Man arrested for wearing "Peace" shirt at mall

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon

I hate malls - I'm about the only person who can't find anything to buy in them.

Not the only one, I can't stand them either. They are chock full of crap.

[Sikander]

On the issue, the Mall has a right to ask people to leave if they are causing a disturbance, but they can't bounce people out for a passive political display like a T-shirt slogan or a button or bumper sticker, unless the image itself is considered offensive or likely to incite violence. I doubt the Mall is going to win the civil case.

[The Mad Monk]

There has got to be something else to this story -- it's just too stupid, otherwise.

[Dis]

like I'm going to believe this story.

you liberals are out of control

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Guynemer

Rather poetic, though, that this sort of madness happened at a mall, the epitome of American "culture" and conformity.

There are demons at the mall.

[Dis]

There has to be other factors at work.

He was probably beligerant to the police officer. He may have been drunk. And he may have spit on the police officer. We don't know.

but I can't imagine anyone getting arrested for that. What liberals don't understand is they are the majority. It is expected for most americans to be pussies and be against war. It's not like peace protestors are anything new.

[Straybow]

You mean "What liberals don't understand is they aren't the majority." I think.

[Dis]

yes most people in the cities are liberal. So they are the majority.

Now in small towns, and rural areas that is not the case.

There is a reason why Gore won nearly every major city in the U.S. in 2000.

[Straybow]

No, Gore won the cities because he's a Democrat, and the politics of the cities favor minority power-blocks and unions that are the backbone of Democrat constituency.

Only about 20% are liberals, only about 20% are conservatives, swing voters for each side of center about the same, and 20% never vote at all.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I don't agree with the concept of "group rights" or things of that nature - rights are something that by their nature belong to individuals. A bunch of people in a group each possess the same individual rights, but the fact that they are in a group has no bearing upon the presence of those rights. The group might or might not provide an effective method of defense, of course, but that is separate from the basic presence of individual rights.

I'm not talking about rights here, I'm talking about freedom. Rights, like you, I see as wholly individualised, but I believe only groups can have freedom, in the sense of ruling over themselves within society. An individual alone, living as a hermit, has no bearing over the social order of the country he's in and thus has no freedom in my sense of the word.

So you basically believe that the system grants the rights? Which is another way of saying "relativism", right? (I'm not being a smartass here, I'm actually asking).

It's only relative to my definition of freedom. You wouldn't agree to a communitarian's idea that people have a right to decent healthcare, for instance, even though their definition of freedom would clearly stipulate such a right.

How is saying that each individual possesses the right to life, liberty, and property negative?

Surely what you're saying is that no-one has the right to take away your life, your liberty or your property, "freedom from" percecution and government interference? It's not an entitlement to recieve life, liberty and property from another source. That's all I mean by negative, nothing more.

Further, systems that don't rely on absolute truth are problematic because of reasons I've touched on here and pointed out in the "Gods and Generals" thread - without absolute truth, there is no way to say that the Holocaust is wrong.

Oh, I think your ideology is wrong, wrong, wrong, don't worry about that. I just measure its rationality on its own terms. I'm not a moral relativist either.

[SirTweek]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Bullsh!t!

The Protestants wanted the word "god" in the anthem just as much as the Catholics. Recent attempts to remove the word have resulted in a storm of complaints from religious leaders from all groups.

The history of Canada is not about appeasing the Catholics anymore than the Protestants.

Take you anti-Catholic crap someplace else.

I see reading history is now somehow anti-catholic. The catholics insisted on God being in the anthem. Canada has been apeasing catholics since it's creation or how do you explain the continuation of Catholic schools. Pick up a few books, Canada especially in the west was a struggle between protestants and catholics. Go to your local library pick up some books on French history and the history of the Orangemen in Canada.

I realize reading history may cause you to come across some offensive terms and ideas most history books haven't been sanatized yet into PC-speak but it'll do some good for people to look up the history of their country.

[SirTweek]

Originally posted by Felch X


After conquering them and stealing their land, and expelling the Cajuns who refused to convert to the religion of the British Crown.

Hmm...I don't remember the country of Canada doing that.

BTW Did the Cajuns "steal" the land from someone or was it unclaimed when it got there?

[Sava]

I'm torn on this issue. While I think it's detestable that this man was asked to leave because of his shirt, the store has the right to prosecute for trespassing if the man refused to leave. If he was outside the store and in the mall, that's a little bit of a different story. If he was trying to protest in a store, he deserved his arrest.

If he wasn't being disruptive and the store people just asked him to take the shirt off because they didn't like it... then I think this guy should get off. And on top of that, I would support a boycott of the store. But again, I don't know the facts of the case and am simply speculating. If the guy was the one being disruptive, then he should face the consequences.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You want to know what's the funniest?
That man thinks they own land.
Land,was here, and will be here, when all of man is gone.
We may legally possess, but we own nothing.

Well said.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sikander


So in your ideal free country, people wouldn't be free to dream?

Why don't you respond to my point instead of making facetious comments?

A free country is more than having laws which protect certain behaviours, it is also having a tolerant population. I think the US (especially some areas) has the first covered but not the second. And without the second the first is useless.

If I was in the UK I could walk around with a T-Shirt saying "Tony Blair is an evil dictator" and the only comments I would get would be "Yeah, right on!". I could burn a flag and no one would care. I can be as unpatriotic as I like and no one would give a hoot. Not so in the US with the crypto-fascist "our president" and "our flag" and "our way of life".