Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Argh! More hate!
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8794
Page 1 of 3

Author:  PianoManGidley [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

I have a proposition for anyone so avid about gays needing to die. I would arrange for lots of live news coverage and a large crowd (probably just show up at one of that church's many infamous protests) and confront Fred Phelps or this lady Shirley with a box. I would make sure I had the complete attention of the news crews while doing this.

Inside the box would be a gun loaded with a single bullet. I would challenge the hate-monger that if they really believed that I should die just because I am a homosexual, then they should take the gun and shoot me where I stand, in front of live news coverage broadcasting to potential millions of people. There is no jury in the world who wouldn't see this as murder--the person would be convicted and given either a life sentence or a death sentence. Moreover, I would be made a martyr for my cause, while the homophobes would be set back even further by this act, making it easier for American society to lean towards gay rights. The person might even lose the respect of some of his/her followers for this act.

If the person refused to kill me, then they would be seen as uncommited in their claims and ideals and would consequently lose the respect of many if not all of their supporters, making their own position weakened. Either way, it's a lose-lose situation for them, and I would be willing to die for it.

Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

You know.. This is DANGEROUSLY close to our anti-bigotry rule. They aren't a cult.. They haven't actually hurt anyone. All they use are words. It's called the 1st Amendment (I even feel this way about the laws several states have passed prohibiting their protesting at soldiers' funerals. I have a better plan for dealing with that*)
They ARE a church. However, the most certainly are not Baptists. Nothing they stand for really has much to do at all with what Baptists believe.

The Hannity and Colmes interview was great stuff. It's probably the first time most people in America have ever agreed with something on Fox News. They both pretty much shot everything she said full of holes. It was hillarious.


(*Plan for funeral protests- Go to the nearest NASCAR race, Country bar, or Wal-Mart. Tell people there you are having a funeral for a soldier and that there are people there celebrating the death of the soldier. The problem will miraculously take care of itself.)

Author:  What's Her Face [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Even Ireland hasn't escaped the Fred Phelps fury. Apparently, we're a nation of "sodomite dandies" for joining the EU, and because a noted Irish poet once said something "mean" about Fred Phelps. That's the word Phelps actually used, by the way - "mean". Hill-aaarr-eeee-ous.

Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

bah, Bigotry, Schmigotry, its a cult and you know it. just like Scientology.

Author:  Mike D [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

They're noisy and extremely tacky, but Phelps and his crew are a fringe group at best. Phelps himself is an old man, and all of that, you know, being insane he does all day can't be good for his heart. Odds are when he's gone the group will sort of drift apart.

Mike

Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
bah, Bigotry, Schmigotry, its a cult and you know it. just like Scientology.


Dude, that's bigotry and it's not cool (and not much better than Phelps)

[s]What makes you think it's a cult?[/s]


EDIT: nevermind about the cult question.
Dictionary.com wrote:
cult (kŭlt) pronunciation
n. 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
2. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

Don't know how much I trust that definition, though, because number 3 would lead you to beleive anything can be a cult..

Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

Magna Carta wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
You know.. This is DANGEROUSLY close to our anti-bigotry rule. They aren't a cult.. They haven't actually hurt anyone.[/size]

Unfortunately, they are a cult, and they have done damage. They have been involved in several cases of violence, including the murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student (and the Wesboro Baptist Church did also attack their family, though only verbally). Plus, they demand that other participate in their slaying of gays.

As far as I've seen, they're all talk. Sure they say things, but words are words. If they really were committing violence, they wouldn't be so open about talking about it. They weren't involved in the Shepard case... They just had something on their website showing how long he's been in hell. It's pretty tasteless, to say the least.

Author:  Didymus [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

Actually SR, I would contend that Phelp's church does fall under that first definition of Cult.

1. Extremist views (advocating murder of homosexuals).
2. with its followers often living in an unconventional manner (protesting funerals and such would certainly fit).
3. under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader (well, what else would you call Phelps?).

I personally have no problem labeling Phelp's group as a fringe lunatic organization with no authority to speak for us disciples of Christ, and as such, I think the term "cult" fits very well.

Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Didymus wrote:
Actually SR, I would contend that Phelp's church does fall under that first definition of Cult.

1. Extremist views (advocating murder of homosexuals).
2. with its followers often living in an unconventional manner (protesting funerals and such would certainly fit).
3. under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader (well, what else would you call Phelps?).

I personally have no problem labeling Phelp's group as a fringe lunatic organization with no authority to speak for us disciples of Christ, and as such, I think the term "cult" fits very well.


