc's post below is depressingly true - the award of damages is pretty meaningless until the appeal process has been exhausted, and that could take years.
But back to godlessness. I don't see any link between godliness and goodness. It implies that the concept of a good Buddhist is inconceivable, but Buddhism is probably the gentlest of all religions.
What follows might seem to be an attack upon US values. It isn't. The origins and motives of the US constitution are admirable but, to an outsider, it seems that the US obsession with 'freedoms' is self-destructive. Any realistic system of freedom must be balanced by an expectation of responsibility. Why should Phelps be able to argue 'freedom of speech' when the exercise of that freedom causes anguish to other, wholly innocent individuals?
And what of the freedom of religious expression? No reasonable person could defend the religious repression which characterised much of Western Europe at the time the Pilgrim Fathers set sail - but they didn't display undue tolerance themselves. Outright freedom of religious expression in the United States has borne results which - at the very least - seem bizarre. The future for mankind surely lies in unity, not in fragmentation into religious sects which consider themselves (on essentially human authority) to be the only legitimate interpreters of God's Word. If there IS a god - and I have serious doubts about that - He must be seriously concerned about the divisions among his followers in the United States.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ProfZodiac
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 115
|
|
|
Even beyond that, the Circuit Court will either overrule the judgment or greatly reduce the punitive damages. The WBC will never have to pay a dime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, Cossie; so am I. It seems to me that so many religions or sects are devoted to imposing the priests view of how people ought to behave on the rest of us, that those of us who don't fit their norm ought to say "Religion is not for us." My first lover was a Roman Catholic and went and confessed to what we did and 'repented' of it. Is that the way to a happy relationship and acceptance?
Anthony (From southwest England)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
.... Why should Phelps be able to argue 'freedom of speech' when the exercise of that freedom causes anguish to other, wholly innocent individuals?....
So, what if someone is walking by a gay rights demonstration and what they hear makes them upset. Should they be able to supress that speech.
whether or not someones feelings are hurt should not be used to restrict speach or ideas or the expression of those ideas (so long as noone elses rights are affected). it's too subjective.
Of course, this is not an issue of constitutionaly protected free speech. The constitution was writen to protect the individual from government, so does not apply here.
[Updated on: Sat, 03 November 2007 17:22]
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 19:50] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The funeral was conducted in a cemetary which is privately owned, as a great percentage are.... Also there is a federal law preventing protesting on federal cemetary property.
The Fred Phelps group were not acting in accord to their constitutional right to assemble and voice opinion.
They were trespassing.
But.... All that aside. This so called church and it's members have no moral authouity to belittle a family while burying their child for doing his/her duty as a member of the armed forces.
There certainly must be a special hell being built for the good fred phelps... and i hope it is being the lube boi in a gay bath house.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... what I think is wrong with the US concept of freedom. What Phelps is doing is the logical equivalent of addressing a class of black kids, telling them that they are no better than apes. Would you defend that as the exercise of free speech?
The 'Gay Pride' analogy is an invalid comparison; again adopting logical terms, Gay Pride Parades are a form of advertising; only in that sense are they 'in your face'. No-one (at least in any parade I have seen) is shouting 'all you straights are going to hell'. Phelps would be entitled to express his opinion in the context of academic debate, but the nature of his protests at military funerals is altogether different.
Phelps' activities would be illegal here in the UK, and that's something which (almost) makes me feel a kind of nationalistic pride. But perhaps not; a UK academic institution recently refused to hear a Nobel-laureate speaker because he had suggested that blacks were less intelligent than whites. I see that as pretty much on a par with burning heretical books - surely the correct approach would have been to allow him to speak and then to attack his hypothesis.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
The 'Gay Pride' analogy is an invalid comparison; again adopting logical terms, Gay Pride Parades are a form of advertising; only in that sense are they 'in your face'. No-one (at least in any parade I have seen) is shouting 'all you straights are going to hell'. Phelps would be entitled to express his opinion in the context of academic debate, but the nature of his protests at military funerals is altogether different.
