Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.
Acually, that is why you are wrong. Words are not actions.
For example, if Obama gets up and gives a speech about Hindus, and someone then goes out and burns down a Hindu temple because Obama "told" him to, I see no reason to hold Obama responsible. On the other hand, if you hand out matches, and then talk about how racist assholes that write slurs on restaurant receipts should be punished, and that person then goes out and burns down the house an innocent person, you should be held responsible for giving them the matches.
Funny thing, my position is a lot closer to what the Supreme Court says than yours.
Actually you cant read. Were did I say words were actions? You seem to enjoy lying. Their action is in speaking opinions that encourage people being racist. For that I get to hurt them financially or career wise if I don't do it illegally. You dont like it. Tough shit.
I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.
Keep up Temple. The person that originally voiced the opinion that caused people to burn down your home. In your case, the government voicing their opinion that Native Americans are savages thus unfit to own land. This results in the takeover of native american lands. Is it wrong for a native american to do their best to paint the government in a bad light?
Spare me your discombobulated arguments and analogies. You make no sense whatsoever. Why would my home have anything to do with the opinion? That's ludicrous! Even a crazed mob wouldn't be that stupid.
And now you are crossing a line chastising my people. We have every right to badmouth this government. It has my brethren cooped up in reservations and whatnot. No it isn't wrong for them to paint them in a bad light. The government is responsible for driving the Native American peoples into near extinction. But like I said earlier, it is people like you continuing to remind the black man of the wrongs committed against his ancestors and how to use that past as a weapon to call anyone today a racist simply for disagreeing with them.
So it only bothers you when someone that is not native american does it? I see. Do you see the ghettos as urban reservations? I do. The same mental conditions that exist on the reservations also exist in the ghettos. Fuck you and spare me your self righteousness please
You are wrong. And if you do that, you leave yourself open to civil sanctions. And you WILL lose.It is a punishment when a government does it, for example, when the US boycotted South Africa, but you claim to oppose that, which means you are either lying, or stupid, or both.
Frankly, I am pretty sure its both.
Plus he didn't provide a source for his definition. I couldn't find one that used the term "punishment"--I posted the more common definitions I did find earlier today.
An organized boycott to protest unethical or dangerous practices is usually well intended and sometimes is effective.
An organized boycott to protest somebody's opinion is not ethical or honorable and is a dangerous thing. If it is conducted with the intention of punishing or destroying the person for no other reason than the person holds an opinion the boycotters don't share, it is evil.
A secondary boycott; i.e. trying to intimidate or coerce or threaten a person's customers, suppliers, or advertisers so that they won't do business with somebody violates federal fair trade laws and is also illegal in all 50 states. When it happens anyway, for no reason other than the boycotters don't like somebody's opinion, it is evil.
Well I did. All you have to do is type the word boycott in your google webpage and its the frist thing to come up. Weird how that works huh? But for those that need proof here you go.
boycott: definition of boycott in Oxford dictionary - American English (US)
If a public official or business person is espousing a stupid, racist opinion (which is evil) then they deserve to be punished by having their livelihood destroyed as a consequence of being stupid enough to voice that opinion.
Holy shit....You are really desperate.Remember the Chik-Fil-A boycott a few months ago? They made more money the day of the boycott than usual, people lined up for hours to get a sandwich. If you think that is punishment could you punish me by sending me all your money?
Yes, because a counter demonstration was quickly thrown together to offset what was intended as a punishment for Chick-fil-a. And it produced record sales for Chick-fil-a across the country.
The demonstration, however, was for no other reason than the CEO of Chick-fil-a expressed an opinion that the demonstrators disagreed with. I don't care what the subject is, it is wrong to try to punish a person for no other reason than you disagree with them.
The U.S. boycott of South Africa was not for opinions they held, but for actions that were denying other people their unalienable rights. Unfortunately, for most South Africans, the boycott was successful and corrected some injustices, but also escalated numerous problems . It would be difficult to say that South Africans, on average, are better off now than they were then. But at least they had a choice to make their country what it is. Once Apartheid was dismantled, all sanctions and boycotts were lifted.
An organized boycott of the Nestle Corporation was not for opinions they held, but to demand that they cease and desist from unethical marketing practices that were having a devastating affect on some of Africa's poorest citizens. Once Nestle ceased that unconscionable practice, we all started buying Nestle products again.
