Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: NoBody Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 07:25:04 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 92 Message-ID: References: <17c2cf26c4db72b2$7802$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:25:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cae06eef8413ad009edd75f9c21cafac"; logging-data="647923"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18oORBpVIKJ3b74P0ue3ZWCOHQ6Hwj7zA8=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:OPcCGSObf5q/ywv1uyB6KNaJff4= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240404-0, 4/3/2024), Outbound message X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846 Bytes: 5125 On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:45:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >BTR1701 wrote: >>On Apr 3, 2024 at 8:36:11 AM PDT, moviePig wrote: >>>On 4/3/2024 5:50 AM, FPP wrote: >>>>On 4/2/24 5:52 PM, moviePig wrote: >>>>>On 4/2/2024 1:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>>>BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>Mar 27, 2024 at 3:58:45 PM PDT, moviePig : >>>>>>>>3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>Adam H. Kerman : >>>>>>>>>>BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>Why is it that burning the American flag is protected speech, >>>>>>>>>>>but if you burn an Alphabet Mafia rainbow flag, you can get >>>>>>>>>>>arrested for a hate crime? > >>>>>>>>>>You mean a flag that does not belong to you, not your own flag. > >>>>>>>>>No, I mean any rainbow flag. If you go buy one yourself, then >>>>>>>>>take it to an anti-troon protest and burn it, it's a hate crime. > >>>>>>>>>But if you buy an American flag and take it to an Antifa riot >>>>>>>>>and burn it, protected speech. . . . > >>>>>>>>The former action is one of hate, the latter is one of protest. > >>>>>>>https://ibb.co/0FpvG4S > >>>>>>moviePig is unparseable here. Is he stating that protestors protest >>>>>>against their friends and not their enemies? I'm so confused. > >>>>>I'm here to help. > >>>>>In general, people who burn an American flag do so in protest of their >>>>>own government's actions and policies, while those who burn a rainbow >>>>>flag do so to express their hate of queers. > >>>>If you own it, you can burn it. > >>>But not at a gay-pride march under laws against hate speech. > >>There are no laws against hate speech in the United States. If any >>legislature should pass such a law, it would be unconstitutional. > >No. I'm sorry. You keep trying to fix moviePig but he's still broken. > >How does moviePig know what emotion the flag burner is expressing? The >flag burning in question was by a veteran of the Afghanistan war >protesting massive deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza by Israel's >military counterstrikes. > >That isn't protesting an American government action and policy, is it, >but what an ally is doing. So moviePig's statement is inapplicable to >what I had raised. > >It's also not generally opposed to civilian deaths. Clearly the Israeli >women at the kibbutz who were raped, tortured, kidnapped, and killed are >civilians, but for some reason, they don't count. Nor do the other >civilians were were kidnapped or killed by Hamas count. > >It's so strange. > >Also, these protestors have said nothing, absolutely nothing, with >respect to Russia killing massive numbers of civilians in Ukraine >because they target civilians in high-rise housing and infrastructure. >Ukraine isn't comparable to Gaza. There are no military targets within >civilian areas. > >It's so strange. They care about civilian deaths in one place but not >all those other places. > >Therefore, based on moviePig logic, we conclude that this instance of >protest is hate speech against Israelis or all Jews generally, in >violation of the 14th and 1/2 amendment. > >Not being moviePig, I cannot attribute motive to burning a rainbow flag. >For all we know, no one cares about the sexual proclivities of >consenting adults in their own bedrooms but may indeed care very much >about library programs promoting interactions with very young children. > >But yes, anything that's not an expression of sufficient love and >acceptance of this kind of behavior in public toward your own children >is unconstitutional speech under the 14th and 1/2 amendment. > >I don't understand how moviePig believes the 14 and 1/2 amendment >doesn't apply in the first instance but does in the second. > >It's so very very strange. He's a lib. That explains everything.