Actually I said gay rights demonstration, not gay pride parade....slight difference.
If Phelps Pfollowed his normal proceedure, they had a permit for the protest and stood exactly where the permit told them to stand. in this case (according to the article) over 1000 feet from the building where the funeral was held.
surely the correct approach would have been to allow him to speak and then to attack his hypothesis.
I think that is the idea. Free exchange of ideas, even if you think the other person is an idiot. Every time phelps and his cult appear on tv people get a chance to see what complete morons they are.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
What Phelps is doing is the logical equivalent of addressing a class of black kids, telling them that they are no better than apes. Would you defend that as the exercise of free speech?
I would. I'd then also kick them out of my school tell them they are fucking morons and never associate with them again.
Because that's my right, to hate them back.
As long as they aren't acting violently then they have a right to say what they want.
I hate censorship, which political correctness is. Even if it is "for the right reason". It's a slippery slope- what's next, thought crimes?
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> ... what I think is wrong with the US concept of freedom. What Phelps is doing is the logical equivalent of addressing a class of black kids, telling them that they are no better than apes. Would you defend that as the exercise of free speech?
>
as much as I think that fred phelps is a blithering bigot.... I can't see how you make the connection between protesting at a funeral and invading a schoolroom.....
or am I missing something?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
The property owner in this case should definitely have been the one to decide whether or not the protest was allowed. In this case the Phelps group had not sought prior permission, hence it was trespassing and wrong.
Morally, I think if there's any hell, Phelps and his kind will be burning in the deepest levels. I have no respect for what he says. But unfortunately, I do respect his right to stupidity- even public displays of stupidity.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I apologise to E.J. for wrongly referring to a gay rights parade rather than a gay rights protest; there's not a lot of protesting in the UK these days, since the battle is substantially won and any remaining argument is about the detail rather than the substance. However, I don't think it makes any difference to my argument. Protest is perfectly legitimate if the protestors are seeking rights which are denied to them, or if they are demonstrating to express a political view. Even Phelps would have some legitimacy if he carried out his protests in front of the White House.
But that is not the case here. His activities at military funerals are deliberately and aggressively offensive to the families of those who have died, and in any event the majority of the dead soldiers would not be gay. He is using his freedom of speech quite specifically and intentionally to intrude upon the freedom of innocent people who surely have every right to grieve in peace.
On any practical model for democratic society, there can be no such thing as absolute freedom; it is impossible simply because a balance must be struck between the freedom of an individual to say or do as he wishes and the freedom of the rest of society to enjoy their personal liberties without intrusion or interference. The classic example which I have used several times before is the occupant of a block of apartments who wishes to play music at maximum volume at three o'clock in the morning. He does NOT have that freedom, since it cannot be exercised without seriousl infringing the freedom of his neighbours to sleep in peace. Freedom and responsibility are inseperable; Phelps' actions are utterly selfish and irresponsible.
To make my point unequivocally clear: yes, Phelps is entitled to hold his views; yes, he is entitled to express those views, and yes, he is entitled to demonstrate in support of those views - but no, he is not (or at least should not be) entitled to deliberately cause what must be very considerable distress to innocent and vulnerable members of the public who are not directly involved. They have rights, too, and I cannot see how it can reasonably be argued that those rights are less important than Phelps' freedom of speech.
I can't accept Saben's view. and I confess that I'm suprised to hear such a view expressed, especially on a gay message board. A racist may well hold the view that black children are no better than apes. That's his prerogative; we're still some way away from the era of Orwellian thought police. But he most certainly isn't allowed to express that view to a group of black children; such discriminatory statements are illegal, at least in the UK - and discrimination is something the gay community has fought against for years. I don't object to such views being expressed in the context of a formal discussion - I'm advocating responsibility, not censorship - but that's not the point at issue here.