I decided they fit cult when I read the definition. That's why I said "nevermind about the cult question". I just didn't like this whole "They're obviously a cult" vibe I was getting. I wanted to give them benefit of the doubt.

The only problem I have with Dictionary.com's definition of cult is that, by their definition (or at the part about ceremony and ritual), the Catholic Church is a cult, as are most of the churches I've ever been to..

Author:  Didymus [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well they are - by an outdated and rarely used connotation of the word. But the popular definition of the word (and I think #1 would fit that most accurately), they are not. They do not require their followers to live in unconventional ways (or more precisely, their practice of their faith falls well within the realm of conventional), their views tend not to be extremist (although at times in their history...*coughcough*REFORMATION!*coughcough*), and although the Pope does carry alot of authority, would you strictly classify him as authoritarian?

The point is, the best use of the term "cult" would be limited to the first definition.

Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Didymus wrote:
Well they are - by an outdated and rarely used connotation of the word. But the popular definition of the word (and I think #1 would fit that most accurately), they are not. They do not require their followers to live in unconventional ways (or more precisely, their practice of their faith falls well within the realm of conventional), their views tend not to be extremist (although at times in their history...*coughcough*REFORMATION!*coughcough*), and although the Pope does carry alot of authority, would you strictly classify him as authoritarian?

The point is, the best use of the term "cult" would be limited to the first definition.

Works for me!

My reason for checking for a definition, though, was because people are pretty quick to label things they disagree with as cults. Just wanted to make sure, in the interest of non-bigotry, that it wasn't happening here.

The only thing that can be said of Westboro "Baptist" Church is "at least they're all talk".

Author:  Didymus [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

But, as we are discussing on another thread, that talk is deliberately hurtful. And you never know what young, impressionable people are doing with that talk, i.e., acting on it.

Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ah, the wonderful debate of what Free Speech covers.

For some reason, there are those who feel we should stop people from disparaging gays, yet are fine with disparaging Christians.

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

lahimatoa wrote:
Ah, the wonderful debate of what Free Speech covers.

For some reason, there are those who feel we should stop people from disparaging gays, yet are fine with disparaging Christians.

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

I kinda think the same thing. Then again, the gays in question aren't advocating the deaths of straight people.
The "christians" (the term VERY loosely applies to Phelps, if at all) here are..
I'm all for free speech, but sometimes, I really wonder if adcvocating violence against a group of people is really free speech.

Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm not saying that speech which incites others to violence should be protected.

I'm more referring to how kids can't say "Jesus" at school, but you can teach kids about sodomy at age 9 in the schools.

All I'm looking for is equality.

Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

lahimatoa wrote:
I'm more referring to how kids can't say "Jesus" at school, but you can teach kids about sodomy at age 9 in the schools.
Well the reason they do that is so that they know what is going on when they get picked up by the strange old man whp promised them candy if they got in his car.

Toastpaint.

People like this will exist because they find shelter in the First Amendment. Now I am not suggesting changing the First Amendment to block hate speech, I am only saying we have to fight these people with the greatest weapon of all, logic. All you have to do is make them think. Make them think about their beliefs, and you will beat them.

Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Beyond the Grave wrote:
lahimatoa wrote:
I'm more referring to how kids can't say "Jesus" at school, but you can teach kids about sodomy at age 9 in the schools.
Well the reason they do that is so that they know what is going on when they get picked up by the strange old man whp promised them candy if they got in his car.

Toastpaint.

People like this will exist because they find shelter in the First Amendment. Now I am not suggesting changing the First Amendment to block hate speech, I am only saying we have to fight these people with the greatest weapon of all, logic. All you have to do is make them think. Make them think about their beliefs, and you will beat them.


I disagree, sort of..
I say that these people are attention ----, umm ok, let's just say they want a lot of attention. Ignore them. Don't go to their rallies. Don't put them on the news. Don't acknowledge their existence if they talk to you or stand in front of you (unless you're driving). Just pretty much pretend they aren't there and, soon enough, they won't be..

Author:  Schmelen [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:33 am ]
Post subject: 

If they just use words, let them. Ignore them. Until it directly involves you, it's not something to worry too much about.

Or, I am completely wrong.

Author:  What's Her Face [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:23 am ]
Post subject: 

lahimatoa wrote:
Ah, the wonderful debate of what Free Speech covers.

For some reason, there are those who feel we should stop people from disparaging gays, yet are fine with disparaging Christians.

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.


