(though I disagree with him) is saying this is a "shouting Fire in a theater" type of thing.

an effigy of a lynched black man
Stealing a flag from two individuals preparing to burn it (Rick Monday)
Tearing up a picture of the pope on national tv and saying fight the real enemy
A crucifix in a jar of urine

1st amendment allows for lots of interesting things

But plenty to berate the atheist for being insensitive.

What a surprise..

prov·o·ca·tion
? ?[prov-uh-key-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of provoking.
2.
something that incites, instigates, angers, or irritates.
3.
Criminal Law . words or conduct leading to killing in hot passion and without deliberation.

Assault is assault, the Muslim should have been charged before it happens again.
However, provoking people is asking for it, plain and simple.
Between Phelps and a million people on message boards, most Americans are used to it and ignore it for what it is.
Someone newly here, like the immigrant in this story, may not have built up the same amount of tolerance.
Be careful who you hassle about their beliefs, responses are not as predictable as you may think.

the definition you posted.

Why don't you admit you're just assuming that? Or perhaps it's even more personal.
If so, then that would have nothing to do with your beliefs or lack of the same.

Put on Darwin sticker, have vehicle vandalized three times in about nine months.

Take off Darwin sticker, never another case of vandalization.

However, I don't put political stickers on my vehicles for the same reason.

...are often used in other attempts at defending the indefensible, and it doesn't always involve religion.

Think a bit and you'll get what I'm talking about.

I'm not attempting to defend, I'm just pointing out that some will be provoked.
Best not to do that needlessly, Think a bit and you'll get what I'm talking about.

Thanks for the laugh.

But then, you already know that.

Here you go, look, it is provocation, it's right there in the title!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/provocation

You brought up the definition, and are applying it in its broadest sense, so are you in disagreement that using your application of this word to your posts does make them provocative?

Provocation was not intended by me.
I placed the definition for reference, you accuse me of applying it when I only provided it.
My original point was that some folks in some areas are more easily provoked than others, and you should expect it.
Nothing more, nothing less.

You are engaging in the exact same type of behavior you claim to deplore.


Thats called hypocrisy.

and I am glad for that. I still don't like the ruling.

According to the judge it's a he said/he said. If that's all there is, then there's reasonable doubt.

Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2012, 07:27 AM - Edit history (2)

Here is a recording of (I believe) the entire trial:

If he had a witness, he should have brought him to court.

distorted to make it look like this person was attacked because he was an atheist.

The facts, as we know them, do not show anything of the kind. He was attacked because he was dressed as a zombie Mohhamed, not because he was an atheist.

If the alleged perpetrator was all about attacking atheists, he would have just as likely attacked the other zombies.

Whether the attack was provoked or whether the judge did the correct thing are other matters entirely, imo.

It wouldn't be attack people because they were Christians? You'd "correct" people who said otherwise? Sure.......

And no the issue of provocation is not a fucking "whether" at all. Would you make it a "whether" a scantily clad woman provoked rape or not by inflaming the passions of her attacker? Is it a "whether" church-doorknockers deserve to be beaten for disturbing people who disagree with them? Would you state there was the slightest doubt "whether" any of those were provocations? Of course not! You wouldn't dream of even making it a question that such assaults were deserved, and it's a sure sign of your obvious hate for atheists that a "whether" would come within 500 fucking miles of your thoughts on this utterly unprovoked assault.

was wrong and that the judge's opinion was equally as wrong. I was merely saying in this post that those are different areas of discussion. So your accusations that I hate atheists are completely out of line.

My only point here is that the perpetrator attacked this individual because of his costume, not because of his atheism. Wearing a zombie Mohammed costume could have just as well been done by a fundie.

I'm sure the outrage in this country would be much different than it is for the atheist.

What a well oiled machine of complaint that is. I bet if it weren't an atheist, there would be only like 10 Christians calling to complain.

Seriously, that's your argument. That the guy claims to have received 200 calls and emails? I wonder what percentage that is of the FFRF membership, even. You think the outcry would have been equal had it been a Christian at the end of his ruling? Hell, Robertson would have fired up about 2000 in the first 10 minutes of his broadcast alone, probably.

But I have no way of knowing. But I do know that to say that there was an uproar because of this ruling and to use 200 emails/calls as evidence of that is just silly. That is a very minor number. I know that as a percentage of the US population, 200 is probably a negative exponential of 5.

Now, the judge's reaction, on the other hand...