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.

(Inquisitr)   You threaten to picket the Connecticut kids' funerals, we hack and post your personal information for the world to see. That's the Anonymous way   (inquisitr.com) divider line 372
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

36792 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Dec 2012 at 6:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-17 12:53:48 AM
If ever a collection of people embodied the term "chaotic neutral", its Anonymous.
 
2012-12-17 01:18:49 AM
Barak Phelps-Davis
Born ~ Mid-1980's/Mid-1990's
Son of Rebekah Phelps-Davis


LOL wut?
 
2012-12-17 01:27:44 AM
Interesting that four of them work in corrections and one in law enforcement.
 
2012-12-17 01:29:44 AM

SilentStrider: If ever a collection of people embodied the term "chaotic neutral", its Anonymous.


I've never thought about that, but you're right. If I ever run another D&D campaign and there's a chaotic neutral character I will tell him on the first day to ask himself WWAD?
 
2012-12-17 01:55:05 AM
I had always figured a doxing would be a bit more specific.
 
2012-12-17 02:01:27 AM

fusillade762: Interesting that four of them work in corrections and one in law enforcement.


Perfect occupation to hone bullying skills.
 
2012-12-17 02:23:02 AM

AbbeySomeone: Perfect occupation to hone bullying skills.


heh yep
 
2012-12-17 02:48:13 AM
Kind of surprised the people of Topeka haven't run these scumbags out of town on a rail. Makes the city look bad for keeping them around.
 
2012-12-17 02:52:23 AM

shower_in_my_socks: Kind of surprised the people of Topeka haven't run these scumbags out of town on a rail. Makes the city look bad for keeping them around.


Hiring them for government jobs is about as far from running them out of town on a rail as you can get. Sure makes it seem like they want them around.
 
2012-12-17 02:57:33 AM
Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.
 
2012-12-17 03:02:19 AM

cman: I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.



Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying. Don't picket soldier's funerals if you can't handle the blow-back. Now that they have these @ssholes' names and addresses, the people of Topeka should canvas their neighborhoods with posters and flyers displaying their names and a list of the evil shiat that they do. For the ones where we know who employs them, hit their businesses too. These d!ckwads abuse the 1st Amendment and our justice system -- it's time for them to feel some heat.
 
2012-12-17 03:06:05 AM

shower_in_my_socks: cman: I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying. Don't picket soldier's funerals if you can't handle the blow-back. Now that they have these @ssholes' names and addresses, the people of Topeka should canvas their neighborhoods with posters and flyers displaying their names and a list of the evil shiat that they do. For the ones where we know who employs them, hit their businesses too. These d!ckwads abuse the 1st Amendment and our justice system -- it's time for them to feel some heat.


Abuse the first amendment?

Jesus Christ, man, you scare me.

They arent abusing the first amendment. They are using it.

Yes, their message is terrible, and yes, they are complete and utter assholes. But when they are at their homes, that is a bit far. That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors. Those abortion doctors are conducting a constitutionally protected procedure. By doing shiat like this you are acting like them. You are giving out personal information so others can bully them to stop.
 
2012-12-17 03:10:21 AM

cman: Yes, their message is terrible, and yes, they are complete and utter assholes. But when they are at their homes, that is a bit far.


Link

Dey doo burs blah, nah me!
 
2012-12-17 03:10:59 AM
a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

Dey doo burs blah, nah me!
 
2012-12-17 03:11:17 AM

cman: That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors.



That's an apples and oranges comparison. Abortion is controversial, but it is a medical procedure. There is no service provided by people who picket the funerals of dead kids and victimize their surviving family members. You say I would be just as bad as them, and yet you're defending them. Turnabout is fair play. To date, they show up, shiat all over people's lives, and then go home to a quiet little life where nobody knows what evil shiatheads they are. It's about time they felt a little more uncomfortable.
 
2012-12-17 03:19:01 AM

shower_in_my_socks: cman: That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors.


That's an apples and oranges comparison. Abortion is controversial, but it is a medical procedure. There is no service provided by people who picket the funerals of dead kids and victimize their surviving family members. You say I would be just as bad as them, and yet you're defending them. Turnabout is fair play. To date, they show up, shiat all over people's lives, and then go home to a quiet little life where nobody knows what evil shiatheads they are. It's about time they felt a little more uncomfortable.


Maybe you are right. Maybe I am wrong. These guys are indeed assholes. It is difficult for us to have a proper discussion about the WBC where emotions are not so much overtaking.

I am looking at this from a consistency POV rather than an on-case basis. I know the world is not so much black and white, but I really dont like judging others more harshly.

To sum up this ramble, I really dont know.
 
2012-12-17 03:31:50 AM
I've thought for a while now that the WBC people are just a performance art troop highlighting the hatred and hypocrisy of extremist religious types.

That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.
 
2012-12-17 03:36:35 AM

fusillade762: I've thought for a while now that the WBC people are just a performance art troop highlighting the hatred and hypocrisy of extremist religious types.

That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.


They make money off lawsuits when people slash their tires and assault them. They incite hate to get pait, as it were.
 
2012-12-17 03:46:48 AM
In a sane world the only time the media would cover Westboro Baptist is when the story breaks that "WBC founder Fred Phelps was killed today when the syphilitic horse he was blowing ejaculated prematurely due to Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills and Phelps drowned under a virtual tidal wave of tainted stallion jizz. His corpse was disposed of by shoving a femur up his anus and allowing wild dogs to drag him off."
 
2012-12-17 03:56:17 AM

cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Their first amendment rights are theirs to use. And hacking into computers and releasing personal info is a crime. I wish the WBC would STFU, or just die, and I hope the cops catch up to those anonymous fellas.

But you and I, we're allowed to enjoy smirking at the whole thing.
 
2012-12-17 03:58:25 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In a sane world the only time the media would cover Westboro Baptist is when the story breaks that "WBC founder Fred Phelps was killed today when the syphilitic horse he was blowing ejaculated prematurely due to Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills and Phelps drowned under a virtual tidal wave of tainted stallion jizz. His corpse was disposed of by shoving a femur up his anus and allowing wild dogs to drag him off."


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-17 04:07:09 AM

doglover: fusillade762: I've thought for a while now that the WBC people are just a performance art troop highlighting the hatred and hypocrisy of extremist religious types.

That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

They make money off lawsuits when people slash their tires and assault them. They incite hate to get pait, as it were.


Everybody claims that, but I've yet to see any evidence that they're actually making any sort of significant bank out of lawsuits.

Honestly, I think they're doing their shenanigans because they really, truly do believe they're providing a prophetic voice calling the country to repentance. When I watched the Louis Thoreau documentaries, what I came away with was that the WBC crowd isn't all that different than a lot of the people I grew up with who are complete asses to people because they truly believe that they're being loving and confronting people in their sin. If you haven't grown up with people like that, it's hard to believe that the Phelps clan could be sincere, but I've been around enough people whose only difference from the Phelpses is that they're not so abrasive to believe that the Phelpses are true believers. And the thing with people like that is that the more push back they get, and the more hatred they have directed at them, the more convinced they are that they're right. In their minds, they're not getting all of that flack because they're wrong, they're getting it because it's proof that they're right. They take the scripture passage where Jesus said that if the world hated him, it will hate his followers more, and the more they're hated the more convinced they are that they're being like Jesus.
 
2012-12-17 04:10:29 AM
Fred will be going to the Special Hell
 
2012-12-17 05:03:46 AM
How do these people not get killed? Seriously, you "picket" funerals of children? That is a special brand of awful.
 
2012-12-17 05:14:15 AM

pissedoffmick: How do these people not get killed?


Will you give them death, Frodo Baggins?


That's basically what it boils down to. They're broken, pathetic creatures. Their alignment might be evil, but all you can really feel is pity.
 
2012-12-17 05:35:36 AM

rynthetyn: doglover: fusillade762: I've thought for a while now that the WBC people are just a performance art troop highlighting the hatred and hypocrisy of extremist religious types.

That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

They make money off lawsuits when people slash their tires and assault them. They incite hate to get pait, as it were.

Everybody claims that, but I've yet to see any evidence that they're actually making any sort of significant bank out of lawsuits.

Honestly, I think they're doing their shenanigans because they really, truly do believe they're providing a prophetic voice calling the country to repentance. When I watched the Louis Thoreau documentaries, what I came away with was that the WBC crowd isn't all that different than a lot of the people I grew up with who are complete asses to people because they truly believe that they're being loving and confronting people in their sin. If you haven't grown up with people like that, it's hard to believe that the Phelps clan could be sincere, but I've been around enough people whose only difference from the Phelpses is that they're not so abrasive to believe that the Phelpses are true believers. And the thing with people like that is that the more push back they get, and the more hatred they have directed at them, the more convinced they are that they're right. In their minds, they're not getting all of that flack because they're wrong, they're getting it because it's proof that they're right. They take the scripture passage where Jesus said that if the world hated him, it will hate his followers more, and the more they're hated the more convinced they are that they're being like Jesus.


The term "cognitive dissonance" has those folk's picture next to it in the dictionary.
 
2012-12-17 05:59:45 AM

fusillade762: rynthetyn: doglover: fusillade762: I've thought for a while now that the WBC people are just a performance art troop highlighting the hatred and hypocrisy of extremist religious types.

That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

They make money off lawsuits when people slash their tires and assault them. They incite hate to get pait, as it were.

Everybody claims that, but I've yet to see any evidence that they're actually making any sort of significant bank out of lawsuits.

Honestly, I think they're doing their shenanigans because they really, truly do believe they're providing a prophetic voice calling the country to repentance. When I watched the Louis Thoreau documentaries, what I came away with was that the WBC crowd isn't all that different than a lot of the people I grew up with who are complete asses to people because they truly believe that they're being loving and confronting people in their sin. If you haven't grown up with people like that, it's hard to believe that the Phelps clan could be sincere, but I've been around enough people whose only difference from the Phelpses is that they're not so abrasive to believe that the Phelpses are true believers. And the thing with people like that is that the more push back they get, and the more hatred they have directed at them, the more convinced they are that they're right. In their minds, they're not getting all of that flack because they're wrong, they're getting it because it's proof that they're right. They take the scripture passage where Jesus said that if the world hated him, it will hate his followers more, and the more they're hated the more convinced they are that they're being like Jesus.

The term "cognitive dissonance" has those folk's picture next to it in the dictionary.


I don't really think there's cognitive dissonance going on. For them it's pretty clear cut--if you believe someone is going to hell and eternal damnation, the most loving thing to do is to be a prophetic voice and tell them that. They believe they're living out the, "faithful are the wounds of a friend" verse from Proverbs
 
2012-12-17 06:43:12 AM
We need to get God back in these churches...
 
2012-12-17 06:44:01 AM
"Freedom of speech is one thing. But freedom to hate is another." So Anonymous leans to the right, interesting.
 
2012-12-17 06:45:16 AM

fusillade762: I've thought for a while now that the WBC people are just a performance art troop highlighting the hatred and hypocrisy of extremist religious types. That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.


Nah, they're a giant ambulance chaser-type scam. They pull shiat stupid shiat in the hopes of getting their faces punched, then one of the fifty lawyers in the family sues the inevitable face-puncher for fat sacks o' cash. Everything else is secondary to them.

Their only "God" is the Almighty Dollar.
 
2012-12-17 06:45:32 AM
Good. I think of Anonymous as one of The Watchmen. The floodgates of fury should have been opened up on Westboro a long time ago.
 
2012-12-17 06:46:42 AM

pissedoffmick: How do these people not get killed? Seriously, you "picket" funerals of children? That is a special brand of awful.


If the parents of one of these kids did it, it would be the easiest temporary insanity case ever. It would probably get them the mental heath services I am sure they desperately need right now.
 
2012-12-17 06:46:48 AM
pissedoffmick: How do these people not get killed? Seriously, you "picket" funerals of children? That is a special brand of awful.

I am guessing they get police protection, and are under constant survaillance for various legal reasons,
 
2012-12-17 06:48:24 AM
When Fred Phelps dies, I predict his gravesite will become the most used public urinal in Kansas.
 
2012-12-17 06:48:36 AM
You need to follow @youranonnews on twitter.... I watched this go down all day yesterday. Hilarious.
 
2012-12-17 06:50:11 AM

MJMaloney187: Good. I think of Anonymous as one of The Watchmen. The floodgates of fury should have been opened up on Westboro a long time ago.


I think Anonymous started awhile ago and then they backed off (didn't go all the way) but that might have been a warning salvo. Threatening to picket the funerals of children is the new low and has apparently thrown Anonymous into action.

I don't approve of the tactics Anonymous uses, but it's hard to be against them in this case. The WBC are their own special brand of assholes.
 
2012-12-17 06:51:04 AM

cman: this still is kind of a dickish move


Observant.
 
2012-12-17 06:51:20 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: They pull shiat stupid shiat in the hopes of getting their faces punched


/FTFM.
//And yes, I noticed after I posted that somebody else already said that.
///Oh well.
 
2012-12-17 06:53:19 AM
I am starting to think that Phelps is doing more to unite people of this country than anything else and it is all a plot of some sorts.
 
2012-12-17 06:53:51 AM
RAR RAR RAR POSTING ON THE INTERNET SO ANGRY RAARR IMMA DINOSAUR
 
2012-12-17 06:53:56 AM
http://blank.org/addict/


Thats the link for 'Addicted to Hate' which is a quite detailed story about Fred and his family. Its one sad read.

But Im posting it for anyone who is curious and hasnt read it. But one warning: its brutal and not pleasant in any way.
 
2012-12-17 06:55:45 AM

Dog Welder: MJMaloney187: Good. I think of Anonymous as one of The Watchmen. The floodgates of fury should have been opened up on Westboro a long time ago.

I think Anonymous started awhile ago and then they backed off (didn't go all the way) but that might have been a warning salvo. Threatening to picket the funerals of children is the new low and has apparently thrown Anonymous into action.

I don't approve of the tactics Anonymous uses, but it's hard to be against them in this case. The WBC are their own special brand of assholes.


I agree completely. Anonymous can be a bunch of douches, but in this case, I will be their number one fan.
 
2012-12-17 06:56:00 AM

Dog Welder: When Fred Phelps dies, I predict his gravesite will become the most used public urinal in Kansas.


Are you kidding? People will come from around the country and stand in line for hours to piss on his grave. It could become an extremely lucrative tourist attraction. You could even hire vendors to sell beer and asparagus to the folks waiting.
 
2012-12-17 06:56:10 AM

shower_in_my_socks: cman: I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying. Don't picket soldier's funerals if you can't handle the blow-back. Now that they have these @ssholes' names and addresses, the people of Topeka should canvas their neighborhoods with posters and flyers displaying their names and a list of the evil shiat that they do. For the ones where we know who employs them, hit their businesses too. These d!ckwads abuse the 1st Amendment and our justice system -- it's time for them to feel some heat.


The counter to hate speech is more speech showing off that hate and putting the idea up for ridicule. However, you are suggesting it is perfectly alright to go after the speaker instead of the idea which is not okay. There is a reason the founding fathers all used pen names when talking about ideas that were radical and unpopular in their time. Fast forward to the future and others have used the anonymous pen-name as well to advocate other unfriendly positions through history (women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc).

Yes the group spews messages most consider hate but don't make the mistake of thinking others view their viewpoint as fringe. It actually seems their method of speaking the message is publicly abhorred but the viewpoint is actually pretty dominate amongst "Christians" and their leaders in general, e.g. Pat Robinson, American Family Association, Bryan Fisher, Mike Huckabee, etc. The views of the church resonate well with many who follow those I listed and more.
 
2012-12-17 06:59:09 AM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: RAR RAR RAR POSTING ON THE INTERNET SO ANGRY RAARR IMMA DINOSAUR


I laughed at you.

At. Not with.
 
2012-12-17 06:59:47 AM

pissedoffmick: How do these people not get killed? Seriously, you "picket" funerals of children? That is a special brand of awful.


Because this is what real life trolling looks like and everyone realizes it.
Touching them will get you sued into the next century, and groups like the ACLU will see to that even if their sleaze ball attorneys don't. They want a nice lucrative lawsuit and they'll use public outrage to get it.

You are expecting mothers and fathers in mourning to take up arms against WBC.
I suspect that's unlikely to happen.

/it didn't happen when they trolled soldiers funerals.
/If you asked me before, I'd have thought that kind of act was sure to buy them a bullet.
 
2012-12-17 06:59:53 AM

Albert911emt: Dog Welder: MJMaloney187: Good. I think of Anonymous as one of The Watchmen. The floodgates of fury should have been opened up on Westboro a long time ago.

I think Anonymous started awhile ago and then they backed off (didn't go all the way) but that might have been a warning salvo. Threatening to picket the funerals of children is the new low and has apparently thrown Anonymous into action.

I don't approve of the tactics Anonymous uses, but it's hard to be against them in this case. The WBC are their own special brand of assholes.

I agree completely. Anonymous can be a bunch of douches, but in this case, I will be their number one fan.


And make that three of us.
 
2012-12-17 07:00:55 AM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: RAR RAR RAR POSTING ON THE INTERNET SO ANGRY RAARR IMMA DINOSAUR


I have no idea where that came from. But I like it!
 
2012-12-17 07:02:37 AM
They are bad people.
 
2012-12-17 07:04:06 AM
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the anonymous movement uses Guy Fawkes masks? The guy was a Catholic and tried to blow up parliament because it was Protestant...

/Or am I missing the analogy here?
 
2012-12-17 07:05:13 AM
careful, they'll send a pizza to your house.
original ITGs
 
2012-12-17 07:06:01 AM

cman:
Abuse the first amendment?

Jesus Christ, man, you scare me.

They arent abusing the first amendment. They are using it.

Yes, their message is terrible, and yes, they are complete and utter assholes. But when they are at their homes, that is a bit far. That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors. Those abortion doctors are conducting a constitutionally protected procedure. By doing shiat like this you are acting like them. You are giving out personal information so others can bully them to stop.


Too far? There is no such thing as too far. Only illegal and legal. Westboro Church taught us that.

Nothing illegal about sharing information.
 
2012-12-17 07:08:06 AM

phrawgh: We need to get God back in these churches...


We need to tax the WBC.

We need to tax ALL churches.
 
2012-12-17 07:11:09 AM
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-17 07:12:16 AM
Frankly, I've thought it was just a matter of time before someone dished out to them what they've been preaching.

Evidence techs done with that Bushmaster .223 yet?

/just curious
 
2012-12-17 07:13:44 AM
Y'know, I do believe in most of the high-minded values that enlightened liberals are supposed to have, like the supremacy of Freedom of Speech or that it's better for a thousand guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to get convicted, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

On the other hand, I live in a corrupt and badly farked-up world where murderers go free, innocent people have their lives destroyed, and nothing ever lives up to our platonic ideals. So, if the local police drag Phelps and Company down to local police station basement and go all cruel-and-unusual on them, I don't think I'll really care. And if some vigilante mangles the hell of one of the Phelps clan, I don't think I'll give three shiats and a piss what the ACLU thinks of that...
 
2012-12-17 07:15:37 AM

violentsalvation:
Their first amendment rights are theirs to use. And hacking into computers and releasing personal info is a crime. I wish the WBC would STFU, or just die, and I hope the cops catch up to those anonymous fellas.

But you and I, we're allowed to enjoy smirking at the whole thing.


Nobody got hacked bro. This is all public information somewhere. My wife hadnt talked to her father in over a decade, but needs his help to straighten out some messed up birth certificate paperwork. So I spent a grand total of 3 minutes tracking him down with google a few days ago. I was able to find his home address through tax records, all of his current family members, employment information, hell I even have an up to date picture of him running a marathon 2 weeks ago.

Your "private" information isnt private anymore.
 
2012-12-17 07:17:13 AM

gerbilpox: Frankly, I've thought it was just a matter of time before someone dished out to them what they've been preaching.

Evidence techs done with that Bushmaster .223 yet?

/just curious


So you're advocating handling the Newtown tragedy by engineering ANOTHER massacre? That's rather meta of you.
 
2012-12-17 07:17:20 AM
This is the kind of shiat the WBC lives for...

You want to ruin the day of these assholes? You ignore them and their bullshiat.


The more you touch shiat, the more it stinks.
 
2012-12-17 07:17:32 AM
Here's how to identify a church run by crazy people. They are overly obsessed with one or more of the following:

Homosexuality
Polygamy
12 year old girls
Guns
End times
Punishing children

Feel free to add to this list.
 
2012-12-17 07:19:39 AM

bighairyguy: Here's how to identify a church run by crazy people. They are overly obsessed with one or more of the following:

Homosexuality
Polygamy
12 year old girls
Guns
End times
Punishing children

Feel free to add to this list.


Being an organised religion
 
2012-12-17 07:20:19 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In a sane world the only time the media would cover Westboro Baptist is when the story breaks that "WBC founder Fred Phelps was killed today when the syphilitic horse he was blowing ejaculated prematurely due to Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills and Phelps drowned under a virtual tidal wave of tainted stallion jizz. His corpse was disposed of by shoving a femur up his anus and allowing wild dogs to drag him off."


Lol. Well that was, uh, vivid.
 
2012-12-17 07:21:04 AM

keylock71: You want to ruin the day of these assholes? You ignore them and their bullshiat.


Un-anesthetized vivisection for every member of the church over the age of 18 broadcast live on you tube would be much more satisfying though.

/And you only have to do it once.
 
2012-12-17 07:21:10 AM
I'm convinced that both WBC and Anon are being controlled by the same handlers.
 
2012-12-17 07:21:18 AM

cman: Yes, their message is terrible, and yes, they are complete and utter assholes. But when they are at their homes, that is a bit far. That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors. Those abortion doctors are conducting a constitutionally protected procedure. By doing shiat like this you are acting like them. You are giving out personal information so others can bully them to stop.


IIRC, the ability to exercise one's free speech, anonymously, has been in contention for quite some time. I'm sure there are quite a few cases in the Supreme Court about it. No idea what the precedent is, but I suspect anonymity is part in parcel with free speech, even though there isn't an amendment that *specifically* guarantees an American's right to privacy. Again, that's dependent on how SCOTUS in the past has ruled.

Either way, yes, Anonymous exposes WBC members to potential physical harm, which should cause *any* freedom-loving person some concern. But, on the other hand, I'm having a hard time giving a shiat in this case.

Slippery slope, and all that...
 
2012-12-17 07:22:32 AM

bighairyguy: Here's how to identify a church run by crazy people. They are overly obsessed with one or more of the following:

Homosexuality
Polygamy
12 year old girls
Guns
End times
Punishing children

Feel free to add to this list.


Proselytizing
Obsessing over others' sex lives
Fighting the demon weed
Obama is the Antichrist
Sovereign American tax-protester bullshiat
How everybody else will burn in Hell

/just warming up
 
2012-12-17 07:23:57 AM
The WBC. What trolls look like without the Internet.
 
2012-12-17 07:24:33 AM

shower_in_my_socks: cman: That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors.


That's an apples and oranges comparison. Abortion is controversial, but it is a medical procedure. There is no service provided by people who picket the funerals of dead kids and victimize their surviving family members. You say I would be just as bad as them, and yet you're defending them. Turnabout is fair play. To date, they show up, shiat all over people's lives, and then go home to a quiet little life where nobody knows what evil shiatheads they are. It's about time they felt a little more uncomfortable.


While I "know that feel, bro," this line of thinking reminds me of how the Israelis and Palestinians keep lobbing mortars and rockets at each other, because they keep lobbing mortars and rockets at each other. Where does it stop? Who is the first person to say, "Enough"?

/probably not the WBC, unfortunately
 
2012-12-17 07:25:51 AM

cman: shower_in_my_socks: cman: That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors.


That's an apples and oranges comparison. Abortion is controversial, but it is a medical procedure. There is no service provided by people who picket the funerals of dead kids and victimize their surviving family members. You say I would be just as bad as them, and yet you're defending them. Turnabout is fair play. To date, they show up, shiat all over people's lives, and then go home to a quiet little life where nobody knows what evil shiatheads they are. It's about time they felt a little more uncomfortable.

Maybe you are right. Maybe I am wrong. These guys are indeed assholes. It is difficult for us to have a proper discussion about the WBC where emotions are not so much overtaking.

I am looking at this from a consistency POV rather than an on-case basis. I know the world is not so much black and white, but I really dont like judging others more harshly.