As regards political correctness, I assure you that I am a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of the concept. For example, I abhor such wooly concepts as 'multicultural society'; there is no evidence that the idea is workable but plenty of psychological evidence to suggest that it is a pathway to disaster. I accept that my country has an economic need for immigatnts, but I believe that they should modify their culture to fit into ours, rather than - as is happening - expecting us to modify our culture to asccommodate them. If a Muslim finds our Christmas festivities offensive, he is free to leave; if our politicians had taken that view throughout, much trouble would have been avoided. It is frankly ludicrous that a female Muslim lawyer should demand the right to wear a full veil while addressing a British Court. That, I hope, will establish my non-PC credentials. [That said, not one of my Muslim friends and acquaintances has any qualms about Christmas, nor had they anything but condemnation for the lawyer, whom they regarded as a trouble-maker who was simply making life more difficult for all of them.] But non-PC though I may be, I absolutely defend the right of a British Muslim to go through life without being addressed to his face as a Paki bastard.
In response to Marc, the connection - as I hope I have now made clear - is that in both cases the individual has moved from the legitimate expression of an opinion to what on any sensible interpretation is discriminatory behaviour.
Edited for typo only - Oops!
[Updated on: Tue, 06 November 2007 00:55]
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wonderfully said, well expressed and, I think, extremely valid.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>There certainly must be a special hell being built for the good fred phelps... and i hope it is being the lube boi in a gay bath house.
Well... I suppose one man's heaven could be another man's hell...lol
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
From what I gather, 1 million dollars of liquid assets was been frozen, the land at which the "church" stands has leins on it. This time next year I hope the placards will read "will work for food"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Stands to reason, is this akin to oh, saying "fire" in a crowded theater?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I mostly agree with you, cossie. But I think that responsibility should never turn into censorship.
I am 100% against LAWS limiting speech, or limiting opinions. I am totally against discrimination, don't get me wrong. But I think that stupidity and closed-mindedness needs to be combated through social movement, rather than government intervention.
But I'm a libertarian. I'm highly suspicious of anything that gives government the power to interfere with anything more than the most basic rules of law (non-violence and coercion).
Being addressed as a "paki bastard" might be upsetting, but so's being addressed as a "dumb cunt". I don't think it is right to legislate against offence.
In the Phelps case, the cemetery owner should have the right to kick Phelps and even fine him for trespassing. Property owners are allowed to set their own rules regarding their property. And indeed in public space, such as government business, certain rules could be established, too. I just reject the notion of legal limitations on speech.
Morally, Phelps was definitely in the wrong. Just because you have a right to free speech, sometimes the canny thing to do is not exercise it.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you Saben. It should be the people who shut Phelps up not the law. One of the first funerals he picketed was here. He and his group were lucky to escape with their lives. Obviously being chased out of town at gun point didnt scare him enough. I noticed after that incident he stoped picketing in the south. we make fun of rednecks with gun racks but I dont think he was making any fun after that.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
I'm puzzled, should we have....people taking the law into their on hands? ...or a law preventing this type of activity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
It seems that ordinary, decent folk in Oklahoma have not taken the law into their own hands, but, within the law, have made their feelings known. That is what is required. A public and polite groundswell of opinion.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it is everyone's right to put their stupidity on display but I agree with Marc that Fred Phelps and his family members go far beyond their right of free speech which, I assume, is why their activities have prompted laws banning protests at funerals.
Phelps calls his 'organisation' a baptist-calvinist church, but two of his estrangered children insist that the church is actually a carefully planned cult that allows Phelps to see himself as a demigod, wielding absolute control over the lives of his family and congregants, essentially turning them into slaves that he can use for the sole purpose of gratifying his every whim and acting as the structure for his delusion that he is the only righteous man on Earth. (Wikipedia)
What he does well is creating news headlines, which is a pity, because he is probably a psychiatric case and doesn't deserve the publicity he gets. To some he may be a clown, but I'm sure that families who have lost one of their loved ones, could do without that entertainment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 1st Amendment rights of a hateful church
THE NEWS TRIBUNE
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/story/195119.html
They may be the most obnoxious people in America: the demonstrators from Kansas who slither up to military funerals with such signs as “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “God hates fags” and “You’re going to hell.”
