billboards defaced

[vg4030]

^this has nothing to do with being muslim.. its the principle of it..

you cant take the law into your own hands just cos it offends you, there are ways to make yourself heard.. its not like people refused to take down the posters..

 

[Chronic]

They have a point but it's not their right to take them down.
If they're offensive, it's non-intentional and indirect. If the billboards had something that offended Muslims directly, all power to them, but this is ridiculous.
Should everything that might go against a group of people be kept from going public?
If we start doing that, who decides (and how) what groups will be taken into consideration.

 

[-Daniel-]

major-billboard-ilitis

 

[not really ken]

Kenny you make things seem so difficult. But its as simple as "Don't vandalize" simple as that, they were in the wrong when the did it, they should pay the price. Theres no grey area at all, ask any decent person with half a brain and they will tell you that vandalising billboards is wrong.

I have accepted that if you say they were completely wrong to vandalise the billboards your argument does have validity in it. Howevery you first came in here blabbling about how they 'want to take over england' bla bla! A major part of my post stated that they had every right to take up the issue against a particualar billboard, how they went about that is a different issue.

(Forget the vandalism point for a second), it was about whether they had the right to campaign against a particular billboard, you wanted to even deny people from having an opinion against the billboard and 'just accept it'. But you fail to acknowldge this point now. When clearly there are rules in place governing this kind of advertising and people are allowed to complain. So what 'taking over england' got to do with it.

 

[not really ken]

They have a point but it's not their right to take them down.

Ok

If they're offensive, it's non-intentional and indirect. If the billboards had something that offended Muslims directly, all power to them, but this is ridiculous.

No one has ever thrown the accusation that they were intentional or direct. I have stated before, the people who were against these particualr billboards have not introduced anything new into british society. They have not introduced 'hatered of letterboxes' or 'hatered of animals'. They have simply asked for the enforcement of existing laws.

Should everything that might go against a group of people be kept from going public?

\If there's an existing law in place, then people can ask for the enforcement of that law. If there is a law in place stating you cannot promote homosexuality in schools (which there is), then people can ask for enforcement of this law. However if there is no law concerning the promotion of homosexuality in school, then no one can ask for enforcement. there is no law which bans any type of letterboxes so you have to be insane to ask for enforcement of a letterbox law which doesn't even exist. Currently there is no law which protects muslims from hatred. There are laws banning incitement of racial hatred. When Nick Griffin a leader of a far right party called Islam a 'wicked vicious faith' on live television, he was not arrested for that particular comment. Instead he was arrested for the law which bans the incitement of racial hatred for comments made in the same broadcast against people of 'colour'. See the pattern, where there was no law there was no enforcement, where there was a law, there was enforcement and calls for enforcement

No new laws were asked for in the campaign against certain billboards.!! So groups don't need to decide anything, that is up to the elected government, not in the hands of any one group.

 

[Chronic]

"They have simply asked for the enforcement of existing laws."

I change my answer to 'yes' (Pref I'd say 'yes but..').

 

[not really ken]

(Pref I'd say 'yes but..').

same here

 

[groobz]

Kenny just like i told the other guy,, where in gods name did i say "they're trying to take over england" ???? please show me.

 

[tupacmansion]

Kenny just like i told the other guy,, where in gods name did i say "they're trying to take over england" ???? please show me.

Heres what you said

just because they think they own that part of england now and think they can turn it into some god forsaken land of theres

 

[not really ken]

^^:thumb:
I have continuously stated in this thread that there aybe justifiable occasions where the law may be taken into your own hands. This is however completely based on opinions and views. Most people 'cept for Illuminattile said 'no fucking way, you must never take the law into you own hands, well in the 'father kills sons bully' thread, many (edit: not many ALL) people have stated that the law can be taken into your own hands. So why was my assertion that the taken the law into your own hands can be justifiable dismissed completely.
Its nothing to do with the situations, it was simply the assertion that the law can be justifiably taken into you own hands within reason.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I have continuously stated in this thread that there aybe justifiable occasions where the law may be taken into your own hands. This is however completely based on opinions and views. Most people 'cept for Illuminattile said 'no fucking way, you must never take the law into you own hands, well in the 'father kills sons bully' thread, many (edit: not many ALL) people have stated that the law can be taken into your own hands. So why was my assertion that the taken the law into your own hands can be justifiable dismissed completely.
Its nothing to do with the situations, it was simply the assertion that the law can be justifiably taken into you own hands within reason.