To sum up this ramble, I really dont know.


Then shut up and quit whining. If you dislike this then disregard it and move on.
 
2012-12-17 07:25:54 AM
Too bad they won't go after banking CEO's, corrupt judges, asswipes who kill civilians with the drones....etc......

the psuedo morailty of these asswipes is pretty evident......
 
2012-12-17 07:26:00 AM

rynthetyn: shower_in_my_socks: Kind of surprised the people of Topeka haven't run these scumbags out of town on a rail. Makes the city look bad for keeping them around.

Hiring them for government jobs is about as far from running them out of town on a rail as you can get. Sure makes it seem like they want them around.


Conversely, having government jobs protects them because they could claim religious discrimination if fired.
 
2012-12-17 07:26:28 AM

cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


yeah, I can't get behind you on this one at all, cman. Sorry to say, this is punishment, not justice. They really have been asking for it. Actually directly begging for non-anon persons to do it, just so they can get funding from suing. There's no honour in hiding behind God and the Law. It has to end.

/go anon!
 
2012-12-17 07:27:44 AM
I wish the media would just STFU about this. I am very sorry for the families losses, but they should be allowed to grieve in peace, instead of the mediat blowing it up into their usual circus, for the next mentally ill person as a goal to achieve or exceed.
 
2012-12-17 07:27:58 AM
I don't have to agree with Anonymous' tactics to enjoy the fruits of their labors on this one. It is going to happen whether I do or do not, in fact, so we can all sit back and watch the mess unfold.

keylock71: This is the kind of shiat the WBC lives for...

You want to ruin the day of these assholes? You ignore them and their bullshiat.

The more you touch shiat, the more it stinks.


I agree and typically won't even click on news stories about them. They need less attention, not more.
 
2012-12-17 07:28:28 AM

shower_in_my_socks: Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying.


I'm sure that Publius and the Federal Farmer would disagree with you.

Part of free speech is the ability to say things that may be unpopular. If you have a mechanism to suppress dissent or to prevent unpopular views from being aired, essentially you have the same thing that totalitarian governments have, whether it is actually wielded by the government or not. In fact, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.

The ability to express your views anonymously is as American as apple pie, and it always has been.
 
2012-12-17 07:29:00 AM

rynthetyn: The term "cognitive dissonance" has those folk's picture next to it in the dictionary.

I don't really think there's cognitive dissonance going on. For them it's pretty clear cut--if you believe someone is going to hell and eternal damnation, the most loving thing to do is to be a prophetic voice and tell them that. They believe they're living out the, "faithful are the wounds of a friend" verse from Proverbs



I would agree with you if their aim didn't seem to be obviously media attention. Picketing to be seen is not a true message of love... If they wanted to provide a message of love, they would talk to people one-on-one, not with a big intentional media circus.
 
2012-12-17 07:29:26 AM

Alonjar: violentsalvation:
Their first amendment rights are theirs to use. And hacking into computers and releasing personal info is a crime. I wish the WBC would STFU, or just die, and I hope the cops catch up to those anonymous fellas.

But you and I, we're allowed to enjoy smirking at the whole thing.

Nobody got hacked bro. This is all public information somewhere. My wife hadnt talked to her father in over a decade, but needs his help to straighten out some messed up birth certificate paperwork. So I spent a grand total of 3 minutes tracking him down with google a few days ago. I was able to find his home address through tax records, all of his current family members, employment information, hell I even have an up to date picture of him running a marathon 2 weeks ago.

Your "private" information isnt private anymore.


Their site was hacked. That said the information appears to be from compiled from multiple sources, possibly the original members list was acquired from their system and then other information including possible age added. I'm surprised by the lack of detail.
 
2012-12-17 07:29:32 AM

Cold_Sassy: I wish the media would just STFU about this. I am very sorry for the families losses, but they should be allowed to grieve in peace, instead of the mediat blowing it up into their usual circus, for the next mentally ill person as a goal to achieve or exceed.


The President spoke there last night. That probably raised the bar pretty high.
 
2012-12-17 07:31:21 AM

gothelder: keylock71: You want to ruin the day of these assholes? You ignore them and their bullshiat.

Un-anesthetized vivisection for every member of the church over the age of 18 broadcast live on you tube would be much more satisfying though.

/And you only have to do it once.


Heh... I don't disagree, but we have to accept their right to be complete and utter callous, ignorant assholes. They know the law and they use it to their advantage. They know the media will give them the publicity they want.

The worst thing that could happen to these ignorant assholes would be for everyone, including the media, to never mention their names again in public.

If they choose to stand around and look like a bunch of bigoted assholes, that's their business. The only things we can do as rational, law abiding citizens is refuse to give their shiattiness any publicity.

In my opinion, that would hurt them more than any physical pain that could be inflicted upon them.
 
2012-12-17 07:31:33 AM
And, of course, most people miss the elephant, no, the sperm whale in the living room. It's pretty obvious what ultimately motivates Phred. Consider this...

1. Phred often dresses in an exercise suit and cowboy hat as if he's auditioning for the role of Cult Leader for the Village People.

2. The signs that WBC use are done in fabulously bright day-glo colors and stick figures engaging in butt love appear on many signs.

3. The simple and farking obvious fact that you have a guy who spends a huge percentage of his waking time obsessing over gay people and has done so for decades.

Come on, people, it's as if Phred has a 50-foot high neon sign bolted to the top of his cowboy hat flashing "LATENT HOMO" constantly. I am very tolerant of out-of-the-closet gays; it's the repressed ones who turn into assholes who bother me. His children mean nothing; when the local cops bust gay cruising areas, most of the guys are married with children and sometimes grandchildren. Hell, the main reason he's abusive towards them is probably the result of him fathering kids solely to 'prove' to himself and others that he's not really gay.

I have this mental image of Phred's dad, a mean-spirited bastard himself who worked as a railroad 'bull' beating the shiat out of hobos. Perhaps back in Mississippi, Phred's dad caught Phred behind the barn getting all sodomy with another boy and, in classic Phelps fashion, beat his kid nearly to death with a mattock handle. That sure would explain a lot of things...
 
2012-12-17 07:32:00 AM
How is a bunch of phone numbers and addresses supposed to stop these people?
 
2012-12-17 07:32:31 AM
I know this is skirting the edge of tinfoil hat territory, but doesn't it seem like WBC is actually trying to provoke some sort of violent reaction for a reason? I'm not condoning any violence, but what if? I see a plethora of reactions from them that wouldn't turn out so well for the rest of us. Mostly are them twisting everything around against the ones they are protesting.
 
2012-12-17 07:32:58 AM
Simplest solution yet: Force them into those "free speech" zones everyone hates so much.
 
2012-12-17 07:33:22 AM

Nabb1: Cold_Sassy: I wish the media would just STFU about this. I am very sorry for the families losses, but they should be allowed to grieve in peace, instead of the mediat blowing it up into their usual circus, for the next mentally ill person as a goal to achieve or exceed.

The President spoke there last night. That probably raised the bar pretty high.


Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.
 
2012-12-17 07:34:31 AM

cman: shower_in_my_socks: cman: That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors.


That's an apples and oranges comparison. Abortion is controversial, but it is a medical procedure. There is no service provided by people who picket the funerals of dead kids and victimize their surviving family members. You say I would be just as bad as them, and yet you're defending them. Turnabout is fair play. To date, they show up, shiat all over people's lives, and then go home to a quiet little life where nobody knows what evil shiatheads they are. It's about time they felt a little more uncomfortable.

Maybe you are right. Maybe I am wrong. These guys are indeed assholes. It is difficult for us to have a proper discussion about the WBC where emotions are not so much overtaking.

I am looking at this from a consistency POV rather than an on-case basis. I know the world is not so much black and white, but I really dont like judging others more harshly.

To sum up this ramble, I really dont know.


I think the reason Snyder v. Phelps had a dissent is because every single person in the room thought they were farking dicks who, if Hell exists, will be in the center of it for all eternity when they die. At the same time, the First Amendment clearly protects them being farking dicks because they aren't creating an imminent danger by inciting people to go find soldiers and gay people they can assault or murder.
 
2012-12-17 07:35:04 AM
I know two wrongs don't make a right and all...but the sick asshole in me wonders that if there's ever a mass shooting at WBC, how might they respond to having their funerals being picketed? Would they picket themselves? I would have to begrudgingly give them at least one point for consistency if they picketed their own congregation.

/vigorously shakes head
//back to sanity
 
2012-12-17 07:36:58 AM

Tat'dGreaser: How is a bunch of phone numbers and addresses supposed to stop these people?


We may never know since they seem to be gone from the site linked in TFA.
 
2012-12-17 07:39:02 AM

Mr. Ekshun: We may never know since they seem to be gone from the site linked in TFA.


Just seems like a stupid way of going after them. Wake me up when they mail bomb them.
 
2012-12-17 07:42:17 AM

Cold_Sassy: Nabb1: Cold_Sassy: I wish the media would just STFU about this. I am very sorry for the families losses, but they should be allowed to grieve in peace, instead of the mediat blowing it up into their usual circus, for the next mentally ill person as a goal to achieve or exceed.

The President spoke there last night. That probably raised the bar pretty high.

Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.


I'm not saying that, but it's a fact. These shooters do these acts to be disruptive, leave a mark - a scar, really - on society. And the media delivers, of course, but this shooter got the President to stop what he was doing during a stand-off with Congress and focus on him, or, at least, what he did. No doubt the next mass-killer has noticed that. What we really need to do, IMO, is have a serious discussion about the sad state of our mental health resources. Media circuses and political speeches after the fact won't do much to prevent more of these and may encourage them, but making sure young people have access to mental health resources may.
 
2012-12-17 07:44:03 AM

xanadian: IIRC, the ability to exercise one's free speech, anonymously, has been in contention for quite some time.



it comes up in defamation cases, but then of course the freedom of speech never included the freedom to say false things in order to sully ones reputation and you need to know the arty who defamed you if you are going to successfully collect.
I don't ever remember anonymous speech being in contention.
but maybe I missed something, wtf are you talking about.
 
2012-12-17 07:45:33 AM

Tat'dGreaser: How is a bunch of phone numbers and addresses supposed to stop these people?


The idea is that WBO members use their collective legal and shouting power to stay immune to retorts and personal accountability. By distributing their individual details, Anon seems to be trying to take the harassment back to them by allowing them to be personally attacked outside of their WBO shelter, as it were. The harrassment itself will be done by whatever arsehole who thinks he or she's funny and clever to do it. They're neither of course, but if there's one thing anon does well, it's harness and channel the latent dickish nature of people on the internet, rather than trying to stop it.
 
2012-12-17 07:45:59 AM

Legios: Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the anonymous movement uses Guy Fawkes masks? The guy was a Catholic and tried to blow up parliament because it was Protestant...

/Or am I missing the analogy here?


Well they're prob imitating the V for Vendetta movie rather than the history of Guy Fawkes..
 
2012-12-17 07:46:50 AM

Nabb1: What we really need to do, IMO, is have a serious discussion about the sad state of our mental health resources. Media circuses and political speeches after the fact won't do much to prevent more of these and may encourage them, but making sure young people have access to mental health resources may.


Yahoo just ran a story this morning, apparently this kid has a long history of problems but the mother tried to fix him herself. He had an assortment of problems and warning signs.

We need to stop the stigma of seeking help. As a soldier I've seen it happen in the military, we finally got over the stigma of someone seeking help after coming home from war. This MUST happen in all facets of our society. We need to stop ignoring someone who is in obvious pain. You're not "getting in their business", you're helping someone out.
 
2012-12-17 07:47:32 AM

Trashy: Legios: Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the anonymous movement uses Guy Fawkes masks? The guy was a Catholic and tried to blow up parliament because it was Protestant...

/Or am I missing the analogy here?

Well they're prob imitating the V for Vendetta movie rather than the history of Guy Fawkes..


Good point...
I applaud some of the things they do, but in other situations they really are kicking hornets nests.
 
2012-12-17 07:47:50 AM
Addendum:

Free speech is one thing, but imposing your free speech on others is quite another. The latter is self-evidently unsustainable.
 
2012-12-17 07:48:03 AM
I used to be much more of an idealist than I am now, but I have many reasons to be cynical. I personally know somebody who avoided conviction for murdering a little girl simply because of a stupid technicality. There was another person in my old neighborhood who killed a pedestrian while driving drunk; he got a slap on the wrist, then went out and killed ANOTHER pedestrian--and got another farking slap on the wrist for that. And reading about some poor black guy in Texas who got 25 years for possession of two joints really upset me as well. I've seen way too many satanic bastards get away with too much because they know how to prank the system, and I've also seen many naive and innocent people get railroaded by corrupt officials. Working for the local court system made me very farking cynical.

Yes, I realize that protecting the freedom of speech of assholes from Topeka is important, yadda, yadda, yadda. I also realize there's a hell of a lot of frustration with the system out there. Why do you think a TV show like "Dexter" is popular? The Phelps clan are a bunch of farking lawyers who prank the hell out of the system, and at least one in his clan is with the Kansas correctional system. If some vigilante does do something violent against them, I'm not sure I could even come up with a single crocodile tear for the Phelpses. Maybe I'll go shiat on William Kunstler's grave instead...
 
2012-12-17 07:48:41 AM
They troll at the worst possible moments of peoples lives, to cause them maximum pain and suffering, as if those people weren't suffering enough. All for the lulz and hoping for a fat payoff. They are the worst of people. I don't care if they posted their info on huge billboards all across the world. You troll like this? Take advantage of people's suffering and anguish to get across your message of hate and derp? fark you, you get what you deserve. Don't start nothing, won't be nothing.
 
2012-12-17 07:49:09 AM

Legios: Good point...
I applaud some of the things they do, but in other situations they really are kicking hornets nests.


I can't really get behind a group of people who started from a website that's a haven for homophobic and racist pedophiles.
 
2012-12-17 07:49:20 AM
Getting their personal info posted online is getting off pretty light. I'm honestly surprised that by this point nobodies fed one of these WBC assholes a bullet.
 
2012-12-17 07:49:46 AM

Mr. Ekshun: Tat'dGreaser: How is a bunch of phone numbers and addresses supposed to stop these people?

We may never know since they seem to be gone from the site linked in TFA.


Never mind - found it on Pastebin.
 
2012-12-17 07:50:12 AM

dittybopper: shower_in_my_socks: Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying.

I'm sure that Publius and the Federal Farmer would disagree with you.

Part of free speech is the ability to say things that may be unpopular. If you have a mechanism to suppress dissent or to prevent unpopular views from being aired, essentially you have the same thing that totalitarian governments have, whether it is actually wielded by the government or not. In fact, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.

The ability to express your views anonymously is as American as apple pie, and it always has been.


after careful consideration of both sides of this argument, I have some to the conclusion:

fark THEM. Their words are not spread for altruistic reasons... they picket so they can be seen which makes it a false message. If they spoke privately with people instead of making it a spectacle, then that would be different. They do NOT represent Christ in any way shape form fashion idea principle or any otherwise noted or unnoted notion... They do in fact represent Satan, and their "Pastor" knows it.
 
2012-12-17 07:51:02 AM

Hawnkee: I know this is skirting the edge of tinfoil hat territory, but doesn't it seem like WBC is actually trying to provoke some sort of violent reaction for a reason? I'm not condoning any violence, but what if? I see a plethora of reactions from them that wouldn't turn out so well for the rest of us. Mostly are them twisting everything around against the ones they are protesting.


It's been pretty well covered almost everywhere the WBC pops up on Fark that almost everyone in the family are lawyers. They provoke a reaction and then sue people. It's a con game that cynically abuses constitutional protection to enrich the Phelps clan.
 
2012-12-17 07:51:46 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Mr. Ekshun: We may never know since they seem to be gone from the site linked in TFA.

Just seems like a stupid way of going after them. Wake me up when they mail bomb them.


I don't think you would need to be told... I suspect all of the Champagne being drunk in the morning or middle of the day in celebration might clue you in.
 
2012-12-17 07:52:04 AM
I think the fact that these haters are still alive and un-maimed after what they say and do is a shining testament to the tolerance of Americans in general and the vital importance we place on our 1st Amendment.
Maybe there is hope for the future...

/part of me still wishes they would get thumped.
//real hard.
 
2012-12-17 07:52:10 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Legios: Good point...
I applaud some of the things they do, but in other situations they really are kicking hornets nests.

I can't really get behind a group of people who started from a website that's a haven for homophobic and racist pedophiles.


I meant Anonymous, not WBC. WBC can EABOD.
 
2012-12-17 07:52:23 AM
On the plus side Anonymous is picking their targets better this week, but they seem to have only managed to take down that web site for a few hours. Meh.
 
2012-12-17 07:53:22 AM
Oh look, those "religious" grifters are at it again with their provoke-and-sue scam BS. Somebody should figure out how to jail them for fraud, conspiracy and racketeering.
 
2012-12-17 07:53:33 AM
img600.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-17 07:54:00 AM

mantafirefly: Free speech is one thing, but imposing your free speech on others is quite another. The latter is self-evidently unsustainable.


In what sense, Charlie?
 
2012-12-17 07:54:38 AM
It kinda seems like if what they do falls under freedom of speech, punching them in the balls should be protected freedom of expression.

/Their website is speech, their protests are harassment.
 
2012-12-17 07:55:02 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In a sane world the only time the media would cover Westboro Baptist is when the story breaks that "WBC founder Fred Phelps was killed today when the syphilitic horse he was blowing ejaculated prematurely due to Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills and Phelps drowned under a virtual tidal wave of tainted stallion jizz. His corpse was disposed of by shoving a femur up his anus and allowing wild dogs to drag him off."


www.picslap.com
 
2012-12-17 07:55:15 AM

cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Exactly what I came here to say. thx
 
2012-12-17 07:55:53 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Nabb1: What we really need to do, IMO, is have a serious discussion about the sad state of our mental health resources. Media circuses and political speeches after the fact won't do much to prevent more of these and may encourage them, but making sure young people have access to mental health resources may.

Yahoo just ran a story this morning, apparently this kid has a long history of problems but the mother tried to fix him herself. He had an assortment of problems and warning signs.

We need to stop the stigma of seeking help. As a soldier I've seen it happen in the military, we finally got over the stigma of someone seeking help after coming home from war. This MUST happen in all facets of our society. We need to stop ignoring someone who is in obvious pain. You're not "getting in their business", you're helping someone out.


I fully agree with the mental health aspect and the big citizenship thing with having the guts to help people out. But there are other things we need to do. A big portion of this country genuinely believes that the government is not just failing to make us safer, but they are actively making us less safe. We need people to stop thinking that the world is a ridiculously dangerous place that requires us to carry around semi-automatic rifles to stay safe. If we're willing to share mutual interest in helping people out when they're mentally not healthy, we're able to mutually trust ourselves not to blow each other up in the name of safety.
 
2012-12-17 07:56:42 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-17 07:58:15 AM

shower_in_my_socks: cman: I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying. Don't picket soldier's funerals if you can't handle the blow-back. Now that they have these @ssholes' names and addresses, the people of Topeka should canvas their neighborhoods with posters and flyers displaying their names and a list of the evil shiat that they do. For the ones where we know who employs them, hit their businesses too. These d!ckwads abuse the 1st Amendment and our justice system -- it's time for them to feel some heat.


They picket publicly so it's not like they are hiding or something and there's nothing about free speech that says that it can't be anonymous. Or are you saying that it's OK to engage in illegal acts against people you disagree with. So if someone didn't like the Occupy movement it would be OK to say, burn down a couple tents?
 
2012-12-17 07:58:23 AM
 
2012-12-17 07:59:36 AM

Cold_Sassy: Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.


This morning's story problem:

If you arm every administrator, or even further - each teacher as I've commonly heard as a suggestion, across Murrica, how many 1 to 3 death incidents/accidents are going to occur each year from those guns versus the 15 to 30 fatality mega rampages like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc., that occur every five or ten years that might be averted if every adult in the building is armed? There are close to 100,000 schools, and should we count schools outside of the K-12 range too, such as preschools and universities?

It seems plausible to me that it would cause a lot more deaths overall than the rampages they might, in theory, protect... just in smaller, not-as-newsworthy batches. If just 2 in 1 million armed adults snaps impulsively and takes out two students each year, and there are over 7 million teachers, then there is about the same number of deaths each year as a Sandy Hook level rampage instead of every 5 years.

Don't get me wrong; I'm interested in solutions to our problem here too...
 
2012-12-17 08:00:16 AM
I can't post this in enough threads:

While it might seem that the vast majority of Christians fall in line with the mentality demonstrated by some of the more fringe groups, I would say rather adamantly that we do not. I have had, on a number of occasion, the chance to speak with peers, preach in my local church, and speak at our annual conference about the need to update our legal theology to match that of Christ's actual theology.

Tolerance is out there, we're just moving awfully slow. In the meantime, the best I can do is give my deepest heartfelt apology for the people hurt by 'Christians' and continue to work on changing the church from the inside. I am truly sorry for what has been done in the name of Christ.
 
2012-12-17 08:00:23 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: dittybopper: shower_in_my_socks: Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying.

I'm sure that Publius and the Federal Farmer would disagree with you.

Part of free speech is the ability to say things that may be unpopular. If you have a mechanism to suppress dissent or to prevent unpopular views from being aired, essentially you have the same thing that totalitarian governments have, whether it is actually wielded by the government or not. In fact, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.

The ability to express your views anonymously is as American as apple pie, and it always has been.

after careful consideration of both sides of this argument, I have some to the conclusion:

fark THEM. Their words are not spread for altruistic reasons... they picket so they can be seen which makes it a false message. If they spoke privately with people instead of making it a spectacle, then that would be different. They do NOT represent Christ in any way shape form fashion idea principle or any otherwise noted or unnoted notion... They do in fact represent Satan, and their "Pastor" knows it.


Ah, but there is the rub. *YOU* don't get to decide who is right and who is wrong, and who represents Christ and who doesn't.

All you've done is express your opinion of them. On the Internet. Anonymously. Ironic, no?

Think about this: What if *YOUR* opinion was in the small, reviled minority?
 
2012-12-17 08:00:38 AM

Nabb1: Cold_Sassy: Nabb1: Cold_Sassy: I wish the media would just STFU about this. I am very sorry for the families losses, but they should be allowed to grieve in peace, instead of the mediat blowing it up into their usual circus, for the next mentally ill person as a goal to achieve or exceed.

The President spoke there last night. That probably raised the bar pretty high.

Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.

I'm not saying that, but it's a fact. These shooters do these acts to be disruptive, leave a mark - a scar, really - on society. And the media delivers, of course, but this shooter got the President to stop what he was doing during a stand-off with Congress and focus on him, or, at least, what he did. No doubt the next mass-killer has noticed that. What we really need to do, IMO, is have a serious discussion about the sad state of our mental health resources. Media circuses and political speeches after the fact won't do much to prevent more of these and may encourage them, but making sure young people have access to mental health resources may.


Well, that's fine - I respect your opinion and agree that it should garner minimal (if any) media coverage. But, at the same time I think if more of these sociopathic indivduals were killed during their "moment of glory" if you will, that would certainly have some impact, and since the target lately seems to be schools of all sorts, then the adminstation should be prepared for such attacks.
 
2012-12-17 08:01:01 AM
It kinda seems like if what they do falls under freedom of speech, punching them in the balls should be protected freedom of expression.

/Their website is speech, their protests are harassment.

Pollexter: On the plus side Anonymous is picking their targets better this week, but they seem to have only managed to take down that web site for a few hours. Meh.


Needs more LOIC...
 
2012-12-17 08:01:20 AM
Im not even going to read the remainder of the thread I read enough. You people actually believe they HOLD the convictions they preach? Theyre not a religious group. Theyre a legal group. They make all of their money off of litigation against people who retaliate against their "message". Thats why so many are in law and corrections.

Theyre not a religious group. Theyre a hate organization. They're more dispicable than the modern KKK. fark them, and fark their rights.
 
2012-12-17 08:01:51 AM

xanadian: Either way, yes, Anonymous exposes WBC members to potential physical harm, which should cause *any* freedom-loving person some concern. But, on the other hand, I'm having a hard time giving a shiat in this case.


If this was a group that had the same hateful message, but didn't go out and publicly "get in people's faces" I would agree.

IF they are actively trying to interfere with non-public people during funerals I don't thinkt heir speech deserves the protection of anynonimity.
 