There is a huge difference in legitimate protests to object to somebody who is hurting somebody else and in trying to financially harm somebody purely because you disagree with their opinion about something.
I think we just dont agree is all. Let me ask you this. If a person is voicing their opinion and a crowd acts on the opinion of that person and burns your house to the ground is it wrong to punish that person?
Well I did. All you have to do is type the word boycott in your google webpage and its the frist thing to come up. Weird how that works huh? But for those that need proof here you go.
boycott: definition of boycott in Oxford dictionary - American English (US)
If a public official or business person is espousing a stupid, racist opinion (which is evil) then they deserve to be punished by having their livelihood destroyed as a consequence of being stupid enough to voice that opinion.
Well your opinion holds water if you despise the U.S. Constitution, reject the concept of unalienable rights, and wish to do away with all the values of liberty that the First Amendment embodies.
I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.
But he did lose something I would have thought would have been obvious to even the clueless. He no longer has the land his forefathers would have passed on to him. Anyway your interpretation of the question is way off base. I'm talking present tense.
Indians didn't believe anyone owned the land. On top of that, they routinely fought over it, with stronger tribes pushing weak ones out of better areas. If the white man hadn't taken the land, there is no reason to believe that they would have kept it.
Even if they did believe in private ownership of land, and managed to hold onto it, there is no reason to believe that one person would have the right to all that land. Even in Europe, which had laws that protected property owners, most of the descendents of any particular property owner don't have land.
So you are ok that the Whites swindled Native American people out of their land? Good thing most Native Americans dont think like you.
Inciting riot is a CRIME....Stop playing the stupid card.I think we just dont agree is all. Let me ask you this. If a person is voicing their opinion and a crowd acts on the opinion of that person and burns your house to the ground is it wrong to silence that person?
If the crowd burns your house to the ground because they disagree with somebody, it is the crowd that is in the wrong, not the person speaking. So, no, it is not okay to silence anybody purely for expressing an opinion.
If the person was trying to stir up the crowd and promote acts of violence, yes, the person can be silenced. It is illegal to incite a riot.
If gay people and/or gay rights advocates burn down your house because the CEO of Chick-fil-a supports traditional marriage--which is exactly what all that flap was about--the gay people or gay rights advocates should land in prison for a very long time. It is their fault for denying the CEO his rights, and not the other way around.
Isn't inciting a riot an expression of an opinion? What if that person did not incite a riot but picked a shop and told the crowd the owner was a child molester and to not frequent the shop. As a result the owner lost their business. Should the person causing this by expressing their opinion be immune from public back lash when it is later found out that the shop owner had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend on his 18th birthday?
Keep up Temple. The person that originally voiced the opinion that caused people to burn down your home. In your case, the government voicing their opinion that Native Americans are savages thus unfit to own land. This results in the takeover of native american lands. Is it wrong for a native american to do their best to paint the government in a bad light?
Spare me your discombobulated arguments and analogies. You make no sense whatsoever. Why would my home have anything to do with the opinion? That's ludicrous! Even a crazed mob wouldn't be that stupid.
And now you are crossing a line chastising my people. We have every right to badmouth this government. It has my brethren cooped up in reservations and whatnot. No it isn't wrong for them to paint them in a bad light. The government is responsible for driving the Native American peoples into near extinction. But like I said earlier, it is people like you continuing to remind the black man of the wrongs committed against his ancestors and how to use that past as a weapon to call anyone today a racist simply for disagreeing with them.
So it only bothers you when someone that is not native american does it? I see. Do you see the ghettos as urban reservations? I do. The same mental conditions that exist on the reservations also exist in the ghettos. Fuck you and spare me your self righteousness please
But he did lose something I would have thought would have been obvious to even the clueless. He no longer has the land his forefathers would have passed on to him. Anyway your interpretation of the question is way off base. I'm talking present tense.
Indians didn't believe anyone owned the land. On top of that, they routinely fought over it, with stronger tribes pushing weak ones out of better areas. If the white man hadn't taken the land, there is no reason to believe that they would have kept it.
Even if they did believe in private ownership of land, and managed to hold onto it, there is no reason to believe that one person would have the right to all that land. Even in Europe, which had laws that protected property owners, most of the descendents of any particular property owner don't have land.
