Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   Westboro Baptist plans a protest at a Texas A&M alumni's funeral. Students form a human wall to block them from the church *I've got some dust in my eyes*   (examiner.com) divider line 223
    More: Hero, Texas, Westboro Baptist Church, Fort Bragg, military funeral, walls, Baptist church  
•       •       •

24232 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jul 2012 at 8:14 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



223 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-06 11:09:02 AM  
What I'd like to see happen to the WBC is a kind of gentleman's agreement among all American journalists in which the group and its' members are declared proverbial unpersons. Under the terms of said agreement, neither the group nor any of its' members exists from a media point of view. If they show up to protest something, all photographs of the event should be tastefully shot or even altered to show the counter-protest only, and the name of the group or its' goals is never to be mentioned again except as 'a certain unpleasantness.'

There could even be a special convention of style where news editors used pictures of adoptable kittens from local shelters or something pasted over the protesters and their signs in the photographs, so everyone would know what KIND of 'unpleasantness' was being not-mentioned and instead of discussing the unpleasantness itself, everyone could discuss the kitten pictures. Small boroughs and large cities could even hold a modest competition, in the weeks before expected unpleasantness, to find the cutest kitten pictures and organize the most elaborate counter-protests, and in events when no unpleasantness appeared, newspapers could then run triumphant articles about the groups that came together for the funeral or whatever, then include a single line at the end: "Those gathered had been prepared for unpleasantness, but there was, happily, none whatsoever."

It'd be like FDR's wheelchair, the way the Amish shun people or the treatment of anyone Stalin 'disappeared.' With total media silence, there will very soon be no chance for unpleasantness to have any effect whatsoever. I don't believe there's a precedent allowing anyone to sue a newspaper for NOT mentioning them at all, and it wouldn't so much be censorship as an agreement between the American people and its' fourth estate that none of us want to hear anything more about the recent unpleasantness and we'd all very much prefer to see united communities and cat pictures.
 
2012-07-06 11:15:46 AM  
Waldo Pepper you are the man. I could not fight this fight today. I'm off oxycodone going on my 5th day now cold turkey and going batshiat insane. I will not allow my son to have an addict for a father.

Doctors who prescribe this shiat should be put in prison. I was in a bad motorcycle accident and they prescribed me percs...that was 3 yrs ago..
 
2012-07-06 11:19:50 AM  

Optimus Primate: Pontious Pilates: According to the article, WBC didn't even show up! What a bunch of spineless douchebags. Can't even stick to their attention whoring guns.

Spineless douchebags? Hardly. The WBC is anything but spineless. This is a brilliant strategy on their part, and actually achieves their desired attention whoring goals perfectly without them having to spend a penny or even make any effort. They have opted for this "press release/no show" gambit quite a bit lately...and it works like a charm.

Until people start simply ignoring them, like any troll, they will never go away.


At the same time, if no one shows up to block these trolls, and WBC *does* show up, they will have yet another chance to destroy the lives of a grieving family.

WBC does not stop at just public protests the funerals. They also like to frequently eviscerate the grieving families on their website, then continue to harass the families for days on end, rubbing salt in the wound, just because they can get away with it.

They may be attention whores, but they are also hateful little sadists that masturbate to the suffering they cause those families. Ignoring them may get rid of the attention whore part, but that fact remains they still wish to inflict pain on everyone around them, and they will find other means to do so.

For that reason, I find I can't just ignore them. It only gives them the opportunity to do far more harmful things while no one is looking.
 
2012-07-06 11:33:09 AM  
Best thing to do is to call and harass Fred Phelps law firm that he and his family own and works for. The Law office is what helps fund the church and who sues everyone.

Phelps-Chartered Law Firm
1414 South Topeka Boulevard, Topeka, KS
Phone: 785-233-4162
Tell them how you feel!

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-06 11:34:02 AM  
Waldo Pepper:
actually there were laws on the books allowing slavery, woman not having rights, young children being allow to work in dangerous conditions, and the list goes on.