2012-12-17 08:01:58 AM
Oh, and...Go, Anonymous, Go!
 
2012-12-17 08:02:21 AM

Psycat: bighairyguy: Here's how to identify a church run by crazy people. They are overly obsessed with one or more of the following:

Homosexuality
Polygamy
12 year old girls
Guns
End times
Punishing children

Feel free to add to this list.

Proselytizing
Obsessing over others' sex lives
Fighting the demon weed
Obama is the Antichrist
Sovereign American tax-protester bullshiat
How everybody else will burn in Hell

/just warming up


The one everyone keeps forgetting - Making money with frivolous lawsuits.

THIS is the strictly the business model of the WBC. The nonsense about what "god" hates is just a smokescreen. Don't fall for it.

I would not be surprised if the "leaders" of this "cult of lawyers" don't really believe their nonsense about divine retribution but are essentially laughing all the way to the bank at the money that they make from their feather-headed followers and suing who they consider to be suckers that take the bait and respond with injunctions and physical violence.

It's also extremely hard for the average emotion-filled news provider to stop giving WBC a platform by playing into their hand about them standing up for their "beliefs" about god, rather than just saying right up front it is a evil business model based on taking advantage of "free speech rights" and just calling a spade a spade.

Other countries bypass this tendency by just labeling the WBC's responses as "hate speech" and outright banning them - this is how for instance the UK and Canada keep these vultures out - obviously not the ideal way to deal with it but given the gullibility and irresponsibility of news providers what else can you do?
 
2012-12-17 08:03:15 AM

Legios: I meant Anonymous, not WBC. WBC can EABOD.


Hmmm 4chan really is the perfect hang out for WBC
 
2012-12-17 08:03:50 AM

TheOriginalEd: They're more dispicable than the modern KKK. fark them, and fark their rights.


First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

- Martin Niemöller
 
2012-12-17 08:04:22 AM

rynthetyn:
Everybody claims that, but I've yet to see any evidence that they're actually making any sort of significant bank out of lawsuits.

 

I wonder too - does anyone have any examples?

Even if it's settled before it goes to trial, wouldn't there still be records that a suit was filed?
 
2012-12-17 08:05:11 AM
Someone help me understand how WBC is different than any of the other Christian denominations outside of their tactics. The Bible is pretty clear about 'lying with a man'. Their god even smote an entire city just because they liked it in the pooper. At least these clowns don't pretend they're not about hate.

If anything, it's the rest of the Christian sickos that disgust me because they're thinking many of the same things as WBC but they're doing it behind our backs.

Forget gun control- we need faith control.
 
2012-12-17 08:06:30 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com 

/obligatory
 
2012-12-17 08:07:17 AM

dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: dittybopper: shower_in_my_socks: Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying.

I'm sure that Publius and the Federal Farmer would disagree with you.

Part of free speech is the ability to say things that may be unpopular. If you have a mechanism to suppress dissent or to prevent unpopular views from being aired, essentially you have the same thing that totalitarian governments have, whether it is actually wielded by the government or not. In fact, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.

The ability to express your views anonymously is as American as apple pie, and it always has been.

after careful consideration of both sides of this argument, I have some to the conclusion:

fark THEM. Their words are not spread for altruistic reasons... they picket so they can be seen which makes it a false message. If they spoke privately with people instead of making it a spectacle, then that would be different. They do NOT represent Christ in any way shape form fashion idea principle or any otherwise noted or unnoted notion... They do in fact represent Satan, and their "Pastor" knows it.

Ah, but there is the rub. *YOU* don't get to decide who is right and who is wrong, and who represents Christ and who doesn't.

All you've done is express your opinion of them. On the Internet. Anonymously. Ironic, no?

Think about this: What if *YOUR* opinion was in the small, reviled minority?


it's not my opinion... it's from the same book they supposedly follow:

Matthew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven."
 
2012-12-17 08:07:40 AM

bighairyguy: Here's how to identify a church run by crazy people. They are overly obsessed with one or more of the following:

Homosexuality
Polygamy
12 year old girls
Guns
End times
Punishing children

Feel free to add to this list.


.
I have a much shorter list.

-If they claim to have knowledge that there is/isn't a god = CRAZY! (and annoying)
 
2012-12-17 08:08:30 AM
I cannot condone illegal hacking but hey, since it already done, why not enjoy it for what it is.

From another article:

"They claimed their website was protected by God. Big mistake. A few days later, while a Westboro spokeswoman was boasting about how the church foiled Anonymous on a radio talk show, an Anonymous spokesman called in and hacked the church's website in real time on the air." - Pure crystal awesome.
 
2012-12-17 08:08:33 AM

dittybopper: shower_in_my_socks: Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying.

I'm sure that Publius and the Federal Farmer would disagree with you.

Part of free speech is the ability to say things that may be unpopular. If you have a mechanism to suppress dissent or to prevent unpopular views from being aired, essentially you have the same thing that totalitarian governments have, whether it is actually wielded by the government or not. In fact, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.

The ability to express your views anonymously is as American as apple pie, and it always has been.


The reason they get the attention they do isn't just because of their message. It is because of how they express it. They choose nto to be anynomous when they show up in person to protest funerals of peopel that don't have fark all to do with their cause.
 
2012-12-17 08:08:51 AM
Students peacefully protest during an Occupy movement and get casually maced, while the WBC lowlifes are able to get back on their bus unscathed.

There is something just not right about that.

MACE FOR ALL.
 
2012-12-17 08:09:06 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Matthew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven."


Matthew 5:15 "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house."
 
2012-12-17 08:09:46 AM
Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? It's something that I really respected in liberals and eventually bought into it. I remember Jewish ACLU lawyer defending Nazi's right marching through neighborhoods of holocaust survivors. It was a really principled stand that cost the organization lots of members and while I disagreed with the ACLU at the time, I respected the principal and eventually came around to their way of their way of thinking.
 
2012-12-17 08:10:27 AM

dittybopper: shower_in_my_socks: Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying.

I'm sure that Publius and the Federal Farmer would disagree with you.

Part of free speech is the ability to say things that may be unpopular. If you have a mechanism to suppress dissent or to prevent unpopular views from being aired, essentially you have the same thing that totalitarian governments have, whether it is actually wielded by the government or not. In fact, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.

The ability to express your views anonymously is as American as apple pie, and it always has been.


Bullshiat. Before the invention of the internet, the 1st amendment was never about anonymity. Free speech is the ability to say whatever you want without fear of retribution by the government. Nothing ever said it would keep you safe, just that any part of government would not limit your ability to speak publicly. There's nothing guaranteeing your right to being anonymous or any measure of privacy to exercise your free speech.

And while I don't condone Anonymous in this, I also don't agree that these asshats deserve any modicum of privacy seeing they they are a very, very public presence and are hiding behind the 1st amendment to do what they want.
 
2012-12-17 08:12:56 AM

rjakobi: gerbilpox: Frankly, I've thought it was just a matter of time before someone dished out to them what they've been preaching.

Evidence techs done with that Bushmaster .223 yet?

/just curious

So you're advocating handling the Newtown tragedy by engineering ANOTHER massacre? That's rather meta of you.


"Handling the tragedy" that way would describe something like a revenge attack on a group that killed the kids (if there'd been one).

The WBC's sins are separate from this particular tragedy. However, if they encountered something they've praised as a tool of God, saying it carried out His will by killing those they believe deserved to die, that would be called "irony." Or "poetic."

media2.kshb.comi.imgur.com

You know, like a plane crash.

/b'sides, I'm not advocating anything
//just asking questions
 
2012-12-17 08:12:59 AM

Daddydarko: Someone help me understand how WBC is different than any of the other Christian denominations outside of their tactics. The Bible is pretty clear about 'lying with a man'. Their god even smote an entire city just because they liked it in the pooper. At least these clowns don't pretend they're not about hate.

If anything, it's the rest of the Christian sickos that disgust me because they're thinking many of the same things as WBC but they're doing it behind our backs.

Forget gun control- we need faith control.


Remind me to never consult you on matters of Christianity.
 
2012-12-17 08:13:05 AM
And it looks like someone has her twitter account
 
2012-12-17 08:14:08 AM
Why hasn't anyone picketed the graves of WBC's ancestors? I'm sure we could figure out who they are since Anonymous has made information public. Give WBC a taste of their own medicine. Show up at their loved ones graves and picket. Assuming no one gets violent, I can't see why the standard for free speech protection should be different for people picketing at WBC's family members than it is for WBC to picket at other people's graves.
 
2012-12-17 08:14:19 AM

Alonjar: violentsalvation:
Their first amendment rights are theirs to use. And hacking into computers and releasing personal info is a crime. I wish the WBC would STFU, or just die, and I hope the cops catch up to those anonymous fellas.

But you and I, we're allowed to enjoy smirking at the whole thing.

Nobody got hacked bro. This is all public information somewhere. My wife hadnt talked to her father in over a decade, but needs his help to straighten out some messed up birth certificate paperwork. So I spent a grand total of 3 minutes tracking him down with google a few days ago. I was able to find his home address through tax records, all of his current family members, employment information, hell I even have an up to date picture of him running a marathon 2 weeks ago.

Your "private" information isnt private anymore.


Yep. Unlisted phone number? $20 and twenty minutes.
 
2012-12-17 08:14:32 AM
Unfortunately this makes Anon fairly hypocritical. They were championing themselves as defenders of free speech but decide that because some speech is particularly repugnant that they will adopt a "When we say so" stance.

You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. There is no "...Well except for..." clause even for people as horrible as the WBC.

I also can't really take Anon seriously after they got a little too full of themselves and started to make threats against Mexican drug cartels. One counter threat was all it took to make them change their minds about that. Also do you think the people of that community don't already know who's who in that group of zealots? I live in a rural southern town, believe me, I know who the Mormons in this neighborhood are, and I know where the Catholics live too. I know these things without even trying to find them out... And those are just the people the Christians take issue with for religious reasons.

If the WBC was in my town and I lived anywhere near one of its members... Believe me... I'd know about it.
 
2012-12-17 08:14:52 AM

FunkyBlue: dittybopper: shower_in_my_socks: Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying.

I'm sure that Publius and the Federal Farmer would disagree with you.

Part of free speech is the ability to say things that may be unpopular. If you have a mechanism to suppress dissent or to prevent unpopular views from being aired, essentially you have the same thing that totalitarian governments have, whether it is actually wielded by the government or not. In fact, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.

The ability to express your views anonymously is as American as apple pie, and it always has been.

Bullshiat. Before the invention of the internet, the 1st amendment was never about anonymity. Free speech is the ability to say whatever you want without fear of retribution by the government. Nothing ever said it would keep you safe, just that any part of government would not limit your ability to speak publicly. There's nothing guaranteeing your right to being anonymous or any measure of privacy to exercise your free speech.

And while I don't condone Anonymous in this, I also don't agree that these asshats deserve any modicum of privacy seeing they they are a very, very public presence and are hiding behind the 1st amendment to do what they want.


They are not hiding behind the first amendment. They are excersicing their first amendment rights.

It is scary that people can claim that anyone can abuse the first amendment. It isn't possible.
 
2012-12-17 08:15:30 AM

beefoe: Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?


I suspect someone looked at that perfectly reasonable and respectable stance and decided to themselves that they'd find a way to take advantage of it as outrageously as possible.

farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-17 08:15:46 AM

Ow My Balls: Cold_Sassy: Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.

This morning's story problem:

If you arm every administrator, or even further - each teacher as I've commonly heard as a suggestion, across Murrica, how many 1 to 3 death incidents/accidents are going to occur each year from those guns versus the 15 to 30 fatality mega rampages like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc., that occur every five or ten years that might be averted if every adult in the building is armed? There are close to 100,000 schools, and should we count schools outside of the K-12 range too, such as preschools and universities?

It seems plausible to me that it would cause a lot more deaths overall than the rampages they might, in theory, protect... just in smaller, not-as-newsworthy batches. If just 2 in 1 million armed adults snaps impulsively and takes out two students each year, and there are over 7 million teachers, then there is about the same number of deaths each year as a Sandy Hook level rampage instead of every 5 years.

Don't get me wrong; I'm interested in solutions to our problem here too...


I think we are looking at it wrong.
These incidents don't happen so often at inner city schools (while gun carrying students and shootings are not unheard of, and the potential for violence seems higher due to gang influence) because there are basic security measures in place.

I don't think we need to arm every teacher.
I do think we need to consider having a proper security guard on station, at the very least, in any school with more than X number of students. Especially in the aftermath of any major incident, as these events seem to happen in waves.

Rampage killers are looking for undefended targets. The level of defense may not matter so much as it simply appearing to be in place.
One mall cop at the door may be enough to redirect their efforts elsewhere.
 
2012-12-17 08:16:26 AM

JonnyG: I'm convinced that both WBC and Anon are being controlled by the same handlers.


Whoever they are, their card has to have at least two arrows free to do that.

/yes, I've played WAY too much Illuminati
 
2012-12-17 08:17:25 AM
Thanks, Anonymous, for sticking it to those dickbags when no one else really could.
 
2012-12-17 08:17:35 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: dittybopper: shower_in_my_socks: Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying.

I'm sure that Publius and the Federal Farmer would disagree with you.

Part of free speech is the ability to say things that may be unpopular. If you have a mechanism to suppress dissent or to prevent unpopular views from being aired, essentially you have the same thing that totalitarian governments have, whether it is actually wielded by the government or not. In fact, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.

The ability to express your views anonymously is as American as apple pie, and it always has been.

after careful consideration of both sides of this argument, I have some to the conclusion:

fark THEM. Their words are not spread for altruistic reasons... they picket so they can be seen which makes it a false message. If they spoke privately with people instead of making it a spectacle, then that would be different. They do NOT represent Christ in any way shape form fashion idea principle or any otherwise noted or unnoted notion... They do in fact represent Satan, and their "Pastor" knows it.

Ah, but there is the rub. *YOU* don't get to decide who is right and who is wrong, and who represents Christ and who doesn't.

All you've done is express your opinion of them. On the Internet. Anonymously. Ironic, no?

Think about this: What if *YOUR* opinion was in the small, reviled minority?

it's not my opinion... it's from the same book they supposedly follow:

Matthew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven."


That's the New Testament. They don't read it. Those asshats are Old Testament Christians.
 
2012-12-17 08:18:28 AM
Aren't the funerals private events?

Under most circumstances, I'd say let them be as obnoxious as they want in the hope that given enough rope, they'll hang themselves.

These aren't most circumstances, and the families are in enough pain without having to deal with these scumbags.
 
2012-12-17 08:18:31 AM

randomjsa: There is no "...Well except for..." clause


There are, evidently. Several, in fact. And rather than asking Anonymous about it, you may as well get it from the horse's mouth: SCOTUS.
 
2012-12-17 08:19:22 AM

Daddydarko: Someone help me understand how WBC is different than any of the other Christian denominations outside of their tactics. The Bible is pretty clear about 'lying with a man'. Their god even smote an entire city just because they liked it in the pooper. At least these clowns don't pretend they're not about hate.

If anything, it's the rest of the Christian sickos that disgust me because they're thinking many of the same things as WBC but they're doing it behind our backs.

Forget gun control- we need faith control.


because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality
 
2012-12-17 08:19:51 AM

randomjsa: You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. There is no "...Well except for..." clause even for people as horrible as the WBC.


So I can directly incite a public riot to go march down the street and lynch somebody with absolutely no consequences whatsoever as long as I don't actually participate in the lynching? That's awesome! I'll have to head over to Topeka and convince some toadies to burn down their church.
 
2012-12-17 08:22:56 AM

Ow My Balls: Cold_Sassy: Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.

This morning's story problem:

If you arm every administrator, or even further - each teacher as I've commonly heard as a suggestion, across Murrica, how many 1 to 3 death incidents/accidents are going to occur each year from those guns versus the 15 to 30 fatality mega rampages like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc., that occur every five or ten years that might be averted if every adult in the building is armed? There are close to 100,000 schools, and should we count schools outside of the K-12 range too, such as preschools and universities?

It seems plausible to me that it would cause a lot more deaths overall than the rampages they might, in theory, protect... just in smaller, not-as-newsworthy batches. If just 2 in 1 million armed adults snaps impulsively and takes out two students each year, and there are over 7 million teachers, then there is about the same number of deaths each year as a Sandy Hook level rampage instead of every 5 years.

Don't get me wrong; I'm interested in solutions to our problem here too...


Some points:

1. People don't just "snap". There is a history of mental illness, occasionally unrecognized it is true, in just about every single rampage killing incident. The idea of a normal person just going berzerk without warning or provocation is a myth.

2. There is approximately 1 gun per every man, woman, and child in the United States. And yet, despite that, there were only 41 accidental gun deaths of children between the ages of 0 to 11 in 2010, according to the CDC. I filtered out those 12 and above so that things like hunting accidents weren't included. Now, that's at home, where the kids spend the majority of their time, and we can't control their access or the training of the parents. I would be *SURPRISED* if arming some significant fraction of trained and checked teachers, administrators, or even adding some plainclothes armed guards would raise that very small number a statistically significant amount.

It just doesn't seem likely, given our experiences with CCW among the population: As the number of states that permit CCW has risen, so it's now the majority of states (40, in fact, are "shall issue" - state must issue a permit if the applicant meets some objective criteria), the number of firearm homicides and accidental firearm deaths has continued to drop. I'm not saying that CCW is necessarily the cause of those drops, but it is clear that allowing CCW hasn't resulted in a significant increase, despite the predictions that blood would run in the streets.

So, the best evidence we have is that it would have zero effect on a very, very small number to begin with.
 
2012-12-17 08:23:02 AM

cman:

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


But... you are.
 
2012-12-17 08:24:08 AM
I don't know if any of you caught this, but a trooper was assigned to each family to protect them from idiots. That's kind of awesome.
 
2012-12-17 08:24:52 AM

Wrencher: That's the New Testament. They don't read it. Those asshats are Old Testament Christians.


thats cute

iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg
 
2012-12-17 08:25:06 AM

karmaceutical: cman:

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.

But... you are.


No, I am voicing my displeasure at these kinds of tactics.
 
2012-12-17 08:26:03 AM

cman: FunkyBlue: dittybopper: shower_in_my_socks: Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying.

I'm sure that Publius and the Federal Farmer would disagree with you.

Part of free speech is the ability to say things that may be unpopular. If you have a mechanism to suppress dissent or to prevent unpopular views from being aired, essentially you have the same thing that totalitarian governments have, whether it is actually wielded by the government or not. In fact, the most effective form of censorship is self-censorship.

The ability to express your views anonymously is as American as apple pie, and it always has been.

Bullshiat. Before the invention of the internet, the 1st amendment was never about anonymity. Free speech is the ability to say whatever you want without fear of retribution by the government. Nothing ever said it would keep you safe, just that any part of government would not limit your ability to speak publicly. There's nothing guaranteeing your right to being anonymous or any measure of privacy to exercise your free speech.

And while I don't condone Anonymous in this, I also don't agree that these asshats deserve any modicum of privacy seeing they they are a very, very public presence and are hiding behind the 1st amendment to do what they want.

They are not hiding behind the first amendment. They are excersicing their first amendment rights.

It is scary that people can claim that anyone can abuse the first amendment. It isn't possible.


Sure it is. Slander, libel, official secrets you've sworn not to reveal, yelling fire at the movies...all speech that the government can punish you for, or you can be sued for.

WBC comes RIGHT up to the line regarding inflammatory speech. Someone went physical on them in my state, I'd have a hard time being impartial at any subsequent jury trial for assault.

Our Founding Fathers weren't idiots; they recognized that going up to someone and insulting them was asking for a knuckle sandwich.

Patrick Henry probably would've put a musket ball in these clowns if they'd shown up at one of his relatives' funerals...

There's LOTS of opportunities for WBC to practice free speech, but the mourners only get ONE funeral to say goodbye to their loved ones. Personally, I'm fine with the First Amendment letting them have that. Afa the slippery slope argument, it ain't gonna lead to tyranny...we've got plenty of other ways to get there.
 
2012-12-17 08:26:56 AM
because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality

Oops. Don't come at me with facts. Now show me the part where it says gays aren't going to burn in Hell forever or learn your Leviticus.. Point remains- it's a faith full of hate that produces zealotry and bigotry. WBC is a product of that (and inbreeding).
 
2012-12-17 08:27:21 AM

rynthetyn: I don't really think there's cognitive dissonance going on. For them it's pretty clear cut--if you believe someone is going to hell and eternal damnation, the most loving thing to do is to be a p ...


Anyone who says WBC are nothing but a bunch of lawsuit trolls is taking a very simplistic and incorrect view. They do believe what they are saying, at least as far as their hate can carry them, but there is a simple counter: ignore them. Deny them the attention they crave and instead give them your pity. How do you think they would react if instead of backlash at ever protest they showed up to they instead received condolences from everyone present expressing grief at their chosen life of anger and malcontent. If the message got through to even a single one of them it would be a greater victory than if the courts tomorrow boarded up their church, revoked their tax excempt status and charged Fred Phelps with hate crimes.
 
2012-12-17 08:27:37 AM
"Free Speech" is too much of a sacred cow in the US. Responsible restrictions, like those in Canada, allow people to express themselves without fear of being persecuted while stopping hate speech like WBC and pictures of dead fetuses outside schools that teach sex education.
 
2012-12-17 08:28:34 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills


Can't... stop... laughing...
 
2012-12-17 08:28:59 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: it's not my opinion... it's from the same book they supposedly follow:

Matthew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven."


The Bible is religious opinion, nothing more, and the interpretation of it is the same. Hell, there are 3 separate and distinct religions who follow the same God/Yahweh/Allah, and they have some diametrically opposed doctrine, and they can't all be correct. Not to mention the schism between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church and Protestantism, and the subsequent fracturing of the Protestants into a myriad of different sects, each believing themselves to know the true meaning.

They can't all be right. It's just, like, their opinion, man.
 
2012-12-17 08:29:04 AM

sunderland56: Brent D. Roper-Phelps
Human Resources Lawyer for NAIC
Employee at Foot Locker

A lawyer who can only land a job at Foot Locker? Wow. Must have graduated top of his class.


Slightly off topic, and I hate to say it in this context, but there's quite a few lawyers who can't get legal jobs. Law schools have been pumping out way too many grads for quite some time now, imho. And the ABA signing off on shipping legal jobs overseas didn't exactly help the situation.
 
2012-12-17 08:30:03 AM

Cold_Sassy: Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.


Growing up in the school systems I went through, there were a few administrators I never would have trusted with a weapon. In fact, I think they were frazzled enough that giving them easy access to a firearm might have actually caused a similar tragedy.

If the only solution to our problems is "turn every school into an armed fortress," then this is a society I really don't want to be a part of.

(Should also point out, if I remember correctly, that there was a school shooting a few years ago where the first person who was killed was the armed security guard. Can't remember if that was Columbine or another one.)
 
2012-12-17 08:31:08 AM

cman: They are not hiding behind the first amendment.


But, can you agree that they are hiding behind the Law and God?

You can cling to the 1st all you want, cman. Anon is doing what law abiding citizens can't - breaking the law to get back at these lifeshyters. The WBC is Evil. Pure Evil. They need to be stopped.

I, if I could. (and trust me when I say this.), would walk straight up to the Phelps' and stab to death at least Fred. Jail? Yes, I would go to jail for it. My beliefs are that strong on this matter. If they are ever protesting anything in Sweden, you'll be reading about me on the main page, right here, the same freaking day.
 
2012-12-17 08:32:18 AM

Dog Welder: When Fred Phelps dies, I predict his gravesite will become the most used public urinal in Kansas.


He's probably a few steps of everybody there and plans on being cremated.
 
2012-12-17 08:32:38 AM

Daddydarko: because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality

Oops. Don't come at me with facts. Now show me the part where it says gays aren't going to burn in Hell forever or learn your Leviticus.. Point remains- it's a faith full of hate that produces zealotry and bigotry. WBC is a product of that (and inbreeding).


please learn to use the quote button properly... it just so happens that i am here hitting refresh... that is the only way i knew you were talking to me.

notice how I was speaking about something very specific... the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, NOT about Judaic Law. If I were speaking about Judaic Law, I would have of course referenced Leviticus. The simple fact is God did not destroy those cities because of some punishment for homosexuality as is commonly misinterpreted by the majority of Christians, but for entirely different sins. Whether homosexuality will earn you a place in Hell or not is irrelevant to what the original poster's point was and has NOTHING to do with my response.
 