ken the reason an apparent 'contradiction' has taken place, in my case anyway, is due simply to personal opinion. I feel that a legal billboard is not something to break the law for, while to save your child from sustaining trauma (physical & mental) & maybe even death, is a situation in which I feel it is justifiable to take the law into your own hands.

Obviously, you think legal billboards should be tore down at will, & I think, from what you've said, you don't believe you should break the law to aid your child. That's your opinion.

Anyways, once again I know that you are not dumb enough not to know this, so I feel that you can only be posting the above to antagonise

 

[not really ken]

ken the reason an apparent 'contradiction' has taken place, in my case anyway, is due simply to personal opinion. I feel that a legal billboard is not something to break the law for, while to save your child from sustaining trauma (physical & mental) & maybe even death, is a situation in which I feel it is justifiable to take the law into your own hands.

Obviously, you think legal billboards should be tore down at will, & I think, from what you've said, you don't believe you should break the law to aid your child. That's your opinion.

Anyways, once again I know that you are not dumb enough not to know this, so I feel that you can only be posting the above to antagonise

No, whether you feel that a offensive billboard is something to break the law for or not is irrelevant. Many people simply dismissed the notion of 'taking the law into your own hands'. I have continuously accepted that if you feel that they shouldn't have vandalised the billboard then that is a valid opinion. However, I am simply pointing out that in the billboard situation, many people didn't even want to entertain the whole 'taking the law into your own hands notion'. However in the 'father killing bully' thread many people entertained the idea of 'taking the law into your own hands'. Why the dobule standard?

from what you've said, you don't believe you should break the law to aid your child. That's your opinion.

Here I was simply discussing with you for the sake of an argument. I was disagreeing with everything you said simply to coax your views on the matter. You would have notcied at the start of the thread i said I "was interested to know what everyone thought about this". You happened to be there with an opinion, so I disagreed with you to clearly understand where you stood on the point. (SOme points I made were indeed how I felt, but that was minimal)

antagonise!

Antagoinise??...Im hoping that you are able to make clear distinctions between an opinion and a notion.

In this thread nobody wanted to entertain the notion of 'street justice' in the other thread everybody was entertaining the idea of 'street justice'. Im not talking about situations here.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

ken, can you honestly tell me that you cannot see the difference between (what some might consider) an offensive billboard & your child's life!?

if you can't then I have vastly over-estimated your intelligience.

If, however you can, then this is exactly why people feel that a 'double standard' is acceptable.

 

[not really ken]

your questioning my intelligence when concepts go completely over your head.

DO you or do you not entertain the idea of taking the law into your own hands, yes or no?

Or is there only such a thing as taking the law into your own hands when in means killing people?
Remeber the countryside alliance claiming that they will cause civil disobedience if fox huniting is banned? That would be taking the law into your own hands right. Obviously some people would find that a justifiable reason to take the law into your own hands.

Would you entertain the notion or not? Simple

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

First of all I don't entertain the idea, I have thought about this shit enough to KNOW what situations in which I feel the law can be disregarded.

Once again, you ask a question which you know the answer to (we discussed this shit ni the other thread). And don't come back with 'it was a rhetorical question' because that's the only type of question you've been posing to me recently - shit you already know the answer to.

 

[not really ken]

First of all I don't entertain the idea. I have thought about this shit enough to KNOW what situations in which I feel the law can be disregarded.

First you dismiss the idea as sometihng you don't entertain

First of all I don't entertain the idea. I have thought about this shit enough to KNOW what situations in which I feel the law can be disregarded.

Then you regard the idea as something you would entertain. That is an oxymoron. The question isn't about what situations you would entertain it. Obviously, you will not entertain it in EVERY situation. The whole purpose of law would be defeated.
Why when I entertained the idea of 'disregarding the law' in this thread you and many others COMPLETELY disregarded it as an 'incredulous idea'. And now your admitting that in some situations you would feel justified in disregarding the law. (everything is opinion based ofcourse). but you now say that you have capacity to entertain the idea.