Laws != the constitution. Yes there were parts in the consitution requiring states that uphold "slavery laws" from other states...yet the constitution did not expressly state that slavery was to be lawful in every state.

Also amendments. They exist to right the wrongs of our past and adapt to modern day "truths". Try getting a list of amendments included at the end of every bible, admitting to the wrongs and adpating to the "truths" of science.

IMO, religion is an antiquted form of law. Shaming people to conform to what was at the time the socially acceptable and moral. Personally I do not need a 2000 year old book to tell me what is right and wrong. Furthermore when I AM wrong it forces me to accept personal responsibility rather than scapegoat is as "god's will", "satan's hand" or "his divine plan". Accepting that responsibility forces ME to look at MYSELF and change the defect in question....rather than sweeping it under the rug because you believe that is just how god wants it.

/Truths in quotes is a different discussion entirely. Find truth in doubt.
//Really didn't expect to write so much
 
2012-07-06 11:35:53 AM  

Waldo Pepper: bluorangefyre: If the entirety of the WBC membership was to burn up within the church itself, I would not shed one tear.


now see if we didn't have the whole separation thing going on, the state could go in and shut these nut bags down. LOL.

for the life of me I can't understand how anyone could protest at a funeral.

i would like to have seen everyone member of that wall with a taser and if wbc actually showed up, any of those wbc members get close to you give them a good taser to the neck


QFT: Waldo Pepper: dude really is this all you got. Christianity is not following all the laws from back in the day but it is about God's love and loving God and your neighbors more than you love yourself.
 
2012-07-06 11:37:10 AM  

Biness: penguinfark: [cdn2-b.examiner.com image 640x428]

Powerful image. Great photography. Wish I had taken it.

FALSE. White dude with dreds is always terrible in every context.


www.worldnetdaily.com
Say whut?
 
2012-07-06 11:48:05 AM  

optikeye: The sooner everyone starts to simply ignore these people the better.


The gay community realized this years ago. So now, WBC is moving on to other targets.

They're attention whores, and trolls. Any attention just feeds them.


Obviously, you are talking about people who attended texas a&m.

(Lives in Texas. If you did also, you too would wish the aggies would either just go away or build enough bonfires to collapse and eliminate aggies from the gene pool)
 
2012-07-06 11:51:00 AM  

trappedspirit: Biness: penguinfark: [cdn2-b.examiner.com image 640x428]

Powerful image. Great photography. Wish I had taken it.

FALSE. White dude with dreds is always terrible in every context.

[www.worldnetdaily.com image 203x129]
Say whut?


If my options are either that we are living as some sick entertainment for a psychotic god who tries to convince us to murder our children, or that we are in The Matrix Reloaded, then all hail the Lord God of Kid Killing and his patron saint Casey Anthony!
 
2012-07-06 11:58:41 AM  
Waldo Pepper I think you're needed in the Creationist Museum thread.
 
2012-07-06 12:01:48 PM  

publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right?

Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.


You spelled worshiping wrong.
 
2012-07-06 12:04:05 PM  

BeSerious: publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right?

Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.

You spelled worshiping wrong.


You spelled whoreshopping wrong.
 
2012-07-06 12:10:30 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: If my options are either that we are living as some sick entertainment for a psychotic god who tries to convince us to murder our children, or that we are in The Matrix Reloaded, then all hail the Lord God of Kid Killing and his patron saint Casey Anthony!


Is that because you didn't like the movie or you don't want to be indebted to Keanu?
 
2012-07-06 12:14:01 PM  

trappedspirit: Is that because you didn't like the movie or you don't want to be indebted to Keanu?


Can't it be both? Also, I'm already a fan of the Colonel's delicious fried chicken; I don't want him to be responsible for my entire reality as well.

/good lord did that movie suck balls
//but it was nothing compared to the turd that finally killed that franchise
 
2012-07-06 12:15:00 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Lunaville: I wish I'd thought of approaching the story in that manner. I try to remember that sometimes the questions are more important than the answers, but I don't think I ever taught a religious education lesson with so much creativity and thoughtfulness.