2012-12-17 08:33:26 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In a sane world the only time the media would cover Westboro Baptist is when the story breaks that "WBC founder Fred Phelps was killed today when the syphilitic horse he was blowing ejaculated prematurely due to Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills and Phelps drowned under a virtual tidal wave of tainted stallion jizz. His corpse was disposed of by shoving a femur up his anus and allowing wild dogs to drag him off."


Awesome.
Would LOL again.
 
2012-12-17 08:33:33 AM

uttertosh: cman: They are not hiding behind the first amendment.

But, can you agree that they are hiding behind the Law and God?

You can cling to the 1st all you want, cman. Anon is doing what law abiding citizens can't - breaking the law to get back at these lifeshyters. The WBC is Evil. Pure Evil. They need to be stopped.

I, if I could. (and trust me when I say this.), would walk straight up to the Phelps' and stab to death at least Fred. Jail? Yes, I would go to jail for it. My beliefs are that strong on this matter. If they are ever protesting anything in Sweden, you'll be reading about me on the main page, right here, the same freaking day.


The good news is that you'll get out in about 10 years if you practice good behavior, and you'll have a pretty swanky place to lie in the meantime.
 
2012-12-17 08:33:46 AM
cman
Yes, their message is terrible, and yes, they are complete and utter assholes. But when they are at their homes, that is a bit far. That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors. Those abortion doctors are conducting a constitutionally protected procedure. By doing shiat like this you are acting like them. You are giving out personal information so others can bully them to stop.

If these folks would just stay at home, I don't think I'd have such a problem with them.
 
2012-12-17 08:34:06 AM
Of all of the mass killings that have happened, isn't it interesting how they always pick peaceful innocent folks and not a den of rabid pricks like the WBC? The KKK,Skinheads, violent biker gangs, a NAMBLA meeting..

Never a group that probably has done some horrible things and could use some killing.
 
2012-12-17 08:34:10 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In a sane world the only time the media would cover Westboro Baptist is when the story breaks that "WBC founder Fred Phelps was killed today when the syphilitic horse he was blowing ejaculated prematurely due to Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills and Phelps drowned under a virtual tidal wave of tainted stallion jizz. His corpse was disposed of by shoving a femur up his anus and allowing wild dogs to drag him off."


NowThisICanFapTo.jpg
 
2012-12-17 08:34:38 AM

dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: it's not my opinion... it's from the same book they supposedly follow:

Matthew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven."

The Bible is religious opinion, nothing more, and the interpretation of it is the same. Hell, there are 3 separate and distinct religions who follow the same God/Yahweh/Allah, and they have some diametrically opposed doctrine, and they can't all be correct. Not to mention the schism between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church and Protestantism, and the subsequent fracturing of the Protestants into a myriad of different sects, each believing themselves to know the true meaning.

They can't all be right. It's just, like, their opinion, man.


I agree that 100 different people can interpret the same passage 100 different ways, but it's also pretty clear when someone says "don't do this" that it means "don't do this" unless of course you are unfamiliar with reality and communication in general... then I suppose all bets are off.
 
2012-12-17 08:34:43 AM

SweetDickens: Too bad they won't go after banking CEO's, corrupt judges, asswipes who kill civilians with the drones....etc......

the psuedo morailty of these asswipes is pretty evident......


Are you talking about the WBC, or Anonymous?

Pretty sure the latter went after Bank of America...
 
2012-12-17 08:35:10 AM

phrawgh: We need to get God back in rid of these churches...

 
2012-12-17 08:36:24 AM

uttertosh: cman: They are not hiding behind the first amendment.

But, can you agree that they are hiding behind the Law and God?

You can cling to the 1st all you want, cman. Anon is doing what law abiding citizens can't - breaking the law to get back at these lifeshyters. The WBC is Evil. Pure Evil. They need to be stopped.

I, if I could. (and trust me when I say this.), would walk straight up to the Phelps' and stab to death at least Fred. Jail? Yes, I would go to jail for it. My beliefs are that strong on this matter. If they are ever protesting anything in Sweden, you'll be reading about me on the main page, right here, the same freaking day.


It's words. It's words. It's signs. It's signs.

They aren't bringing guns shooting at everything that moves. They aren't throwing acid on bystanders. They are not even slapping random people.

They are just talking.

You want them to die over words? WTF man?

Sure, they are dicks, but it is their right to be dicks. That is what America is about. If you have an unpopular opinion you should be able to have the freedom to express it.

In the Middle Ages saying shiat like "Jesus never existed" would get you a burning at the stake. This is what we Americans don't farking want

They are just words, dude. They don't deserve to die for expressing them
 
2012-12-17 08:36:42 AM

Cold_Sassy: Nabb1: Cold_Sassy: I wish the media would just STFU about this. I am very sorry for the families losses, but they should be allowed to grieve in peace, instead of the mediat blowing it up into their usual circus, for the next mentally ill person as a goal to achieve or exceed.

The President spoke there last night. That probably raised the bar pretty high.

Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.


Sooo...how are you going to defend the kids when the TEACHER snaps?

Flip-up Kevlar desk tops?
 
2012-12-17 08:36:50 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Daddydarko: because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality

Oops. Don't come at me with facts. Now show me the part where it says gays aren't going to burn in Hell forever or learn your Leviticus.. Point remains- it's a faith full of hate that produces zealotry and bigotry. WBC is a product of that (and inbreeding).

please learn to use the quote button properly... it just so happens that i am here hitting refresh... that is the only way i knew you were talking to me.

notice how I was speaking about something very specific... the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, NOT about Judaic Law. If I were speaking about Judaic Law, I would have of course referenced Leviticus. The simple fact is God did not destroy those cities because of some punishment for homosexuality as is commonly misinterpreted by the majority of Christians, but for entirely different sins. Whether homosexuality will earn you a place in Hell or not is irrelevant to what the original poster's point was and has NOTHING to do with my response.


Here's how you handle WBC: Ignore them completely. PISS on them. PISS = Passive Ignorance Silence Strike.
 
2012-12-17 08:39:00 AM

Serious Black: randomjsa: You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. There is no "...Well except for..." clause even for people as horrible as the WBC.

So I can directly incite a public riot to go march down the street and lynch somebody with absolutely no consequences whatsoever as long as I don't actually participate in the lynching? That's awesome! I'll have to head over to Topeka and convince some toadies to burn down their church.


Sounds like the "fire in a crowded theater" argument, which never sat well with me.

You've got the freedom to say what you want, but that doesn't disassociate you from having to suffer the repercussions for saying certain things. Especially disparaging remarks against someone's family.
Which is to say that you shouldn't need government permission to preach from the sidewalk, but if you incite a riot then there are consequences.

/since everyone has ignored the phelps scam clan, there hasn't been a law broken.
 
2012-12-17 08:39:41 AM

ohokyeah: Why hasn't anyone picketed the graves of WBC's ancestors? I'm sure we could figure out who they are since Anonymous has made information public. Give WBC a taste of their own medicine. Show up at their loved ones graves and picket. Assuming no one gets violent, I can't see why the standard for free speech protection should be different for people picketing at WBC's family members than it is for WBC to picket at other people's graves.


Better yet the next time one of the members dies, protest their services.
 
2012-12-17 08:40:43 AM

PunGent: Cold_Sassy: Nabb1: Cold_Sassy: I wish the media would just STFU about this. I am very sorry for the families losses, but they should be allowed to grieve in peace, instead of the mediat blowing it up into their usual circus, for the next mentally ill person as a goal to achieve or exceed.

The President spoke there last night. That probably raised the bar pretty high.

Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.

Sooo...how are you going to defend the kids when the TEACHER snaps?

Flip-up Kevlar desk tops?


No, silly. Arm the kids too.
 
2012-12-17 08:40:57 AM
Nice try, Anonymous, but you're lying yet again.

Funny how all this stuff that's supposedly posted to the Internet by Anonymous can never actually be found anywhere on the Internet. If this information was posted, where is it? I've followed links in circles and to dead links, but have found NO such information. As usual, it's just large numbers of web sites linking to each other's stories saying the info is out there somewhere.
 
2012-12-17 08:42:22 AM

TheOriginalEd: Im not even going to read the remainder of the thread I read enough. You people actually believe they HOLD the convictions they preach? Theyre not a religious group. Theyre a legal group. They make all of their money off of litigation against people who retaliate against their "message". Thats why so many are in law and corrections.

Theyre not a religious group. Theyre a hate organization.


That's the kind of statement that begs for a Venn diagram...
 
2012-12-17 08:43:06 AM

beefoe: Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? It's something that I really respected in liberals and eventually bought into it. I remember Jewish ACLU lawyer defending Nazi's right marching through neighborhoods of holocaust survivors. It was a really principled stand that cost the organization lots of members and while I disagreed with the ACLU at the time, I respected the principal and eventually came around to their way of their way of thinking.


The Total Fark liberals don't really have any beliefs. They just want to win and crush everyone else.
 
2012-12-17 08:44:22 AM

Cold_Sassy: HindiDiscoMonster: Daddydarko: because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality

Oops. Don't come at me with facts. Now show me the part where it says gays aren't going to burn in Hell forever or learn your Leviticus.. Point remains- it's a faith full of hate that produces zealotry and bigotry. WBC is a product of that (and inbreeding).

please learn to use the quote button properly... it just so happens that i am here hitting refresh... that is the only way i knew you were talking to me.

notice how I was speaking about something very specific... the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, NOT about Judaic Law. If I were speaking about Judaic Law, I would have of course referenced Leviticus. The simple fact is God did not destroy those cities because of some punishment for homosexuality as is commonly misinterpreted by the majority of Christians, but for entirely different sins. Whether homosexuality will earn you a place in Hell or not is irrelevant to what the original poster's point was and has NOTHING to do with my response.

Here's how you handle WBC: Ignore them completely. PISS on them. PISS = Passive Ignorance Silence Strike.


That's #1 in my book.
 
2012-12-17 08:44:41 AM
I REALLY don't see why everybody gets their undies in a bunch over WBC. They're just trolls. They're emotionally detached from a situation so they act provocatively in order to rile up people who can't help but have their sensibilities offended. People have been doing this on the internet for 2 decades anonymously and for the most part rational human beings have just learned to ignore them. These WBC jerks are just doing that, only they aren't hiding behind an IP address.

You give them your attention and they win by default.
 
2012-12-17 08:44:52 AM

PunGent: Afa the slippery slope argument, it ain't gonna lead to tyranny...we've got plenty of other ways to get there.


Actually, the slippery slope is *HOW* you get to tyranny. No tyrannical government starts that way on Day 1. They take measures that they consider vital, adding up over time, to make a government that might start out fairly democratic, or at least nominally so, into a totalitarian state. It happened that way in France during the French Revolution, it happened that way when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsars, and it happened that way in Nazi Germany. Hitler didn't open death camps upon his taking the Chancellorship in 1933.

What generally happens then is that a crisis, either real or invented (like the Reichstag Fire) allow those who have power to ratchet up that with "temporary measures" that tend to become permanent. You keep piling crisis upon crisis, and subsequent reactions to it, and you have a classic slippery slope if you don't draw a line in the sand and say "You shall not pass!" at some point.

Honest people can disagree on where to draw that line, but they must agree that a line be drawn *SOMEWHERE*, or all will be eventually lost.
 
2012-12-17 08:46:15 AM

Carth: "Free Speech" is too much of a sacred cow in the US. Responsible restrictions, like those in Canada, allow people to express themselves without fear of being persecuted while stopping hate speech like WBC and pictures of dead fetuses outside schools that teach sex education.


No offense, but I'm NOT looking to Canada for free speech guidance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html
 
2012-12-17 08:46:48 AM

sunlion: Nice try, Anonymous, but you're lying yet again.

Funny how all this stuff that's supposedly posted to the Internet by Anonymous can never actually be found anywhere on the Internet. If this information was posted, where is it? I've followed links in circles and to dead links, but have found NO such information. As usual, it's just large numbers of web sites linking to each other's stories saying the info is out there somewhere.


Link
 
2012-12-17 08:47:30 AM

SkunkWerks: There are, evidently. Several, in fact. And rather than asking Anonymous about it, you may as well get it from the horse's mouth: SCOTUS.


HindiDiscoMonster: Daddydarko: Someone help me understand how WBC is different than any of the other Christian denominations outside of their tactics. The Bible is pretty clear about 'lying with a man'. Their god even smote an entire city just because they liked it in the pooper. At least these clowns don't pretend they're not about hate.

If anything, it's the rest of the Christian sickos that disgust me because they're thinking many of the same things as WBC but they're doing it behind our backs.

Forget gun control- we need faith control.

because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality


Don't be idiots. You know perfectly well the context I was speaking in without having to have it explicitly spelled out for you and if you don't then you are even sadder and stupider than I think you are.

way south: Sounds like the "fire in a crowded theater" argument, which never sat well with me.

You've got the freedom to say what you want, but that doesn't disassociate you from having to suffer the repercussions for saying certain things. Especially disparaging remarks against someone's family.
Which is to say that you shouldn't need government permission to preach from the sidewalk, but if you incite a riot then there are consequences.

/since everyone has ignored the phelps scam clan, there hasn't been a law broken.


No they're just being ridiculous. Pay them no mind.
 
2012-12-17 08:47:32 AM

Cold_Sassy: HindiDiscoMonster: Daddydarko: because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality

Oops. Don't come at me with facts. Now show me the part where it says gays aren't going to burn in Hell forever or learn your Leviticus.. Point remains- it's a faith full of hate that produces zealotry and bigotry. WBC is a product of that (and inbreeding).

please learn to use the quote button properly... it just so happens that i am here hitting refresh... that is the only way i knew you were talking to me.

notice how I was speaking about something very specific... the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, NOT about Judaic Law. If I were speaking about Judaic Law, I would have of course referenced Leviticus. The simple fact is God did not destroy those cities because of some punishment for homosexuality as is commonly misinterpreted by the majority of Christians, but for entirely different sins. Whether homosexuality will earn you a place in Hell or not is irrelevant to what the original poster's point was and has NOTHING to do with my response.

Here's how you handle WBC: Ignore them completely. PISS on them. PISS = Passive Ignorance Silence Strike.


I love that acronym.
 
2012-12-17 08:49:30 AM
I think Westboro's own God is sending Anon to speak the gospel to them. His next move might be to send an innocent into them to call them home. I'd be good with both. Reap what you preach!
 
2012-12-17 08:49:34 AM
Screw the WBC. They wanted attention like the little victim-whores they are? They've got it.

When each one dies, they should just have a working toilet for a headstone. That many people will be lining up to piss on their graves.
 
2012-12-17 08:50:02 AM

randomjsa: HindiDiscoMonster: Daddydarko: Someone help me understand how WBC is different than any of the other Christian denominations outside of their tactics. The Bible is pretty clear about 'lying with a man'. Their god even smote an entire city just because they liked it in the pooper. At least these clowns don't pretend they're not about hate.

If anything, it's the rest of the Christian sickos that disgust me because they're thinking many of the same things as WBC but they're doing it behind our backs.

Forget gun control- we need faith control.

because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality

Don't be idiots. You know perfectly well the context I was speaking in without having to have it explicitly spelled out for you and if you don't then you are even sadder and stupider than I think you are.



Personally, I don't care what you think about me... you are, after all, randomjsa... My reference was specific as was the original I was responding to. I like specifics... they are very specific.

/specific
 
2012-12-17 08:51:26 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Daddydarko: because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality

Oops. Don't come at me with facts. Now show me the part where it says gays aren't going to burn in Hell forever or learn your Leviticus.. Point remains- it's a faith full of hate that produces zealotry and bigotry. WBC is a product of that (and inbreeding).

please learn to use the quote button properly... it just so happens that i am here hitting refresh... that is the only way i knew you were talking to me.

notice how I was speaking about something very specific... the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, NOT about Judaic Law. If I were speaking about Judaic Law, I would have of course referenced Leviticus. The simple fact is God did not destroy those cities because of some punishment for homosexuality as is commonly misinterpreted by the majority of Christians, but for entirely different sins. Whether homosexuality will earn you a place in Hell or not is irrelevant to what the original poster's point was and has NOTHING to do with my response.


I think I got the quote thing right this time. I have a TBI so that I am even stringing together letters into words is big step for me. Thanks for pointing out my previous failure.

Just wanted to point out that I may have been too quick to dismiss Sodom and Gomorrah as having nothing to do with butt sects. In Ezekiel 16:49-50 the specific sin for which Sodom was destroyed is identified as arrogance, apathy towards the poor, and "detestable things". And in Jude 1:7 the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are stated to have given themselves "up to sexual immorality and perversion.

Looks to me like homosexuality may have indeed been a contributing factor to god's wrath.
 
2012-12-17 08:51:29 AM

cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


WBC are baiters to incite others to violence upon themselves so they can sue and make $$$.
Anonymous are returning the baiting to incite others to violence and smoke the WBC members until they stop.
 
2012-12-17 08:51:41 AM

dittybopper: PunGent: Afa the slippery slope argument, it ain't gonna lead to tyranny...we've got plenty of other ways to get there.

Actually, the slippery slope is *HOW* you get to tyranny. No tyrannical government starts that way on Day 1. They take measures that they consider vital, adding up over time, to make a government that might start out fairly democratic, or at least nominally so, into a totalitarian state. It happened that way in France during the French Revolution, it happened that way when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsars, and it happened that way in Nazi Germany. Hitler didn't open death camps upon his taking the Chancellorship in 1933.

What generally happens then is that a crisis, either real or invented (like the Reichstag Fire) allow those who have power to ratchet up that with "temporary measures" that tend to become permanent. You keep piling crisis upon crisis, and subsequent reactions to it, and you have a classic slippery slope if you don't draw a line in the sand and say "You shall not pass!" at some point.

Honest people can disagree on where to draw that line, but they must agree that a line be drawn *SOMEWHERE*, or all will be eventually lost.


Sorry, I'm not particularly religious, but I STILL think a farkin' funeral should be sacred. It only leaves 99% of the rest of the country and 364 days of the year for the WBC...or anyone else...to get their point across.

"Incitement" exceptions to the First Amendment ain't tyranny...they're a recognition of basic human nature.
 
2012-12-17 08:51:59 AM

PunGent: Carth: "Free Speech" is too much of a sacred cow in the US. Responsible restrictions, like those in Canada, allow people to express themselves without fear of being persecuted while stopping hate speech like WBC and pictures of dead fetuses outside schools that teach sex education.

No offense, but I'm NOT looking to Canada for free speech guidance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html


The complaint was dismissed by a tribunal for not violating any hate speech law and in Canada and never even made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. When you have hate speech laws on the books there will be cases to determine where the line is drawn. I think the courts made the right decision here do you disagree?
 
2012-12-17 08:52:20 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

- Martin Niemöller



encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-17 08:53:07 AM

randomjsa: You know perfectly well the context I was speaking in


No, but I knew you were going to use that excuse more or less before I posted my own comment.

I suppose "admitting you were incorrect gracefully" wasn't an option, eh?
 
2012-12-17 08:53:29 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In a sane world the only time the media would cover Westboro Baptist is when the story breaks that "WBC founder Fred Phelps was killed today when the syphilitic horse he was blowing ejaculated prematurely due to Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills and Phelps drowned under a virtual tidal wave of tainted stallion jizz. His corpse was disposed of by shoving a femur up his anus and allowing wild dogs to drag him off."


www.automizeit.com
 
2012-12-17 08:53:30 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Personally, I don't care what you think about me... you are, after all, randomjsa... My reference was specific as was the original I was responding to. I like specifics... they are very specific.

/specific


If in the future I have to explain anything to you, I will assume that you need it explained to you like a child who doesn't know anything. Alternately you can quit insulting your own intelligence. Either way works.
 
2012-12-17 08:53:52 AM
So they got a handful of phone numbers, then wrote some mini-biographies of them? That's the "hacked" information they got? (According to the pastebin link above.)

Exciting.
 
2012-12-17 08:54:13 AM

dittybopper: PunGent: Afa the slippery slope argument, it ain't gonna lead to tyranny...we've got plenty of other ways to get there.

Actually, the slippery slope is *HOW* you get to tyranny.


The slippery slope is a stupid farking fallacy that gets misused repeatedly. Slippery slope arguments inherently depend on a prediction that if we do something today that you don't necessarily think is immoral or otherwise wrong, that increases the odds of us doing something tomorrow that you DO think is immoral or wrong. This is an empirical argument, not a logical one. The only reason that implementing policy A would lead us to implementing policy B is if the reasons for implementing them are the same, not because implementing policy A will directly cause us to implement policy B. And if the two policies do in fact have common reasons for implementing them, then we could implement policy B first and policy A second. In other words, the only cases where the slippery slope could apply are those where it is completely unnecessary.
 
2012-12-17 08:54:23 AM
WBC are baiters to incite others to violence upon themselves so they can sue and make $$$.

Anonymous is returning the baiting to incite others to violence and smoke the WBC members until they stop.
 
2012-12-17 08:54:26 AM

cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Eh, I'd agree if it were any other group of jackoffs. The Phelps' chose the wrong way to spread their message. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. I wouldn't vote to convict if someone were caught on video beating them unconscious and having gay sex on top of their unconscious bodies. So far as I'm concerned, the WBC is proof that even smallpox has a legitimate use.
 
2012-12-17 08:56:19 AM
REPEAL THE SECOND FIRST AMENDMENT! 
 
2012-12-17 08:57:53 AM

phrawgh: We need to get God back in these churches...


There church isn't a church, it's a lie.
 
2012-12-17 08:57:57 AM

Daddydarko: Just wanted to point out that I may have been too quick to dismiss Sodom and Gomorrah as having nothing to do with butt sects. In Ezekiel 16:49-50 the specific sin for which Sodom was destroyed is identified as arrogance, apathy towards the poor, and "detestable things". And in Jude 1:7 the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are stated to have given themselves "up to sexual immorality and perversion.


Serious question. If you were a homosexual and completely unattracted to individuals of the opposite sex, would you find having sex with somebody of the opposite sex to be immoral and perverted?
 
2012-12-17 08:58:18 AM
Yea, as much as i dislike some of the stuff done in the name of anonymous, its hard to not root for them when they go against the Phelps hate clan (as opposed to the swimming clan) or scientology
 
2012-12-17 08:58:35 AM

Daddydarko: HindiDiscoMonster: Daddydarko: because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality

Oops. Don't come at me with facts. Now show me the part where it says gays aren't going to burn in Hell forever or learn your Leviticus.. Point remains- it's a faith full of hate that produces zealotry and bigotry. WBC is a product of that (and inbreeding).

please learn to use the quote button properly... it just so happens that i am here hitting refresh... that is the only way i knew you were talking to me.

notice how I was speaking about something very specific... the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, NOT about Judaic Law. If I were speaking about Judaic Law, I would have of course referenced Leviticus. The simple fact is God did not destroy those cities because of some punishment for homosexuality as is commonly misinterpreted by the majority of Christians, but for entirely different sins. Whether homosexuality will earn you a place in Hell or not is irrelevant to what the original poster's point was and has NOTHING to do with my response.

I think I got the quote thing right this time. I have a TBI so that I am even stringing together letters into words is big step for me. Thanks for pointing out my previous failure.

Just wanted to point out that I may have been too quick to dismiss Sodom and Gomorrah as having nothing to do with butt sects. In Ezekiel 16:49-50 the specific sin for which Sodom was destroyed is identified as arrogance, apathy towards the poor, and "detestable things". And in Jude 1:7 the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are stated to have given themselves "up to sexual immorality and perversion.

Looks to me like homosexuality may have indeed been a contributing factor to god's wrath.


well, not really... if you are referring to the "strange flesh" part... that is actually a reference to sleeping with Angelic beings. At the time Jude was written, it was believed that some women had carnal relations with Angelic male beings (like was mentioned in Gen. and may have been the reason for the great flood as well). Please take another look at this reference and read the whole thing carefully.
 
2012-12-17 08:58:52 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: I agree that 100 different people can interpret the same passage 100 different ways, but it's also pretty clear when someone says "don't do this" that it means "don't do this" unless of course you are unfamiliar with reality and communication in general... then I suppose all bets are off.