Come on - we're talking about a lot more than "disparaging gays" here. Essentially, we're talking about an ideology where you'll be sent to Hell if you don't conform to Fred Phelp's Messiah Complex. Even the most rabidly intolerant anti-Christian is justified in condemning an ideology like that.

But I agree with your other point about over-secularisation in schools - it is a gloriously ridiculous practice.

Author:  DESTROY US ALL! [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't care what these people say. I believe in freedom of speech more than anything else. You cannot punish someone for what they say or believe, no matter how immoral we see it.

Author:  PianoManGidley [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Magna Carta wrote:
PianoMan, don't kill yourself. I understand that this cult does advocate the death of homosexuals, but I don't think death would solve the problem.


Yeah...I just recently realized (why I didn't think of this before is beyond me) that it would be far more advantageous of me to use a blank bullet instead of a live one...that way, I'd survive if the homophobe actually pulled the trigger, and we'd all know that they really would go that distance anyway. I think they could be charged on attempted murder or something similar after that...

Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Um, no. Blanks can be just as dangerous as real bullets at close range. Basically, it's a wax plug instead of lead. But still, without some distance and resistence to slow it down, that wax plug can still do some serious damage.

Author:  HHFOV [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Didymus wrote:
Um, no. Blanks can be just as dangerous as real bullets at close range. Basically, it's a wax plug instead of lead. But still, without some distance and resistence to slow it down, that wax plug can still do some serious damage.

...Or he could just not load the gun...

This debate is a tuffy, but you know, there is freedom of speech, and you can't fix stupid (meaning the extremist anti-gays).

Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Even better... With the same media there, just walk up, extend a brotherly handshake and when they shake your hand, say "I love you, just as your saviour loves me" and walk off..

Author:  PianoManGidley [ Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:08 am ]
Post subject: 

HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Didymus wrote:
Um, no. Blanks can be just as dangerous as real bullets at close range. Basically, it's a wax plug instead of lead. But still, without some distance and resistence to slow it down, that wax plug can still do some serious damage.

...Or he could just not load the gun...


I thought about that, too, but if they checked to see if it was actually loaded, I wanted them to see that it was... And I didn't know that about blanks...

Author:  Exhibit A [ Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:51 am ]
Post subject: 

PianoManGidley wrote:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Didymus wrote:
Um, no. Blanks can be just as dangerous as real bullets at close range. Basically, it's a wax plug instead of lead. But still, without some distance and resistence to slow it down, that wax plug can still do some serious damage.

...Or he could just not load the gun...


I thought about that, too, but if they checked to see if it was actually loaded, I wanted them to see that it was... And I didn't know that about blanks...
It really doesn't matter. You know if there is that much attention there would be some cops there. And as soon as he pointed that gun at you, they'd take him down.

Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:55 am ]
Post subject: 

Exhibit A wrote:
PianoManGidley wrote:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Didymus wrote:
Um, no. Blanks can be just as dangerous as real bullets at close range. Basically, it's a wax plug instead of lead. But still, without some distance and resistence to slow it down, that wax plug can still do some serious damage.

...Or he could just not load the gun...


I thought about that, too, but if they checked to see if it was actually loaded, I wanted them to see that it was... And I didn't know that about blanks...
It really doesn't matter. You know if there is that much attention there would be some cops there. And as soon as he pointed that gun at you, they'd take him down.

Or, maybe they'd figure you were suicidal (I mean who gives a gun to someone who says they're going to kill them?)..

Author:  Exhibit A [ Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:58 am ]
Post subject: 

StrongRad wrote:
Exhibit A wrote:
PianoManGidley wrote:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Didymus wrote:
Um, no. Blanks can be just as dangerous as real bullets at close range. Basically, it's a wax plug instead of lead. But still, without some distance and resistence to slow it down, that wax plug can still do some serious damage.

...Or he could just not load the gun...


I thought about that, too, but if they checked to see if it was actually loaded, I wanted them to see that it was... And I didn't know that about blanks...
It really doesn't matter. You know if there is that much attention there would be some cops there. And as soon as he pointed that gun at you, they'd take him down.

Or, maybe they'd figure you were suicidal (I mean who gives a gun to someone who says they're going to kill them?)..

Doesn't make any difference. The cops don't just let people commit suicide. Plus, I'm sure he would explain why he was doing it. Wouldn't have much impact otherwise.

Author:  Didymus [ Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:02 am ]
Post subject: 

Enough with the Pyramid Quoting, please.

Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:05 am ]
Post subject: 

Sorry bout that dids.

I find this idea horrible. I mean he could kill you, then he could go to jail a hero of anti-gay people everywhere.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/