- Joined
- Apr 4, 2019
- Messages
- 3,802
- Reaction score
- 1,541
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What am I supposed to put up a fight against? "FAIL" GIFs?So soon with the argumenta ad hominem? I would have at least expected you to put up a fight this time. Oh well. :shrug:
What am I supposed to put up a fight against? "FAIL" GIFs?
I'm asking you for a counterargument. It's an appeal to your pride, not an attack on your person.
the courts are arbiters who is correct that's their purpose. Their purpose in no way has ever been to discuss the philosophical.
No I know what I meant to say much better than you do.
no courts don't decide meanings thats philosophy. They're arbiters of legal meaning.To the extent that the Constitution clearly defines something, I agree, but that does not dismiss the courts' need to define "freedom." Same with "obscenity," for instance. SCOTUS had to decide what obscenity meant, given that the Constitution is as clear as mud on that definition.
Well for future reference don't tell me what you think I mean that's called making the straw man. You can ask me what I mean. I'm pretty good at explaining what I mean. But the statement I made was absolutely true I know better of what I mean to say than you ever could possibly imagine because the things I say come from my mind.Now now, no need for that. We were having a healthy debate.
It wasn't even an attack. It was my justification for essentially stating "You're better than this kind of reply."You went straight to what I do for a living, right? That's nothing but a pure ad-hom.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to which argument(s) in post #170 you disagree with and why?Now start convincing me that your words are worth engaging or I am going to look elsewhere.
So when you think of hateful terms, those are the ones that first come to mind with you? I mean those are the ones you listed. You didn't mention the N-Word, Faggot, Tranny, Chinks, and so on, you know, groups that have actually been victims of institutional racism, discrimination, hate crimes, lynchings... That is rather telling about you.
So soon with the argumenta ad hominem? I would have at least expected you to put up a fight this time. Oh well. :shrug:
FFS, “hate speech law” is the worst idea imaginable.
It wasn't even an attack. It was my justification for essentially stating "You're better than this kind of reply."
If I'm wrong, mea culpa. View attachment 67268039
People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.
I've noticed over the years that most people who are big supporters of the phrase "free speech" don't actually support free speech. They support free speech for themselves and like minded people who promote their beliefs. They want the rest to shut up.
I've noticed over the years that most people who are big supporters of the phrase "free speech" don't actually support free speech. They support free speech for themselves and like minded people who promote their beliefs. They want the rest to shut up.
It's called populist correctness. And it's everywhere. Just start a discussion saying that you like Hillary Clinton, The Last Jedi, or incremental change and you'll see populist correctness in action.
I would venture that not one in a hundred people stands up for the public expression of opinions that they despise. Which is why the First Amendment is necessary, and why the United States should not have Hate Speech codes. Because one day you will inevitably have a disgusting demagogue like Donald Trump in charge of enforcing those laws over you.
I don't support free speech. At least not absolute free speech. I doubt anyone really does. Most can't or won't admit it.
That is fine. Neither do I. The First Amendment does not protect all speech for that matter, but that which is not protected must be narrowly drawn. I support the expression of all ideas in thoughts or writing except for malicious and false defamation, direct incitement to violence, and verbal/written direction to commit criminal activity (emails confirming the plan for committing a bank heist, disclosing nuclear launch codes or troop movements, etc.). Everything else goes for me.
There's a difference between wanting others to shut up and forcing them by law to shut up.I've noticed over the years that most people who are big supporters of the phrase "free speech" don't actually support free speech. They support free speech for themselves and like minded people who promote their beliefs. They want the rest to shut up.
There's a difference between wanting others to shut up and forcing them by law to shut up.
There's a difference between banning promotion/dissemination of an ideology universally and banning promotion of an ideology by the state. (People who constantly tout SOCAS will surely understand.)
There's a difference between censoring ideas (which are broadly proscribed) and censoring obscenities (which are narrowly proscribed).
Be careful to mind these differences before judging people. A man who counter-protests at pro-life rallies by demanding the protestors shut up and disband, who votes against pro-LGBT education in public schools, and who fully supports network TV bans on various swears, slurs, and sex acts, may nevertheless be a true and ardent supporter of free speech.
I've noticed over the years that most people who are big supporters of the phrase "free speech" don't actually support free speech. They support free speech for themselves and like minded people who promote their beliefs. They want the rest to shut up.
How do I "make your point" by stating what is essentially the opposite of your point?Thanks for making my point.
Or they're just sick of hearing your bigoted ****.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?