The classic example is "Thou shall not kill". It's right there in the Ten Commandments, right? Except that in the original Hebrew, it's "Thou shall do no murder". It's not a blanket prohibition on killing, per se, it's a prohibition on *WRONGFUL* killing.

But it's in black and white in all the English Bibles I've read as "Thou shall not kill", or something similar.

But, that's like, just an opinion. We can't even know if the original Commandments are worded like they are in the earliest Hebrew references to them, because they were destroyed and lost forever. So the "source" document is gone. What we have then is that the common understanding of that particular commandment is due to a mistranslation of an ancient Hebrew document whose earliest version we have was written down hundreds of years after the event in question.

Yeah, there might be some room for opinion to have crept in there.
 
2012-12-17 08:59:22 AM

PunGent: "Incitement" exceptions to the First Amendment ain't tyranny...they're a recognition of basic human nature.


I think you should read up on "incitement", it doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
2012-12-17 08:59:39 AM
I hate having to take WBC's side in anything, as I despise performance artists. But anonymous is wrong here. Privacy isn't just for people that we like.
 
2012-12-17 08:59:42 AM

tkwasny: cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.

WBC are

master baiters to incite others to violence upon themselves so they can sue and make $$$.
Anonymous are returning the baiting to incite others to violence and smoke the WBC members until they stop.


/FTFY :P
 
2012-12-17 09:00:26 AM
You know, I dislike saying this myself, but the 1st amendment rights only protect an individual from the government. That said, if someone who plays vigilante and is willing to risk the legal ramifications of being caught doing so plays vigilante, well that is their right too. The American society does value individual action over governmental action, and unlike Europe we do not have strong hate speech laws for this particular reason. If someone is willing to sacrifice their own rights to trump the rights of someone else, then so be it.
I have no problem with a guy punching down someone who bad talks their loved one in a bar, but I also don't feel bad if they get arrest for battery. I feel the same way in this situation. Two wrongs don't make a right, but add in a right way to handle then I believe two wrongs and a right can make a right. In this situation, anon and WB are both wrong, but if the justice system acts rightly then our freedom of speech is protected. All free speech does come with a price and simply leaking out who is saying that speech is not unfair. I doubt much of fark would be opposed to private businesses refusing to work with or hire those members and that is one cost of free speech and that facilitates it.
Bottom line is that our balance to free speech is risking what effect your speech has on the private community. If you anger private individuals to the point the justice system can't stop that behavior, then that is a cost you must bear for your speech. Punish the crime sure, but condemn someone for shutting down this speech? This is one area I won't do it. As an individual there isn't a slippery slope as I can be a hypocrite and I don't need to follow my own precedent and somehow I don't think Anon needs to either.
 
2012-12-17 09:00:44 AM
Wait, so if you poke a bear in the eye, it gets pissed at you?

Amazing!

/for the dense: "The bear" in this case is the general public
 
2012-12-17 09:00:54 AM

brandied: cman
Yes, their message is terrible, and yes, they are complete and utter assholes. But when they are at their homes, that is a bit far. ...

If these folks would just stay at home, I don't think I'd have such a problem with them.


That's the crux of it. Spew hate all you want, be attention whores about it, that's fine. Plenty of others do that. It's another matter to go to private funerals and taunt the grieving loved ones.

The 1st Amendment gives others the same right to go protest in front of their homes. I usually don't think it's appropriate to picket private homes, but turnabout is fair play.

Having said that, it's unfortunately true that some may use WBC members' personal addresses for illegal types of harassment.

FTFM
 
2012-12-17 09:01:23 AM

randomjsa: HindiDiscoMonster: Personally, I don't care what you think about me... you are, after all, randomjsa... My reference was specific as was the original I was responding to. I like specifics... they are very specific.

/specific

If in the future I have to explain anything to you, I will assume that you need it explained to you like a child who doesn't know anything. Alternately you can quit insulting your own intelligence. Either way works.


protip: If you intend to engage in debate, then it is preferred that you are specific not metaphoric in your arguments.
 
2012-12-17 09:01:41 AM

dudemanbro: Barak Phelps-Davis
Born ~ Mid-1980's/Mid-1990's
Son of Rebekah Phelps-Davis

LOL wut?


Fartbongo is NOT a Secret MuslinTM. He's a Secret BaptistTM. Now I'm really terrified!!1!
 
2012-12-17 09:01:42 AM

Carth: PunGent: Carth: "Free Speech" is too much of a sacred cow in the US. Responsible restrictions, like those in Canada, allow people to express themselves without fear of being persecuted while stopping hate speech like WBC and pictures of dead fetuses outside schools that teach sex education.

No offense, but I'm NOT looking to Canada for free speech guidance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

The complaint was dismissed by a tribunal for not violating any hate speech law and in Canada and never even made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. When you have hate speech laws on the books there will be cases to determine where the line is drawn. I think the courts made the right decision here do you disagree?


They made the right choice there, but they still have the Canadain human rights comission which can punish you for speaking the truth with no intent to hurt anyone not a group I would look to for free expression guidance.
 
2012-12-17 09:01:45 AM

Daddydarko: Just wanted to point out that I may have been too quick to dismiss Sodom and Gomorrah as having nothing to do with butt sects.


So, do these sects wear hats like this one?

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-17 09:02:15 AM
So a group who dislikes being publicly known releases another groups information to the public. Also, the second group is known to very publicly picket so it's not like they are completely unknown to the public in the first place.

//I really don't see much of a story here.
 
2012-12-17 09:05:36 AM

dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: I agree that 100 different people can interpret the same passage 100 different ways, but it's also pretty clear when someone says "don't do this" that it means "don't do this" unless of course you are unfamiliar with reality and communication in general... then I suppose all bets are off.

The classic example is "Thou shall not kill". It's right there in the Ten Commandments, right? Except that in the original Hebrew, it's "Thou shall do no murder". It's not a blanket prohibition on killing, per se, it's a prohibition on *WRONGFUL* killing.

But it's in black and white in all the English Bibles I've read as "Thou shall not kill", or something similar.

But, that's like, just an opinion. We can't even know if the original Commandments are worded like they are in the earliest Hebrew references to them, because they were destroyed and lost forever. So the "source" document is gone. What we have then is that the common understanding of that particular commandment is due to a mistranslation of an ancient Hebrew document whose earliest version we have was written down hundreds of years after the event in question.

Yeah, there might be some room for opinion to have crept in there.


You are correct in the reference and mistranslation... however, there is one thing we do know about the Jewish people when it comes to copying the Torah... They are VERY ANAL about it... it is a perfect copy of the original because they believe it is a sin of the highest order to intentionally or even accidentally miscopy something, and if an error is made, it is destroyed... That is how we can know that the original Hebrew is an exact copy.
 
2012-12-17 09:06:14 AM
You know how they gave the word "Santorum" a whole new definition? I suggest we do the same with the word "Phelps". Here is my suggestion:

Phelps (Verb) - The act of sucking the santorum off a dead goat's anus after you have finished raping it.
 
2012-12-17 09:06:38 AM

Nemo's Brother: The Total Fark liberals don't really have any beliefs. They just want to win and crush everyone else.


Not true. We also want to see them driven before us, and hear the lamentation of their women.
 
2012-12-17 09:08:11 AM
When people used to say "Won't somebody think of the children," I used to ask "Which children? Who are The Children?" Now I think to myself, "Oh! Thoooose children."
 
2012-12-17 09:08:21 AM

Wrencher: That's the New Testament. They don't read it. Those asshats are Old Testament Christians.


Well, then they're not christians, are they. I mean, the whole word is derived from Christ, so if you don't acknowledge the new testament with man, that Christ produced, you're not a christian, I guess your more abhrahamic, or jewish, or muslim -- they're all into the old testament only.
 
2012-12-17 09:08:59 AM

gerbilpox: Nemo's Brother: The Total Fark liberals don't really have any beliefs. They just want to win and crush everyone else.

Not true. We also want to see them driven before us, and hear the lamentation of their women.


0.tqn.com
/Approves
 
2012-12-17 09:10:02 AM

SageTemple: Wrencher: That's the New Testament. They don't read it. Those asshats are Old Testament Christians.

Well, then they're not christians, are they. I mean, the whole word is derived from Christ, so if you don't acknowledge the new testament with man, that Christ produced, you're not a christian, I guess your more abhrahamic, or jewish, or muslim -- they're all into the old testament only.


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2012-12-17 09:12:01 AM

cman: They are just words, dude. They don't deserve to die for expressing them


Your belief system, not mine.

I will gladly stand up in court and plead guilty of killing Fred Phelps, and face every consequence of my actions, before a judge, and God. Just for the chance to murder 'martyr' this sack of human waste. I'd do it in Texas and face the death penalty, federal PMITA prison, death threats, whatever you have over there to throw at me. I'll take the hit for the rest of the world. No problems.

You don't even have to thank me.
 
2012-12-17 09:12:06 AM

gerbilpox: Nemo's Brother: The Total Fark liberals don't really have any beliefs. They just want to win and crush everyone else.

Not true. We also want to see them driven before us, and hear the lamentation of their women.


It IS what's best in life.

/Crom would totally destroy Yaweh in a fight
 
2012-12-17 09:13:19 AM

PunGent: Sorry, I'm not particularly religious, but I STILL think a farkin' funeral should be sacred. It only leaves 99% of the rest of the country and 364 days of the year for the WBC...or anyone else...to get their point across.

"Incitement" exceptions to the First Amendment ain't tyranny...they're a recognition of basic human nature.


Political and religious speech is the most protected speech of all. For all their trolliness and assholitude, what the WBC does is at its heart protected speech, something we should all hold sacred.

Let's look at a popular hypothetical from the movies:

Remember that scene in the Blues Brothers, where Jake and Elwood run the Nazis off the bridge, because Jake "hate[s] Illinois Nazis"? Turns out, the Illinois Nazis had every right to be there under the Constitution, and what Jake and Elwood did could be considered attempted vehicular homicide.

It was popular, but it was *WRONG* from a moral standpoint. The antidote to speech you abhor is more speech (like the crowd counter-protesting in the movie), not shutting down the speech with violence (like Jake and Elwood). Ironically, that's precisely what the real Nazis used to do, even before they took power: use violence and the threat of violence to suppress dissent. The Blues Brothers, in looking to prevent Nazis from speaking, became just like Nazis themselves.

And we cheered them on in the movie theaters.

*THAT* is what we have to be on guard against. It's easy to be for free speech when you agree with that speech, but that's not really being for free speech. That's merely agreeing with what you believe in. When you defend the ability of people you disagree with vehemently (as I do with the WBC, and Nazis, for that matter) to speak, even against popular opinion, then you will know you truly live up to what you say you believe.
 
2012-12-17 09:14:51 AM
Lots of Farkers HATE guns.

Lots of Farkers HATE the Westboro Baptist Church.

God forbid some crazed asshat should create gun melee at the WBC.

Farker heads be assplodin'.
 
2012-12-17 09:15:17 AM

cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Now the bullies will have a chance to experience bullying. I have no problem with this. Would be interesting to see some of them lose their jobs and have their loved ones funerals picketed.
 
2012-12-17 09:15:19 AM
Both being imaginary, I can imagine that Crom has chunks of deities like Yahweh in his divine stool.

Even as a fiction, Yahweh comes off as a whiny psychopath.
 
2012-12-17 09:17:23 AM

liam76: Carth: PunGent: Carth: "Free Speech" is too much of a sacred cow in the US. Responsible restrictions, like those in Canada, allow people to express themselves without fear of being persecuted while stopping hate speech like WBC and pictures of dead fetuses outside schools that teach sex education.

No offense, but I'm NOT looking to Canada for free speech guidance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

The complaint was dismissed by a tribunal for not violating any hate speech law and in Canada and never even made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. When you have hate speech laws on the books there will be cases to determine where the line is drawn. I think the courts made the right decision here do you disagree?

They made the right choice there, but they still have the Canadain human rights comission which can punish you for speaking the truth with no intent to hurt anyone not a group I would look to for free expression guidance.


liam76: Carth: PunGent: Carth: "Free Speech" is too much of a sacred cow in the US. Responsible restrictions, like those in Canada, allow people to express themselves without fear of being persecuted while stopping hate speech like WBC and pictures of dead fetuses outside schools that teach sex education.

No offense, but I'm NOT looking to Canada for free speech guidance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

The complaint was dismissed by a tribunal for not violating any hate speech law and in Canada and never even made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. When you have hate speech laws on the books there will be cases to determine where the line is drawn. I think the courts made the right decision here do you disagree?

They made the right choice there, but they still have the Canadain human rights comission which can punish you for speaking the truth with no intent to hurt anyone not a group I would look to for free expression guidance.


The commission is required by law to screen every complaint it receives. It is an independent group because they are also charged with investigating the federal government and crown corporations. The majority of cases they get the two parties to settle the dispute privately when they can't they conduct an investigation. If the commission thinks the complaint is valid it sends it to a tribunal who decides if they want to rule on it.

The commission has no power to "punish" anyone that is left to the courts. As long as the courts do their jobs the Canadian system protects freedom of speech and keeps out trash like the West borough Baptist Church and other hate groups that America has no problem protecting.
 
2012-12-17 09:18:11 AM

beefoe: PunGent: "Incitement" exceptions to the First Amendment ain't tyranny...they're a recognition of basic human nature.

I think you should read up on "incitement", it doesn't mean what you think it means.


To be clear, I'm not in full agreement with what the US Supreme Court considers to be incitement. I see their points..and the points of free speech purists here...I really do...I just flat-out disagree with their conclusions in some cases.

Protest at one of MY relatives' funerals?
Yeah, I'll be facing an assault charge.

I'm amazed at the forbearance of those who've refrained from punching out WBC members...their restraint makes them better men than me...I'll freely admit that.
 
2012-12-17 09:18:20 AM

dittybopper: PunGent: Sorry, I'm not particularly religious, but I STILL think a farkin' funeral should be sacred. It only leaves 99% of the rest of the country and 364 days of the year for the WBC...or anyone else...to get their point across.

"Incitement" exceptions to the First Amendment ain't tyranny...they're a recognition of basic human nature.

Political and religious speech is the most protected speech of all. For all their trolliness and assholitude, what the WBC does is at its heart protected speech, something we should all hold sacred.

Let's look at a popular hypothetical from the movies:

Remember that scene in the Blues Brothers, where Jake and Elwood run the Nazis off the bridge, because Jake "hate[s] Illinois Nazis"? Turns out, the Illinois Nazis had every right to be there under the Constitution, and what Jake and Elwood did could be considered attempted vehicular homicide.

It was popular, but it was *WRONG* from a moral standpoint. The antidote to speech you abhor is more speech (like the crowd counter-protesting in the movie), not shutting down the speech with violence (like Jake and Elwood). Ironically, that's precisely what the real Nazis used to do, even before they took power: use violence and the threat of violence to suppress dissent. The Blues Brothers, in looking to prevent Nazis from speaking, became just like Nazis themselves.

And we cheered them on in the movie theaters.

*THAT* is what we have to be on guard against. It's easy to be for free speech when you agree with that speech, but that's not really being for free speech. That's merely agreeing with what you believe in. When you defend the ability of people you disagree with vehemently (as I do with the WBC, and Nazis, for that matter) to speak, even against popular opinion, then you will know you truly live up to what you say you believe.


yeah but...
 
2012-12-17 09:19:19 AM

Scipio: You know, I dislike saying this myself, but the 1st amendment rights only protect an individual from the government. That said, if someone who plays vigilante and is willing to risk the legal ramifications of being caught doing so plays vigilante, well that is their right too. The American society does value individual action over governmental action, and unlike Europe we do not have strong hate speech laws for this particular reason. If someone is willing to sacrifice their own rights to trump the rights of someone else, then so be it.
I have no problem with a guy punching down someone who bad talks their loved one in a bar, but I also don't feel bad if they get arrest for battery. I feel the same way in this situation. Two wrongs don't make a right, but add in a right way to handle then I believe two wrongs and a right can make a right. In this situation, anon and WB are both wrong, but if the justice system acts rightly then our freedom of speech is protected. All free speech does come with a price and simply leaking out who is saying that speech is not unfair. I doubt much of fark would be opposed to private businesses refusing to work with or hire those members and that is one cost of free speech and that facilitates it.
Bottom line is that our balance to free speech is risking what effect your speech has on the private community. If you anger private individuals to the point the justice system can't stop that behavior, then that is a cost you must bear for your speech. Punish the crime sure, but condemn someone for shutting down this speech? This is one area I won't do it. As an individual there isn't a slippery slope as I can be a hypocrite and I don't need to follow my own precedent and somehow I don't think Anon needs to either.


It's still free speech as their speech is being stopped. Is the contact info of the members of West Boro private info? That as I see it would be the only crime here, and even then if it is private info then corporation violate that like every day.

/Also, the name. You going the Africanus route?
//respect. thump thump.
 
2012-12-17 09:20:16 AM
Let's hope someone slashes their tires again.
 
2012-12-17 09:21:16 AM
The best thing to do with this information is to create a huge amount of public pressure against the WBC members' employers. If enough of them lose their livelihood, maybe they won't have the gas money to travel to the next protest. If they can't get to protests, eventually no one will take them seriously. Once everyone stops taking them seriously, the media will stop covering them and they will simply fade into the obscurity in which they belong.
 
2012-12-17 09:21:52 AM

GGracie: Fred will be going to the Special Hell


In a short yellow handbasket.
 
2012-12-17 09:21:54 AM

dittybopper: PunGent: Sorry, I'm not particularly religious, but I STILL think a farkin' funeral should be sacred. It only leaves 99% of the rest of the country and 364 days of the year for the WBC...or anyone else...to get their point across.

"Incitement" exceptions to the First Amendment ain't tyranny...they're a recognition of basic human nature.

Political and religious speech is the most protected speech of all. For all their trolliness and assholitude, what the WBC does is at its heart protected speech, something we should all hold sacred.

Let's look at a popular hypothetical from the movies:

Remember that scene in the Blues Brothers, where Jake and Elwood run the Nazis off the bridge, because Jake "hate[s] Illinois Nazis"? Turns out, the Illinois Nazis had every right to be there under the Constitution, and what Jake and Elwood did could be considered attempted vehicular homicide.

It was popular, but it was *WRONG* from a moral standpoint. The antidote to speech you abhor is more speech (like the crowd counter-protesting in the movie), not shutting down the speech with violence (like Jake and Elwood). Ironically, that's precisely what the real Nazis used to do, even before they took power: use violence and the threat of violence to suppress dissent. The Blues Brothers, in looking to prevent Nazis from speaking, became just like Nazis themselves.

And we cheered them on in the movie theaters.

*THAT* is what we have to be on guard against. It's easy to be for free speech when you agree with that speech, but that's not really being for free speech. That's merely agreeing with what you believe in. When you defend the ability of people you disagree with vehemently (as I do with the WBC, and Nazis, for that matter) to speak, even against popular opinion, then you will know you truly live up to what you say you believe.


You make a very good point.

I STILL think we can have reasonable (ie, VERY limited) time and place restrictions on free speech.

Outside of a funeral, I can't think of any, offhand.

Again, the mourners only get ONE funeral...WBC (or Nazis) can still protest the rest of the year, anyplace else they want.

For the record, I don't think these groups should have to get PERMITS, either...at a minimum, any such should be 'shall issue', and free of charge.

Ain't no permits required by the First Amendment.
 
2012-12-17 09:26:19 AM

shower_in_my_socks: cman: That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors.


That's an apples and oranges comparison. Abortion is controversial, but it is a medical procedure. There is no service provided by people who picket the funerals of dead kids and victimize their surviving family members. You say I would be just as bad as them, and yet you're defending them. Turnabout is fair play. To date, they show up, shiat all over people's lives, and then go home to a quiet little life where nobody knows what evil shiatheads they are. It's about time they felt a little more uncomfortable.


So protest at their homes and family events.
 
2012-12-17 09:27:13 AM

cman: shower_in_my_socks: cman: I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying. Don't picket soldier's funerals if you can't handle the blow-back. Now that they have these @ssholes' names and addresses, the people of Topeka should canvas their neighborhoods with posters and flyers displaying their names and a list of the evil shiat that they do. For the ones where we know who employs them, hit their businesses too. These d!ckwads abuse the 1st Amendment and our justice system -- it's time for them to feel some heat.

Abuse the first amendment?

Jesus Christ, man, you scare me.

They arent abusing the first amendment. They are using it.

Yes, their message is terrible, and yes, they are complete and utter assholes. But when they are at their homes, that is a bit far. That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors. Those abortion doctors are conducting a constitutionally protected procedure. By doing shiat like this you are acting like them. You are giving out personal information so others can bully them to stop.


This.
 
2012-12-17 09:29:38 AM

Carth: PunGent: Carth: "Free Speech" is too much of a sacred cow in the US. Responsible restrictions, like those in Canada, allow people to express themselves without fear of being persecuted while stopping hate speech like WBC and pictures of dead fetuses outside schools that teach sex education.

No offense, but I'm NOT looking to Canada for free speech guidance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

The complaint was dismissed by a tribunal for not violating any hate speech law and in Canada and never even made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. When you have hate speech laws on the books there will be cases to determine where the line is drawn. I think the courts made the right decision here do you disagree?


I think the court was right to dismiss the case on idealistic FREE SPEECH grounds...not under existing Canadian law they should have applied. They screwed up (and it's a good thing, kind of).

Look here: Section 7-1 of British Columbia's Human Rights Code, which stipulates that a person must not publish or cause to be published anything that discriminates against a person or group, or exposes them to hatred or contempt.[7] Under the BC Human Rights code, the complainants are not required to prove harm, or malicious intent; all that is required is a reasonable determination that the excerpt did express hatred and contempt toward Muslims, and likely caused it to spread.[8]

That means, to my mind, that you can be prosecuted for 'exposing someone to hatred' even when the objective facts show they DESERVE such hatred.

Free speech law that exalts hurt feelings over objective truth is worse than useless...it's Orwell's Thought Crime.

And the fact that the defendants were found innocent in this case isn't really the point, either...the fact that they have to spend time and money defending themselves is the problem.
 
2012-12-17 09:31:41 AM
Is it really a violation of WBC's rights if we know what they were gonna say anyway? I mean, they already told us all what was gonna go down when they planned this thing anyway.
 
2012-12-17 09:32:08 AM
Just a question: what actual benefit does the First Amendment provide?
There seems to be a kind of religious fervor around the constitutional amendments, but it's hard to see why.
The fourteenth amendment was made, and subsequently repealed. Why not the First?
 
2012-12-17 09:33:28 AM

Carth: The commission is required by law to screen every complaint it receives. It is an independent group because they are also charged with investigating the federal government and crown corporations. The majority of cases they get the two parties to settle the dispute privately when they can't they conduct an investigation. If the commission thinks the complaint is valid it sends it to a tribunal who decides if they want to rule on it.

The commission has no power to "punish" anyone that is left to the courts. As long as the courts do their jobs the Canadian system protects freedom of speech and keeps out trash like the West borough Baptist Church and other hate groups that America has no problem protecting



If it has to look at every case why did it ignore complaints about Imam Al-Hayiti?

It has the power to send you to a tribunal which can punish you.

You have to pay for your own defense, but they give govt support to the plaintiff.

The fact is they don't keep out trash like WBC ift hey are muslim (see Imam Al-Hayiti).
 
2012-12-17 09:33:45 AM

shower_in_my_socks: Kind of surprised the people of Topeka haven't run these scumbags out of town on a rail. Makes the city look bad for keeping them around.


You don't have to agree with someone to respect their constitutional right to free speech.
 
2012-12-17 09:34:40 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: You are correct in the reference and mistranslation... however, there is one thing we do know about the Jewish people when it comes to copying the Torah... They are VERY ANAL about it... it is a perfect copy of the original because they believe it is a sin of the highest order to intentionally or even accidentally miscopy something, and if an error is made, it is destroyed... That is how we can know that the original Hebrew is an exact copy.


So it's your contention that this would prevent any errors from creeping in from around the thirteenth century BCE, which is when the Exodus happened, to around the sixth century BCE, which is when the Book of Exodus was authored, or Deuteronomy, which was around the seventh century BCE.

You're looking at a difference of, at a minimum, 600 years after the fact.

If the scribes were so anal about copying the Ten Commandments, how come there are differences between the version in the Book of Exodus and the Book of Deuteronomy? If they both share the same ultimate source, and the Hebrew scribes copied them word for word with no additions or subtractions, why the differences?
 