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church claim that U.S. casualties in Iraq are God’s punishment of a military that defends a gay-friendly nation. Their demonstrations in Washington (state) helped spur the 2007 Legislature to enact a law keeping protesters 500 feet away from funerals and burials.
This week, a federal jury in Baltimore awarded $11 million in damages to a man who endured the group’s repulsive antics at the funeral of his son, a Marine killed in Iraq.
The first reaction to that verdict is, “Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of people.” The father’s lawyer summed up the church’s actions as “offensive, shocking, extreme and outrageous in any context, but especially at a funeral.” Who could disagree?
But the second reaction, for those who cherish the Constitution, is, “Wait a minute. What about the First Amendment?”
In fact, the Westboro Baptists are exercising three bedrock constitutional rights: Freedom of religion, speech and assembly. Americans own those rights even if they are shocking, extreme and outrageous.
That leads to another question: How do we preserve paramount First Amendment rights while protecting bereaved families during what should be a sacred and private moment?
It’s a balancing act, but it has been done before. Freedoms can be restricted in time and place while still preserving the right to exercise them.
Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen can march with hateful signs down public streets. They don’t – say the courts – have a right to burn crosses in a manner that intimidates specific individuals.
Anti-abortion activists can demonstrate against abortion clinics. Yet states can forbid them from getting in the faces of people walking in and out of the facilities.
People can demonstrate at political conventions. Yet cities can keep them far enough away to prevent them from disrupting the proceedings.
For that matter, you can shout “Fire!” – but you better not do it in a crowded theater.
That $11 million verdict in Baltimore may well be overturned, given the Westboro Baptists’ claims on the First Amendment. But the Legislature was on the right track when it said, “Go ahead, hold up your loathsome signs. That’s your right. But get far enough away that decent, grieving people can’t read the obscenities thereon.”
© Copyright 2007 Tacoma News, Inc.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Obsession with liberties seems to close minds to the concept of responsibility.
Liberty is pretty much synonymous with freedom, and freedom is a basic human right. I have not, at any stage, advocated censorship. I am (in the British sense) on the political left, and the rights of the individual are very, very important to me. It is precisely in order to protect those rights that I believe so strongly that the law should require responsible use of individual liberties.
Everyone is morally entitled to hold a view, to express that view and, if he feels it to be necessary, to demonstrate in support of that view. I made it clear in an earlier post that I strongly disagreed with the recent decision of a British university to withdraw an invitation to a Nobel laureate to speak because he had expressed the view that black people were less intelligent than whites. The opinion had nothing to do with the rejected speaker's field of scientific expertise, and any university worth its salt should have been well able to muster a demolition team to discredit his opinion. Simply refusing to let him speak was exercising censorship; that, in my view, is not only indefensible - it achieves nothing.
Even Phelps enjoys that moral entitlement. What - in my view - he is NOT at liberty to do is to infringe the freedom of other, specific individuals to go about their lawful business without harrassment.
I accept that if two groups demonstrating in support of opposing viewpoints meet face to face, violence is likely to break out. In the UK, the police (of whom, incidentally, I am in general highly critical - but not on this issue) use their powers to keep such groups apart. That doesn't deprive either group of their right to demonstrate in support of their viewpoint. But even if the groups DO meet face-to-face, and fights break out, I accept that this is part and parcel of activist participation.
That scenario is a world away from what Phelps is actually doing. He is, quite deliberately and with malice aforethought, targeting vulnerable, grief-stricken individuals who are not in any way involved in supporting or opposing his point of view. What logical concept of liberty should allow him to do so?
I have to say that I disagree absolutely with Saben. I would defend the right of anyone to oppose immigration, or even to specifically oppose immigration from Pakistan, so long as their opposition is expressed as a matter of principle and is not directed against an individual. But, to my mind, there is a world of difference between calling someone a 'Paki bastard' and calling someone a 'dumb cunt' - not that I approve of the latter, but it says more about the speaker than the subject of the insult. But 'Paki bastard' is rabidly racist, 'dumb cunt' is not - it would only be comparable if the subject of the insult was actually unable to speak.
