registered contrarian since 2003
i heard about this earlier.now, what if somebody drove by, threw a bomb, and killed one of the small kids?sure, it may even be public record information... but putting it out there with intent (and a threatening level of intent) does bring up the question of what that intent is?i did not go with exposing/tweeting the (supposed) address of george zimmerman, and do beleive that the tweeter should have been held to criminal charges, and much even bigger ones if harm came about.that tweet all but said 'hey niggas, here he is, go get him'.some differences: zimmerman was reasonably accused of a criminal act, while these in question have had their behavior sanctioned and protected by the highest court in the land.
I think you know I do not condone violence. Otherwise, fuck 'em. Seriously.
but you condone these threats of violence. since a threat is meaningless without intent to carry it out, how is that morally different?this is a not-very-indirect threat where very small innocent children reside within the blast radius.seriously.
Anonymous is explicitly nonviolent.
What if somebody drove by and tossed out a ring of violets? Or returned a lost doggie? Or stopped long enough to cut the grass?What if they legally owned a howitzer and set it up across the street? Or elephants? Ever see a herd of elephants and what they can do to roses?What if the Mayan calendar knocked on the door? Or Nazis decided to come out of their hole in the North Pole and visit any of these people in their dreams?What if there were guns you could buy? And somebody bought some but their retard son got a hold of them and killed 26 people? Whatayagonna do then? Ban elephants?
addresses and phone number don't kill people. people kill people. It used to be called a PHONE BOOK. Wimps. This country's going right down the crapper... :-)
RW: yeah, i know... i know...i'm just worried that some loon will get an idea in his head that he didnt already have.
In all seriousness, it would be fucking awful if somebody did something like you describe and harmed one of the kids in the Phelps family (basically the whole church is the Phelps family). I would feel pretty terrible for having cheering this on if that were to happen. But I think it is really, really unlikely. So unlikely, that I linked to it and cheered it on. If someone was determined to violently attack WBC, it would have happened already. They're in public all the time. The location of their church is no secret. Their movements are publicized by groups interested in counter-protesting. If they are coming to your town, odds are someone will publicize what hotel they are staying at. I imagine anyone on the ground in Topeka could have tracked down most of these addresses in a couple of days with a little legwork. I am completely, 100% serious though in saying that--stipulating violence as completely unacceptable--these people deserve anything and everything else that happens to them. Every harassing phone call, every picketing outside their house, every expense that they have to go to change their phone numbers, every pizza delivery, every magazine subscription, every bit of gay porn recorded to their DVR. They. Fucking. Deserve. It.
i agree. and too bad bank acct #s werent posted. i could use an advance.
If someone was determined to violently attack WBC, it would have happened already. They're in public all the time. The location of their church is no secret. Their movements are publicized by groups interested in counter-protesting. If they are coming to your town, odds are someone will publicize what hotel they are staying at. That's likely right. I also think that the Phelps folks would welcome the violence, because it would reinforce their screwed-up worldview. So far, people have been smart enough to understand that the last thing you want to do with the WBC is turn them into martyrs.
I'm naming my next pet Fags so we can get these guys into a battle with the similarly obnoxious PETA.
Post a Comment