So you are ok that the Whites swindled Native American people out of their land? Good thing most Native Americans dont think like you.
I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.
Acually, that is why you are wrong. Words are not actions.
For example, if Obama gets up and gives a speech about Hindus, and someone then goes out and burns down a Hindu temple because Obama "told" him to, I see no reason to hold Obama responsible. On the other hand, if you hand out matches, and then talk about how racist assholes that write slurs on restaurant receipts should be punished, and that person then goes out and burns down the house an innocent person, you should be held responsible for giving them the matches.
Funny thing, my position is a lot closer to what the Supreme Court says than yours.
Actually you cant read. Were did I say words were actions? You seem to enjoy lying. Their action is in speaking opinions that encourage people being racist. For that I get to hurt them financially or career wise if I don't do it illegally. You dont like it. Tough shit.
Acually, that is why you are wrong. Words are not actions.
For example, if Obama gets up and gives a speech about Hindus, and someone then goes out and burns down a Hindu temple because Obama "told" him to, I see no reason to hold Obama responsible. On the other hand, if you hand out matches, and then talk about how racist assholes that write slurs on restaurant receipts should be punished, and that person then goes out and burns down the house an innocent person, you should be held responsible for giving them the matches.
Funny thing, my position is a lot closer to what the Supreme Court says than yours.
Actually you cant read. Were did I say words were actions? You seem to enjoy lying. Their action is in speaking opinions that encourage people being racist. For that I get to hurt them financially or career wise if I don't do it illegally. You dont like it. Tough shit.
"Were did I say words were actions"
" action is in speaking opinions".
Way to contradict yourself, genius.
Do you ever tire of being wrong all the time?
And who the fuck are you going to punish.
You're nobody. You're not even a paper weight. You are the paper it sits on....
Assclipius....The "keyboard punisher"........Tough shit.....
Really , sparky?
Oh..I'm shutting you down. You can try to reply but you'll end up blowing a gasket. Cuz I'm bored with this thread. And I 'm sick of you. Racist prick. Go drown in your hatred.
Indians didn't believe anyone owned the land. On top of that, they routinely fought over it, with stronger tribes pushing weak ones out of better areas. If the white man hadn't taken the land, there is no reason to believe that they would have kept it.
Even if they did believe in private ownership of land, and managed to hold onto it, there is no reason to believe that one person would have the right to all that land. Even in Europe, which had laws that protected property owners, most of the descendents of any particular property owner don't have land.
So you are ok that the Whites swindled Native American people out of their land? Good thing most Native Americans dont think like you.
Am I PK with it? No. But, as others have repetedly pointed out, the people that did that, and the people that got "swindled," are dead.
Stop trying to change the subject. You look weak when you do so. Lets stay on point. The KKK has an opinion that causes crimes to be committed against minorities. Everytime they do that they should be punished.I am not going to answer your questions because your questions are a result of you not wanting to admit that the KKK is impotent. This lets you pretend that they control the universe so you can pretend that your racism is justified.
Newsflash, even if they did, you would still be wrong.
You are correct. It doesnt matter what status the KKK is in. My point is to punish any public official or business person that advocates that type of thinking by calling them out and hurting them where they can feel it. In the pocket book.
If that was actually your point you would be demanding that harry Reid and Joe Biden be punished. Since you aren't, that is demonstrably not your point.
Stop trying to change the subject. You look weak when you do so. Lets stay on point. The KKK has an opinion that causes crimes to be committed against minorities. Everytime they do that they should be punished.You are correct. It doesnt matter what status the KKK is in. My point is to punish any public official or business person that advocates that type of thinking by calling them out and hurting them where they can feel it. In the pocket book.
If that was actually your point you would be demanding that harry Reid and Joe Biden be punished. Since you aren't, that is demonstrably not your point.
Acually, that is why you are wrong. Words are not actions.
For example, if Obama gets up and gives a speech about Hindus, and someone then goes out and burns down a Hindu temple because Obama "told" him to, I see no reason to hold Obama responsible. On the other hand, if you hand out matches, and then talk about how racist assholes that write slurs on restaurant receipts should be punished, and that person then goes out and burns down the house an innocent person, you should be held responsible for giving them the matches.
