It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Laugh About Dying John Paul II - Bad Humour now Hate Speech

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kinja
I concede nothing... I just push a more obvious point, that perhaps will get through to you, since critical thinking is lost, with you.

The pope is the Leader of the catholic church, he is representative for them all. Not all may agree with the things he says, but he is the head of the church.

It is hate speech... no matter how much it bothers you that you are WRONG. It is hate speech.

Tell me and everyone you think is backing you up... HOW IS HITLER FUNNY?

Seriously... What part of Adolph Hitler is funny? Machine gunning jews into mass graves? The Ovens? The Cyanide showers?


I met a guy like you before, he talked just like you and argued like you too but he snorted crack and he could never win the arguement because his brain couldn't correct the illogical logic he had.

By your logic this is hate speech

President Bush of the U.S.A. died today. Upong cutting him up we found out he was really Hitler.

Now Bush is the leader of the U.S.A.

So now Talking about bush is now talking about the whole U.S.A. of course not. And that's why your arguement doesn't stand.

This thread is about (for the third effin' time) bad humour published by the NY Press and a U.S. politician calling it hate speech.

It is not hate speech, it is a personal attack on the pope - so what. I can personally attack you and it's not hate speech but I wont because it's against the T&C




posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
"Michael Jackson to poor to buy bones"
Okay, this one was kinda funny.
The rest were either childish, in poor taste, or both.
Really, they remind me of the stuff pre-adolescent boys would write. No offense meant to any pre-adolescent boys on ATS. If you post here, you wouldn't come up with this drivel.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
"Michael Jackson to poor to buy bones"
Okay, this one was kinda funny.
The rest were either childish, in poor taste, or both.
Really, they remind me of the stuff pre-adolescent boys would write. No offense meant to any pre-adolescent boys on ATS. If you post here, you wouldn't come up with this drivel.



DontTreadOnMe would you consider it hate speech? What do you think about Kinja's arguement?

I would like any outside perspective on this issue. Because it is my opinion that people wouldn't even want to waste the time proving him wrong. I feel it a waste of time to do the same..



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
I met a guy like you before, he talked just like you and argued like you too but he snorted crack and he could never win the arguement because his brain couldn't correct the illogical logic he had.

By your logic this is hate speech

President Bush of the U.S.A. died today. Upong cutting him up we found out he was really Hitler.

Now Bush is the leader of the U.S.A.

So now Talking about bush is now talking about the whole U.S.A. of course not. And that's why your arguement doesn't stand.

This thread is about (for the third effin' time) bad humour published by the NY Press and a U.S. politician calling it hate speech.

It is not hate speech, it is a personal attack on the pope - so what. I can personally attack you and it's not hate speech but I wont because it's against the T&C


ummmm it is hate speech. This is not candyland, what makes it hate speech is that it is offensive to a wide audience of people. You can try and defend each little crack on the pope all ya want... it is still hate speech.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
DontTreadOnMe would you consider it hate speech? What do you think about Kinja's arguement?

I would like any outside perspective on this issue. Because it is my opinion that people wouldn't even want to waste the time proving him wrong. I feel it a waste of time to do the same..

I was born and raised Catholic.
I don't see this as hate speech any more than the ugly stuff printed about Bush or any other world leader is hate speech.
This is not the same as hateful, ugly stuff printed about groups of people. It is not directed against the RCC, just at the Pope, a world leader.

Personally, I think Kinja is working on getting banned.
Just MHO



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
So then talking about Bush bad is hate speech against Americans?

Answer the Question

I doubt you will

You know the Answer and you don't want to look stupid



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
So then talking about Bush bad is hate speech against Americans?

Answer the Question

I doubt you will

You know the Answer and you don't want to look stupid


Since Bush does not represent the views of all Americans it is not hatefull, unless you are comparing him to Hitler. I think every1 should be offended by that. Unless of course we find evidence that he knowingly let 9/11 happen


Edit: Oh and wheres your response to my last post? I hope we wont let this arguement get between our friendship
Im gonna go to chat now

[edit on 4/3/05 by Croat56]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56

Originally posted by 00PS
So then talking about Bush bad is hate speech against Americans?

Answer the Question

I doubt you will

You know the Answer and you don't want to look stupid


Since Bush does not represent the views of all Americans it is not hatefull, unless you are comparing him to Hitler. I think every1 should be offended by that. Unless of course we find evidence that he knowingly let 9/11 happen


Sorry but John Paul II doesn't represent all views of Americans either..

Is it just me or is there some crappy stinky logic in this room that reeks like poo poo

Come on guys, can't you come up with a better arguement. If I was on your side I could, but I don't want to help you out.


EDIT: Of course not, we're buds. I argue unemotionally (usually
...b.k.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by 00PS]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Kinja
Hate speech isn't defined as 'offensive to large groups of people.' Hate speech is a direct or indirect threat, or baiting terms meant to incite the targetted party into violence. I suspect the reason you think this list of Pope jokes is hate speech is because you have no idea what hate speech is.

Unfortunately that's a common problem, many people have no idea what kinds of speech are acceptable and what kinds aren't, they're afraid to open their mouths for fear of the P.C. Party descending upon them in typical jack-booted fashion. I think the only sort of speech that should qualify as hate speech is that sort which incites or threatens violence. Calling the pope a big stupid with a funny hat is no more hate speech than it is love speech. It's OPINION speech.

And you can't stop us from having opinions, no matter how much you wish you could.

