@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I don't see how you can draw a reasoned conclusion on his motivation for being there.
Really? This was a pride rally. It didn't happen spontaneously. The guy didn't just stumble upon that location on the same day. He came with specific intent to disrupt.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
As far as we know, he could have gone there with love in his heart and the intention of trying to save what he believed to be endangered souls.
I'm sure many people feel this way Finn. The thing is that if you want to talk with people, you don't do it through a megaphone. He wasn't there to listen to their concerns, only to overwhelm the area with great volume.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Personally, I don't believe this, but that's due more to my innate cynicism than anything he says on the video. If you set aside the use of a loudspeaker to project his voice, he certainly wasn't acting in a way that I would consider rude...unlike the red headed simpleton and the couple of other people who respond with curses.
If you don't believe this, don't waste my time. I don't care to defend the red headed women either. She called him a "retard" and I think that was ignorant. Can we agree to skip the
tu quoque part of the discussion?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In any case, as you well know, whether he was being rude, or his motivation involved hatred for anyone is legally immaterial.
Redundantly established, Finn. Why even discuss this red herring. Not a single person has claimed he broke a law.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I'm not surprised that some in the crowd respond with antagonism to his street preaching, nor do I have a real problem with them doing so in a crude manner. Whether from love or hate, he is condemning their life-styles and there is no reason why he should not expect some sort of confrontation. I don't get the impression that he is really alarmed or offended by the response he received. He certainly didn't look to the police for intervention when his mike was being grabbed. So, he's not complaining.
Yes, but common sense and the law disagree here. While it's certainly intuitive that provoking people will get a response, that response is not excused. The woman in red doesn't get a free pass on the bigotry of the man.
Certainly this is how Fred Phelps makes some money. It's a sad irony that people who hate him end up funding him by letting themselves fold to his message. They lash out and he gets paid.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Unless one subscribes to an absolute "live and let live" ethos there is bound to be some conduct, or expression of opinion that one would condemn. Whether one has the brass to do the condemnation in public and before a crowd of the people being condemned is another story.
Brass? I'm sorry. No. Let's avoid the absurd notion that this man is acting on some sort of one against many act of bravery.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Condemning members of the KKK is something I'm sure would be widely shared in, and those who did so while face to face with the Klansmen would probably be considered somewhat heroic by many of us. I would even venture to say that those condemning them would be expressing hatred for the Klan and it's members.
Let's be clear about your analogy. Who is the Klansman? Are you saying it's heroic to stand up to a bunch of clansmen as an analogy to this man shouting at a pride event?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
We don't hear many voices decrying condemnation of the KKK as "hate speech." I've seen some of that condemnation in person and I can assure you that (if facial expressions, tone of voice, and choice of words means anything) many voicing it were feeling real hatred.
I'm sure you are correct that many people feel real hatred towards the KKK. Condemning their words and actions, is not hate speech. You're employing some ridiculous notion of immunity; that one can only label something hate speech if they feel no such emotion at someone else's pointed hate speech. Let's avoid the tu quoque?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Most of us are OK with this because we feel either that the KKK deserves hatred or that those who hate them are expressing righteous outrage.
I'm okay with people confronting them intellectually; not physically.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Assuming the street preacher is expressing hatred, I wonder if you believe his thinking and motivation is drastically different from those who protest a KKK gathering?
Yes, I do. The people at the Pride festival are meeting not to hate others, but to find support in a community. Comparing KKK rally to this is stupid. Moreover, you don't even believe such a thing either.
A
R
T
, eggs tossed at them - tough, they should expect it and deal with it.