Once again, you ask a question which you know the answer to (we discussed this shit in the other thread). And don't come back with 'it was a rhetorical question' because that's the only type of question you've been posing to me recently - shit you already know the answer to.

So why disregard the notion in this thread and then entertain the notion in the other thread. Am I not to have the opinion that the offensive billboard defacing was a situation where the law could be disregarded. This by no means negates other situations,where I also feel like you that the law could be disregarded

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

First you dismiss the idea as sometihng you don't entertain. Then you regard the idea as something you would entertain.

That is an oxymoron. The question isn't about what situations you would entertain it. Obviously, you will not entertain it in EVERY situation. The whole purpose of law would be defeated.
Why when I entertained the idea of 'disregarding the law' in this thread you and many others COMPLETELY disregarded it as an 'incredulous idea'. And now your admitting that in some situations you would feel justified in disregarding the law. (everything is opinion based ofcourse). but you now say that you have capacity to entertain the idea.

I said this as I felt, although correct in terms of grammar, by using the word 'entertain' it would make out that my opinion was whimsical.

As such, I don't feel I have made a contradiction which rules out your oxymoron comment (which, btw, was reaching anyway as the clearest oxymorons are those where the polars are beside one another such as 'pretty ugly' rather than oxymoronic sentences which are usually perceived as contradictions.)

As I said, I have thought about this enough to know my own feelings on a variety of situations, including this case, & that is why I disregarded the idea of taking the law into your own hands, in this case, as I don't feel the situation requires that. You do, but we've established this already.

So why disregard the notion in this thread and then entertain the notion in the other thread. Am I not to have the opinion that the offensive billboard defacing was a situation where the law could be disregarded. This by no means negates other situations,where I also feel like you that the law could be disregarded

Because I don't think this situation requires it (which means I have thought about that option but decided against it) while I feel the other does. I merely told you my opinion & stated my reasons for it, questioned your opinion, listened & commented on your reasons/answers and answered your questions regarding my opinion.

I never told you that you couldn't have the opinion that you do.

 

[not really ken]

You are welcome to think about it and conclude that this situation does not justify any kind of vigilante action. However, you (and others) dismissed any kind of vigilate activity as nonsensical period. MAny were unable to accept my opinion that vigilate action was justifiable. Instead they thought fit to continually tell me that under no circumstances can you take the law into your own hands, if you want to then you can head 'east' . Now you have done a U-turn by saying you do think fit to take the law into your own hands in certain situations.

I said this as I felt, although correct in terms of grammar, by using the word 'entertain' it would make out that my opinion was whimsical.

WTF?

As such, I don't feel I have made a contradiction which rules out your oxymoron comment (which, btw, was reaching anyway as the clearest oxymorons are those where the polars are beside one another such as 'pretty ugly' rather than oxymoronic sentences which are usually perceived as contradictions.)

YOur scraping the bottom of the barrel with this, stop making this semantic. You did contradict yourself, first you say no you disagree with vigilante action, then you say you would agree it is justifiable in certain situations!

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

first you say no you disagree with vigilante action, then you say you would agree it is justifiable in certain situations!

Please - quote me. Show me where I said that vigilante action is NEVER justifiable. Show me where I said that I disagree with ALL actions which involve breaking the law.

I accepted your opinion. I just wouldn't accept that it was right. & yeah, I do think that in this situation what occured is wrong & you know exactly why I say this, as you've been debating this with me.

As for my 'head east' comment. That had fuck all to do with taking the law into your own hands, that had to do with me commenting on how prudish you have to be for human flesh to offend you. People in the east get offended by that shit to. So if that's the way you feel go there, & live with like-minded people (who treat women a lot worse mind you)




Btw, if you can't understand what I say(even when explain why I'm saying things in such a manner), hey, read a dictionary/get an education.

 

[Morris]

My stance is that nobody should EVER take Eva Longoria out of ANYTHING.