Cease and desist from Anonymous to Westboro Baptist Church

I'm not how sure how legitimate this is, but it looks like Anonymous is going to target Westboro Baptist Church if they don't stop their hate campaigns.

I'm torn on this issue. I stand with Westboro in that they deserve their right to Free Speech as much as anyone else. But they are clearly evil, and a force for bigotry and nearly everything I stand against.

Is cheering on Anonymous hypocritical? I haven't made my mind up, so let's talk about it.

 

 

UPDATE - ANONYMOUS NOT GOING AFTER WBC AFTER ALL

 

Views: 7

Replies to This Discussion

This is where our core disagreement lies. You are okay with defending the free speech of people who don't allow people to grieve for their loved ones, who have in the claims of Nathan Phelps are capable of violence, and resorts to violence within their own family.

 

I'm not okay with people who are worse than the KKK to say whatever they want, whenever they want when they literally have nothing constructive to say.

 

This isn't even about us hating what they say. Who gives a shit what we think? This is a group who has nothing to contribute to society and you seem to be perfectly fine and dandy to keep them causing more unnecessary grief to the already grieving (which can have psychological effects)

 

Isn't a dictionary for common usages? And you do realize what I meant right?

I don't consider them victims, just as I don't consider a murderer getting killed a victim either. The word 'victim' connotates an unjustified action taken against them that causes them some kind of damage does it not?

 

I would say this is perfectly justified, at least in my point of view.

 

And don't get me wrong. If it were anyone else other than the WBC I would agree with you, but they are not worth defending.

  • This is where our core disagreement lies. You are okay with defending the free speech of people who don't allow people to grieve for their loved ones, who have in the claims of Nathan Phelps are capable of violence, and resorts to violence within their own family.

And those who have had violence done to them can press charges and sue for damages.

 

  • I'm not okay with people who are worse than the KKK to say whatever they want, whenever they want when they literally have nothing constructive to say.

Like I said in the previous post, there are people who consider what we do to be worse than causing violence.  We're trying to damn people's eternal souls.  You're not in a good position to be trying to take away other people's freedom of speech.

 

  • This isn't even about us hating what they say. Who gives a shit what we think? This is a group who has nothing to contribute to society and you seem to be perfectly fine and dandy to keep them causing more unnecessary grief to the already grieving (which can have psychological effects)

And what we do and speak about causes people psychological harm, as well.  You're not helping your case here.

 

  • Isn't a dictionary for common usages? And you do realize what I meant right?

Not only common usages, no.  There are also plenty of archaic usages and uncommon usages listed, for most words.

 

And that doesn't matter.  Your usage of the word victim is bad.  Someone is targeting them with a criminal activity which causes them harm.  They're victims of that criminal activity.

 

  • I don't consider them victims, just as I don't consider a murderer getting killed a victim either. The word 'victim' connotates an unjustified action taken against them that causes them some kind of damage does it not?

According to the law, the WBC is doing nothing wrong, and Anonymous is taking criminal action against them, which makes it unjustified ... and it will cause harm.  You're not supporting your argument very well.

 

  • I would say this is perfectly justified, at least in my point of view.

Then your worldview is severely warped.

 

  • And don't get me wrong. If it were anyone else other than the WBC I would agree with you, but they are not worth defending.

Anyone else?  Really?

So my worldview is severely warped because I don't want the WBC to keep doing what they are doing freely, because as you said, they aren't doing anything illegal?

You seem to be misunderstanding me, and I find that insulting to call my worldview severely warped because I'm not okay with letting a hate group to cause people to suffer like you are.

 

In fact, since WBC is not doing anything illegal, you are suggesting that they can keep doing it, and they shouldn't ever be stopped because the only way to stop them is to do it illegally, or am I wrong?

I care more about the emotional and psychological states of regular citizens than I do about the free speech of one particular hate group, and if that makes me severely warped then you are extremely and utterly pathetic. That is where I stand on this.

 

The actions of WBC are worse than what Anonymous is planning to do to them, and I'm not okay with being a mafia wife because everyone, no matter how hateful can abuse their rights to cause all the suffering they want without anysort of consequence.

 

And yes, name one other hategroup in the U.S that is as bad or worse than the WBC, and I'll stand corrected (I don't know every single group in the U.S so enlighten me).

 

Get out of the Justice System's usage of the word victim (I can't think of a synonym that describes it without having the connotation of breaking a specific law) I'm not referring to the U.S Justice System, I'm referring to morality. Is the WBC justified (not in the legal term) to do what they are doing and should they be allowed to keep doing it? And when does it cross the line? How bad does it have to get for you, personally?

 

 

I'm just going to go ahead and stop. The difference here is that to you (it seems) it only counts as damage to a person is if it is physical or financial. Psychological traumas that lead to suicide, and a bunch of other disorders due to high amounts of stress are irrelevant.

 

Yes you are correct, in our society, physical damage takes prevelance over psychological.

 

In which because of said stereotype that psychological damage isn't as bad as physical, many people with depression go without help, thinking they don't need help for an actual medical condition.

 

P.S: I'm coming from a standpoint that the WBC shouldn't be allowed to freely and without consequence to cause psychological damage to people by doing what they do. And my point comes from the belief that without an illegal action such as a DDoS attack to get them to cease and desist is the only way for consequences to even exist with them.

 

If there is another way for them to receive consequence that won't have to go to the level of a DDoS (and no further, in no way am I suggesting ANYTHING other than a method of making them cease and desist) I would like to hear it.

