I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Judge Dismisses Case, Muslim Vs. Zombie Muhammed

Hits: 8197 | Rating: (2.2) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: CrakrJak
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
UserIDTaken9
Male, 18-29, Western US
 52 Posts
Monday, March 12, 2012 9:18:39 AM
A man dresses up as a KKK member or a Nazi and walks through a neighborhood with at least some black people. He is assaulted and it goes to court.
We don't know what the verdict is, what evidence was used, what legal arguments were made, OR how the judge scolded the assaulter for his actions.
All we know is that the judge also told the victim why his actions were offensive, and why common sense told him his costume might get a reaction. He does not say that the reaction was justified. He does not say that the reaction should be expected because black people are violent, or that the criminal is let off the hook because the victim had it coming. He simply says: This is why what you did is offensive, and here's why it was more offensive than you may have realized.

UserIDTaken9
Male, 18-29, Western US
 52 Posts
Monday, March 12, 2012 9:17:19 AM
Dead-Kittens: No, it wouldn't. The actual holding here had nothing to do with what we're all arguing about, and there's no claim he didn't follow the law. All the recording shows it that at some point in the trial the Judge explains why the victim's actions were offensive. Here's an analogy:


Dead-Kittens
Male, 30-39, Canada
 985 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 12:10:05 PM
I couldnt be bothered to hear more than half... (foreign) but from what I understand..wouldnt this decision also allow every dumbkid on the block to beat up their teacher for believing their answeris correct?

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:44:25 AM
Akabane:

Beliefs should be mocked, beliefs inform ones actions and if a persons beliefs are irrational that irrationallity should be pointed out. Religious beliefs of others affect all of us, they don't exist in a vacuum. The religious beliefs of our world leaders, and the masses have a direct effect on all of us.

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:26:51 AM
CrakrJak:

"You're bemoaning that everyone cannot be treated equally in all respects and approving of the fact that the judge gave "special consideration" to the defendant ?"

Really!!!!!????? Really???? Your reading comprehension really needs to improve OR you are being intentionally dishonest. Go back to my first post where I called the judge a moron. I do not aggree with the judge BECAUSE of the special consideration he gave the defendant and especially because that consideration was based on religion, ANY religion. Try reading what I write instead of assuming you know what I think.

button_guy
Male, 18-29, Western US
 170 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:32:05 AM
Well said incubus. I hate you all. Dumbasses...

incubus_inc
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 961 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:30:43 AM
I can't wait until everyone dies. That is going to be GREAT.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10283 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 4:26:58 AM
It seems to me that you are for "special considerations", not equality.


Except with gay marriage people aren't limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex, and that IS truly equal.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10283 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 4:24:44 AM
Marriage has been recognized as 1 man + 1 woman since before America was even a country


Except polygamy was standard practice in Europe long before America was a country

akabane
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1051 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:42:12 AM
@RobboPatton So I have the freedom to dress like a cop and mess with people right? That's my right? Freedom of speech is limited, and if it wasn't, we would have utmost chaos. Besides, do you have no shame to mock one person's belief? Kinda hypocritical to mock someone, and defend someone, then demand equality for everyone.

RoboPatton
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2429 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 1:08:23 AM
Amazing how so many of you are willing to backhand one faith, but side with the belief that the Muslims are in a "higher" class and their violence should be "understood" and cow-towed to.

This is the FREE world, they can force that poo in their own nations but this is one where you can dress as gay jesus one day, and juggling muhamed the next. Why? Because a lot of people died to give you that drating freedom you goddamn ingrates.

You sell your freedom at your own peril.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17177 Posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012 12:29:30 AM
Otto: You're bemoaning that everyone cannot be treated equally in all respects and approving of the fact that the judge gave "special consideration" to the defendant ?

Marriage has been recognized as 1 man + 1 woman since before America was even a country, no one had a problem with that until recently. It seems to me that you are for "special considerations", not equality.

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:16:54 PM
There are religions that recognize gay marriage so the gov't favoring one religious view over another is discriminatory and by doing so is promoting that religious viewpoint. I don't care if the gov't stops recognizing marriage altogether, as long as it treats people equally.

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:06:40 PM
"But you seem to approve this judge's complicity of fear in his decision."

Where have I said anywhere or implied that I approve of the judges decision? Neutrality has everything to do with this case, the judge basically was saying the perp acted because he was a Muslim and offended, the judge gave special consideration to him on that fact.

