Dubstepforum.com

Genevieve wrote:

dubfordessert wrote:

Genevieve wrote:No, but it has nothing to do with the swear words or that they're kids. But that he's infringing on the school's property rights. I don't want someone making noise on my property.

how about a guy following a kid around shouting sexually explicit things in the street? same deal, no? or does your "property" get protections you wouldn't afford a person? seems a bizarre hierarchy if so.

Dude, following a kid is just creepy as fuck. Definitely a reason to think the dude could be a danger to them.

now we are starting to get into other's rights. your definition of freedom of speech is ridiculous imo and only works on the internet, not the real world. as soon as we start asking you, "well, what if a guy...", you start making concessions. property rights?! OK. and i do have the right not to be subjected to certain things, look it up.

imho

wub wrote:

hircine?

fractal wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

dubfordessert wrote:

Genevieve wrote:No, but it has nothing to do with the swear words or that they're kids. But that he's infringing on the school's property rights. I don't want someone making noise on my property.

how about a guy following a kid around shouting sexually explicit things in the street? same deal, no? or does your "property" get protections you wouldn't afford a person? seems a bizarre hierarchy if so.

Dude, following a kid is just creepy as fuck. Definitely a reason to think the dude could be a danger to them.

now we are starting to get into other's rights. your definition of freedom of speech is ridiculous imo and only works on the internet, not the real world. as soon as we start asking you, "well, what if a guy...", you start making concessions. property rights?! OK. and i do have the right not to be subjected to certain things, look it up.

Nope, if someone called you an asshole right now, they wouldn't be infringing on your rights. You call it the 'right not to be subjected to things', but what you're saying is 'I don't want people to say things that offend me'. Tough luck, this is society. Society is comprised by a metric fuckton of people who believe things that you may not like to hear. Deal with it.

And yeah, I brought up property rights because those applied in the example. Give a better example where property rights don't apply. Because the crime you were describing wasn't a speech crime (and who's to say that obscenities are bad for kids to hear? Some parents don't mind, you wanna tell them how to raise their kids too?). But I forgot, this is DSF, where consumerism and property is evil, but shelling out thousands of bucks on vinyl and music gear instead of donating it to some of the millions of people in the world who don't have clean drinking water is encouraged.

Reverb wrote:hircine?

Honestly, in my mind this is alien pimp.

fractal wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

dubfordessert wrote:

Genevieve wrote:No, but it has nothing to do with the swear words or that they're kids. But that he's infringing on the school's property rights. I don't want someone making noise on my property.

how about a guy following a kid around shouting sexually explicit things in the street? same deal, no? or does your "property" get protections you wouldn't afford a person? seems a bizarre hierarchy if so.

Dude, following a kid is just creepy as fuck. Definitely a reason to think the dude could be a danger to them.

now we are starting to get into other's rights. your definition of freedom of speech is ridiculous imo and only works on the internet, not the real world. as soon as we start asking you, "well, what if a guy...", you start making concessions. property rights?! OK. and i do have the right not to be subjected to certain things, look it up.

you have certain inalienable rights, they're your 'natural' rights, other rights are imposed and upheld by law

your right to not be attacked/beaten/raped/tortured/murdered etc. are natural rights

your right to not see a penis in the street is NOT a natural right

im not saying what this guy did was clever btw, its not.

but what Wolf said is about the most sense thats been spoke in this thread so far - INTENT in action is what is more commonly judged in our age of reason, the act itself is equivalent with intent in most cases nowadays - this IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR HIM WHIPPIN HIS WANG OUT IN AN ANTI RAPE RALLY before the anti-Noam-views-on-women brigade erupt

his intent was clearly non-violent/aggressive, his intent was clearly dark/comic/incendiary - in other words he's a fucking idiot.

fair enough flashing your dong behind a tv reporter live on air is jokes for some people, flashing an anti-rape rally is just dumb, even though, he has the right to do it.

really, and truly, if EVERYONE at that rally had ignored him and not photographed him would he have made a statement which anyone would be angry at? no.

he shouldn't have done it, the crowd, the mob, acted typically like the mob, and acted foolishly in even giving him ANY attention at all

and once again the message is ruined by stupidity on both sides

here comes the berating for daring that the crowd overreacted

They're brazilian, they can't control their emotions (just thought racism could make an appearance here to turn up the ugly).

noam wrote:your right to not see a penis in the street is NOT a natural right

considering it's against the law, are you saying one still has the right to do this?

those stnuc up in the capital live in a fucking fairy tale with their jobs at the government and shit. 157 dead only this month down here, we've got more urgent matters than giving attention to a bunch of stnuc in mini skirts. They could waste their energy in protests against the corrupt politicians, 36 million dollars of public money stolen every year right under their noses.

And it's not a rape victim march, it's a slutwalk. Youtube.

where was michael palin???

i really like you e-f

you post decent one-liners

wub wrote:

Where's Dubluke Wub?

LACE wrote:

noam wrote:your right to not see a penis in the street is NOT a natural right

considering it's against the law, are you saying one still has the right to do this?

i said its not a natural right

its a right thats upheld by law as derived by society/institutions and as such is only enforced where it is seen that it is proper to do so

you aren't born with an inalienable right to not be 'flashed' - in some cultures there literally wouldn't be words to even describe the concept. in ALL cultures there is a concept of murder and in none of those is murder acceptable, and in no way is your right to not be flashed equivalent with your right to not be murdered.

im still looking for the bit where i said you have the right to flash people tho, i actually stated, in massive capital letters that i wasn't advocating this guys right to flash... are you trying to troll me or something?? i feel like i've just waited 2minutes of my life replying

it's a yes or no answer i don't need your philosphical rant. just wanted some clarification.and like you actually needed to reply. jaysus

LACE wrote:

it's a yes or no answer i don't need your philosphical rant. just wanted some clarification.and like you actually needed to reply when your point of view was so clearly laid out in your original post. jaysus

Augmented.

AW C'MON

different frame of mind at that time get off me the both of yoos

i'm clear in my head and at work now =3

nowaysj wrote:

LACE wrote:

it's a yes or no answer i don't need your philosphical rant. just wanted some clarification.and like you actually needed to reply when your point of view was so clearly laid out in your original post. jaysus

Augmented.

it could've been a lot worse

time of the month??