Georgia couple sentenced for terroristic threats towards children
- Thread starter Dude653
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The word "insult" is just as vague, and subjective, as the word "offense."
The word "insult" is subjective... it is contingent only upon the subjectivity of the "hearer."
I can say your last post "insulted" me... and you still have to go to jail.
The word "insult" is subjective.
If I say you insulted me, you have no way to claim you did not.
Regardless of what you say, I can claim it hurt my feelings, and I felt insulted.
Being insulted is not an objective reality, it is a subjective feeling.
We all need to put on our big girl pants and act like adults.
Saying people should be punished for SUBJECTIVE things like "verbal insult", or "verbal offense" is ridiculous.
And for the record, linguistically, "insult" would be nothing but a vague subset of the vague word "offense."
They are related, and in many cases interchangeable.
GuessWho,
If you say the world "insult" is NOT subjective, but it has very specific meanings... then you have only proven my point.
The world "insult" is ENTIRELY subjective, and the ONLY way it can have any specific meaning, is if YOU define it.
So are YOU now going to define the law?
Will YOU decide which words are "legal insults" and which words are NOT "legal insults."
What about humor, comedy, satire?
Are those all illegal now because they contain a word or phrase you consider an insult?
What if YOU don't want to give the legal definition of "insults", but you want the government to do that?
Does letting someone else put limits on your speech really solve the problem?
Now some government official gets to determine what YOU can say.
Some government official gets to decide if harmless expressions you use are now "legal insults."
And what about the Bible?
People in some countries are now getting arresting just for preaching the exact words in the Bible.
Is that fair?
Is it fair, or intelligent, to create laws that get you arrested for speaking the words in the Bible?
It's better to jut have FREE SPEECH.
And then if people feel insulted by something... they can just act like grownups, and walk away.
If you say the world "insult" is NOT subjective, but it has very specific meanings... then you have only proven my point.
The world "insult" is ENTIRELY subjective, and the ONLY way it can have any specific meaning, is if YOU define it.
So are YOU now going to define the law?
Will YOU decide which words are "legal insults" and which words are NOT "legal insults."
What about humor, comedy, satire?
Are those all illegal now because they contain a word or phrase you consider an insult?
What if YOU don't want to give the legal definition of "insults", but you want the government to do that?
Does letting someone else put limits on your speech really solve the problem?
Now some government official gets to determine what YOU can say.
Some government official gets to decide if harmless expressions you use are now "legal insults."
And what about the Bible?
People in some countries are now getting arresting just for preaching the exact words in the Bible.
Is that fair?
Is it fair, or intelligent, to create laws that get you arrested for speaking the words in the Bible?
It's better to jut have FREE SPEECH.
And then if people feel insulted by something... they can just act like grownups, and walk away.
I think I understand what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong please). You're saying "free speech" shouldn't include speech that is "insulting" to someone, correct?
in·sult
verb
verb: insult; 3rd person present: insults; past tense: insulted; past participle: insulted; gerund or present participle: insulting
inˈsəlt/
1.
speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse
What is "disrespectful" to one person may or may not be disrespectful to another though. If we made it illegal to insult someone, who gets to decide what is and isn't an insult? There is, without a doubt, some words that are blatant insults (#$%^ you!, kiss my #$%, etc...). The issue is that if we made it illegal to insult someone, someone could claim they were disrespected at the most trivial of "offenses". If we criticized our government officials they could easily claim to feel disrespected. I know I'd be cautious about what I'd say about them if I could be punished for it. It would make giving an honest opinion a potential violation of the law.
in·sult
verb
verb: insult; 3rd person present: insults; past tense: insulted; past participle: insulted; gerund or present participle: insulting
inˈsəlt/
1.
speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse
What is "disrespectful" to one person may or may not be disrespectful to another though. If we made it illegal to insult someone, who gets to decide what is and isn't an insult? There is, without a doubt, some words that are blatant insults (#$%^ you!, kiss my #$%, etc...). The issue is that if we made it illegal to insult someone, someone could claim they were disrespected at the most trivial of "offenses". If we criticized our government officials they could easily claim to feel disrespected. I know I'd be cautious about what I'd say about them if I could be punished for it. It would make giving an honest opinion a potential violation of the law.
Don't be ridiculous. If the moderators of this chat would agree with you and consider that I insulted you, than I would be banned from the site...that would be the punishement, not jail.
And yet, we all kind of agree on what constitute an insult. You see, when the moderators of this chat made the rule number 2 (go and reat it), they knew that most of us understand what the rule means and what they mean by insults.
It is imperative that we act like civilised adults. If we can't be good christians, at least we can try to be polite.
Than this chat is ridiculous. Because you get punished (you get banned which is a sort of punishemnt) for verbal insult or verbal offense. Without the quotation marks.
Then I rephrase. It is one thing to get insulted or offended by someone praying in public and a completely different thing to get insulted when someone calls you names and verbally attacks you.
And yet, we all kind of agree on what constitute an insult. You see, when the moderators of this chat made the rule number 2 (go and reat it), they knew that most of us understand what the rule means and what they mean by insults.
It is imperative that we act like civilised adults. If we can't be good christians, at least we can try to be polite.
Than this chat is ridiculous. Because you get punished (you get banned which is a sort of punishemnt) for verbal insult or verbal offense. Without the quotation marks.
Then I rephrase. It is one thing to get insulted or offended by someone praying in public and a completely different thing to get insulted when someone calls you names and verbally attacks you.
The user wsblind said this in post 17:
"It looks contrived to me. Say children were involved and make everybody believe it......slam dunk case no matter what.
Call em terrorists, so the next time a cracker drives by a black party and yells something that hurts peoples sensibilities we can fry em for terrorists acts, when in actuality they were just stupid and exercising their freedom of speech.
This case is to perfect. It has everything in it that the left uses to try to portray the white majority as.
A bunch of black hating,children hating, stupid kkk trash. It seems contrived in many ways."
I put in bold the part in which yelling insults at someone is mistaken for freedom of speech. If someone called you, your wife and your kids insulting names and you would sue him, you should win, because you and your family have the right to not be insulted.
"It looks contrived to me. Say children were involved and make everybody believe it......slam dunk case no matter what.
Call em terrorists, so the next time a cracker drives by a black party and yells something that hurts peoples sensibilities we can fry em for terrorists acts, when in actuality they were just stupid and exercising their freedom of speech.
This case is to perfect. It has everything in it that the left uses to try to portray the white majority as.
A bunch of black hating,children hating, stupid kkk trash. It seems contrived in many ways."
I put in bold the part in which yelling insults at someone is mistaken for freedom of speech. If someone called you, your wife and your kids insulting names and you would sue him, you should win, because you and your family have the right to not be insulted.
I know. I'm sorry I derailed it from threaten to insult. I did it because of something a user here said.
Back on the track: I hope this is the first and last time someone threatens children with a gun. I also don't believe in the tears of the woman but I do hope that later she will be very sorry and ashamed of what she did.
Back on the track: I hope this is the first and last time someone threatens children with a gun. I also don't believe in the tears of the woman but I do hope that later she will be very sorry and ashamed of what she did.
