Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[Heywood]

An important element that you're missing, Heywood, is that this is incredibly petty and is obvious pandering to the Christian community. It's. A. Fucking. Statue. For. Fucks. Sake.

Suppose it was the corpse of your dead mother upon which this kid simulated a sex act? Would you be screaming, "it just the fucking corpse of my dead mother for fucks sake?"

To be honest, I don't care that this kid desecrated a statue......and I wouldn't care if he desecrated the corpse of your dead mother either. The world doesn't revolve around my sensibilities and it doesn't revolve around yours. It revolves around the sensibilities of the community and this DA may just be enforcing the sensibilities of his community.

[vorlon13]

Equating Christ's mortal remains (which I am led to understand were only extant for 3 days, m/l) with a statue strikes me as apostasy.

If we are going to have an Inquisition style religio-judicial system, it might snare some putative believers too.


This could be an interesting legal precedent.

[Esquilax]

An important element that you're missing, Heywood, is that this is incredibly petty and is obvious pandering to the Christian community. It's. A. Fucking. Statue. For. Fucks. Sake.

Suppose it was the corpse of your dead mother upon which this kid simulated a sex act? Would you be screaming, "it just the fucking corpse of my dead mother for fucks sake?"

Can I just take a moment to highlight how completely bizarre and nonsensical this question is? "What if the active object in the situation was something completely different to what it is in reality? What would you do then, if the entire context of the discussion was completely changed, huh? Hypocrite!"

Heywood, you can't expose an inconsistency when you have to completely change the scenario being argued about to do it, because at that point you'd be arguing about something different.

[Alex K]

What if the statue were a Hydrogen Bomb, and your penis the Trigger? WHAT THEN?

[Heywood]

Can I just take a moment to highlight how completely bizarre and nonsensical this question is? "What if the active object in the situation was something completely different to what it is in reality? What would you do then, if the entire context of the discussion was completely changed, huh? Hypocrite!"

Heywood, you can't expose an inconsistency when you have to completely change the scenario being argued about to do it, because at that point you'd be arguing about something different.

Desecration laws exist to protect the sensibilities of a community. The hypocrisy is people believing their sensibilities should be protected but other peoples shouldn't.......cause their nasty Christians......and that makes the DA evil for pandering to them. That seems to be the position of many on this forum.

Consistency is achieved by acknowledging that other people might not have the same sensibilities as you and it might be right to protect those sensibilities because they are widely shared by the community at large. Another way to achieve consistency is taking the position that any desecration that doesn't involve property destruction should not be criminalized.....including simulated sex acts with corpses.

Last, I am not arguing a different senario. We are talking about desecrating but not damaging physically....an inanimate object that some people hold dear. I am changing inconsequential details of the senario to point out other people's hypocrisy. That hypocrisy being "no physical harm to the thing you hold dear....no prosecution.....no physical harm to the thing I hold dear....doesn't matter....you desecrated it and should go to jail."

---

What if the statue were a Hydrogen Bomb, and your penis the Trigger? WHAT THEN?

Sex with a hydrogen bomb?......That would be a Blast!

[Esquilax]

Desecration laws exist to protect the sensibilities of a community. The hypocrisy is people believing their sensibilities should be protected but other peoples shouldn't.......cause their nasty Christians......and that makes the DA evil for pandering to them. That seems to be the position of many on this forum.

Consistency is achieved by acknowledging that other people might not have the same sensibilities as you and it might be right to protect those sensibilities because they are widely shared by the community at large. Another way to achieve consistency is taking the position that any desecration that doesn't involve property destruction should not be criminalized.

So where do you draw the line? Do Star Wars fans get to imprison George Lucas for the prequel movies? Do I get to press criminal charges against the producers of Sword Art Online for how terrible that series got? There's a lot of fans of either of those things, what argument could you produce against that that wouldn't also ensnare Jesus statues?