As for the red herrings you threw out in your second point, the law is to treat everyone equally under the law as far as race, sex, religious beliefs...either you aree with that or you don't. You obviously think the gov't is right to legislate the morality of homosexuality, and whither you admit it or not the question of morality regarding homosexuality is based on religion. If religious belief is taken out of the debate there is no rational reason not to allow gay marriage. cont.

ledzeppeloyd
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2304 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 10:10:51 PM
fuc/king religion

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17177 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:30:06 PM
markust: There is no way I would dress up as Muhammed. I value my life too much.


Then the muslims have scared you into complicity and that means they've won. I doubt you would let a Christian(s) scare you like that.

Otto: But you seem to approve this judge's complicity of fear in his decision. Neutrality has nothing to do with this case, equal treatment under the law does. In this case the judge did not apply the law, he applied his opinion.

If marriage is redefined, then "Equal treatment" would have to necessarily have to spread to polygamy, communal marriage, and worse.

There are many necessary inequalities, in the law, for the good of our society. Most notably, you can't vote until your 18, can't drink until you're 21, can't retire with full SS benefits until 62, men can't stop their wives from having an abortion, Parents aren't notified that their daughters had an abortion, etc.

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:47:06 PM
CrakrJak: "I haven't promoted "moral legislation", I have promoted the status quo, the two are different."

You have promoted the gov't legislating bedroom activity between 2 consenting adults. Status quo was promoted by slave states. Status quo was argued by those against woman's sufferage. I don't find 'status quo' to be a valid arguement.

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:33:39 PM
CrakrJak:

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. - Thomas Jefferson

I could post a bunch more, the point is gov't should be completely neutral, if you think your religion should be supported by the gov't, you are no better than the judge in this case.


UserIDTaken9
Male, 18-29, Western US
 52 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:56:26 PM
So what exactly did this Judge do that was wrong? The video starts off by saying that it is in not claiming the judge made the incorrect decision about whether the harasser was guilty. So, all we know is that he spent part of his verdict(the part we heard) explaining how the alleged victim's actions were offensive. If anyone goes around being obnoxious (in the judge's opinion) but legal, the judge is free to say so as long as the verdict follows the law. I would say there is a decent chance that to elicit a speech like this, the alleged victim probably spent at least some of the trial being offensive or showing ignorance about what he did. Constitutional freedom to say something is by no means the freedom to not be told you're a dick for saying it. Since someone has the records of this case, post the part where the judge ignores evidence, if he does. If that happened it's an easy appeal. But it probably didn't.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10283 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:45:01 PM
The constitution wasn't designed for immoral people, it was designed to limit the governments powers, not it's people.


1)Again you're conflating morality with conformity
2)Actually yes it was designed to limit people's as well. Originally Senators were appointed by state governments NOT by the people. The reasons for this arrangement was given in Federalist #10 to avoid "tyranny of the majority".

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:28:19 PM
A few years back when my hair was long I dressed up as an easily recognizable Kurt Cobain. Although it would have been funny to many people I didn't go full-gunshot-wound-Kurt because being in Seattle I didn't want to hurt any real fans. Unless this guy lives in an isolation booth he knew his costume would offend people and could cause the reaction he got or worse. He asked for it. There is no way I would dress up as Muhammed. I value my life too much. Not defending the attacker here.

akabane
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1051 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:14:48 PM
You know, we really dont have freedom of speech in reality, because if we did, i want you to go to a crowded movie theater and scream "fire!" Though I would not kill someone for such an insult, there is someone that would. Be smart, and dont do stupid things. very simple.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17177 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:11:37 PM
Otto: I haven't promoted "moral legislation", I have promoted the status quo, the two are different.

Change for changes sake is not a good thing, one person's progress is another's degrees.

We should be an ethical and moral people, but that doesn't include taking the law into our own hands, be that individually or in a mob. It is apparent from the recent 'arab spring', throughout the middle east, that most muslims live by vigilantism and mob justice. Personally I find that astounding, and don't want America to turn into that.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17177 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:57:19 AM
Otto: I have also seen you argue that moral teachings of your religion should be incorporated in law..


"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

"What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not... the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army... our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms." - Abraham Lincoln

The constitution wasn't designed for immoral people, it was designed to limit the governments powers, not it's people.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17177 Posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:48:12 AM
akabane: Getting offended is one thing, and I agree that both the zombie Pope and zombie mohammed were tasteless costumes, attacking someone in a Halloween parade is quite another.

Cajun: Apparently my stalker is trying to offend and provoke people as well, just ignore them.

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.