• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why America needs a hate speech law

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, the left is very vocal about their hate speech. You're right. They don't support the first amendment because they always try to shut down the free speech of those they oppose.

May I alter another viewpoint based on your words?
Click to expand...

:yawn:

Oh, you were trying to be original in your support for hate speech? Sorry, my BS filter was turned on and I couldn't hear you.
 

Have you ever considered you might be like a conversion therapist?..... That you might be like autism speaks?.... That you might be the baddie?
 
AmNat said:
After the war, Europe's civil institutions were systematically purged of right-wingers. This enabled the passage of "hate speech" laws, which allowed prosecution of political dissidents.
Click to expand...

Which political dissidents? Nazis?
 

Well, that is rather pat, isn't it, Phys251? Would you say that the ACLU only defended the Nazis marching in the Village of Skokie because the ACLU loved Nazis? Or is it because they believed that the government should not have the power of prior restraint to quash the public expression of opinions, no matter how vile? I defend the freedom of all these people to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions and political views publicly in words and writing, Phys251. I do not think that the government should be allowed so powerful as to restrict what political statements you, I or anyone else makes.

EDIT: I see that Ahlevah beat me to the punch.
 
Last edited:
bomberfox said:
Have you ever considered you might be like a conversion therapist?..... That you might be like autism speaks?.... That you might be the baddie?
Click to expand...

It is definitely a question we all must ask ourselves. When I deal with the so-called "transgender" issue (I prefer the outdated term "transsexual," because it seems to capture the issue more clearly), I definitely want to minimize the harm to these children, from either by keeping them in bodies that they feel inexorably trapped in that do not match their perceived true sexual identity, or overreacting and trapping them in bodies that they later will never feel at home in.

I must in turn ask, have you ever stopped to consider that you might be on the wrong side of history, bomberfox? That twenty to thirty years from now, many of the thousands of children encouraged to undergo gender affirmation treatment and surgery may be found to have been wrongly diagnosed and thus wrongly misgendered, leading in turn to a massive spates of self-harm and suicide? That perhaps because their gender dysphoria will be found to have had other causes? Our knowledge of the human brain development and self-conception has increased by leaps and bounds of the course of a century, and is ever-changing. Have you ever stopped to consider that our current understanding and treatment of transgenderism may look to people in the future as insane as our treatment for "hysteria" in women in the mid-1800s?
 
Last edited:

There are so many fallacies of reasoning in your statement it actually made me dizzy.

Let them all speak, the Neo Nazis, the Westboro Baptists, the feminists, the trans right activists, the NRA, the Antifa, Whoopie Goldberg, and Alex Jones, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Christians--- all of them. Just words and ideas. It is NOT our place to silence any of them, it is our individual responsibility to use our thinking caps and are ability to reason to determine which ideas have value and which ones are toxic. Because when you stifle speech, and then you don't permit people to work those "brain muscles" then they atrophy, and eventually all you have are people with heads made out of mush ready to be either indoctrinated or controlled easily by first trickster with some diabolical skills of persuasion.
 
A speech in an older movie spells this out pretty good. Start at 1:12 in the video:

 
bomberfox said:
Have you ever considered you might be like a conversion therapist?..... That you might be like autism speaks?.... That you might be the baddie?
Click to expand...
I've considered it and rejected it.

But suppose I am "the baddie". The whole point of a so-called free society is that no one group or ideology is permitted to say, "You're the baddie, hence you don't get to make an argument."

Everybody gets to make their moral or political argument, and policy is decided based on the majority opinion on which argument is most persuasive, subject to the rules of a constitution or similar document.
 

But the party of tolerance doesn't believe in tolerance. They want to silence anyone that opposes them. The party that has so hard fought for the first amendment, did so for shaping it in their image only.
 

As I said already, the ACLU is one of the few exceptions. But most people who use "free speech" as a smokescreen for their support for hate speech are trying to spread hate speech, not free speech. Otherwise why are they so loathe to support the free speech rights of those with whom they militantly disagree with, such as feminists and Black Lives Matter?
 
Lord of Planar said:
But the party of tolerance doesn't believe in tolerance. They want to silence anyone that opposes them. The party that has so hard fought for the first amendment, did so for shaping it in their image only.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Remind me again which side over the years has tried to censor feminists, LGBTQ rights activists, civil rights activists, and the like? Now all of a sudden your side is the "tolerant" one? :lol:
 

And who gets to determine that? When you think that way, most becomes all. Anytime someone makes a statement that could be taken as racist for example, is then deemed racist, though it might not be.

There are too many variable. Too many laws. We need to reduce the laws, and go back to what makes sense instead of trying to make people's thoughts illegal.
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

Remind me again which side over the years has tried to censor feminists, LGBTQ rights activists, civil rights activists, and the like? Now all of a sudden your side is the "tolerant" one? :lol:
Click to expand...

Censor... No.

Stop indoctrination, yes.
 
:lamo

So much fail in such a short post! Nothing even worth addressing in there. Git gud. :thumbs:

Lord of Planar said:
Censor... No.

Stop indoctrination, yes.
Click to expand...

Your side wants to squash critical thinking. Critical thinking is anathema to fascism and hate speech, and that is why y'all hate it.
 
People crave bans on speech when their arguments are nonsensical.
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

So much fail in such a short post! Nothing even worth addressing in there. Git gud. :thumbs:



Your side wants to squash critical thinking. Critical thinking is anathema to fascism and hate speech, and that is why y'all hate it.
Click to expand...

It seems the side that wants censorship laws wants to do that.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It seems the side that wants censorship laws wants to do that.
Click to expand...

It was social liberals who stand for obscenity laws. And for restricting or banning violent video games. And for banning certain books. And for keeping science out of the classroom (something you would definitely know about ). And for prohibition.

Oh wait a minute...I meant social conservatives...
 

It's no different that is having age appropriate anything.

As for prohibition?

Why doesn't the left learn from past mistakes?
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's no different that is having age appropriate anything.

As for prohibition?

Why doesn't the left learn from past mistakes?
Click to expand...
:lamo

Did you miss the fact that it is social conservatives who have favored prohibition?
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

Did you miss the fact that it is social conservatives who have favored prohibition?
Click to expand...

It was around 80% across the board back then. Funny how conservatives learn from the past but liberals don't.
 

That wasnt even my argument, depending on your clients you might be defending people whos sole purpose is detrimental to the well being those advocates are trying to protect.
 
The problem with hate speech laws is that they can be used against books like The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve is an important book that has inspired efforts to cut welfare payments, increase punishment for criminals, stop affirmative action policies, and curb third world immigration.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…