And I disagree, for the reasons I stated at length in post 482 - but that’s a different issue.
Your position, as I understand it, is clear and consistent - symbolic acts of hatred aren’t morally wrong because they physically harm no-one.
I disagree with that, and I think most other people do, too. Hence the dislike or people who spout bigotry, for example. But at least, it’s consistent.
Czarcasm is wriggling on the hook of the dilemma here, since s/he clearly thinks pissing on MLK’s grave is “wrong”.
If it were, you wouldn’t pitch a fit when a kid wore a T-shirt with a quote from Leviticus during the National Day of Silence. The T-shirt didn’t make any threats or do any harm, so if the above were what you really thought, you would have defended it.
Symbolic acts are not wrong or right, period. The actions this thread is about may seem hateful to you, but if that is the standard you wish to stand on when it comes to right and wrong, religion is hardly standing on the higher ground. All of history is filled with the disrespect religions have shown to each other and to those who don’t believe at all, and this disrespect goes on today. If taking a cracker that was freely given and using it for some other purpose than for which it was intended is seen as an act of hatred and disrespect by you, then you’ve got one hell of a set adamantium blinders on, imho.
I have no memory of what you’re talking about, but the First Amendment can be restricted in schools. If the kid was wearing something disrptive, then the harm was that it was disruptive, not the sentiment per se. It wouldn’t matter if he was wearing it outside of school.
So, yes, it IS my opinion. You have not located a contradiction.
I’m sorry, but I never was one to jump through hoops. If you aren’t satisfied with the perfectly good answer I gave you(although I admit it might have been a mite more articulate than you wished it to be), there’s not much I can do about it.
Their feelings, of course. Which is all the hurt that was done to Myers himself, right? Nobody actually killed him, so why was he so upset by death threats? Is it not your position that nobody should ever feel hurt by anything that anyone merely says? You personally would have no cause to ever be upset by anything that anyone said about you–or your family, or any larger group that you were a member of?
Myers didn’t claim to have been harmed. He was angry that a student had been abused and threatened for a naive act with no malicious intent. Myers got death threats too, but said he didn’t take them seriously. Myers claimed any personal harm, so I don’t see any relevance to your point.
This is not a court of law, and you are certainly not a lawyer, so I’m going to give this “You must answer “yes” or “no” only!” line all the respect it deserves.
I happen to think this is a regrettable circumstance which is made worse by the actions in question. A whole bunch of Catholics and Muslims who had nothing to do with the prior offenses have now been given a (or another) reason to “disrespect” atheists. What is the value in this?
And was that student harmed? Or were there just words?
ETA: I notice you ignored the other part of that post. I don’t understand the aversion you and Czarcasm have here to answering simple direct questions about your own beliefs. Are you trying to communicate or not?
Threats are harm. Death threats are acts of terrrism. His life was disrupted. He actually was physically assaulted at the student Union. Yes, he was harmed.
If “symbolic acts are not right or wrong,” then they can’t be right or wrong. Essentially he was telling you that they have no moral value one way or the other, or in other words, it was a “no.”
But threats are harm? How can that be, by your logic? Mere words? How does one distinguish a terrorist threat from a merely symbolic act, like say pissing on a grave, or burning a cross?
Uh… you do realize people have been killed over these perceptions?
If it’s a “no” then there is no harm in simply saying it’s a “no”, is there?
Okay, assume it’s a “no”. Then, wtf is up with this?
If “doing purely symbolic acts of hatred and disrespect” cannot be “morally wrong”, then what’s the difference? How can one be worse than the other, where neither can be bad, or have any moral value one way or the other?