Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[jesus_wept]

The purpose of the statue is to provide inspiration. By desecrating it like that you destroy its ability to inspire. When the people who put it up look at it, the won't be thinking of Christ's agony, but rather they will be thinking of Christ giving a blow job to a 14 year old.

If the owners don't like it then they could always sell the statue to the catholic church. From what I gather thinking about Jesus giving blowjobs to 14 year olds is part of their clergy recruitment campaign.

[Brian37]

The purpose of the statue is to provide inspiration. By desecrating it like that you destroy its ability to inspire. When the people who put it up look at it, the won't be thinking of Christ's agony, but rather they will be thinking of Christ giving a blow job to a 14 year old.

If the owners don't like it then they could always sell the statue to the catholic church. From what I gather thinking about Jesus giving blowjobs to 14 year olds is part of their clergy recruitment campaign.

"Cum for the free wine, stay for our sexy boys"

[robvalue]

Signed.

It was maybe a stupid thing to do, but he shouldn't face jail time for it.

How about no graven images and what not?

[Brian37]

It is INSANE to expect all 7 billion humans to walk on eggshells and only say nice things about each other. But what we do have in common is that all of us want to live without harm from others.

This is why desecration laws, breach of peace laws, fighting words, etc should be determine and enforced locally. Then, if I have to walk on eggshells, I can move to a community where I do not have to walk on eggshells.

Common law is you do not physically harm someone or call for the harm of others. But no one has the right to force you only to say nice things about others, and government should NOT be in the business of playing thought police.

"Desecration" is stupid protection of ego. "Destruction of property" is common law, THAT is what humans have in common.

FUCK PC crap and fuck thought police.

[vorlon13]

The purpose of the statue is to provide inspiration. By desecrating it like that you destroy its ability to inspire. When the people who put it up look at it, the won't be thinking of Christ's agony, but rather they will be thinking of Christ giving a blow job to a 14 year old.

If the owners don't like it then they could always sell the statue to the catholic church. From what I gather thinking about Jesus giving blowjobs to 14 year olds is part of their clergy recruitment campaign.

If it was the Catholic's, they would just move it from parish to parish, and diocese to diocese as the incidents occur.

Eventually there would be a lawsuit, and the church would have to hide some more assets.

[DramaQueen]

That statue looks weird

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You mean, why do people care about Constitutional rights?

---

The statue was not damaged. Your argument is stupid.

The purpose of the statue is to provide inspiration.

No it's not.

A statue in the public space is to inspire debate, and to show the piece of art and/or message held by either the artist or the commissioner of the works to audiences intended or otherwise.

One part of that could be to provide inspiration, but it's rediculous and actually fatally stupid to think that's the only message it will convey. If somebody's reactions to tht statue is to rub their cock on it, without physically damaging it, then so be it.

You're advocating a 'positive only' approach, which is not the point of art, even tacky retarded shitty art like this dumb ass statue.

By desecrating it like that you destroy its ability to inspire. When the people who put it up look at it, the won't be thinking of Christ's agony, but rather they will be thinking of Christ giving a blow job to a 14 year old.

And whose problem is that, exactly?

If someone's faith or 'inspiration' can be shaken by one kid sliding his balls over an inanimate object then that says more about their faith than the kid, no?

Again, as above, reactions to a piece of 'art' or a statue erected in a public forum cannot be expected to be controlled by anybody if they do not physically damage the object. If the person who made the piece expected everyone to be inspired by it then they need to get their head examined. Surely they realise they live in a supposedly free society where people do not always agree, right?

If their sensibilities are so frail then maybe they should have put the statue in their own home where nobody but them and like minded buddies could draw inspiration from it away from people who might swear at it or stick their fingers up at it.

Talking of which, would you think that constitutes civil prosecution? Someone swearing at the statue of Jesus and telling it to fuck Moses' ass?

[JesusHChrist]

I've been inspired by the act of this kid to be even more anti theistic.