To be honest, religion is all about suppressing and/ or avoiding the tough questions. That's exactly why I had my falling out with it, despite being raised within the church.


A lot of religion is about avoiding tough questions. My meeting is usually pretty good about going after those tough questions. The current crop of volunteers in religious education are certainly coming up with some good questions for the kids to think about.
 
2012-07-06 12:16:50 PM  
Yes, WBC is getting more press, but I think it's gained traction because the Aggies turned it into something unifying and good. I'm always for A&M getting positive attention, because most of us aren't the ignorant morons we are portrayed to be.

Gig 'em.
 
2012-07-06 12:18:38 PM  

MmmmBacon: While ignoring them might work to some degree, the WBC have always found new tactics to employ that allow them to force their message on the rest of us. When the LGBT community ignored them, they started protesting military funerals, for example. If they are ignored there, the WBC will just start protesting children's funerals, or at Little League games (Stealing second base infects little kids with The Ghey, you know), etc.

WBC knows how to push buttons, and if you take one away, they will just push another. And anyway, people of good conscience should not simply ignore Evil when presented with it. Evil such as the WBC should be actively resisted, exposed whenever they crawl out from under their rocks, and not allowed to succeed in any way.


You do just know you proved ignoring them works, right?
 
2012-07-06 12:23:20 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: trappedspirit: Is that because you didn't like the movie or you don't want to be indebted to Keanu?

Can't it be both? Also, I'm already a fan of the Colonel's delicious fried chicken; I don't want him to be responsible for my entire reality as well.

/good lord did that movie suck balls
//but it was nothing compared to the turd that finally killed that franchise


Sure, it can be both, or neither and another reason altogether. I wasn't limiting your choices, just taking a couple of guesses. I was able to enjoy the movie but I wouldn't care to be in a universe where Bill or Ted was the messiah.
 
2012-07-06 12:27:45 PM  

trappedspirit: I was able to enjoy the movie but I wouldn't care to be in a universe where Bill or Ted was the messiah.


Though ironically, I could accept a universe where George Carlin shows up in a time-traveling payphone box to tell me I'm awesome. Wait a minute ... is George Carlin the final version of The Doctor? I'm also okay with this universe.
 
2012-07-06 12:41:05 PM  
I stood against the raging horde of muslin- zombie- terrorist- Visigoth- Norsemen. They didn't show either.
 
2012-07-06 12:50:56 PM  
can we just beat people black and blue when they protest the next funeral? im fine for them being against gay military and all that (its their mind i cant change it) but if they show up to those things and pour salt on fresh wounds then they need to get common curtacy and sense beat into them.

/ drunk someone spell curtazy for me
 
2012-07-06 01:44:47 PM  
But if they yelled "FIRE" in a movie theatre, that would be taking it too far.
 
2012-07-06 01:47:31 PM  

mr smart the great: can we just beat people black and blue when they protest the next funeral? im fine for them being against gay military and all that (its their mind i cant change it) but if they show up to those things and pour salt on fresh wounds then they need to get common curtacy and sense beat into them.

/ drunk someone spell curtazy for me


Hm, are there any states left that allow provisions for "fighting words", that is, cross a certain line verbally, and you need not bother to report the ensuing physical response?
 
2012-07-06 02:07:51 PM  

Lunaville: Hm, are there any states left that allow provisions for "fighting words", that is, cross a certain line verbally, and you need not bother to report the ensuing physical response?


Only Alito still thinks so.
Link


Technically "Fighting Words" is still a legal concept. But the scope of what constitutes fighting words has become so ultra-narrow as to become nothing at all.

Personally, I consider the day that burning a U.S. flag in front of a bunch of disabled war vets became legal, to be the day that "fighting speech" no longer existed at all.
 
