...But I'll defend to the death, your right to say it...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Cant refute that answer, but I'd wager many of us who think well of ourselves would be shocked to see out true reactions. I have both bullied and prevented bullying. Pessimistic perhaps, but I don't tend towards optimism when it comes to people and their views/choices.

a reply to: NeoSpartan

Because when read as the thread follows it means what it says, in as much 'so be it'. Again call indifference to opposition dishonest, by all means, but a threat, it was not. No groupthink, just Crit thinking. Learning to not take statements out of context is not Orwellian, but jumping on any percieved threat to a status quo MAY be.

You mention people who offend Charlie gying, but if you were to reread you would note it is nothing of the sort. I disagree with him, perhaps more often than you would. I saw no threat. I just think you want to be able to say a Muslim threatened you, for you to mention anecdotally, If I'm honest. Which I am.

a reply to: Learningman

Because when read as the thread follows it means what it says, in as much 'so be it'

I am not talking about the "oh well" remark.

I am talking about the scenario in which people die that have offended "Charlie".

No explanation has been given. No logical context is present.

You mention people who offend Charlie gying, but if you were to reread you would note it is nothing of the sort.

So why did he make it so clear that he wouldn't be defending these people? Clearly because he was offended by them.

I just think you want to be able to say a Muslim threatened you, for you to mention anecdotally,

I don't think he threatened me personally. It is just disturbing that he came up with this scenario in which people that offended him, die, while he laughs at them basically.


What exactly are you teaching, because your comprehension skills are horrible.

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: mamabeth

Nahh mamabeth you aren't as dim as you play

You know full well what I mean. Would you die to defend my principles? I'm fully sure you would fight for them on my behalf, but to put you and yours at risk for them? I would think no less of you if you would not.

I would die in an instant defending any Americans right to speak their mind regardless if i agree with it or not. It goes back to the old argument people have made in the past about censoring groups like the KKK, I for one think they are a vile, hate filled group with way too much time on their hands, but on the flip side, would put my life in the way of a bullet just so that they had the same rights to speak the speech I hate so much, so that I would and others would have the right to speak right back and refute them.

Just my take on it, take it or leave it.

a reply to: NeoSpartan

My comprehension? I have followed your tirade and replied to your questions directed at me. I no longer teach but comparative history of religions, and remedial English.

You did not comprehend that the 'oh well' was a reference to the very point you are making such a little fuss about. I can;t speak for why he felt the need to state he would not defend paedophiles and similar, but I imagine because he finds their views incompatible with his own.

Many things are disturbing, perhaps you should go onto any black on white crime video on youtube. People disagree, people think little of those who hold views that are seen as immoral.

I just think you are fabricating some victimhood where there should be none. Leave it to the far left, that is their monopoly.

a reply to: annalisa2016

That is fair, I would fight, yes, die, no. To some that would make you an idiot, or me a fool. I don't buy it myself.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Long live the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States !!!!

See this is the problem, that isn't what the 1st is about...

The first protects you from the state, and by all means long live that.

But not this fantasy that it allows you to say whatever you want and others need to keep their mouths shut about it.

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: annalisa2016

That is fair, I would fight, yes, die, no. To some that would make you an idiot, or me a fool. I don't buy it myself.

Unfortunately, it's just how I feel and I have put my life on the line defending those who I can't stand before, just part of who I am as a person, unfortunately it's also gotten me into a lot of trouble and caused me life altering consequences, but I brought those on my self.

a reply to: annalisa2016

You do realise though, that we aren't on about stifling the voice of any, rather that we do not feel the need to fight for those as stupid to bring trouble on themselves? By all means spout, say, holocaust denial, but do not expect me to risk my skin when you shout such things to an Israeli.

I just want to thank you. I've always thought of "free speech" as something within the confines of government allowance.

Until today.

I've actually learned something.

Cheers and thank you.

To be fair, it is also something within the confines of government allowance. Kali was not wrong, in fact, and I was wrong to say so. But the application of free speech is drastically different than the principle and ethics of free speech.

a reply to: Learningman

You did not comprehend that the 'oh well' was a reference to the very point you are making such a little fuss about. I can;t speak for why he felt the need to state he would not defend paedophiles and similar, but I imagine because he finds their views incompatible with his own.