2012-12-17 09:35:03 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: I agree that 100 different people can interpret the same passage 100 different ways, but it's also pretty clear when someone says "don't do this" that it means "don't do this" unless of course you are unfamiliar with reality and communication in general... then I suppose all bets are off.

The classic example is "Thou shall not kill". It's right there in the Ten Commandments, right? Except that in the original Hebrew, it's "Thou shall do no murder". It's not a blanket prohibition on killing, per se, it's a prohibition on *WRONGFUL* killing.

But it's in black and white in all the English Bibles I've read as "Thou shall not kill", or something similar.

But, that's like, just an opinion. We can't even know if the original Commandments are worded like they are in the earliest Hebrew references to them, because they were destroyed and lost forever. So the "source" document is gone. What we have then is that the common understanding of that particular commandment is due to a mistranslation of an ancient Hebrew document whose earliest version we have was written down hundreds of years after the event in question.

Yeah, there might be some room for opinion to have crept in there.

You are correct in the reference and mistranslation... however, there is one thing we do know about the Jewish people when it comes to copying the Torah... They are VERY ANAL about it... it is a perfect copy of the original because they believe it is a sin of the highest order to intentionally or even accidentally miscopy something, and if an error is made, it is destroyed... That is how we can know that the original Hebrew is an exact copy.


All due respect to the Jews, but that argument doesn't hold water.

The fact that there's a punishment for something (destroying the text) means that that particular something (making errors) happens often enough that there's a procedure for it.

/Reminds of the line from that otherwise-awful Travolta movie with the nuclear weapons, Broken Arrow.
 
2012-12-17 09:37:10 AM

Mija: shower_in_my_socks: Kind of surprised the people of Topeka haven't run these scumbags out of town on a rail. Makes the city look bad for keeping them around.

You don't have to agree with someone to respect their constitutional right to free speech.


You can respect ones rights to free speech and realize these asshats are harassing private individuals during stressful and generally "private" gatherings.

If soemoen in my neighborhood was doing that I woudl go out of my way to make their life miserable in any legal way I could.
 
2012-12-17 09:37:21 AM

Tillmaster: Just a question: what actual benefit does the First Amendment provide?
There seems to be a kind of religious fervor around the constitutional amendments, but it's hard to see why.
The fourteenth amendment was made, and subsequently repealed. Why not the First?


Because talking about things, even (or especially) reprehensible things, is preferable to killing each other over them.

It's a safety valve for society.

Cynically, you can argue that it also lets your enemies identify themselves...
 
2012-12-17 09:38:05 AM

Tillmaster: Just a question: what actual benefit does the First Amendment provide?
There seems to be a kind of religious fervor around the constitutional amendments, but it's hard to see why.
The fourteenth amendment was made, and subsequently repealed. Why not the First?


In short, the First Amendment was supposed to provide immunity to the press for exposing government corruption and foul play.
 
2012-12-17 09:39:40 AM

PunGent: You make a very good point.

I STILL think we can have reasonable (ie, VERY limited) time and place restrictions on free speech.

Outside of a funeral, I can't think of any, offhand.

Again, the mourners only get ONE funeral...WBC (or Nazis) can still protest the rest of the year, anyplace else they want.

For the record, I don't think these groups should have to get PERMITS, either...at a minimum, any such should be 'shall issue', and free of charge.

Ain't no permits required by the First Amendment.


I'm sure some minimum distance away, but not as much as a mile away, would be acceptable, and it might even be rationalized as for the protection of WBC members from the possible rash actions of those in the depths of grief. WBC gets to troll, mourners get to mourn their loss, nothing bad happens to compound the tragedy.
 
2012-12-17 09:41:05 AM

thecpt:

It's still free speech as their speech is being stopped. Is the contact info of the members of West Boro private info? That as I see it would be the only crime here, and even then if it is private info then corporation vi ...


I have no idea on current laws in that regard, but if I'd have to hazard a guess I'd say no. My morning rambling was a bit incoherent, so to clean it up...
I'm just saying I believe speech is and should be free only in regards to government action. I do not operate under any impression that my speech is or should be "free" from any and all consequences. If I am a jerk I expect behavior equivalent to that in return. In that regard, I think there is a place for vigilantism. I think it should be incredibly small and the government should fight it vigorously, but I also believe this is one reason for jury nullification. It's not like the founding fathers were complete opposed to vigilante behavior as there was plenty before, during, and after the revolutionary war, and some of which is celebrated today.

/indeed it is
//*bump*
 
2012-12-17 09:41:36 AM

Carth: liam76: Carth: PunGent: Carth: "Free Speech" is too much of a sacred cow in the US. Responsible restrictions, like those in Canada, allow people to express themselves without fear of being persecuted while stopping hate speech like WBC and pictures of dead fetuses outside schools that teach sex education.

No offense, but I'm NOT looking to Canada for free speech guidance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

The complaint was dismissed by a tribunal for not violating any hate speech law and in Canada and never even made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. When you have hate speech laws on the books there will be cases to determine where the line is drawn. I think the courts made the right decision here do you disagree?

They made the right choice there, but they still have the Canadain human rights comission which can punish you for speaking the truth with no intent to hurt anyone not a group I would look to for free expression guidance.

liam76: Carth: PunGent: Carth: "Free Speech" is too much of a sacred cow in the US. Responsible restrictions, like those in Canada, allow people to express themselves without fear of being persecuted while stopping hate speech like WBC and pictures of dead fetuses outside schools that teach sex education.

No offense, but I'm NOT looking to Canada for free speech guidance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

The complaint was dismissed by a tribunal for not violating any hate speech law and in Canada and never even made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. When you have hate speech laws on the books there will be cases to determine where the line is drawn. I think the courts made the right decision here do you disagree?

They made the right choice there, but they still have the Canadain human rights comission which can punish you for speaking the truth with no intent to hurt anyone not a group I would look to for free expression guidance.

The commission is required by ...


You're not seriously going to tell me Canada has no hate groups.

First thing off Google, some non-hating friendly Canadian Aryans:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all- i ssues/2009/summer/northern-exposure
 
2012-12-17 09:43:39 AM

JonnyG: I'm convinced that both WBC and Anon are being controlled by the same handlers.


You need a few more layers of tin foil on your hat...
 
2012-12-17 09:45:05 AM
They have a right to free speech, but do I not have the right to not *have* to listen to them?

Anyone thought about rescheduling and sending the bill to wbc?
 
2012-12-17 09:45:55 AM
One of these days the WBC is going to be murdered in cold blood in the middle of a protest.

Hundreds of people will not see anything at all. The police will not be able to find out who did it, and nobody will give a damn.

/I will be laughing from my couch when it happens.
 
2012-12-17 09:45:58 AM

dittybopper: PunGent: You make a very good point.

I STILL think we can have reasonable (ie, VERY limited) time and place restrictions on free speech.

Outside of a funeral, I can't think of any, offhand.

Again, the mourners only get ONE funeral...WBC (or Nazis) can still protest the rest of the year, anyplace else they want.

For the record, I don't think these groups should have to get PERMITS, either...at a minimum, any such should be 'shall issue', and free of charge.

Ain't no permits required by the First Amendment.

I'm sure some minimum distance away, but not as much as a mile away, would be acceptable, and it might even be rationalized as for the protection of WBC members from the possible rash actions of those in the depths of grief. WBC gets to troll, mourners get to mourn their loss, nothing bad happens to compound the tragedy.


That's something like what I had in mind. Out earshot, so the mourners can have their service, would be my idea.

And I'm talking about private citizens; I'm not even proposing that this would apply at a public figure's funeral, such as a senator or president. That would more squarely fall under the First Amendment's traditional defense of political speech...which I whole-heartedly approve of.
 
2012-12-17 09:46:43 AM

cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Please get this straight folks, the goons at WBC are NOT spreading any message whatsoever - other than provocation with the intent to gain reward. They have found an avenue to profit off of people's emotions and they are exploiting that by every means necessary. The provoke people into doing or saying something against them, then they sue. Nine times out ten they don't even sue for much, just enough to make a profit and then they move on. If people stop responding to them and if the media doesn't mention their name, they will lose opportunities to sue and thus fade away to oblivion.
 
2012-12-17 09:47:13 AM
They're not going to picket, their thing lately is just threatening to just to troll people...

They're worse than Republican Senators threatening to filibuster but don't have the balls to actually do it.
 
2012-12-17 09:47:55 AM

Tillmaster: Just a question: what actual benefit does the First Amendment provide?
There seems to be a kind of religious fervor around the constitutional amendments, but it's hard to see why.
The fourteenth amendment was made, and subsequently repealed. Why not the First?


It could be repealed, I suppose. There is a process for that, of course. But, if you were to somehow engineer that, you would start a civil war. A very *NASTY* civil war: Not the kind that pits a group of states against another group of states, but the kind where people just start waking up with their throats slit. Rightly so, too, as this would trigger the "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." part of the Declaration of Independence to come into play.

After all, the DoI is the founding document of our nation. If it says that it's OK to overthrow a tyrannical government (and a government that manages to repeal the First Amendment, either explicitly or through narrowing it down uselessness, is pretty much de facto a tyrannical government), then it must be OK.
 
2012-12-17 09:47:56 AM

dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: You are correct in the reference and mistranslation... however, there is one thing we do know about the Jewish people when it comes to copying the Torah... They are VERY ANAL about it... it is a perfect copy of the original because they believe it is a sin of the highest order to intentionally or even accidentally miscopy something, and if an error is made, it is destroyed... That is how we can know that the original Hebrew is an exact copy.

So it's your contention that this would prevent any errors from creeping in from around the thirteenth century BCE, which is when the Exodus happened, to around the sixth century BCE, which is when the Book of Exodus was authored, or Deuteronomy, which was around the seventh century BCE.

You're looking at a difference of, at a minimum, 600 years after the fact.

If the scribes were so anal about copying the Ten Commandments, how come there are differences between the version in the Book of Exodus and the Book of Deuteronomy? If they both share the same ultimate source, and the Hebrew scribes copied them word for word with no additions or subtractions, why the differences?


a> ask the original authors
b> maybe the oral traditions from which the word was written down originally differed from one author to another
c> who knows

This is Fark, so you know which answer is correct, right? :)
 
2012-12-17 09:48:31 AM

Tillmaster: Just a question: what actual benefit does the First Amendment provide?
There seems to be a kind of religious fervor around the constitutional amendments, but it's hard to see why.
The fourteenth amendment was made, and subsequently repealed. Why not the First?


Because free speech is the ability to spread knowledge about anything. Knowledge is the power people use to prevent tyranny.


/Knowledge is power. Get as much as you can.
 
2012-12-17 09:48:51 AM

fluffy2097: One of these days the WBC is going to be murdered in cold blood in the middle of a protest.

Hundreds of people will not see anything at all. The police will not be able to find out who did it, and nobody will give a damn.

/I will be laughing from my couch when it happens.


And I heard someone make this comparison in a Fark thread once: When Fred Phelps dies, his funeral is going to look like burning man.
 
2012-12-17 09:49:16 AM

PunGent: HindiDiscoMonster: dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: I agree that 100 different people can interpret the same passage 100 different ways, but it's also pretty clear when someone says "don't do this" that it means "don't do this" unless of course you are unfamiliar with reality and communication in general... then I suppose all bets are off.

The classic example is "Thou shall not kill". It's right there in the Ten Commandments, right? Except that in the original Hebrew, it's "Thou shall do no murder". It's not a blanket prohibition on killing, per se, it's a prohibition on *WRONGFUL* killing.

But it's in black and white in all the English Bibles I've read as "Thou shall not kill", or something similar.

But, that's like, just an opinion. We can't even know if the original Commandments are worded like they are in the earliest Hebrew references to them, because they were destroyed and lost forever. So the "source" document is gone. What we have then is that the common understanding of that particular commandment is due to a mistranslation of an ancient Hebrew document whose earliest version we have was written down hundreds of years after the event in question.

Yeah, there might be some room for opinion to have crept in there.

You are correct in the reference and mistranslation... however, there is one thing we do know about the Jewish people when it comes to copying the Torah... They are VERY ANAL about it... it is a perfect copy of the original because they believe it is a sin of the highest order to intentionally or even accidentally miscopy something, and if an error is made, it is destroyed... That is how we can know that the original Hebrew is an exact copy.

All due respect to the Jews, but that argument doesn't hold water.

The fact that there's a punishment for something (destroying the text) means that that particular something (making errors) happens often enough that there's a procedure for it.

/Reminds of the line from that otherwise-awful Travolt ...


same answer I just gave to dirtybopper... with one addition: i am no theologian, so to answer that, I guess you have to go to the experts.
 
2012-12-17 09:50:40 AM

kcfarker: Please get this straight folks, the goons at WBC are NOT spreading any message whatsoever - other than provocation with the intent to gain reward. They have found an avenue to profit off of people's emotions and they are exploiting that by every means necessary. The provoke people into doing or saying something against them, then they sue. Nine times out ten they don't even sue for much, just enough to make a profit and then they move on. If people stop responding to them and if the media doesn't mention their name, they will lose opportunities to sue and thus fade away to oblivion.


So the correct action is to let them protest, but ignore them. Or counter-protest if you *MUST*, but not in any way that would be actionable in a court of law.
 
2012-12-17 09:51:02 AM
Simple arrest them for failing to get the Sandy Hook protest permit . Hold them till January court date and then charge them with criminal trespass and resisting arrest . Will be hard to hold on to their gubermint jobs with a pending criminal trial . Win Win
 
2012-12-17 09:52:26 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: You are correct in the reference and mistranslation... however, there is one thing we do know about the Jewish people when it comes to copying the Torah... They are VERY ANAL about it... it is a perfect copy of the original because they believe it is a sin of the highest order to intentionally or even accidentally miscopy something, and if an error is made, it is destroyed... That is how we can know that the original Hebrew is an exact copy.

So it's your contention that this would prevent any errors from creeping in from around the thirteenth century BCE, which is when the Exodus happened, to around the sixth century BCE, which is when the Book of Exodus was authored, or Deuteronomy, which was around the seventh century BCE.

You're looking at a difference of, at a minimum, 600 years after the fact.

If the scribes were so anal about copying the Ten Commandments, how come there are differences between the version in the Book of Exodus and the Book of Deuteronomy? If they both share the same ultimate source, and the Hebrew scribes copied them word for word with no additions or subtractions, why the differences?

a> ask the original authors
b> maybe the oral traditions from which the word was written down originally differed from one author to another
c> who knows

This is Fark, so you know which answer is correct, right? :)


That was my point: You can't know. That makes it opinion.
 
2012-12-17 09:52:54 AM
You could always fight fire with fire... From what I understand, Fred is a fan of child abuse and wife abuse... so you could hold up signs like:

"BEAT ANY GOOD CHILDREN LATELY?"

or

"DOES YOUR WIFE LOVE YOUR BEATINGS?"

or something of that ilk... but then again, that is just spreading hate to cover hate... so maybe there is nothing you can do except ignore them... if Fred does not get the attention he so desperately desires, then he will eventually go away... I think asking the media not to cover them is like asking gravity to all of the sudden reverse itself though.
 
2012-12-17 09:54:12 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: same answer I just gave to dirtybopper.


Ditty, not dirty. A "ditty bopper" is a Morse code intercept operator, a person tasked with intercepting the Morse code radio transmissions of foreign nations, a job I used to do for the United States Army.

A dirty bopper is someone who doesn't wash his dick.
 
2012-12-17 09:54:53 AM

dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: You are correct in the reference and mistranslation... however, there is one thing we do know about the Jewish people when it comes to copying the Torah... They are VERY ANAL about it... it is a perfect copy of the original because they believe it is a sin of the highest order to intentionally or even accidentally miscopy something, and if an error is made, it is destroyed... That is how we can know that the original Hebrew is an exact copy.

So it's your contention that this would prevent any errors from creeping in from around the thirteenth century BCE, which is when the Exodus happened, to around the sixth century BCE, which is when the Book of Exodus was authored, or Deuteronomy, which was around the seventh century BCE.

You're looking at a difference of, at a minimum, 600 years after the fact.

If the scribes were so anal about copying the Ten Commandments, how come there are differences between the version in the Book of Exodus and the Book of Deuteronomy? If they both share the same ultimate source, and the Hebrew scribes copied them word for word with no additions or subtractions, why the differences?

a> ask the original authors
b> maybe the oral traditions from which the word was written down originally differed from one author to another
c> who knows

This is Fark, so you know which answer is correct, right? :)

That was my point: You can't know. That makes it opinion.


to them, their opinion is fact, so from their perspective, there is no opinion, just scripture... however, they cherry pick those scriptures and don't even bother to follow it (no surprise there)... that was what I was saying - from their perspective.
 
2012-12-17 09:55:22 AM

cman: Abuse the first amendment?
Jesus Christ, man, you scare me.
They arent abusing the first amendment. They are using it.


They're abusing it. "Free speech" doesn't mean that you go out and try to be as offensive as possible, making yourself a target so that you can support yourself on the back of frivolous lawsuits. Free speech means that you get to say what you believe, even if it is offensive. They don't believe in what they do--it's just a gimmick. They're abusing the laws of the land, the court system, and I hope they all die of ass cancer.

I'm also pretty farking tired of assholes who flunked out of high school bellowing about "free speech!" because they learned the phrase somewhere, and they mistakenly think that it gives them a license to be a dick, anytime, anywhere, and face no consequences. No, honey, you're not a muzzled freedom fighter who cares about the Constitution--you're just a dick. If the jack-booted thugs actually did knock down your door, you wouldn't have a word to say.

cman: Sure, they are dicks, but it is their right to be dicks. That is what America is about.


REALLY? America is about the right to be a dick and not answer for it? I guess I can see what part of our problem is now. Because a lot of you guys really believe this. Your "freedom" is about how much of an asshole you can be, how much you can take, abuse, and use others and get away with it. Because it's your RIGHT.

No wonder our country is so farked up.
 
2012-12-17 09:56:22 AM

dittybopper: Tillmaster: Just a question: what actual benefit does the First Amendment provide?
There seems to be a kind of religious fervor around the constitutional amendments, but it's hard to see why.
The fourteenth amendment was made, and subsequently repealed. Why not the First?

It could be repealed, I suppose. There is a process for that, of course. But, if you were to somehow engineer that, you would start a civil war. A very *NASTY* civil war: Not the kind that pits a group of states against another group of states, but the kind where people just start waking up with their throats slit. Rightly so, too, as this would trigger the "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." part of the Declaration of Independence to come into play.

After all, the DoI is the founding document of our nation. If it says that it's OK to overthrow a tyrannical government (and a government that manages to repeal the First Amendment, either explicitly or through narrowing it down uselessness, is pretty much de facto a tyrannical government), then it must be OK.


If they tried that, I could see shiat like this happening.

/it'd be some farked up shiat in this country if that ever did get close to happening
 
2012-12-17 09:56:32 AM

dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: same answer I just gave to dirtybopper.

Ditty, not dirty. A "ditty bopper" is a Morse code intercept operator, a person tasked with intercepting the Morse code radio transmissions of foreign nations, a job I used to do for the United States Army.

A dirty bopper is someone who doesn't wash his dick.


oops... sorry... human psychology i guess... kind of like that license plate:
funnylicenseplates.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-17 09:57:15 AM

randomjsa: Unfortunately this makes Anon fairly hypocritical. They were championing themselves as defenders of free speech but decide that because some speech is particularly repugnant that they will adopt a "When we say so" stance.

You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. There is no "...Well except for..." clause even for people as horrible as the WBC.


Is Anonymous a government agency? Are they preventing Westboro from speaking?

randomjsa = Kyle Mortensen

/both fictional characters
 
2012-12-17 09:58:42 AM
Thankfully, most of the US states are at-will employment. Employers, you know what to do.

/Mostly kidding
//I really do wonder if the WBC just got completely ignored if they'd go away, or if they'd just up the stakes
 
2012-12-17 10:00:18 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: HindiDiscoMonster: dittybopper: HindiDiscoMonster: I agree that 100 different people can interpret the same passage 100 different ways, but it's also pretty clear when someone says "don't do this" that it means "don't do this" unless of course you are unfamiliar with reality and communication in general... then I suppose all bets are off.

The classic example is "Thou shall not kill". It's right there in the Ten Commandments, right? Except that in the original Hebrew, it's "Thou shall do no murder". It's not a blanket prohibition on killing, per se, it's a prohibition on *WRONGFUL* killing.

But it's in black and white in all the English Bibles I've read as "Thou shall not kill", or something similar.

But, that's like, just an opinion. We can't even know if the original Commandments are worded like they are in the earliest Hebrew references to them, because they were destroyed and lost forever. So the "source" document is gone. What we have then is that the common understanding of that particular commandment is due to a mistranslation of an ancient Hebrew document whose earliest version we have was written down hundreds of years after the event in question.

Yeah, there might be some room for opinion to have crept in there.

You are correct in the reference and mistranslation... however, there is one thing we do know about the Jewish people when it comes to copying the Torah... They are VERY ANAL about it... it is a perfect copy of the original because they believe it is a sin of the highest order to intentionally or even accidentally miscopy something, and if an error is made, it is destroyed... That is how we can know that the original Hebrew is an exact copy.

All due respect to the Jews, but that argument doesn't hold water.

The fact that there's a punishment for something (destroying the text) means that that particular something (making errors) happens often enough that there's a procedure for it.

/Reminds of the line from that otherwise-awfu ...


When "experts" have obvious, grade-school holes in their logic, you don't have to go to them, even if you know nothing about their field.

For the record, I want my fellow citizens applying this standard to MY profession, the law.
 
2012-12-17 10:01:48 AM
Did anyone by chance see this:

sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net

Was kind of laughing, then I read the comment to it and laughed harder...
 
2012-12-17 10:02:19 AM

PunGent: When "experts" have obvious, grade-school holes in their logic, you don't have to go to them, even if you know nothing about their field.

For the record, I want my fellow citizens applying this standard to MY profession, the law.



please explain the flaws in logic you refer to.
 
2012-12-17 10:03:17 AM

KellyX: Did anyone by chance see this:

[sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net image 534x521]

Was kind of laughing, then I read the comment to it and laughed harder...


wow... that is sad
 
2012-12-17 10:04:35 AM

cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


AFAIC:

i700.photobucket.com

The WBC now knows how it feels like to be trolled.
 
2012-12-17 10:04:53 AM

mauricecano:
There is a reason the founding fathers all used pen names when talking about ideas that were radical and unpopular in their time. Fast forward to the future and others have used the anonymous pen-name as well to advocate other unfriendly positions through history (women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc).


While I get your point (and I'm really more in the camp of ignoring WBC protests or singing pretty songs over these hateful people's picketing), you are comparing people who wanted to make a progressive change in society and were up against opponents who could have them killed or jailed to people who just want to make money on lawsuits by being awful. I'm actually surprised to see any of these people actually have jobs; it's usually difficult for sociopaths and conmen to hold down a job.
 
2012-12-17 10:05:28 AM

KellyX: Did anyone by chance see this:
[sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net image 534x521]
Was kind of laughing, then I read the comment to it and laughed harder...


He was being sarcastic. I'm sure he knew that Lanza's mother owned the guns. he was making fun of the "but if everyone owned a gun, these things wouldn't happen!" statement.
 
2012-12-17 10:06:30 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: You could always fight fire with fire... From what I understand, Fred is a fan of child abuse and wife abuse... so you could hold up signs like:

"BEAT ANY GOOD CHILDREN LATELY?"

or

"DOES YOUR WIFE LOVE YOUR BEATINGS?"


sitracking.files.wordpress.com

Approves!
 
2012-12-17 10:07:54 AM

cryinoutloud: KellyX: Did anyone by chance see this:
[sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net image 534x521]
Was kind of laughing, then I read the comment to it and laughed harder...

He was being sarcastic. I'm sure he knew that Lanza's mother owned the guns. he was making fun of the "but if everyone owned a gun, these things wouldn't happen!" statement.


Thanks Captain Obvious! I don't know what I would of done without you! ;-)
 
2012-12-17 10:11:07 AM

cryinoutloud: KellyX: Did anyone by chance see this:
[sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net image 534x521]
Was kind of laughing, then I read the comment to it and laughed harder...