2012-07-06 02:08:23 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: This was then followed by hours of whining about how it was all UT's fault


Them tea-sippers are always up to something
 
2012-07-06 02:10:34 PM  
That is the way to deal with the wackos from Westboro Baptist, as sadly we just can't shoot them.


indarwinsshadow sadly yes the 1st amendment protects their rights to make asses of themselves just as it protects everyones right to point out how big of asses they are.
 
2012-07-06 02:40:20 PM  
Much as we'd like to, the WBC cannot and should not be simply ignored. Evil as vile as them will only fester and grow if it's not dealt with.
 
2012-07-06 02:48:12 PM  

doctor wu: Where is the right wing outrage over these assholes? I mean, they wrap themselves in the flag and pretend they love the troops more everyone else, where the hell is all their righteous indignation?


You're kidding right? Yes, democrats protesting military funerals, and going to Iraq in a show of support with Saddam Hussein, haven't exactly made them popular with the "right wing". Link

/yes, I know I'm being trolled.
 
2012-07-06 03:15:48 PM  
Pffft. This guy beat the WBC at their own game. I have no idea why this has not caught on:

Youtube (New Window)
 
2012-07-06 03:17:42 PM  

publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right?

Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.


I choose to make fun of YOU now.
 
2012-07-06 04:20:22 PM  
That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.
 
2012-07-06 04:28:11 PM  

Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.


In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.
 
2012-07-06 04:50:47 PM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.


I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?
 
2012-07-06 04:52:24 PM  

Neondistraction: MmmmBacon: While ignoring them might work to some degree, the WBC have always found new tactics to employ that allow them to force their message on the rest of us. When the LGBT community ignored them, they started protesting military funerals, for example. If they are ignored there, the WBC will just start protesting children's funerals, or at Little League games (Stealing second base infects little kids with The Ghey, you know), etc.



I would love to seem them start protesting Little League games of any sport. Because eventually they'd run into the violently drunk/angry sports dad (you know, the kind that get into fights with other parents or refs/umpires). And no matter how it ends, it would make for an excellent story.


southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com

Cant Wait
 
2012-07-06 05:06:59 PM  

Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?


Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.
 
2012-07-06 05:10:49 PM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.


You have yet to make a point.
 
2012-07-06 05:11:05 PM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.


Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?
 
2012-07-06 05:18:20 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.

Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?


My point is it doesn't matter if i piss off a Texan with a gun. You can't legally shoot me with bullets in retaliation for me legally shooting you with words. Unless i make a false statement, you are powerless to prevent me from speaking. And any attempts to forcibly shut me up will resort in a lawsuit that I will most surely win. That is WBC's modus operandi. And they are very very good at provoking reactions.
 
2012-07-06 05:36:43 PM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.

Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?

My point is it doesn't matter if i piss off a Texan with a gun. You can't legally shoot me with bullets in retaliation for me legally shooting you with words. Unless i make a false statement, you are powerless to prevent me from speaking. And any attempts to forcibly shut me up will resort in a lawsuit that I will most surely win. That is WBC's modus operandi. And they are very very good at provoking reactions.


Which is the bad part about having freedom of speech. Not that I'm against the idea, but I tend to draw a line when it's being blatantly abused by people like WBC.

Maybe an addendum to the First Amendment that allows freedom from speech, i.e. you're not allowed to crash a gathering and spout hateful, evil, bigoted crap. But then people would argue over slippery slope, government control, the semantics of what hateful and evil and bigoted are, yadda yadda. And in the end we'll still have to let people like WBC continue their blatant abuse of the law.
 
2012-07-06 05:43:01 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.

Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?

My point is it doesn't matter if i piss off a Texan with a gun. You can't legally shoot me with bullets in retaliation for me legally shooting you with words. Unless i make a false statement, you are powerless to prevent me from speaking. And any attempts to forcibly shut me up will resort in a lawsuit that I will most surely win. That is WBC's modus operandi. And they are very very good at provoking reactions.

Which is the bad part about having freedom of speech. Not that I'm against the idea, but I tend to draw a line when it's being blatantly abused by people like WBC.

