MAMEWorld Forums - The Loony Bin - Re: Identity-stealing sockpuppet troll finally crosses line, gets just desserts

People with a conviction that we might feel is repugnant are not "mentally insane" or necessarily a "nutjob". It's incorrect and misleading to use such terms.

Catholics have beliefs which, for me, makes them irrational if not plain silly. Some of their belief system is totally off the wall and stupid, you'd think mature adults would know better. Yet they're accepted. In other cultures, they might well be considered "nutjobs", it's all relative.

NRA members are, in my mind, as dangerous as these jihadists. To Americans they're MORE dangerous. I don't think they're insane, but I do think they're deluded. Most Americans would disagree with me.

Terms like "mentally insane" should be left to those with medical, and clinical diagnosis, not slapped as a label on people who do something we can't begin to understand, or happen not to agree with. To do so masks the reasoning, and will prevent us from ever getting to the heart of the issue.

As stated earlier, free speech is already limited. People can't do whatever they want, whenever they want - and when someone decides they can, bad things tend to happen to others.

There are limits though. Someone standing on the corner slamming on white Christians isn't a problem for me - and I don't think they should be prevented from doing it, unless they are inciting others to take physical action. Having said that, sometimes the law has to step in.

I'll give an example from the UK. There is a famous street in London called Brick Lane, and it is now mostly inhabited by Asian people, with a strong Muslim element. There is quite a bit of nightlife in and around Brick Lane.

Last year a group of Muslims decided they didn't like seeing women walk down Brick Lane in short skirts. So they gathered in a group, and would shout insults at women as they went by, or even bar their way and ask the women to explain why they were dressed as a whore/slut etc. Eventually, the law got involved.

So where's the free speech there? What should and shouldn't be allowed? Where does one person's free speech impede upon the rights of others? What weight do you give to harassment?

I don't think it's "fucked up" for someone to insult Christians. Christianity is but one religion. It's not special above any others. it's just more acceptable to Westerners.

As for the argument that we shouldn't have laws to deal with only a small number of people - I'm afraid that's the case the vast majority of time. Most laws exist to deal with a small percentage of the populace who find themselves in a specific situation. Usually because we need laws to ensure people don't do silly things. So I really don't see how that can be used as a rationale.