Don't misunderstand me - I have called a couple of Muslim friends 'Paki bastards' myself, though one of them is not actually Pakistani, but they insult me equally virulently, and it's all done in friendly humour. It's not the words, but the way in which they are used, which is unacceptable.
It may surprise some, after my frequent diatribes about rebellious colonials, that I am wholly in sympathy with the revolutionaries. They were confronted by an intolerable situation, caused entirely by the inadequacy of the British government of the day, and I cannot see that they had any reasonable option but to rebel and declare independence.
I also have the utmost respect for the architects of the American Constitution; it was a wonderful concept, far ahead of its time, and a model worthy of widespread adoption. But that was then; this is now. I would seriously, and in no sense insultingly, ask our US posters to consider whether, in some respects, obsession with the Constitution has deflected attention from principle to detail.
~ Freedom of speech was an admirable concept in an age when that freedom was denied in so many countries and communities - but slavish adherence to the form, rather than the substance, of the First Amendment have made the United States less sensitive to individual liberties than almost any other Western democracy.
~ Freedom of religious belief was an unprecedented liberty at a time when religious persecution was rife. Unmoderated adherence to this principle has however resulted in a fragmentation of religious belief far, far beyond anything which has happened elsewhere in the Western world. For example, Britain has no religious prohibitions, but the number of independent churches is measurable in tens rather in thousands. In all cultures, religion has offered a path to influence and wealth; by retaining such constitutional liberty, the USA has allowed innumerable charlatans to become wealthy, and has made itself - by a huge margin - the world leader in hate crimes.
~ Freedom to carry arms was again wholly understandable at a time when an apparently corrupt colonial overlord was bent on limiting such liberty - but failure to move with the times has made the USA the murder capital of the world. Not only that; the relative ease of access to firearms in the USA has serious implications for other Western nations which try to limit gun crime.
Now I know that most of our US posters are open-minded. Let me ask you an honest question. Do you really see a fundamental difference between arguing for the literal interpretation of the Bible and arguing for the inviolable sanctity opf the US constitution? It seems to me that in both cases an interpretation which was entirely reasonable in a contemporary situation is being imposed when today's circumstances are entirely different - and indeed far beyond the comprehension of the original authors.
I'd be more than happy to pursue this further,. but - please! - if you disagree, say precisdely WHY you disagree.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> I am (in the British sense) on the political left, and the rights of the individual are very, very important to me.<
cossie, I am not sure what you are trying to say by putting these two ideas in the same sentence. Either the second idea is a non sequitur or it implies that you have to be on the political left for the rights of the individual to be important, an idea which I would dispute.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel,
I am tall, and I have brown eyes.
Does this mean either that the second part of the sentence is irrelevant to the first, or that if you're not tall you can't have brown eyes? No. It's not an argument; it's just a list.
'And' has very few connotations other than to build up a list, to continue or elaborate on an idea. It doesn't mean that there is an overall argument or concept linking the idea before the conjunction with that after it. There can be, but one is not implied by the word alone; it's not strong enough to suggest what it is without further cues (case in point: you don't know how to read the sentence yourself, perhaps because you're trying to read something into it that isn't there!).
If Cossie had used a word like 'therefore' or 'yet', then I would agree with you. But as far as I can see he is just listing his political convictions, without placing an exclusive link between them.
David
[Updated on: Wed, 07 November 2007 11:34] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie your my dearest friend and I neather agree nor disagree with you. There is a point that you must consider about our constitution. The constitution is pliable and as times change it can also change. The founding of this country was and is unique. The bill of rights and the constitution is not cut in stone. The Judicial branch of government (which cannot be influenced or touched by any other part)Interprets the constitution as to intended meaning. Portions of the constitution can be taken away or added by congress. Somethings just dont work well , like prohibition, and then the law is repealed. Yes Phelps is and will always be a discusting person, but he has the right to say what he pleases, but as has been dimonstrated the law came down hard on him. They limited his freedom of speach and he broke the law, now he pays the price.