  • In fact, since WBC is not doing anything illegal, you are suggesting that they can keep doing it, and they shouldn't ever be stopped because the only way to stop them is to do it illegally, or am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong.  What you can do is push for tougher restrictions on activities surrounding funerals.  There are things that can be done, such as noise ordinances.  There's plenty of precedent for that sort of thing.

 

  • I care more about the emotional and psychological states of regular citizens than I do about the free speech of one particular hate group, and if that makes me severely warped then you are extremely and utterly pathetic. That is where I stand on this.

That's incredibly shortsighted of you.  Do you really want to set the precedent that we can violate the Constitution, just because we don't like a perfectly legal activity that someone is engaging in?  Go and think about that for a while, and see if you can figure out what a horrifying thing you're suggesting.

 

  • The actions of WBC are worse than what Anonymous is planning to do to them, and I'm not okay with being a mafia wife because everyone, no matter how hateful can abuse their rights to cause all the suffering they want without anysort of consequence.

What you're suggesting is essentially vigilantism ... against something that isn't even illegal.  Do you see what a bad idea that is?

 

  • And yes, name one other hategroup in the U.S that is as bad or worse than the WBC, and I'll stand corrected (I don't know every single group in the U.S so enlighten me).

You haven't ever seen much about white-supremacist groups, have you?  There are plenty that are every bit as bad as the WBC.  They just don't advertise as much.

 

  • Get out of the Justice System's usage of the word victim ...

No.  That's the only one that applies here.

Then I admit defeat in this waste of time for an argument. I wasn't considering our position as a minority, nor did it even come up. I was referring to allowing a hate group exist freely and wholy (regardless of which minority/majority group does something about it)

 

Yes of course we will lose, but let me clarify the point of my posts.

 

It doesn't matter if Christians believe that saving the soul is more important saving a life. I was referring to morality in the strict sense of reason. But of course, such a morality doesn't exist in practice.

 

I don't consider them moral if they believe that, because again, one is tangible, the other is nonsense, and can be proven as such. So it is indeed a delusion, and one I am not comfortable dealing with, since in our Society, as you pointed out, doesn't matter what they do in that respect, we just have to take it.

 

I'm a pushover. I don't like seeing people suffer for no reason. A person suffering temporary stress trying to come to grips with a sudden change in lifestyle is a reasonable thing and most people in that situation do it themselves.

 

I'm a pacifist, and a pushover in terms of human well-being, to the point where I'll admit, blinds my ability to weigh them equally with finance and equal rights.

To address the points in your changed message ... yes, psychological trauma is a consideration as well, but it's more difficult to quantify.  If you're specifically psychologically torturing someone, then that's almost certainly illegal.

 

The problem is that if you're doing stuff off on your own, and someone suffers psychological trauma from it, then that's their problem.  It's ... complicated.  Calculating emotional suffering and figuring out who's at fault is a very messy subject.

 

I don't know that I would say physical damage is taken more seriously than psychological damage or is more important.  In some ways, the psychological damage is far more serious.  It's just more difficult to prove, and it's too easy to fall back on the excuse that someone is creating their own psychological trauma and it's not your fault, unless the direct link is obvious.

 

The fact that it will turn around and bite us in the ass, since we inflict psychological trauma on the evangelical Christians (as evidenced recently by Billy Ray's story about the atheist sign in Hollywood), is just additional incentive to not try taking away rights.

"The fact that it will turn around and bite us in the ass, since we inflict psychological trauma on the evangelical Christians (as evidenced recently by Billy Ray's story about the atheist sign in Hollywood), is just additional incentive to not try taking away rights."

 

I have a feeling that most arguments are based off of misunderstandings. My side of the argument was based on a philosophical approach that wasn't intended for practical use by us. But since you mention the Atheist Vs Theist thing going on, then yes, your arguments are right. The best we can do is cater to defending the rights of those we consider to be delusional, regardless if we are right or wrong.

Heh, you're probably right.  It's from looking at things from different angles, and then you just bicker your way through it and figure out why you're seeing it differently.  That's why I'm not sure I agree with your statement about it being a waste of time.  It made us think through the subject a good bit ... and at the very least, I enjoy a good squabble, from time to time.  :-D

 

Yeah, I tend to go straight to the practical.  I generally look at a solution and think to myself, "Okay, now how is this going to go horribly wrong, when we do it?"  Because things so often go completely wrong.  I find it better to be a pessimist, because I'm surprised much less frequently.

Daniel said:

 

P.S: I'm coming from a standpoint that the WBC shouldn't be allowed to freely and without consequence to cause psychological damage to people by doing what they do. And my point comes from the belief that without an illegal action such as a DDoS attack to get them to cease and desist is the only way for consequences to even exist with them.

 

You know, this I might agree with.  That does make WBC a victim, but what could be argued is that while they are a victim, the civil disobedience of Anonymous is called for to correct a failing in free speech law that allows for psychological and emotional torment of random people based in hatred. 

 

Its a thin line to walk though, because some theist could make the same argument after debating the existence of gods with them.

Which was the source of the disagreement between me and Joseph. I was arguing not on practical grounds, and it didn't even come up. And as for the Theist thing, yes they could make said argument.

 

But isn't this what Sam Harris was writing about in the Moral Landscape? A morality that is based on Science? Since morality more or less can be if it is defined in a way that focuses more on well-being than on behavior.

 

I haven't read it yet.

So, it's ok to threaten them and destroy their property (intellectual and/or physical) because you don't like what they do?

 

I think you need to sit back and mull this over for a bit.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service