I don't think he mentioned pedophiles. He was refering to certain expressed opinions. Seems like you fail to comprehend even the crystal clear aspects.

Opnions because of which he suggests people are going to be killed.

I just think you are fabricating some victimhood where there should be none. Leave it to the far left, that is their monopoly.

I think you don't have a clue, and are not able to get one. Goodnight.

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: annalisa2016

You do realise though, that we aren't on about stifling the voice of any, rather that we do not feel the need to fight for those as stupid to bring trouble on themselves? By all means spout, say, holocaust denial, but do not expect me to risk my skin when you shout such things to an Israeli.

But that's the whole point.

People here in the US, can feel however they like about whatever they like, and unfortunately that does not give the hypothetical Israeli in your thought the right to take physical action at them, however if the Israeli decided to hurl a counter statement to the Denier (although again it's something I totally disagree with, denying that it happened that is) then they have that right as well, it's a very fine line, to be sure, but one that needs to be protected, no matter what.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm just seeing "free speech" as something much larger and more important than something we say during a 4th of July parade.

Free expression is a complex issue.

I'm finding out how little I ever knew on the subject.

a reply to: NeoSpartan

I think you are incorrect, as he specifically mentioned paedophilia, but that doesnt even matter. People are allowed difference of opinion and your attempts to say I haven't a clue may make you feel empowered but they are also obviously false. I have a multi-faceted view of the subject, whereas you have one sledgehammer view you feel the need to drive home at the expense of an actual debate. Also, not salient, but I was not replying to you. Goodnight.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ketsuko

Racism and homophobia are politically correct nowadays lol

That's precisely my point and it must have flown over your head.

All well and fine, except now its considered racist to wear a kimono
its racist to enjoy songs from the 50s
Its sexist to disagree with feminism
its ableist to be proud of your athletic shape

Like what the right did with the term nazi and socialist, the left destroyed the terms racism and sexism...you can say thats not what you mean, that those examples are fringe radicals..but they aren't. its becoming mainstream, universities are closing down all badthink with the label of a -ist of their choice.

I would defend the damn westboro baptist church freaks (from government silencing) by whatever it takes verses allow for nice only talking without triggering or offending anyone.



Now, if someone is yapping on about how the damn bluebacks got them big ears, and someone punches them..well, he had that coming. disapprove, but not without understanding how it happened.
free speech doesn't mean consequence free..people will still be people, but it also means disrespect free speech and you will also suffer consequences...the person punching someone running their mouth I will nod to as he is being hauled off to prison..

a reply to: annalisa2016

Not the right, but the human nature. Call my mother a dog, get knocked down.

This is not the U.S.A. so I'm afraid our cultural values of free speech are different, we do not feel it needful to back up every idiot with a deathwish. Illegal as it is, I think culturally we turn a blind eye to some things, call it a freedom of being human, if you will.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Would you die for WBC though? I wont think little of you if you say no, and I wont think you dishonest if you say yes. I think we have a cultural difference when it comes to free speech and freedom of action.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You and me both, I don't think I have ever thought about it so much before, shameful as it is.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We've learned some things here today:

1). Only Governments are required to adhere to "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".

Yes. With caveat:
1) There are laws regarding equal access to goods, often reinforced by contract in a business license. (Public Accommodation)
2) There are laws regarding equal access to federal entities (public schools etc...)
3) I'm sure there's others I'm not thinking of off-hand.

There's no laws protecting free speech from societal consequence. Perhaps you think there should be? But where to draw the lines?

3). Saying something is cause for dire consequence, such as loss of job, ostracization, and maybe even death.

There's some laws and rights pertaining to killing people.

4). We defend the human rights only to those we like, and who are nice to us and other people.

Not we, just some of us understand what free speech is and what it isn't. Some won't defend the life of a bigot should prosecution become an issue, some would and some only claim they would. It is the prerogative of the individual, isn't it?

a reply to: Learningman

I think you are incorrect, as he specifically mentioned paedophilia

He sure doesn't in the OP we are talking about. I mean come on, pedophilia is not an expressed opinion like a racist or xenophobic or homophobic remark.

Again comprehension fail.