Musashi's Passion starts some fun

Theres like 600 people on TW who would agree that Musashi's flash made them laugh, fraidy.

He makes these for TW, and he makes them to be funny. It isn't our fault this shit gets spread. Or his.

Hes protected just fine.
 
Raven said:
Theres like 600 people on TW who would agree that Musashi's flash made them laugh, fraidy.

He makes these for TW, and he makes them to be funny. It isn't our fault this shit gets spread. Or his.

Hes protected just fine.
Click to expand...

:huh:

Yeah, we're kinda basing this discussion on what the law says, not on your personal opinion. Not to mention that the number of people who laughed at it doesn't matter a damn bit.
 
fraidykat said:
feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be sending me pamphlets about repenting and searching my heart for god and all that other shit? Oh wait, I forgot to capitalize the "g." Guess I'm really fucked now, huh?
 
Raven said:
Theres like 600 people on TW who would agree that Musashi's flash made them laugh, fraidy.

He makes these for TW, and he makes them to be funny. It isn't our fault this shit gets spread. Or his.

Hes protected just fine.
Click to expand...
he wasn't even making fun of jesus he was making fun of Mel Gibson's version of the passion that was just directed towards being violent as possible.
 
fraidykat said:
xpdnc....

According to Texas v. Johnson (flag burning case), "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Selective restraints based on offensiveness of speech strictly limited: unless speech invades privacy of home or the degree of captivity makes it impractical to avoid exposure, the burden is on the offended person to "avert his or her eyes."
Cohen; Erznoznik


  1. Caveat: Speech that constitutes "fighting words" under the Chaplinsky standard is not protected. But see R.A.V. v. St. Paul (partial restriction of fighting words based on intent to "arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others" on basis of race, etc. unconstitutional as viewpoint restriction). Contrast Wisconsin v. Mitchell (penalty enhancement for racial motivation in committing aggravated battery upheld).
Click to expand...


which would matter if it wasn't a parody

ever seen Dogma?
 
Patton said:
Shouldn't you be sending me pamphlets about repenting and searching my heart for god and all that other shit? Oh wait, I forgot to capitalize the "g." Guess I'm really fucked now, huh?
Click to expand...

Glad to see that you've already made up your mind about how ALL Christians act. Love that atheist open-mindedness.
 
Ahhh I see, so the opinion of the offended is more important then the opinion of the non-offended.

Theres a reason why its relatively easy to find hate literature, pro nazi propaganda, and racist music in the U.S.


And its not because no one finds it offensive.
 
xpdnc said:
which would matter if it wasn't a parody

ever seen Dogma?
Click to expand...

don't remind me about dogma...piece of crap....


and parody isn't protected all the time. There are questions as to whether the work directly makes fun of what the original work makes fun of. If it turns into a general rebuke of religion instead of a mirror of what was said in the movie, it may not be protected.

Make no mistake, I understand that you can't just say "this upsets me, so it's illegal." I just think it's interesting to look at the possible issues.
 
Raven said:
Ahhh I see, so the opinion of the offended is more important then the opinion of the non-offended.

Theres a reason why its relatively easy to find hate literature, pro nazi propaganda, and racist music in the U.S.


And its not because no one finds it offensive.
Click to expand...

Do you just type out whatever you think up? No-one said that the opinion of one side is more important than the other. The whole point of these laws is that you can't say that something is wrong because a majority thinks one thing or another. Just stop interuppting.
 
fraidykat said:
Glad to see that you've already made up your mind about how ALL Christians act. Love that atheist open-mindedness.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you've already assumed I'm a close-minded atheist. You shoot a single one liner at me that doesn't seem to mean shit other than "you're going to hell because you made a sarcastic comment about it, and I'm better than you because of it." Here's something you CAN assume: this attitude is the way most christians I've met act. I don't hold it against anyone for believeing in something different than I do. But when what you believe in suddenly makes you think you're better than me, then I get defensive.
 
Because your first post made you sound *sooooo* open.

:rolleyes:



Edit: This is referring directly to how fraidykat started out confident and then slowly became a supporter of free speech and some who was just interested both sides of the story.
 
Last edited:
Raven said:
Because your first post made you sound *sooooo* open.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about?


and Patton, I'm sorry that I assumed. You're right, I shouldn't have. That doesn't change the fact that you're applying your experience with a few Christians to all of us. And no Christians should think that they're better than anyone. On the contrary, we should see ourselves as least of all. Those who already have a grudge against religion often mistake peace or serenity for arrogance though.
 
fraidykat said:
someone need attention?
Click to expand...

Obviously you do. You're arguing the flash cartoon when it was obviously meant as humor. Yet you treat it like an intentional attack on your beliefs. No one really cares what you believe in just like no one cares what I believe in.
 
Jago said:
Obviously you do. You're arguing the flash cartoon when it was obviously meant as humor. Yet you treat it like an intentional attack on your beliefs. No one really cares what you believe in just like no one cares what I believe in.
Click to expand...

I'm having a legitimate discussion with another poster over a topic which interests me. I said that if I'm wrong, I'll back off. It's called exchanging information. You, on the other hand, have nothing to add but "hurrrr....religion si dum." Please, you're not fooling anyone.
 
Except you're comparing a funny Musashi flash to inciting hate speech.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, bro?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top