Maybe an addendum to the First Amendment that allows freedom from speech, i.e. you're not allowed to crash a gathering and spout hateful, evil, bigoted crap. But then people would argue over slippery slope, government control, the semantics of what hateful and evil and bigoted are, yadda yadda. And in the end we'll still have to let people like WBC continue their blatant abuse of the law.


I agree
 
2012-07-06 06:20:32 PM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.

Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?

My point is it doesn't matter if i piss off a Texan with a gun. You can't legally shoot me with bullets in retaliation for me legally shooting you with words. Unless i make a false statement, you are powerless to prevent me from speaking. And any attempts to forcibly shut me up will resort in a lawsuit that I will most surely win. That is WBC's modus operandi. And they are very very good at provoking reactions.


As near as I can figure, you thought mistakenly that my comment was in some way serious. That is very sad for you.
 
2012-07-06 07:22:21 PM  

publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right?

Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.


As a "fark atheist" I'd say because they're mean angry bast@#$ who want to disrupt other people's lives. I personally don't care what you believe as long as you leave me alone to live my life as I see fit. I pick my fights with believers who interfere in my or other people's lives. Sure I think you (I'm assuming you're christian from your post) wrong about the whole god thing but as long as you leave me alone you are welcome to your wrongness. Admitedly I too could be wrong and I hope you'll just leave me alone in my (unlikely) wrongness.
 
2012-07-06 07:36:06 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Proverbs 18:21 ESV /
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.

Matthew 15:18 ESV /
But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.

Proverbs 12:18 ESV /
There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Ephesians 4:29 ESV /
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Matthew 12:36 ESV / s
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

Proverbs 16:24 ESV /
Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body.

Colossians 3:8 ESV /
But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

Proverbs 13:3 ESV /
Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.

Matthew 12:37 ESV /
For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

James 1:26 ESV /
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

Proverbs 15:1 ESV /
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Proverbs 21:23 ESV /
Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.

Proverbs 29:20 ESV /
Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Psalm 19:14 ESV
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.


Darn, you missed my favorite one.

Proverbs 17:27-28 KJV

17:27 He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.
17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

IOW STFU noob.
 
2012-07-06 07:37:11 PM  

publikenemy: Listen everyone..just debating. I'm not gonna win a 1 against 500 debate. I could give a fark what you think of me. I've had a horrible life starting from when I was 10, and continuing....addiction is the current battle I'm in so I won't take on a Fark battle. I come here to laugh not fight, and I'm not trolling. Sometimes when you're down and alone, you wanna believe in something. I don't believe in shiat and have no one to believe in. If you wanna say I have a persecution complex that's o.k., but I honestly was just debating because like I said..I'm searching.

Guess i should stick with the suicide prevention site lol...I'm out, now you have no other "trolls" to toy with hahahha.


I am also an addict. I like to communicate with others like me, if your interested see my profile, I didn't see your e-mail in your profile or I would have e-mailed you.
 
2012-07-06 07:38:13 PM  
*dust rises*
 
2012-07-06 07:42:01 PM  

hillary: Except that Westboro never actually protested at this funeral. So the students blocked... what? Air? This is a news story about a day in which nothing happened.


"Hey, everybody, I misunderstood TFA. My idiocy, let me show you it."
 
2012-07-06 07:58:31 PM  

indarwinsshadow: I'm unfamiliar with American laws, but wouldn't or doesn't the Westboro church fall under a terrorist or hate organization? I ask, because I know they're banned from crossing the border and protesting in Canada. Are they protected by your first amendment?


The U.S. Constitution enshrines a fundamental civil liberty -- arguably our most important -- in the First Amendment, known generally as "freedom of speech." Canada does not include this in theirs. In brief, "free speech" refers to the absolute civil liberty, free from any law or restriction, that assures every citizen's right to express their own views, about absolutely anything. Even hate speech.

There are very few and very narrow restrictions on this right to expression, limited to public safety (often exemplified as "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"), sedition (defined as "advocating the *violent* overthrow of the government" -- advocating nonviolent revolution is entirely protected), and advocating for infringing upon the civil rights of others. (E.g., it's perfectly fine to say how much you hate hipsters, but if you explicitly advocate for actions that would violate their civil rights, you've gone too far.)