He was being sarcastic. I'm sure he knew that Lanza's mother owned the guns. he was making fun of the "but if everyone owned a gun, these things wouldn't happen!" statement.


Given the fact this kid apparently had some mental health issues, one wonders why she chose to buy guns in the first place, or if his issues arose after she got them, why she chose to keep them around.
 
2012-12-17 10:12:19 AM

cman: Doesnt it strike anyone as kinda ironic that a group of people who dont want to be identified give out personal identification of others?

Also, while WBC are a bunch of assholes, this still is kind of a dickish move. WBC spreads a message of hate and intolerance, that much isnt up for debate. However, the aspect of publishing private information for others to bully them because you hate the message is a bit unnerving.

I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Celebrities and politicians have a different expectation of privacy than the rest of us; it comes from being a public figure. This has been covered many time in court. WBC by this point counts as "public figures", and at this point, they're just reaping what they've sown. If they don't like it, then they can stop being total pricks who do everything they can to get on TV.
 
2012-12-17 10:13:31 AM

Primitive Screwhead: HindiDiscoMonster: You could always fight fire with fire... From what I understand, Fred is a fan of child abuse and wife abuse... so you could hold up signs like:

"BEAT ANY GOOD CHILDREN LATELY?"

or

"DOES YOUR WIFE LOVE YOUR BEATINGS?"

[sitracking.files.wordpress.com image 300x199]

Approves!


I know I am going to catch hell for this, but who is that?
 
2012-12-17 10:13:56 AM
Any lawyers or law junkies out there care to tell me what "Legally recognizing WBC as a hate group" would do? I can't seem to find any serious legal repercussions for this classification.
 
2012-12-17 10:15:29 AM

Cold_Sassy: I wish the media would just STFU about this. I am very sorry for the families losses, but they should be allowed to grieve in peace, instead of the mediat blowing it up into their usual circus, for the next mentally ill person as a goal to achieve or exceed.


^^^^THIS x 1,000,000
 
2012-12-17 10:17:00 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Primitive Screwhead: HindiDiscoMonster: You could always fight fire with fire... From what I understand, Fred is a fan of child abuse and wife abuse... so you could hold up signs like:

"BEAT ANY GOOD CHILDREN LATELY?"

or

"DOES YOUR WIFE LOVE YOUR BEATINGS?"

[sitracking.files.wordpress.com image 300x199]

Approves!

I know I am going to catch hell for this, but who is that?


Seriously? You don't know who David farking Stern is?
 
2012-12-17 10:25:24 AM

Serious Black: HindiDiscoMonster: Primitive Screwhead: HindiDiscoMonster: You could always fight fire with fire... From what I understand, Fred is a fan of child abuse and wife abuse... so you could hold up signs like:

"BEAT ANY GOOD CHILDREN LATELY?"

or

"DOES YOUR WIFE LOVE YOUR BEATINGS?"

[sitracking.files.wordpress.com image 300x199]

Approves!

I know I am going to catch hell for this, but who is that?

Seriously? You don't know who David farking Stern is?


To be fair, not everyone is a fan of the NHL.
 
2012-12-17 10:25:45 AM

MJMaloney187: Good. I think of Anonymous as one of The Watchmen. The floodgates of fury should have been opened up on Westboro a long time ago.


That's a good analogy. These are people who are protected by the law, protected, in fact, by one of our most cherished freedoms, which they are abusing, and they ARE abusing it, as opposed to what some apologists here think. We have a law, the law is sacrosanct, and regular law enforcement can't touch them. We need a Clint Eastwood 'Man With No Name' to act on our behalfs, and Anonymous is stepping up to that.
 
2012-12-17 10:27:29 AM

elffster: http://blank.org/addict/


Thats the link for 'Addicted to Hate' which is a quite detailed story about Fred and his family. Its one sad read.

But Im posting it for anyone who is curious and hasnt read it. But one warning: its brutal and not pleasant in any way.


Made it through Chapter 2. A mattock handle? WTF?
 
2012-12-17 10:27:33 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: When "experts" have obvious, grade-school holes in their logic, you don't have to go to them, even if you know nothing about their field.

For the record, I want my fellow citizens applying this standard to MY profession, the law.


please explain the flaws in logic you refer to.


"These religious texts have no errors, because they have a process for fixing the errors".

See the problem?
 
2012-12-17 10:28:17 AM

Serious Black: HindiDiscoMonster: Primitive Screwhead: HindiDiscoMonster: You could always fight fire with fire... From what I understand, Fred is a fan of child abuse and wife abuse... so you could hold up signs like:

"BEAT ANY GOOD CHILDREN LATELY?"

or

"DOES YOUR WIFE LOVE YOUR BEATINGS?"

[sitracking.files.wordpress.com image 300x199]

Approves!

I know I am going to catch hell for this, but who is that?

Seriously? You don't know who David farking Stern is?


see? i knew i would catch hell because i don't recognize every person on the planet... i am sorry sir, i will study harder.

thank you btw for the name.
 
2012-12-17 10:28:47 AM

dittybopper: kcfarker: Please get this straight folks, the goons at WBC are NOT spreading any message whatsoever - other than provocation with the intent to gain reward. They have found an avenue to profit off of people's emotions and they are exploiting that by every means necessary. The provoke people into doing or saying something against them, then they sue. Nine times out ten they don't even sue for much, just enough to make a profit and then they move on. If people stop responding to them and if the media doesn't mention their name, they will lose opportunities to sue and thus fade away to oblivion.

So the correct action is to let them protest, but ignore them. Or counter-protest if you *MUST*, but not in any way that would be actionable in a court of law.


In the past year or two, they rarely even venture out to protest. They post inflammatory remarks online, threaten to protest somewhere, get everyone riled up and then don't even show up. They spend their time wasting other people's time. (our conversation is case in point)
 
2012-12-17 10:31:22 AM

Tat'dGreaser: Legios: Good point...
I applaud some of the things they do, but in other situations they really are kicking hornets nests.

I can't really get behind a group of people who started from a website that's a haven for homophobic and racist pedophiles.


Anon started on reddit? seriously look at the subreddits some time.
 
2012-12-17 10:31:56 AM

GKinMD: Any lawyers or law junkies out there care to tell me what "Legally recognizing WBC as a hate group" would do? I can't seem to find any serious legal repercussions for this classification.


I'm not sure either. Afaik, it's a murky, new-ish area of the law. The FBI, for example, tracks hate groups...but doesn't publish a list of them. The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks hate groups...but they're not the government.

When I say new-ish, it's relative...takes a few decades or even centuries for Anglo-Saxon judicial principles to be considered 'established'...and then they can change.
 
2012-12-17 10:33:34 AM

Urbn: mauricecano:
There is a reason the founding fathers all used pen names when talking about ideas that were radical and unpopular in their time. Fast forward to the future and others have used the anonymous pen-name as well to advocate other unfriendly positions through history (women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc).


While I get your point (and I'm really more in the camp of ignoring WBC protests or singing pretty songs over these hateful people's picketing), you are comparing people who wanted to make a progressive change in society and were up against opponents who could have them killed or jailed to people who just want to make money on lawsuits by being awful. I'm actually surprised to see any of these people actually have jobs; it's usually difficult for sociopaths and conmen to hold down a job.


Those types usually go into banking :)
 
2012-12-17 10:34:44 AM

PunGent: HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: When "experts" have obvious, grade-school holes in their logic, you don't have to go to them, even if you know nothing about their field.

For the record, I want my fellow citizens applying this standard to MY profession, the law.


please explain the flaws in logic you refer to.

"These religious texts have no errors, because they have a process for fixing the errors".

See the problem?


I understand what you are saying... but I have personally known people (yes, i know... anecdote) that copy the Torah word for word, painstakingly making sure that every single dot, stroke, etc is perfect and i remember in one particular instance, this person had copied a whole page almost to the end, made one little error (not that i would have considered it an error... just a little wavy), and he stopped, and destroyed the whole page (even though the first side was perfect). I questioned him at the time, and he told me that is normal... so, yes, there is a mechanism in place to deal with it... and that is why I tend to believe that there are no errors in the original Hebrew of the Torah rather than something that "makes sense" or is "common sense" or is "illogical"... sorry, experience is the greatest teacher.
 
2012-12-17 10:42:51 AM

Legios: Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the anonymous movement uses Guy Fawkes masks? The guy was a Catholic and tried to blow up parliament because it was Protestant...

/Or am I missing the analogy here?


Yes you are. The mask was co-opted by Alan Moore for the "V for Vendetta" graphic novel.
 
2012-12-17 10:43:30 AM

Legios: bighairyguy: Here's how to identify a church run by crazy people. They are overly obsessed with one or more of the following:

Homosexuality
Polygamy
12 year old girls
Guns
End times
Punishing children

Feel free to add to this list.


Being an organised religion


That pretty much covers it.
 
2012-12-17 10:45:30 AM
If you are in a race to see who is the bigger douche and you look over to see anonymous racing against you just go ahead and get a lemonade or something because you cannot out douche them.
 
2012-12-17 10:48:39 AM

Mija: shower_in_my_socks: Kind of surprised the people of Topeka haven't run these scumbags out of town on a rail. Makes the city look bad for keeping them around.

You don't have to agree with someone to respect their constitutional right to free speech.


I don't even dare look at them when they're out derping around. They will find out who you are, if they perceive the slightest violation of their rights, and you will receive a lawsuit. I just look straight ahead and get away from them as quickly as possible. There are a lot of people here who agree with them, sadly, but many do not approve of their methods.

They disgust me, specially when I see them out with their own children, but they have the right to spew their hate. Makes me feel all icky inside, but they do.
 
2012-12-17 10:49:47 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In a sane world the only time the media would cover Westboro Baptist is when the story breaks that "WBC founder Fred Phelps was killed today when the syphilitic horse he was blowing ejaculated prematurely due to Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills and Phelps drowned under a virtual tidal wave of tainted stallion jizz. His corpse was disposed of by shoving a femur up his anus and allowing wild dogs to drag him off."


New keyboard, please. That was farking awesome. I laughed and then I laughed again. The visual in my head is going to cause some trauma, but it is sooooo worth it.

I
 
2012-12-17 10:52:11 AM

rufus-t-firefly: Is Anonymous a government agency? Are they preventing Westboro from speaking?


Sigh. What did I say?

I said that the hacker group had previously held itself up as a champion of free speech I then said they were attacking people whom they felt were using free speech in an inappropriate fashion.

Do you believe in free speech? If the answer is "Yes" then you cannot support any actions Anon is doing in this instance. Not even against WBC. You can't make exceptions. You particularly can't hold yourself up as a champion of free speech then start hacking the websites of people who say something you don't like no matter how ugly that is. If you're going to say "Well it's okay to do it to WBC", then who else is it "okay" to do it to? Who gets to make that judgement? You? Me?

If you believe in freedom of speech then you have to be absolute about it. It's the only way you can have free speech.

Now for everyone else... This next bit is not directed at you.

For the children in the audience: There are exceptions to free speech, you can't incite riots, you can't create a panic, on the off chance that you're limited enough to not understand this as a "given" during the discussion here and think you're clever in pointing it out. You're not, you're stupid.
 
2012-12-17 10:59:11 AM

Weidermeijer: phrawgh: We need to get God back in these churches...

We need to tax the WBC.

We need to tax ALL churches.


Before I strayed from the path, so to speak, I attended a couple of different churches. One was poor - they donated everything they received. The pastor took a part time job to help pay the church's bills. Great people doing great work. If they were taxed, they'd fold immediately. They barely make it now. However - The last church I attended (and probably the main reason I stopped going all together) was filthy-assed rich. I attended the "brother's meetings". They actually got giddy when it was time to spend the $. They did the fund raisers (bake sales, car washes, etc). They would spend money on dining out experiences to bring the church families together, A\V equipment that would make Geddy Lee jealous, a church van to transport the elderly (who never needed to be transported anywhere - but they used it all the time for family gatherings), etc. One of the last meetings I attended was about what to do with a surplus that had to be spent before the end of the fiscal year. I suggested donating it to a local charity that feeds homeless people. The pastor looked me right in the eye and said "that's not in our support area". They ultimately decided to put in a workout room in the basement.
 
2012-12-17 11:01:18 AM

It's a Lazer Beam: Mija: shower_in_my_socks: Kind of surprised the people of Topeka haven't run these scumbags out of town on a rail. Makes the city look bad for keeping them around.

You don't have to agree with someone to respect their constitutional right to free speech.

I don't even dare look at them when they're out derping around. They will find out who you are, if they perceive the slightest violation of their rights, and you will receive a lawsuit. I just look straight ahead and get away from them as quickly as possible. There are a lot of people here who agree with them, sadly, but many do not approve of their methods.

They disgust me, specially when I see them out with their own children, but they have the right to spew their hate express their beliefs. Makes me feel all icky inside, but they do.


FTFM
 
2012-12-17 11:05:12 AM
I don't understand why the LGBT community doesn't just hold nonviolent gay pride counter-demos - show up where the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing in full fabulous gear, crank up the Lady Gaga, start making out with each other.
 
2012-12-17 11:16:53 AM
HindiDiscoMonster: Nice to see you!

I hate Fred Phelps and his band of asshats. Hate, yes, hate. HATE.

He has a right to think and say what he does. I defend his right to do so. However, there are restrictions to free speech.

There is no right to free speech were what is being said will cause widespread panic and harm (fire in a crowded theater) OR incite violence.

I believe that protesting the funerals of those children clearly falls under the incite violence aspect of that. Calling it a praise service (or whatever his holy farkness calls it, just sickens me) does not change the possibility that it could incite violence. The parents who are burying their children today have been through the worst. Seeing WBC there and their message of hate might just push some over the edge. If it does, I would not lift a finger to stop any parent--pushed to his or her limit by the events of the past few days--from hurting Phelps or anyone in the WBC.

With rights come great responsibility--the responsibility to use those rights wisely and appropriately and to accept the consequences for using them. If they want to protest (Praise--farking shiat, whatever) let them, but they need to accept the consequences.
 
2012-12-17 11:20:40 AM

relcec: xanadian: IIRC, the ability to exercise one's free speech, anonymously, has been in contention for quite some time.


it comes up in defamation cases, but then of course the freedom of speech never included the freedom to say false things in order to sully ones reputation and you need to know the arty who defamed you if you are going to successfully collect.
I don't ever remember anonymous speech being in contention.
but maybe I missed something, wtf are you talking about.


Not necessarily the speech, but the identities of those behind the speech. Fred Phelps is, of course, the figurehead behind this whole schmeal. I didn't read to see WHO exactly had their addresses exposed, but this is the anonymity I'm talking about. Being able to speak your mind without the threat of having your home address, etc, exposed.

Again, I have no idea what the precedents are for something like this. I imagine if someone belonged to the KKK, then that kind of "free speech" would be null and void, and any protections behind it (i.e., through defamation, slander, libel, etc).
 
2012-12-17 11:22:01 AM

rynthetyn: doglover: fusillade762: I've thought for a while now that the WBC people are just a performance art troop highlighting the hatred and hypocrisy of extremist religious types.

That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

They make money off lawsuits when people slash their tires and assault them. They incite hate to get pait, as it were.

Everybody claims that, but I've yet to see any evidence that they're actually making any sort of significant bank out of lawsuits.

Honestly, I think they're doing their shenanigans because they really, truly do believe they're providing a prophetic voice calling the country to repentance. When I watched the Louis Thoreau documentaries, what I came away with was that the WBC crowd isn't all that different than a lot of the people I grew up with who are complete asses to people because they truly believe that they're being loving and confronting people in their sin. If you haven't grown up with people like that, it's hard to believe that the Phelps clan could be sincere, but I've been around enough people whose only difference from the Phelpses is that they're not so abrasive to believe that the Phelpses are true believers. And the thing with people like that is that the more push back they get, and the more hatred they have directed at them, the more convinced they are that they're right. In their minds, they're not getting all of that flack because they're wrong, they're getting it because it's proof that they're right. They take the scripture passage where Jesus said that if the world hated him, it will hate his followers more, and the more they're hated the more convinced they are that they're being like Jesus.


While I'm sure there's a strong element of fundie brainwash there, they are in it for the money. There are far too many attorneys (disbarred and not) in that hyena of a family for it to not be a money-maker.

/A hyena of Phelps.
 
2012-12-17 11:22:43 AM

SkunkWerks: beefoe: Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

I suspect someone looked at that perfectly reasonable and respectable stance and decided to themselves that they'd find a way to take advantage of it as outrageously as possible.

[farm8.staticflickr.com image 650x813]


This is so true, it hurts me deap in my bums.
 
2012-12-17 11:24:58 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: When "experts" have obvious, grade-school holes in their logic, you don't have to go to them, even if you know nothing about their field.

For the record, I want my fellow citizens applying this standard to MY profession, the law.


please explain the flaws in logic you refer to.

"These religious texts have no errors, because they have a process for fixing the errors".

See the problem?

I understand what you are saying... but I have personally known people (yes, i know... anecdote) that copy the Torah word for word, painstakingly making sure that every single dot, stroke, etc is perfect and i remember in one particular instance, this person had copied a whole page almost to the end, made one little error (not that i would have considered it an error... just a little wavy), and he stopped, and destroyed the whole page (even though the first side was perfect). I questioned him at the time, and he told me that is normal... so, yes, there is a mechanism in place to deal with it... and that is why I tend to believe that there are no errors in the original Hebrew of the Torah rather than something that "makes sense" or is "common sense" or is "illogical"... sorry, experience is the greatest teacher.


You're proving MY point. There's NO human process that is error-free.

I suspect that's why we invented the idea of perfect gods in the first place.
 
2012-12-17 11:28:58 AM
My general feeling is that Anonymous and the WBC are both groups full of cowards.

That being said, I find this very amusing and the WBC deserved this, every bit of it.
 
2012-12-17 11:33:50 AM
#1. They are a family of lawyers, they picket funerals to fish for lawsuits. That is how they make their money. I think most people here know this.

#2. They are also cowards. They always announce they will picket funerals of high ranking people or mass murders, but they won't actually show up when they happen. They weren't at several high profile funerals over the last few years that they said they would be at, most likely because someone would very likely bring a gun and kill one or all of their members present.

#3. Even when they don't show up, they still win. They get the media attention they crave by trolling high profile funerals, which makes more lawsuit bait for the soft targets they go after.

There is no way in hell they will show up for these funerals. If people would just ignore them and/or the media would just stop giving them the attention they try so hard to get, they would fade into the obscurity they deserve.

Of course, if someone actually went after them, I wouldn't shed a single tear.
 
2012-12-17 11:35:48 AM

xanadian: cman: Yes, their message is terrible, and yes, they are complete and utter assholes. But when they are at their homes, that is a bit far. That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors. Those abortion doctors are conducting a constitutionally protected procedure. By doing shiat like this you are acting like them. You are giving out personal information so others can bully them to stop.

IIRC, the ability to exercise one's free speech, anonymously, has been in contention for quite some time. I'm sure there are quite a few cases in the Supreme Court about it. No idea what the precedent is, but I suspect anonymity is part in parcel with free speech, even though there isn't an amendment that *specifically* guarantees an American's right to privacy. Again, that's dependent on how SCOTUS in the past has ruled.

Either way, yes, Anonymous exposes WBC members to potential physical harm, which should cause *any* freedom-loving person some concern. But, on the other hand, I'm having a hard time giving a shiat in this case.

Slippery slope, and all that...


I'm trying to figure out whether you remember the Ninth Amendment or not. After all, it is my favorite amendment in the Bill of Rights.
 
2012-12-17 11:43:51 AM

Rwa2play: The WBC now knows how it feels like to be trolled.


Yeah. They are going to get SO many unwanted pizzas delivered, it will totally pwn them.
 
2012-12-17 11:45:35 AM

Nogale: I don't understand why the LGBT community doesn't just hold nonviolent gay pride counter-demos - show up where the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing in full fabulous gear, crank up the Lady Gaga, start making out with each other.


Or sing a song about hot man loving in front of them?: Link

/gotta love the Foo
 
2012-12-17 11:47:51 AM

PunGent: Cold_Sassy: Nabb1: Cold_Sassy: I wish the media would just STFU about this. I am very sorry for the families losses, but they should be allowed to grieve in peace, instead of the mediat blowing it up into their usual circus, for the next mentally ill person as a goal to achieve or exceed.

The President spoke there last night. That probably raised the bar pretty high.

Yes, unfortunately. I think school administrators should be taught firearms training because it appears that that is the only way to stop the carnage before it is too late.

Sooo...how are you going to defend the kids when the TEACHER snaps?

Flip-up Kevlar desk tops?


I dunno, maybe the kids would behave a little better knowing the teacher is armed, making it less likely the teacher would snap?

/not actually FOR this idea btw, just a wee bit of devil's advocate
 
2012-12-17 12:05:17 PM

randomjsa: Do you believe in free speech? If the answer is "Yes" then you cannot support any actions Anon is doing in this instance. Not even against WBC. You can't make exceptions. You particularly can't hold yourself up as a champion of free speech then start hacking the websites of people who say something you don't like no matter how ugly that is. If you're going to say "Well it's okay to do it to WBC", then who else is it "okay" to do it to? Who gets to make that judgement? You? Me?

If you believe in freedom of speech then you have to be absolute about it. It's the only way you can have free speech.


BS.

It isn't about what they say it is about where and how they say it.
 
2012-12-17 12:15:30 PM

Shakespeare's Sister: I hate Fred Phelps and his band of asshats. Hate, yes, hate. HATE.



Hate is a very self destructive emotion. It really farks with your nervous system and psyche. Meanwhile Phelps and his band of Merry Morons are unaffected.

Try to chill. :-)


He has a right to think and say what he does. I defend his right to do so. However, there are restrictions to free speech.

There is no right to free speech were what is being said will cause widespread panic and harm (fire in a crowded theater) OR incite violence.



Seems to me that the only one PhelpsCo is "inciting violence" against is PhelpsCo.

Which is fine by me.
 
2012-12-17 12:18:37 PM

INeedAName: I can't post this in enough threads:

While it might seem that the vast majority of Christians fall in line with the mentality demonstrated by some of the more fringe groups, I would say rather adamantly that we do not. I have had, on a number of occasion, the chance to speak with peers, preach in my local church, and speak at our annual conference about the need to update our legal theology to match that of Christ's actual theology.

Tolerance is out there, we're just moving awfully slow. In the meantime, the best I can do is give my deepest heartfelt apology for the people hurt by 'Christians' and continue to work on changing the church from the inside. I am truly sorry for what has been done in the name of Christ.



You know that the resurrection of Christ is a malicious lie, you know exactly what sort of people made it up and why, yet you publicly pretend to believe in it.

Why should anyone trust any of you, whether you're preaching tolerance or violence or the wearing of underwear outside one's clothes?
 
2012-12-17 12:28:10 PM
www.patentspostgrant.com
 
2012-12-17 12:36:21 PM

mauricecano: shower_in_my_socks: cman: I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying. Don't picket soldier's funerals if you can't handle the blow-back. Now that they have these @ssholes' names and addresses, the people of Topeka should canvas their neighborhoods with posters and flyers displaying their names and a list of the evil shiat that they do. For the ones where we know who employs them, hit their businesses too. These d!ckwads abuse the 1st Amendment and our justice system -- it's time for them to feel some heat.

The counter to hate speech is more speech showing off that hate and putting the idea up for ridicule. However, you are suggesting it is perfectly alright to go after the speaker instead of the idea which is not okay. There is a reason the founding fathers all used pen names when talking about ideas that were radical and unpopular in their time. Fast forward to the future and others have used the anonymous pen-name as well to advocate other unfriendly positions through history (women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc).

Yes the group spews messages most consider hate but don't make the mistake of thinking others view their viewpoint as fringe. It actually seems their method of speaking the message is publicly abhorred but the viewpoint is actually pretty dominate amongst "Christians" and their leaders in general, e.g. Pat Robinson, American Family Association, Bryan Fisher, Mike Huckabee, etc. The views of the church resonate well with many who follow those I listed and more.


The WBC uses personal attack tactics to spread their message. Anon is only returning the favor. Why is WBC protected from ad hominem when the rest of their targets are not?
 
2012-12-17 01:07:50 PM

fireclown: I hate having to take WBC's side in anything, as I despise performance artists. But anonymous is wrong here. Privacy isn't just for people that we like.