Sometimes inspirations have the opposite effect intended.

[Exian]

From here on out, that statue will be known as BJesus.

Now when somebody scares the BJesus out of you, you'll think of Jesus doling out BJ's

That's what I've learned..

[Mister Agenda]

Mister Agenda....you are missing the point.

Your point seems to be that corpses and statues are equivalent in terms of property and the appropriateness of molesting them. I certainly hope that is NOT your point, but I am not optimistic.

Others have claimed that prosecuting this teen is un-constitutional because the teen did not damage the property and has a right to free speech. I say they are wrong. The constitution protects free speech but it does not protect speech in which someone else's private property is commandeered and used as prop.

And the only example you could think of to generate the equivalency you want is human corpses, in circumstances completely unlike what the teenager did. I even offered you an example of a situation where a corpse could be treated in a fashion similar to that statue, but you chose to go with cops simulating the teabagging of a teenager they've just gunned down.

First, that's where your mind went. Second, you thought that was a good thing to share, completely seriously. That's not normal.

If desecrating a dead body by simulating "tea-bagging" is not protected under the constitution then desecrating a statue belonging to someone else by simulating a blow job is not protected either.

Just putting your statement in the form of If...then...does not make your statement an argument, it's still an unsupported assertion.

You either have a constitutional right to commandeer props for your speech or you do not.

Because the intersection of differing rights is so black and white that courts don't even have to deliberate to decide such cases, ever?

In my opinion, the Ferguson cop who shot and killed Michael Brown has no constitutional right to desecrate Brown's body by tea bagging it because he would be commandeering something that does not belong to him and using it as prop in his speech.

I dare you to seriously come up with a less compassionate reason to refrain from abusing a corpse.

If the cop actually did that, I would say his constitutional rights were not being violated if he was prosecuted and jailed for it even if they determined he shot the kid in self defense.

I'd say his constitutional rights were not being violated if someone shot him to stop the act.

In my opinion this teen has no constitutional right to desecrate someone else's statue by simulating a blow job with it under the same principle.

Because a statue is a member of someone's family, and simulating a bj on it while the experience of them being turned into a statue is still fresh and painful is an offense to anyone with a modicum of empathy?

Now if the teen has no constitutional right to desecrate someone else's property(even if doing so causes no physical damage), then such actions can be criminalized.

Because it's impossible for it to be less wrong to descrate some things than others, eh?

Do I think this teen should be prosecuted. I do not.

You just think if what the kid did is not bad enough to be sent to jail, that makes it legal to molest corpses.

Do I think desecration which doesn't result in property damage be criminalized? I do not....and have said that multiple times in this thread.

That might be why we're focusing on the corpse thing. But feel free to keep bringing the one point to which no one objects, over and over.

I acknowledge that such acts can be criminalized because the right to desecrate venerated things that do not belong to you does not exist in the constitution.

In your personal opinion as a person who can't see why fresh corpses and statues shouldn't be governed by the same rules.

That is it....that is my position. Where is the flaw that makes me a sick individual who needs help? There are people here who do need help in formulating consistent positions....are you one of them?

Your fascination with corpse molestation is unhealthy, and your inability to come up with an alternative way to make your point is telling either of your mentality or the dearth of moral equivalencies to miming a sex act with a statue in terms of getting people to agree that there are similar situations in which we would support the idea of the act being criminal. But what you've come up with is not remotely similar enough to make the point you want it to illustrate, and you've put yourself in the position of appearing to consider simulated teabagging of a fresh corpse as no worse than a simulated bj on a statue.

---

It's an odd comparison to draw.

He may as well say "If someone breaks into your car and waves his dick around in it and pisses all over the seats, would you think that would warrant prosecution?"

Well, the comparison of rubbing up against your car in a sexual manner without causing any damage at all is too close to what actually happened to get the response he wants. The ONLY thing he could think of to get the aversive response he wants is corpse fiddling.