What?
Member

so you gonna post a poll?

So the people, who create the government, decide what is and what is not disrespect?

Or rather, it's the general consensus that dictates when an expression is punishable?

I think the problem is retardation and over-sensitivity.

If there's an asshole out there chopping people's heads off when they make fun of his mother, and I choose to spoof him being a head-chopping asshole, and I get my head chopped off for spoofing his head-chopping asshole'idry, should other people live in fear because of what happens if they make fun of this asshole's mother?

No. **** that.

This asshole is making his brothers and sisters look bad.
If you get violent when you can't take a joke, then you're an asshole.
And if it takes a whole army of dicks to **** that asshole, then so be it.

And it was never okay to call a black person ******. No matter what color you claim to be.

They shouldn't be disrespectful in the first place.

Its also wrong to harm others. So I'm not not on the side of people trying to create violence.

The potential standards are governed by law. However, that allows a lot of flexibility. The rest is up to the invidual and societies morals, values and standards. Depending on your outlook on life, you'll choose to act in certain ways.

Some behaviours are just better than others.

As I said, a few decades ago, a black person could go be abused under the law. Moral people oppossed that because they knew it was wrong. The law doesn't automatically make something right or wrong. It just lets people know where boundaries are and what penalities they may recieve if they infringe the law.

A few decades ago, you could call a black person the N-word because it was just a joke and fine. Some blacks respond by just thinking you're an idiot if you use that kind of language. Some will beat the heck out of you. Same thing here. I do think attacking someone is too far and wrong. But those people don't have to go out of their way to attack people. People like Scott, the second wave aren't the problem. I'm sure Scott is standing up for what he believes in. Its the originators that have bad intent.

Interesting story in England atm about the moral journalism. A story was leaked that damaged the UK. Other Newspapers didn't run the story. One did. Its been criticised. They're claiming they're not responsible for the story. They didn't have to print it. A lot of writers have withdrawn from the paper. A cartoonist wouldn't need to fear for his life if he was respectful and considerate of others. There is a tacful and tasteful way to do everything. Anything else is shock and frenzy.