posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by tezzajw
Wait, didn't we have a debate in another thread in which your stance was basically one of pro-anarchy? I believe you said you were opposed to any
laws outside the law of nature and would like to see a sort of natural law of retribution take over in which the wronged party or their
representatives sought vengeance for any percieved wrong with no involvement of any centralized legal system or governing body. Am I correct with
that paraphrasing of what you believe?
Now I've also seen you take an "All religion is trash and should be abolished" stance in some other threads. I guess your wish for "do as thou
wilt" only extends to the fenceline between freedom of religion and freedom of everything else, as it seems you'd like to see a forced freedom FROM
OK then, let's apply your logic to this situation. Given what you've said in the past about anarchy and such, how about instead of charging this
kid with public indecency, a couple of offended parents instead decided that they had been wronged by their children seeing a major profanity and a
nun playing with herself, and proceeded to beat the kid senseless. It's just nature's law, right? If I further recall that previous thread, my
thoughts on your attitude haven't changed much at all. I said it then and I say it now, the idea that individual should trump common in all
situations leads to a complete disintegration of society. We devolve back into nomadic little sects of people who live by their own group's code
(which, as someone pointed out in that other thread means you've just created a code of laws and ruined your anarchistic aspirations.)
Society needs laws and laws need to be based on a majority agreed upon standard with the sole exception involving unequal discriminatory laws. I'm
assuming that the law in this case would have stopped and charged someone wearing a shirt with Anton LaVey masturbating and "Satan is a size queen"
written on it just as quickly as they charged this young man for his bad decision. If his shirt had just said "I hate Jesus" and had artwork of a
crucifixion with a red circle and a slash through it, I'd be 100% in support of you (even though I would still say the guy had shown a serious lack
of tact and common sense.) But the fact is it had two things on it a naked nun masturbating and one of the few words that is pretty much universally
Here's Roadrunner records take on the story and Dani Filth's comment
The ironic thing as I sit here and defend the decision as if it was my country that had done it, is that you'd have no issues wearing it in America.
You might get asked to leave a particular store or mall, and almost certainly wouldn't be allowed into a school with it on, but that's because of
the nudity and profanity. After reading the backstory a little bit more, I see this has fallen under another of Europe's idiotic religious
defamation laws, which were ironically instituted to pretect Muslim groups from defamation. As I am adamantly opposed to individual (and redundant)
hate crime legislation, and I erred by assuming common sense in this issue had been applied and the prosecution was merely due to the fact the shirt
was obscene and was completely independent of the religious tones of the shirt, I'm now screwed and have to back down from agreeing with the
authorities. I was wrong and I admit it. I will stand by my original statement that common decency, tact, and a little maturity should tell a person
that just because it is their "right" to wear something like this out and about on a public street doesn't mean it should be done. A little bit of
respect will always get a person further in life than being a ass, but I guess it takes a certain amount of growing up before someone recognizes that
fact for themselves.