Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry, but I just read four pages of you stating, repeatedly, that you believe we should ban flag burning because the 1st amendment is not 100% and freedom isn't free.
That's been the crux of your argument and your position for the last four pages of this thread.
Crowded movie theater: much smaller than a shopping mall, and it's also dark.
Mall: brightly lit, many avenues of escape, large
The two don't even compare.
And no one at the mall shouting Fire! Fire! to freak everyone in the dark, crowded, smaller space out with their panicked shouts that would make people think there was an immediate threat requiring a swift and immediate response.
Why simply banning something out of "unnecessary panic" is beyond my comprehension.
After the pages of comments where you repeatedly wrote the act of burning a flag or Koran might cause violence that would lead to deaths, and is therefore justification for banning the burning of national symbols and religious texts, it is astounding that you wrote that sentence.
Also, no matter how many times it is explained to you, you still don't even understand your own example you used to support your argument (even though it doesn't, which it doesn't because you don't understand it or you wouldn't have used it).
What Holmes was talking about, and said, was a person intentionally creating panic in a crowded theater by falsely shouting fire for the purpose of intentionally inciting panic. In other words, someone trying to hurt people by frightening them in an enclosed, crowded space.
It isn't even relevant anymore, and it was used inappropriately against an American, which both the court and Holmes regretted afterward, but still, looking at just that example aside from any other issue, not allowing an intentional act meant to cause harm that would likely cause harm is "beyond your comprehension" but you advocate banning certain activities, which would mean limiting the 1st Amendment, just because someone somewhere might be offended and react violently?
Wow.
I've concluded you don't even remember what you say from one post to the next, have no idea what you are talking about, and have no desire to stretch your brain.
Quote:
Okay. In your opinion, it is not an intelligent example.
The video is less than 3 minutes, I suggest you watch the whole thing.
I watched the whole thing and it was a waste of time.
It told us nothing we don't already know - burn the Koran in public and some Muslims in other countries are going to be enraged and attack westerners.
It in no way addressed the topic you presented, which is whether or not to restrict American freedom of expression by outlawing the burning of the flag, and then later you added religious texts like the Koran, and in order to save lives, you do not believe the 1st Amendment or the U. S. Constitution are untouchable. That's what you wrote.
Neither the flag burning or Koran burning examples have been presented in context either. The two acts are not the same statement, nor are they made by the same people concerned about the same things or directed at the same audiences.
The videos and your argument do not address the fact that the only reason the country and the world even knows about the pastor burning the Koran is because the media is publicizing what he plans to do far and wide before he even does it, and they do so because it is a "good story" that whips people up, which will make for more good stories, and better ratings. Their behavior is mercenary, but it is protected. Do you want to censor the news media?
Videos and articles about violence in response to political protest actions do not provide any substantive support for your position. They are merely a rehash of the same thing, your fear and the aggressors' reactions to what one man did. Again, nothing new there so no matter how videos you present, they don't do anything to support your argument.
More is required than that. You have to address all of the concerns and arguments presented against your position or your position is not one worthy of considering.
I really wish those can click on play and watch the video. For some reason, they keep on brining the stupidest examples into the discussion.
weird.
I'm sorry, but just because you do not understand the examples others provided you does not mean they are stupid. You really missed the points, but they weren't that hard to understand.
If there any reason why you people want to be all worked up for a two years old thread?
"You people" are not "all worked up," but merely answering the question and adding to the discussion.
How old the thread is a non-issue. As long as a thread is open, it for anyone to add to at any time. Remarks about how old it is as if there is some rule about it is merely a way to deflect out of defensiveness.
If you don't like it, then don't come and read what people have to say.
It offers nothing to the discussion of the topic and is juvenile.
It also doesn't deflect from the fact that you are unable to answer questions requiring more in-depth thought. That would necessitate actual knowledge and critical thinking skills, though.
My point is you need a blog. LOL or write a novel. That is my point.
In all fairness, I don't think anybody are reading your looooooooooooooong post. shorten it, then you will get some response. =)
If you can't read more than a paragraph or two at a time, that's your problem, and explains why you cut and paste from other sites more than you actually write your own coherent thoughts. It also explains why your level of knowledge is not very deep.
I am not writing for responses, but responding to others and writing for people with the ability to read and think.
You have no idea who is reading each others comments and messaging about them, so unless you are actually adding to the discussion, what you have to say is of no interest to me.
How many times have you commented tonight that this is a "two-year-old thread"? Why would anyone want to keep reading that?
Stay on topic or refrain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And...
lol