In the U.S., unlike in Canada, no one can be legally charged or punished for 'hate speech' -- it's legally valid, however odious, to publicly hate people. So-called 'hate groups' (as, for example, tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center and some government agencies) are legal. They are watched, however, partly to track social and political trends related to hate, but also because historically, at least, some hate groups have broken the law. (The KKK, for example, is entirely legal. Lynching people, however, or even advocating for it, is not.)
 
2012-07-06 08:01:52 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: .HAMMERTOE: publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right?

Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.

Some ignorance just goes above and beyond vanilla religion and desperately needs to be met head-on. (Apply to the forehead.) While we oppose the hypocrisy of religion on general, we vehemently oppose those who seek to use religion as a cover for hatred, bigotry, corruption, pedophilia, greed, or any other base action which needs dragging out into the light of day and exposing.


It's the age-old argument of how to deal with trolls. Most of the time you want to ignore them because it's not worth 1) giving them attention, and 2) giving yourself an aneurism.

Sometimes, though, they start shiat so putrid that you just have to stand up and say "what is wrong with you? stop that."

In the absence of a real-life banhammer (how I wish...) we'll just have to keep debating.


WBC and their ilk consider any serious responce fuel. The only useful responce, therefore, is to mock them. And not with insults, which is just an analogue (and a very poor one) of serious responce. Comic Con had it right. They're really the only ones who ever have. Ignoring them is best, because any attention they get is good. But if you can't ignore them, ruthlessly lampoon them.
 
2012-07-06 08:05:04 PM  

MonkeyAngst: randomjsa: optikeye: The sooner everyone starts to simply ignore these people the better.
The gay community realized this years ago. So now, WBC is moving on to other targets.
They're attention whores, and trolls. Any attention just feeds them.

That's not quite right.

They basically run around doing this crap so they can sue and take people to court if anyone tries to stop them from doing this crap. That's how they make a fair amount of their money. The gay community didn't so much ignore them as they figured out how not to get sued by them... And THAT'S why WBC moved on to new targets.

I've heard that stated, but I haven't found anything indicating it's true. They have sued, and they've won some money, but according to the SPLC website they've lost more than they've won, which doesn't sound like a very good business model.


Well, except that if your legal assistance is free -- and theirs always is -- then it's not that bad a gamble, because the losses are much shorter than the gains, infrequent as they may be. Spam and Nigerian scams work on the same principle -- most attempts will result in no hits at all, and some cost -- but they are clearly profitable, or no one would do it.
 
2012-07-06 08:15:19 PM  

johnnyrocket: Is this Westboro thing some kind of art project or long running punk'd episode? These people can't be an actual organization that believe their signs, can they?


It's a cult, of sorts. The old man is pathologically hateful ("addicted to hate," according to his own estranged son), and his spawn are apparently either brainwashed or just insane. (Bear in mind that some forms of mental illness tend to run in families.) They are also very sharp lawyers, and so it's no joke to go up against them in any manner. They all live together in a gated compound on one city block in Topeka, and most of them are related to each other by blood or marriage, but for a few true believers who've joined them.

It may be easier or less troubling to imagine they are professional trolls or some kind of very bizarre performance artists. (It's even been suggested that they might be *pro* gay, and do all this to drum up support for gay rights through extreme negative psychology.) But human nature being what it is, it seems very unlikely, given the complicating factors of time and numbers: this many people all agreeing to do the same thing for this long, and with this much dedication, are almost certainly exactly what they present themselves to be.

On their site (use protection if you go, and I'm not joking when I say that), the old man lays out a fascinating exegesis in the FAQ. It mostly proves that you can get the Bible to say pretty much anything you want it to, but it also shows that at least in the Biblical terms they subscribe to, their view is hard to dispute. Which also helps to support the consideration that they really are true believers.
 
Displayed 50 of 223 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report