The PC/non-PC debate is pretty dumb

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

The majority. Not many people in America are against free speech, if there are any it is the tiniest fraction. Do some not agree with something someone says? Of course. Does that mean they want them to be thrown in jail? I highly doubt it.

You might want to double-check the thread about the girls who had that "word" on their shirts.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I didn't see anyone calling for them to be thrown in jail, or did I missed those replies? That's the argument you're making here, that the NK government punishes those who speak their minds.

Do you applaud those girls for wearing those shirts? I would hope not.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

I didn't see anyone calling for them to be thrown in jail, or did I missed those replies? That's the argument you're making here, that the NK government punishes those who speak their minds.

Do you applaud those girls for wearing those shirts? I would hope not.

I don't applaud them, but I would fight to the death for their right to do so.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Except you chose a bad set of examples. While the things that WBC does are odious, they are not dangerous to anyone else's life and limb, same with prosperity gospel preachers. I am not sure who LRA are to say if they are violently dangerous or not.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So what makes you think the majority of Americans or ATS members wouldn't do the same?

a reply to: ketsuko

It doesn't matter, the hypocrisy is still there.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

So what makes you think the majority of Americans or ATS members wouldn't do the same?

Because people posted that they should be punished by the law. Community service? You can only get that in court.

a reply to: DBCowboy

How many though? The majority or a few here and there?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

How many though? The majority or a few here and there?

One is too many.

Or should there be a quorum first before rights are removed?

a reply to: DBCowboy

So you agree that only the vast minority wants to end free speech? Thanks.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

So you agree that only the vast minority wants to end free speech? Thanks.

And you're happy about that?

*shakes head*

a reply to: DBCowboy

Where did I say I am happy they are against free speech? I'm happy that only the vast minority are against free speech but that is not the same thing as being happy they are against it.

a reply to: ketsuko

If there was a significant percentage of Christians who were prone to running around and randomly bombing vulnerable venues because they felt that your lifestyle didn't fit their views

Except there actually are a significant portion of Christians whose moral views conflict with those of other ideologies...And a few who do go out of their way to kill in the name of those views. Are you attempting to apply some consistency to your religious discrimination? The fact that your willing to scrutinize people based on religious faith is disheartening, especially in a country that cherishes freedom of religion as one of it's core tenets of liberty. How misguided you must be.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Except you chose a bad set of examples. While the things that WBC does are odious, they are not dangerous to anyone else's life and limb, same with prosperity gospel preachers. I am not sure who LRA are to say if they are violently dangerous or not.

Over 100,000 deaths sounds pretty dangerous to me.