Once you start allowing desecration charges to be placed based on perceived disrespect to fictional characters, where do you stop, and why? Because what I think is that you're special pleading, here.

Last, I am not arguing a different senario. We are talking about desecrating but not damaging physically....an inanimate object that some people hold dear. I am changing inconsequential details of the senario to point out other people's hypocrisy. That hypocrisy being "no physical harm to the thing you hold dear....no prosecution.....no physical harm to the thing I hold dear....doesn't matter....you desecrated it and should go to jail."

You have completely misjudged what the argument is about, but that's hardly surprising, at this point.

[LastPoet]

What about those good christians at westboro baptist church picketing dead soldiers funerals? Why isn't some DA taking measures against them... Oh wait...

[Alex K]

Suppose it was the corpse of your dead mother upon which this kid simulated a sex act? Would you be screaming, "it just the fucking corpse of my dead mother for fucks sake?"

Apart from the valid points which Esq. makes, and the absurdity of your comparison:

Yes, that's exactly what I would say (with less/different expletives, probably).
I would not be in favor of a prison sentence in that case. Therapy, yes please,
but no prison sentence. Nothing good can come from it, seriously. And I'd ask the morgue
to install better locks. I don't think that society has to be protected from such a person to
that degree, as I'm not aware that people with necrophilic tendencies are particularly dangerous
to the living. And if it's only simulated, twice not. I might give the guy a bloody nose, but I'd
not want the equivalent of such visceral reactions written into law.

[Brakeman]

Suppose it was the corpse of your dead mother upon which this kid simulated a sex act? Would you be screaming, "it just the fucking corpse of my dead mother for fucks sake?"

The analogy is incorrect. It is not analogous to an personal identity. The jesus image of the stature is known to not exist in that form. We know well that he was not a white European man. We have no unimpeachable evidence that he ever existed at all. A more apt comparison is a flag or other standard.

If a kid performed such an act on a stature that looked nothing like my mother, and I had never met my mother, and I had no rational reason to think my mother even existed at all, then I wouldn't be pushing to punish the kid in any way.

---

to protect the sensibilities of a community.

What is the definition of community sensibilities?

[Heywood]

So where do you draw the line? Do Star Wars fans get to imprison George Lucas for the prequel movies? Do I get to press criminal charges against the producers of Sword Art Online for how terrible that series got? There's a lot of fans of either of those things, what argument could you produce against that that wouldn't also ensnare Jesus statues?

Once you start allowing desecration charges to be placed based on perceived disrespect to fictional characters, where do you stop, and why? Because what I think is that you're special pleading, here.

I don't draw the line.....the community draws the line. Personally I think it is a little silly to prosecute this 14 year old but I'm not outraged by it. I certainly do not think it is unconstitutional or an infringement on his free speech rights. The kid's free speech rights don't allow him to temporarily commandeer someone else's property.

You have completely misjudged what the argument is about, but that's hardly surprising, at this point.

There are a couple of different arguments going on in this thread that I have addressed. Apparently you can't see multiple arguments and only focus in on the one which is important to you. I suspect this is why you errantly conclude that I am misjudging what the argument is about.

---

What about those good christians at westboro baptist church picketing dead soldiers funerals? Why isn't some DA taking measures against them... Oh wait...

You have a constitution which protects free speech. If the WBC start violating people's property rights then something can be done about.

---

The analogy is incorrect. It is not analogous to an personal identity. The jesus image of the stature is known to not exist in that form. We know well that he was not a white European man. We have no unimpeachable evidence that he ever existed at all. A more apt comparison is a flag or other standard.

If a kid performed such an act on a stature that looked nothing like my mother, and I had never met my mother, and I had no rational reason to think my mother even existed at all, then I wouldn't be pushing to punish the kid in any way.

All you are saying is the kid should be punished for desecrating things that you venerate....but if you don't venerate them then the kids should not be punished.

What gives you the right to decide what things should be protected by law from desecration and what shouldn't?