Funny thing, my position is a lot closer to what the Supreme Court says than yours.
Actually you cant read. Were did I say words were actions? You seem to enjoy lying. Their action is in speaking opinions that encourage people being racist. For that I get to hurt them financially or career wise if I don't do it illegally. You dont like it. Tough shit.
You don't even remember what you wrote now? Hint, it was in the post I quoted, which makes your lack of memory even more telling. It also explains why you keep insisting I said things I didn't.
You said you want to hold them accountable for their actions, even if their actions only involve expressing an opinion you don't like.
I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.
Lets stay on point. The KKK has an opinion that causes crimes to be committed against minorities. Everytime they do that they should be punished.
Stop trying to change the subject. You look weak when you do so. Lets stay on point. The KKK has an opinion that causes crimes to be committed against minorities. Everytime they do that they should be punished.You are correct. It doesnt matter what status the KKK is in. My point is to punish any public official or business person that advocates that type of thinking by calling them out and hurting them where they can feel it. In the pocket book.
If that was actually your point you would be demanding that harry Reid and Joe Biden be punished. Since you aren't, that is demonstrably not your point.
Actually you cant read. Were did I say words were actions? You seem to enjoy lying. Their action is in speaking opinions that encourage people being racist. For that I get to hurt them financially or career wise if I don't do it illegally. You dont like it. Tough shit.
You don't even remember what you wrote now? Hint, it was in the post I quoted, which makes your lack of memory even more telling. It also explains why you keep insisting I said things I didn't.
You said you want to hold them accountable for their actions, even if their actions only involve expressing an opinion you don't like.
I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.
Thats incorrect. I said I want to punish them for espousing any opinion that is racist. Its pretty simple. A verb conveys actions. Espouse is a verb. How hard can it be for you to understand that?
Spare me your discombobulated arguments and analogies. You make no sense whatsoever. Why would my home have anything to do with the opinion? That's ludicrous! Even a crazed mob wouldn't be that stupid.
And now you are crossing a line chastising my people. We have every right to badmouth this government. It has my brethren cooped up in reservations and whatnot. No it isn't wrong for them to paint them in a bad light. The government is responsible for driving the Native American peoples into near extinction. But like I said earlier, it is people like you continuing to remind the black man of the wrongs committed against his ancestors and how to use that past as a weapon to call anyone today a racist simply for disagreeing with them.
So it only bothers you when someone that is not native american does it? I see. Do you see the ghettos as urban reservations? I do. The same mental conditions that exist on the reservations also exist in the ghettos. Fuck you and spare me your self righteousness please
That's not at all what I said. You don't see, you speak. You don't think, you act. You're impulsive. That's your problem. Spare me you indignation. Spare me your Pharisaical nonsense. You don't know jacksquat about me or my people. You seem to think you can pry into the minds of others and automatically know what they are thinking. You are no champion of affirmative action. You seem to think you are judge, judging others based off of what you believe.
And now you call us crazy? How dare you show such disrespect?! If it weren't for my people being ploughed under by this government during the frontier days, you wouldn't be there spouting that BS to me. And you call us crazy?
You know nothing.
Inciting riot is a CRIME....Stop playing the stupid card.If the crowd burns your house to the ground because they disagree with somebody, it is the crowd that is in the wrong, not the person speaking. So, no, it is not okay to silence anybody purely for expressing an opinion.
If the person was trying to stir up the crowd and promote acts of violence, yes, the person can be silenced. It is illegal to incite a riot.
If gay people and/or gay rights advocates burn down your house because the CEO of Chick-fil-a supports traditional marriage--which is exactly what all that flap was about--the gay people or gay rights advocates should land in prison for a very long time. It is their fault for denying the CEO his rights, and not the other way around.
Isn't inciting a riot an expression of an opinion? What if that person did not incite a riot but picked a shop and told the crowd the owner was a child molester and to not frequent the shop. As a result the owner lost their business. Should the person causing this by expressing their opinion be immune from public back lash when it is later found out that the shop owner had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend on his 18th birthday?
As for your second scenario...That accusation is not expressing an opinion. That is SLANDER..Which is punishable in the civil courts. If that slander resulted in the arrest of the owner, the person committing the slander then is open to criminal sanctions for lying to the authorities.
Your argument grows even more anorexic.