The constitutional rights enumerated to us protect us from the state, not from each other. Don't say things you know will piss off your fellow citizens if you're not ready for some retaliation.

This whole notion that I have to respect someone else's constitutional rights is bullshiat. I'm not a public official, I am a private citizen.

Quit being a spineless pansy who wants some centuries old document to protect you from the consequences of your actions.
 
2012-12-17 01:10:26 PM

cman: shower_in_my_socks: cman: I am not defending WBC or their message at all; all I am saying is that this kind of shiat leaves a feeling of sour in my mouth.


Eff that. Part of free speech is owning up to what you're saying. Don't picket soldier's funerals if you can't handle the blow-back. Now that they have these @ssholes' names and addresses, the people of Topeka should canvas their neighborhoods with posters and flyers displaying their names and a list of the evil shiat that they do. For the ones where we know who employs them, hit their businesses too. These d!ckwads abuse the 1st Amendment and our justice system -- it's time for them to feel some heat.

Abuse the first amendment?

Jesus Christ, man, you scare me.

They arent abusing the first amendment. They are using it.

Yes, their message is terrible, and yes, they are complete and utter assholes. But when they are at their homes, that is a bit far. That would be like an anti-abortion group posting personal identification for abortion doctors. Those abortion doctors are conducting a constitutionally protected procedure. By doing shiat like this you are acting like them. You are giving out personal information so others can bully them to stop.


Yeah, it is an abuse of the first amendment. The whole point of that amendment was to make sure that a person could openly express what they believe, without fear of reprisal from the government. That has nothing to do with these folks' schtick. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. These folks are professional trolls, who exploit the legal system for personal profit. If that's not an abuse of the law...I'm really not sure what qualifies. It's bad faith, through and through...

As for what Anonymous is doing, that *is* actually in the spirit of the first amendment...that the remedy to bad speech is more speech, not less. When a person wants to say something idiotic in the public realm, they should be prepared to for someone else to call them out on it, *by name,* so that the rest of the public knows where to direct their response. That isn't "bullying"...that's the conversation that these folks initiated of their own free will.
 
2012-12-17 01:36:32 PM

xanadian: relcec: xanadian: IIRC, the ability to exercise one's free speech, anonymously, has been in contention for quite some time.


it comes up in defamation cases, but then of course the freedom of speech never included the freedom to say false things in order to sully ones reputation and you need to know the arty who defamed you if you are going to successfully collect.
I don't ever remember anonymous speech being in contention.
but maybe I missed something, wtf are you talking about.

Not necessarily the speech, but the identities of those behind the speech. Fred Phelps is, of course, the figurehead behind this whole schmeal. I didn't read to see WHO exactly had their addresses exposed, but this is the anonymity I'm talking about. Being able to speak your mind without the threat of having your home address, etc, exposed.

Again, I have no idea what the precedents are for something like this. I imagine if someone belonged to the KKK, then that kind of "free speech" would be null and void, and any protections behind it (i.e., through defamation, slander, libel, etc).


uh, ok.
you are allowed to anonymously hold and even express subjective opinion about people. even entire groups of people.
if you start anonymously accusing individual actors of nefarious things you better be able to back it up, because they can peel away the ISP and sue you for damages.
and why do you assume if you belong to the kkk your free speech is null and void? that's exactly not how it works.
 
2012-12-17 01:40:40 PM

Serious Black: Tat'dGreaser: Nabb1: What we really need to do, IMO, is have a serious discussion about the sad state of our mental health resources. Media circuses and political speeches after the fact won't do much to prevent more of these and may encourage them, but making sure young people have access to mental health resources may.

Yahoo just ran a story this morning, apparently this kid has a long history of problems but the mother tried to fix him herself. He had an assortment of problems and warning signs.

We need to stop the stigma of seeking help. As a soldier I've seen it happen in the military, we finally got over the stigma of someone seeking help after coming home from war. This MUST happen in all facets of our society. We need to stop ignoring someone who is in obvious pain. You're not "getting in their business", you're helping someone out.

I fully agree with the mental health aspect and the big citizenship thing with having the guts to help people out. But there are other things we need to do. A big portion of this country genuinely believes that the government is not just failing to make us safer, but they are actively making us less safe. We need people to stop thinking that the world is a ridiculously dangerous place that requires us to carry around semi-automatic rifles to stay safe. If we're willing to share mutual interest in helping people out when they're mentally not healthy, we're able to mutually trust ourselves not to blow each other up in the name of safety.


Ok. Let's start with the NYC popo.
 
2012-12-17 02:37:07 PM
Only a matter of seconds before this was exploited for personal gain.
 
2012-12-17 02:51:04 PM

elffster: http://blank.org/addict/


Thats the link for 'Addicted to Hate' which is a quite detailed story about Fred and his family. Its one sad read.

But Im posting it for anyone who is curious and hasnt read it. But one warning: its brutal and not pleasant in any way.


Wow. I read every word. I grew up in Kansas-- the WBC even protested my high school graduation. I thought I knew their story pretty well. But that essay legitimately changed my thoughts on them somewhat.

It's a long read, but if every American knew that whole story, the WBC would evaporate tomorrow. For the TL;DR crowd, basically it details how the entire family has been tortured and brainwashed by Fred Sr., since the 1970s. He's legitimately is the biggest piece of shiat on Earth.

If Anonymous really wants to go after these guys, they need to read this for the devastating details.

It's also pretty hard to justify going after anyone else in the family besides Fred Sr. Although, at this point, the whole family is so far gone, they'll keep pulling this crap long after he's dead.
 
2012-12-17 02:55:37 PM
The WBC is very likely not going to show up. They're satisfied with the press they've already gotten.
 
2012-12-17 03:52:04 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality


That web site is pretty damn cool...

www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org
www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org
www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org
www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org
 
2012-12-17 03:59:27 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In a sane world the only time the media would cover Westboro Baptist is when the story breaks that "WBC founder Fred Phelps was killed today when the syphilitic horse he was blowing ejaculated prematurely due to Phelps' prodigious equine fellatio skills and Phelps drowned under a virtual tidal wave of tainted stallion jizz. His corpse was disposed of by shoving a femur up his anus and allowing wild dogs to drag him off."


+5

//golf clap
 
2012-12-17 04:02:00 PM

bighairyguy: Here's how to identify a church run by crazy people. They are overly obsessed with one or more of the following:

Homosexuality
Polygamy
12 year old girls
Guns
End times
Punishing children

Feel free to add to this list.


gatering food and water for the comming "times"


money
Real estate
 
2012-12-17 04:24:49 PM

Shakespeare's Sister: HindiDiscoMonster: Nice to see you!

I hate Fred Phelps and his band of asshats. Hate, yes, hate. HATE.

He has a right to think and say what he does. I defend his right to do so. However, there are restrictions to free speech.

There is no right to free speech were what is being said will cause widespread panic and harm (fire in a crowded theater) OR incite violence.

I believe that protesting the funerals of those children clearly falls under the incite violence aspect of that. Calling it a praise service (or whatever his holy farkness calls it, just sickens me) does not change the possibility that it could incite violence. The parents who are burying their children today have been through the worst. Seeing WBC there and their message of hate might just push some over the edge. If it does, I would not lift a finger to stop any parent--pushed to his or her limit by the events of the past few days--from hurting Phelps or anyone in the WBC.

With rights come great responsibility--the responsibility to use those rights wisely and appropriately and to accept the consequences for using them. If they want to protest (Praise--farking shiat, whatever) let them, but they need to accept the consequences.


nice to see you as well, and I agree... sorry for taking so long to respond, but I was reading this. It is about Phelps.
 
2012-12-17 04:27:31 PM

PunGent: HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: When "experts" have obvious, grade-school holes in their logic, you don't have to go to them, even if you know nothing about their field.

For the record, I want my fellow citizens applying this standard to MY profession, the law.


please explain the flaws in logic you refer to.

"These religious texts have no errors, because they have a process for fixing the errors".

See the problem?

I understand what you are saying... but I have personally known people (yes, i know... anecdote) that copy the Torah word for word, painstakingly making sure that every single dot, stroke, etc is perfect and i remember in one particular instance, this person had copied a whole page almost to the end, made one little error (not that i would have considered it an error... just a little wavy), and he stopped, and destroyed the whole page (even though the first side was perfect). I questioned him at the time, and he told me that is normal... so, yes, there is a mechanism in place to deal with it... and that is why I tend to believe that there are no errors in the original Hebrew of the Torah rather than something that "makes sense" or is "common sense" or is "illogical"... sorry, experience is the greatest teacher.

You're proving MY point. There's NO human process that is error-free.

I suspect that's why we invented the idea of perfect gods in the first place.


I would say humans are not error free. I do believe it is possible (though not likely) that a human can copy something error free, though it may take several flawed attempts to do so.

P.S. sorry for taking so long to respond, but I was reading this. It is about Phelps.
 
2012-12-17 04:28:45 PM

RobSeace: HindiDiscoMonster: because WBC does not read their Bible... they cherry pick and don't think or reflect on it...

the pooper city reference for your edification

/hint: it was not about homosexuality

That web site is pretty damn cool...

[www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org image 303x140]
[www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org image 303x140]
[www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org image 303x140]
[www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org image 303x140]


Thank you... I learned a bit myself by visiting that site... very enlightening... I knew some of it, but all of those references.

P.S. sorry for taking so long to respond, but I was reading this. It is about Phelps.
 
2012-12-17 04:47:19 PM

Amos Quito: Shakespeare's Sister: I hate Fred Phelps and his band of asshats. Hate, yes, hate. HATE.


Hate is a very self destructive emotion. It really farks with your nervous system and psyche. Meanwhile Phelps and his band of Merry Morons are unaffected.

Try to chill. :-)


He has a right to think and say what he does. I defend his right to do so. However, there are restrictions to free speech.

There is no right to free speech were what is being said will cause widespread panic and harm (fire in a crowded theater) OR incite violence.


Seems to me that the only one PhelpsCo is "inciting violence" against is PhelpsCo.

Which is fine by me.


You are right--hate is an ugly word and it does nothing but harm to the person who feels it. And Phelps is unaffected. I will chill. Good point-thx

I would love, love to see violence done against PhelpsCo. That would make me giddy. Yes, yest it would
 
2012-12-17 04:50:19 PM
HindiDiscoMonster: No worries about taking so long to respond. I will read that when the kids are in bed tonight. I do not want to risk their eyes seeing it. My son is 10 and my daughter is 5.
 
2012-12-17 04:50:23 PM

fusillade762: I've thought for a while now that the WBC people are just a performance art troop highlighting the hatred and hypocrisy of extremist religious types.

That's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.


I always thought they were rabid atheists, trying to make religion look bad.

But they are more than likely just opportunist, trying to make a few bucks. Occam's Razor, and all that that entails.
 
2012-12-17 05:00:02 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: elffster: http://blank.org/addict/


Thats the link for 'Addicted to Hate' which is a quite detailed story about Fred and his family. Its one sad read.

But Im posting it for anyone who is curious and hasnt read it. But one warning: its brutal and not pleasant in any way.

Wow. I read every word. I grew up in Kansas-- the WBC even protested my high school graduation. I thought I knew their story pretty well. But that essay legitimately changed my thoughts on them somewhat.

It's a long read, but if every American knew that whole story, the WBC would evaporate tomorrow. For the TL;DR crowd, basically it details how the entire family has been tortured and brainwashed by Fred Sr., since the 1970s. He's legitimately is the biggest piece of shiat on Earth.

If Anonymous really wants to go after these guys, they need to read this for the devastating details.

It's also pretty hard to justify going after anyone else in the family besides Fred Sr. Although, at this point, the whole family is so far gone, they'll keep pulling this crap long after he's dead.


As I mentioned up-thread, I made it only to Chapter 2. I couldn't read any more after the mattock handle beatings and the rest. I thought I could handle reading stuff like that. Guess I was wrong. "Brutal" is a misnomer. "Sickening" is more like it.
 
2012-12-17 05:24:36 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: When "experts" have obvious, grade-school holes in their logic, you don't have to go to them, even if you know nothing about their field.

For the record, I want my fellow citizens applying this standard to MY profession, the law.


please explain the flaws in logic you refer to.

"These religious texts have no errors, because they have a process for fixing the errors".

See the problem?

I understand what you are saying... but I have personally known people (yes, i know... anecdote) that copy the Torah word for word, painstakingly making sure that every single dot, stroke, etc is perfect and i remember in one particular instance, this person had copied a whole page almost to the end, made one little error (not that i would have considered it an error... just a little wavy), and he stopped, and destroyed the whole page (even though the first side was perfect). I questioned him at the time, and he told me that is normal... so, yes, there is a mechanism in place to deal with it... and that is why I tend to believe that there are no errors in the original Hebrew of the Torah rather than something that "makes sense" or is "common sense" or is "illogical"... sorry, experience is the greatest teacher.

You're proving MY point. There's NO human process that is error-free.

I suspect that's why we invented the idea of perfect gods in the first place.

I would say humans are not error free. I do believe it is possible (though not likely) that a human can copy something error free, though it may take several flawed attempts to do so.

P.S. sorry for taking so long to respond, but I was reading this. It is about Phelps.


I'd agree that a human can make one or more pretty-near-perfect copies of a text.

But the Jewish tradition is thousands of years old...and, just as importantly, has sub-sects. No way "errors" (mistranslations, doctrinal differences, etc) failed to creep in over that time span.

Sects, in my definition, means that they lost the power struggle with the "mainstream" of whatever faith is under discussion...I don't mean they're less...or more...valid than the main religion itself.

And all mainline faiths share one thing in common: they don't like to admit error.

Not that they don't MAKE errors, it's that they don't admit them.

Which, at the end of the day, is probably my primary beef with all organized religion.
 
2012-12-17 05:26:36 PM

elffster: http://blank.org/addict/


Thats the link for 'Addicted to Hate' which is a quite detailed story about Fred and his family. Its one sad read.

But Im posting it for anyone who is curious and hasnt read it. But one warning: its brutal and not pleasant in any way.


Wow. That is the most enlightening/depressing thing I've read in some time. It's extremely easy to hate people like Shirley who say stupid shiat but now the only one I blame is Fred- the rest in his church I just feel are too scared to be any other way.
 
2012-12-17 06:09:28 PM

offmymeds: elffster: http://blank.org/addict/


Thats the link for 'Addicted to Hate' which is a quite detailed story about Fred and his family. Its one sad read.

But Im posting it for anyone who is curious and hasnt read it. But one warning: its brutal and not pleasant in any way.

Made it through Chapter 2. A mattock handle? WTF?


Finished the whole thing just now, myself. The man's a monster, by any definition I can think of.
 
2012-12-17 06:15:15 PM
Kill all zealots.
 
2012-12-17 07:58:10 PM

PunGent: I'd agree that a human can make one or more pretty-near-perfect copies of a text.

But the Jewish tradition is thousands of years old...and, just as importantly, has sub-sects. No way "errors" (mistranslations, doctrinal differences, etc) failed to creep in over that time span.

Sects, in my definition, means that they lost the power struggle with the "mainstream" of whatever faith is under discussion...I don't mean they're less...or more...valid than the main religion itself.

And all mainline faiths share one thing in common: they don't like to admit error.

Not that they don't MAKE errors, it's that they don't admit them.

Which, at the end of the day, is probably my primary beef with all organized religion.


I agree that mistakes are rarely admitted to... the worst offenders to my knowledge are the Catholic Churches. When is comes to Judaism though I think we will just have to disagree on that point as I have not personally found any evidence of mistranslations, or anything else for that matter... That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but just that I have found no evidence of it, so until I do, I must accept my experience with it.
 
2012-12-17 07:59:36 PM

SkunkWerks: offmymeds: elffster: http://blank.org/addict/


Thats the link for 'Addicted to Hate' which is a quite detailed story about Fred and his family. Its one sad read.

But Im posting it for anyone who is curious and hasnt read it. But one warning: its brutal and not pleasant in any way.

Made it through Chapter 2. A mattock handle? WTF?

Finished the whole thing just now, myself. The man's a monster, by any definition I can think of.


I have to concur... the man is a monster... a complete psychopath.
 
2012-12-17 08:02:23 PM
Good. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.
 
2012-12-17 08:20:05 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: SkunkWerks: offmymeds: elffster: http://blank.org/addict/


Thats the link for 'Addicted to Hate' which is a quite detailed story about Fred and his family. Its one sad read.

But Im posting it for anyone who is curious and hasnt read it. But one warning: its brutal and not pleasant in any way.

Made it through Chapter 2. A mattock handle? WTF?

Finished the whole thing just now, myself. The man's a monster, by any definition I can think of.

I have to concur... the man is a monster... a complete psychopath.



He reminds me of my maternal grandfather- whom I seldom saw growing up. I heard a few stories as a child, but the full extent of what he did to my mother never became clear until I was in my mid-20's. I won't go into detail about what I came to learn later, but he began with her when she was as young as three.

Of the stories I heard as a child, well, my mother lived on a farm. On that farm she had selected a black hen as a pet. She called her 'Iodine', and used to tell me about how she'd sit on the swing set with the hen and watch her body sway as her head stayed in place. Being notoriously stingy with money, her father decided he couldn't (more likely wouldn't) keep the chicken coop heated over the winter for just one chicken. He decided iodine had to be slaughtered.

If you think this is "hard but fair", then allow me to add that he didn't stop there. Iodine became family dinner, and just to frost the douchebag-cake proper like, he brought my mother the severed feet of her pet and taunted her by tugging at the tendons to make them clasp in front of her. I believe she was nine or so.

Cats were around to catch the mice. Problem was he also put out rat poison. Cats would eat the poisoned rats, and because- hey, vets cost money!- he decided to have the cats put to sleep... by running them over in the driveway.


He was a sadistic, hateful bastard. Reading about Phelps reminded me a lot of him. In the douchebag constellation, the only similarity missing from this story was molestation... and honestly I wouldn't be shocked if that's just one of the details that was held back here.

What was stopping him, honestly?
 
2012-12-17 09:12:04 PM

Old enough to know better: Getting their personal info posted online is getting off pretty light. I'm honestly surprised that by this point nobodies fed one of these WBC assholes a bullet.


This.
 
2012-12-17 10:43:47 PM

Shakespeare's Sister: Amos Quito: Shakespeare's Sister: I hate Fred Phelps and his band of asshats. Hate, yes, hate. HATE.


Hate is a very self destructive emotion. It really farks with your nervous system and psyche. Meanwhile Phelps and his band of Merry Morons are unaffected.

Try to chill. :-)


He has a right to think and say what he does. I defend his right to do so. However, there are restrictions to free speech.

There is no right to free speech were what is being said will cause widespread panic and harm (fire in a crowded theater) OR incite violence.


Seems to me that the only one PhelpsCo is "inciting violence" against is PhelpsCo.

Which is fine by me.

You are right--hate is an ugly word and it does nothing but harm to the person who feels it. And Phelps is unaffected. I will chill. Good point-thx

I would love, love to see violence done against PhelpsCo. That would make me giddy. Yes, yest it would



While I wish no harm to... oh well, nevermind.

Let's just say that were PhelpsCo to suffer an "incident", my expenditure on Kleenex would not be affected.
 
2012-12-18 12:43:27 AM

elffster: http://blank.org/addict/


Thats the link for 'Addicted to Hate' which is a quite detailed story about Fred and his family. Its one sad read.

But Im posting it for anyone who is curious and hasnt read it. But one warning: its brutal and not pleasant in any way.


You were certainly correct about that being brutal and unpleasant. I feel so sorry for his kids; especially the ones that got out and have had to try to recover from the trauma he inflicted upon them.

/thanks for posting
// psychopaths are truly terrifying
 
2012-12-18 01:07:14 AM
This doesn't make up for all the stupid s*** Anonymous has done, but it's a start.
 
2012-12-18 04:36:49 AM

mauricecano: The counter to hate speech is more speech showing off that hate and putting the idea up for ridicule. However, you are suggesting it is perfectly alright to go after the speaker instead of the idea which is not okay. There is a reason the founding fathers all used pen names when talking about ideas that were radical and unpopular in their time. Fast forward to the future and others have used the anonymous pen-name as well to advocate other unfriendly positions through history (women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc).


At issue here is not their right to express their opinions, but their right to harass individuals. They themselves go after individuals -- that's their core tactic.



mauricecano: Yes the group spews messages most consider hate but don't make the mistake of thinking others view their viewpoint as fringe. It actually seems their method of speaking the message is publicly abhorred but the viewpoint is actually pretty dominate amongst "Christians" and their leaders in general, e.g. Pat Robinson, American Family Association, Bryan Fisher, Mike Huckabee, etc. The views of the church resonate well with many who follow those I listed and more.



Utterly irrelevant. It's WBC's policy of personally targeting vulnerable private citizens (often ones that don't even have any relevance to their views, and are simply chosen in order to be as spectacularly cruel as possible) for harrassment that has drawn people's ire, even people that agree with them on some general points.

Many of the framers were well prepared to challenge someone to a mortal duel for a lesser personal insult. I'm not saying I approve of dueling as a means of settling insults, I'm just ilustrating how out of touch with reality you'd have to be to actually think that this sort of thing was anywhere near the kind of discourse the framers felt was in need of vigorous protection.

(As an aside though, it may be worth mentioning that debate over the framers' intentions is applicable to law, not ethics, because that's a distinction that too often seems lost on some people. That is, ethical positions have to be defended on their own merits, rather than appealing to how one thinks (or would like to think) the Constitution and Bill of Rights' framers would have sided on the issue. Obviously their intent is of great legal significance, but while there is a great deal to be admired about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, their drafters' and signatories' opinions were obviously not the last word on what is ethical (unless one is okay with, say, slavery, to take the obvious example). Nor did they themselves consider themselves infallible (they even vehemently disagreed on many matters), and they left an amendment process in place with good reason.)
 
2012-12-18 07:18:07 AM

RobSeace: www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org


In Ruth 1, it also mentions how both Ruth and Naomi claimed that God had turned against them.

Just saying.
 
2012-12-18 07:18:50 AM
 
2012-12-18 07:37:55 AM

xanadian: In Ruth 1, it also mentions how both Ruth and Naomi claimed that God had turned against them.


I think them feeling that way had much more to do with them losing their husbands/sons and being left destitute, and not so much to do with any lesbianism on their part... After Ruth's vows and them staying together, they seemed to do a lot better, so I don't think they were ulimately cursed for their relationship...
 
2012-12-18 11:43:35 AM
www.zuguide.com

Do you know what a blood oath is?
Yes.
Good. Because you just took one.
 
2012-12-18 02:10:29 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: I'd agree that a human can make one or more pretty-near-perfect copies of a text.

But the Jewish tradition is thousands of years old...and, just as importantly, has sub-sects. No way "errors" (mistranslations, doctrinal differences, etc) failed to creep in over that time span.

Sects, in my definition, means that they lost the power struggle with the "mainstream" of whatever faith is under discussion...I don't mean they're less...or more...valid than the main religion itself.

And all mainline faiths share one thing in common: they don't like to admit error.

Not that they don't MAKE errors, it's that they don't admit them.

Which, at the end of the day, is probably my primary beef with all organized religion.

I agree that mistakes are rarely admitted to... the worst offenders to my knowledge are the Catholic Churches. When is comes to Judaism though I think we will just have to disagree on that point as I have not personally found any evidence of mistranslations, or anything else for that matter... That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but just that I have found no evidence of it, so until I do, I must accept my experience with it.


Sure you've seen evidence...in the various permutations of Judaism. Orthodox, Hellenistic, etc, etc.

Some of them may be working from the same texts...but I doubt ALL of them were.

One man's error is another man's inviolable scripture.
 
2012-12-18 02:51:39 PM

PunGent: One man's error is another man's inviolable scripture.


spelforaldrarna.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-18 05:42:34 PM

SkunkWerks: PunGent: One man's error is another man's inviolable scripture.

[spelforaldrarna.files.wordpress.com image 850x652]


You think Christian nuts are bad, never cross a rabbit Zelda fan. I made a comment about not liking the "kiddie art style" of WindWaker at a Comic Con once and nearly got killed by a barrage of arrows and swords and boomerangs. I think someone even threw a clay pot at me. Christians only ever tell me to "go to hell".
 
2012-12-19 08:38:18 AM

captjc: never cross a rabbit Zelda fan.


i.imgur.com
What a rabbit Zelda fan may look like.
 
Displayed 372 of 372 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report