Oh, and Hitler isn't funny?? Hitler is totally funny. Just look at his mustache!
Consider the facts surrounding his death (assuming they're real) -- he, along with Eva, was burned in a ditch with gasoline..on his honeymoon! C'mon..if that's not funny I don't know what is...
He was a vegetarian, the irony in that's hilarious. He was a failed painter criticized by a Jewish art critic, add another notch on the humor totem pole..

The whole package is comedy gold, why do you think so many successful parodies and farces used exageratted Hitler's for comic effect? Especially during the war, some of the cartoons and comics depicting him were priceless.

Oh, and Kinja, I don't know if you know this, but Hitler didn't just kill Jews.

Your whitewashing of history is more offensive to good taste than any joke about bouncing a marble off the dead poop's head could ever be.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Oh, and Kinja, I don't know if you know this, but Hitler didn't just kill Jews.

Your whitewashing of history is more offensive to good taste than any joke about bouncing a marble off the dead poop's head could ever be.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]


Yeah, I don't know if he comprehends this WyrdeOne...

Since I'm probably younger than you I chose Prince...But I ain't your Gypsy Son


His arguements are so one dimensional it's boring...AHHHHHHH



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
Since I'm probably younger than you I chose Prince...But I ain't your Gypsy Son



The title was meant more for its value as a contradiction, a seeming paradox made possible by a non traditional view point..blah blah blah. Don't worry, I won't ask you to rake my leaves or take out the garbage or stop playing that damn music.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by 00PS
DontTreadOnMe would you consider it hate speech? What do you think about Kinja's arguement?

I would like any outside perspective on this issue. Because it is my opinion that people wouldn't even want to waste the time proving him wrong. I feel it a waste of time to do the same..

I was born and raised Catholic.
I don't see this as hate speech any more than the ugly stuff printed about Bush or any other world leader is hate speech.
This is not the same as hateful, ugly stuff printed about groups of people. It is not directed against the RCC, just at the Pope, a world leader.

Personally, I think Kinja is working on getting banned.
Just MHO


So if the Pope was Hitler, and his position is leader of the Catholic Church, are the Catholics not doing Hitler's work as instructed by the Hitler-pope?? and that funny?

Do you think jokes about Mohammed would be offensive to muslims? Would you be cautious to not offend them by making Mohammed Jokes?

Is ther a double standard? Is it ok to persecute one religion over another?



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Originally posted by 00PS
Since I'm probably younger than you I chose Prince...But I ain't your Gypsy Son



The title was meant more for its value as a contradiction, a seeming paradox made possible by a non traditional view point..blah blah blah. Don't worry, I won't ask you to rake my leaves or take out the garbage or stop playing that damn music.


And My title has been one since I can't remember. I am a prince even though all my friends laugh at me when I say it. I dream of the day when the culture has not structure but is so admired that the fact I am who I am makes me Gypsy Prince Crown Royale!!!! LOL!!

Back to the point

Kinja I'm going to stop arguing with you because you just ask the same questions over and over and I have no intention in answering them because that's not what this post is about. If you want to have an arguement about that you can start your own thread and I'll come in there and tell you what I think and then you'll realize how much time you've wasted here.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.
www.answers.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
His arguements are so one dimensional it's boring...AHHHHHHH


I know! It's like arguing with an English muffin that doesn't want to be eaten. We might as well be beating our heads against a wall. I love to argue, but it's so much more fun when they put up a fight. I was just in an argument in another thread where I asked my opponent to reiiterate his stance since he appeared to be making my point for me, and he said he would let his post stand for itself.

I can't figure out if he conceded and thinks he won, or if I'm conceding by not continually harrassing him for his answer. Sometimes you just want to pick up their torch and carry it for them, just so they can make it to the finish line in an argument for once...



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
SO answer the question and this is the last time I'll ask it

Is calling president George W. Bush a raving lunatic who is a nazi and piece of poo poo pie actually hate speech against americans?



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Originally posted by 00PS
His arguements are so one dimensional it's boring...AHHHHHHH


but it's so much more fun when they put up a fight.

Sometimes you just want to pick up their torch and carry it for them, just so they can make it to the finish line in an argument for once...



Yeah, I'm about to switch sides just to make it actually interesting...that's great man, picking up their torch...Yeah man, Kinja's flame is dyinggggggggggg



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Oh, and Kinja, I don't know if you know this, but Hitler didn't just kill Jews.


Oh, umm I dont write encyclopedias as posts. My posts will not contain all my knowledge on a particular topic... just bits I deem revelant at the moment. k? If something that would take lengthy explanation to portray to another I leave it out unless it is questioned. If there are things I believe people should already know, I leave them out. Unless it is painfully obvious that the person I am talking to has no clue.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Not only are these jokes not funny, but they are completely inappropriate regardless to whom they are directed. The pope is a human being at the end of his life. Personally, I think he should step down and relax, but it's his decision. Why anyone would publish such stupidity is beyond me. Why anyone who would post such here is equally beyond me.

[edit on 05/3/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kinja

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Oh, and Kinja, I don't know if you know this, but Hitler didn't just kill Jews.


Oh, umm I dont write encyclopedias as posts. My posts will not contain all my knowledge on a particular topic... just bits I deem revelant at the moment. k? If something that would take lengthy explanation to portray to another I leave it out unless it is questioned. If there are things I believe people should already know, I leave them out. Unless it is painfully obvious that the person I am talking to has no clue.


Not me, I have to assume you know nothing the way your arguement has been repititiously submitted and denied as well as the illogical arguement of equating a single man with an organization which has many 'fans'



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join