Yes some people were hurt by Phelp's actions and I know how hurt Matt Sheapards family must have been when they picketed his funeral. The courage and the honor that Matt's parents showed, demonstrated that people like Phelps are just waisted air. The bravest thing I ever saw anyone do was when Matt's father ask the court to spair that mans life. Phelps will never reach that level of honor. People in the US know that he is trash and that his family is worthless bigots. He destroys himself.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, I am prepared to accept that, but I am asking cossie to explain what he means, not asking other people to explain what they think he means.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems an extraordinarily small point to quibble about, given the length and substance of Cossie's argument -- it essentially comes down to the meaning of the word 'and'! However, I shall await Cossie's explanation with interest.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, I hate this saying, but sometimes it sums up a situation very succinctly, but "get a life".
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, I apologise for the foregoing remark, but at times you would exasperate an angel.
Big hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing like a lively debate over the meaning of the word 'and'!
It reminds me of that immortal quotation from Mr Clinton:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."
And, yes, I do need to get a life: in at least one sense, I am actively working on it.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a couple of Lifes lined up for you if you ever come to the states, and they are really cute too.;-D ;-D
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
My family history has given me an unusual - though by no means unique - perspective upon the significance of wealth. That said, my views are not those of my parents - though they do seem to be shared by my children, so I must have done something right!
My fellow Scot, Adam Smith, is the father of capitalism. Karl Marx - also writing in this small island - is the father of communism. There seems to be a widely-held belief that these polar opposites are the only possible social models. I don't accept that; there is always room for compromise.
I believe in Socialism - not the crude Socialism of the earler years of our Labour Party, but rather the academic concept of equality of opportunity. I DON'T subscribe to the communist ideal of equality; we have ample evidence that it didn't work, and I would suggest that logically it COULDN'T work. Selfishness is much more common than altruism.
I do NOT believe in inherited wealth; there is a huge amount of evidence to demonstrate thet second and third generations lack the dynamiosm of the wealth creator, and that's not economically helpful.
I do NOT believe in comprehensive education. In intellectual terms, we are not born equal, and it seems wholly illogical to oppose the idea of separating the academically ablest so that they go through the educational system in an atmosphere of serious peer competition. At the same time, it seems to me to be equally ludicrous to suggest that non-academics are somehow inferior; intuitive pracical skills are every bit as important as intellewctual capacity, and should be valued accordingly.
I could go on ad nauseam, but I won't. My political stance is simply that wealth should play no part whatsoever in determining the advancenent of merit.
Does that make sense, Nigel?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... you mean just as much to me!
I'm not trying to be anti-American; it's just that it seems - at a 3000 mile distance - that the idea of freedom of speech has become so much an American icon that the freedom to live in peace, without harrassment, has been relegated to secondary importance. And - I can't help it - I truly believe that both kinds of freedom are equally important, and that if freedom is really important to US citizens some kind of compromise is essential.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, cossie, it makes perfect sense and there is little I would disagree with, possibly details over inherited wealth. What I do contend, however, is that what we agree on here is not the preserve of the political left wing.
For me the basic difference between left and right wing is that left wing policies proceed from the collective and right wing policies from the individual. On that basis I am right wing.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have never thought that you were anti-american and have never felt that. I was trying to point out that the constitution is flexable. It might take time to get the compromise right but eventually it is, either by the supreme court of a change in the constitution by congress. Our Bill of Rights was taken from yours and I know that you are as proud and protective of your rights as we are. the compromise was made and Phelps decided to ignore it. That is his doing and no-one elses.
[Updated on: Thu, 08 November 2007 18:08]
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I'm afraid that - at least to me - your second paragraph reads like a soundbite; it creates an immediate impression but on closer examination it's not at all clear what it actually means. Mind you, on that basis it's a damn' good soundbite!
Could you give a couple of examples to clarify the point? I'm not proposing a profound political excange; I'm just interested.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
God hates Westboro Church 
Re: God hates Westboro Church 
Re: Sorry guys, but I think you are all missing the point. 
