It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.".
Said a very wise man a very long time ago, and pretty damn famous.
That went by the name of Voltaire.
I'm not speaking about law.
I'm speaking about the principle of free speech . . . The right of human beings to hear free speech is included in the arguments in favour of the principle
A protest is illegitimate when it censors another
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: namelesss
I wonder if you'd employ that casuistry while censoring others?
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: namelesss
I wonder if you'd employ that casuistry while censoring others?
Do you use words like that in your everyday life?
It certainly can't impress...
After having to look up your 'word of the day' I find that you are calling my reasoning specious, sophistry, and you wonder if I'd use such 'poor' logic while censoring others?
Huh?
What 'logic' do you find specious?
Nor would I censor anyone, nor have I said that I would.
So where's the specious argument coming from, now?
I have nothing to defend, on that count, and if you have a problem with my logic, here I am, unimpressed with your fancy jargonistic ad-hominem attack fallacy, so please keep it simple for us simpletons!
Thank you. *__-
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: namelesss
I wonder if you'd employ that casuistry while censoring others?
Do you use words like that in your everyday life?
It certainly can't impress...
After having to look up your 'word of the day' I find that you are calling my reasoning specious, sophistry, and you wonder if I'd use such 'poor' logic while censoring others?
Huh?
What 'logic' do you find specious?
Nor would I censor anyone, nor have I said that I would.
So where's the specious argument coming from, now?
I have nothing to defend, on that count, and if you have a problem with my logic, here I am, unimpressed with your fancy jargonistic ad-hominem attack fallacy, so please keep it simple for us simpletons!
Thank you. *__-
My aim is not to impress but to impugn (grab your dictionary) your arguments.
Hence the word "casuistry". You've never heard that word before? I'm sure someone is impressed, somewhere.
Yes you argued against literal application of "freedom", that free speech is not "freely chosen speech", that there are laws against speech therefor it's not free, then tortured the language in order to equate free speech advocacy with religion, and the belief in free speech with "the verminous spread of any 'belief' infection", as if the belief in free speech was the same as the belief in race theory.
I was wondering, do you use this casuistry, this sophistry, to justify censoring others?
You've still offered nothing at all in rebuttal.
And, yes, symptomatically, a 'belief' in one thing is no different than the pathology of any 'belief'!
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: namelesss
You've still offered nothing at all in rebuttal.
And, yes, symptomatically, a 'belief' in one thing is no different than the pathology of any 'belief'!
I don't have to and I won't bother.