Free Speech is dying

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

originally posted by: RobertCavitt
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.'. The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana, and in its original form it read, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.".

I'm pretty sure the Nazi's were shutting everyone down who didn't conform. The Liberal Left are doing the same now... just because others have a different opinion.

Perception is so odd....

Some people see the conservative right as the Nazi's because they want to censor anyone criticizing trump. Even on this very site.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Note the use of the "freedom of speech but not freedom of consequences" casuistry.

For one, it's victim blaming tripe. The woman sent to execution for blasphemy, for example, it's her fault. She should have known the consequences, and those trying her for blasphemy, those advocating for her death and silence, it's not their fault at all. Of course they're wrong, because her execution is not the consequence of her speech or conscious choice, but of the repressive laws that these useful idiots tacitly defend.

And saying, "but it's their company and they can do what they want with it" is equally as soft, as if people are not allowed to criticize someone's business practices.

Once people making these sorts of arguments get in power, it's over for free speech.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Actually what I said about 'rascism' and some rascist words are too rascist, should be read as all rascist words are bad. Can't edit my other post now.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Either way, you want free speech without consequences. I say call homosexuals (or whomever else) whatever derogatory names you want, the ramifications of your behavior are on you to deal with.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Either way, you want free speech without consequences. I say call homosexuals (or whomever else) whatever derogatory names you want, the ramifications of your behavior are on you to deal with.

Any violence that you commit against a speaker is not the consequence of his behavior, but the consequence of your behavior. You have it backwords. What if no one punched him? Is that the consequence of his speech?

Sorry, man. It's a stupid line of reasoning.

Freedom of speech is a lie and always has been, its just a nice sound bite.

True freedom of speech should mean that one would have the freedom to say literally whatever they wanted without any legal consequences. That just simply does not exist, you cannot legally call in a bomb threat and used freedom of speech as an excuse, just like you can't use it as a defence if you start swatting your mates. Or we could go extreme, absolute freedom of speech would actually be dangerous, it would permit just about anyone who wanted to to engage in explicit sexual conversation with your kids, it would mean that anyone could spread any kind of lie they wanted, it would mean that terrorists could say whatever they wanted to recruit whoever they wanted, it would lead to chaos really.

I think the issues with freedom of speech come with where the line should be drawn, I personally think that freedom of speech should be protected to the maximum possible level but I recognise that for a number of reasons it must have limitations.

a reply to: MadLad


Wrong.

Fighting Words Doctrine.

Any you never did answer the hypothetical about your unlimited free speech paradise where a pedophile can say whatever they want to your children. Can they? That's unlimited free speech man, you cannot hinder that.

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Either way, you want free speech without consequences. I say call homosexuals (or whomever else) whatever derogatory names you want, the ramifications of your behavior are on you to deal with.

Any violence that you commit against a speaker is not the consequence of his behavior, but the consequence of your behavior. You have it backwords. What if no one punched him? Is that the consequence of his speech?

Sorry, man. It's a stupid line of reasoning.

Sorry Man, not taking responsibility for running your mouth is the stupid line of reasoning. Words have consequences...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, if there isn't a fire.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He didn't because as Les miserable he blamed the parents of the child for letting them go online showing what a douche he is.

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He didn't because as Les miserable he blamed the parents of the child for letting them go online showing what a douche he is.

Was that as les or propagandalf?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Either way, you want free speech without consequences. I say call homosexuals (or whomever else) whatever derogatory names you want, the ramifications of your behavior are on you to deal with.

Any violence that you commit against a speaker is not the consequence of his behavior, but the consequence of your behavior. You have it backwords. What if no one punched him? Is that the consequence of his speech?

Sorry, man. It's a stupid line of reasoning.

Sorry Man, not taking responsibility for running your mouth is the stupid line of reasoning. Words have consequences...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, if there isn't a fire.

You can yell fire in a crowded theater, actually.

No one said you should never take responsibility for what you say. You're just blaming speakers for the violence committed upon them, as if they started punching themselves in the face. It's stupid.

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He didn't because as Les miserable he blamed the parents of the child for letting them go online showing what a douche he is.

Tell us about your moustache some more.

a reply to: MadLad

That all you got? Lol.
Notice the lack of denial....defending pedo's rights to talk to kids....pfft.

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
a reply to: MadLad

That all you got? Lol.

I'm not here to insult you, friend.

a reply to: MadLad

Question.

If you support absolute freedom of speech, do you then believe that it is wrong for an individual to face legal consequences for entering into a highly sexualised conversation with a child for the purposes of that individuals sexual gratification.

If you think it is wrong for them to be in prison then you're just sick in the head.

If you think its right for them to be sent to prison then your argument are flawed.

Either way this one point highlights the absurdity of your argument so I don't expect a straight forward answer.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MadLad

Question.

If you support absolute freedom of speech, do you then believe that it is wrong for an individual to face legal consequences for entering into a highly sexualised conversation with a child for the purposes of that individuals sexual gratification.

If you think it is wrong for them to be in prison then you're just sick in the head.

If you think its right for them to be sent to prison then your arguments is flawed.

Either way this one point highlights the absurdity of your argument so I don't expect a straight forward answer.

You guys keep bringing up sexual assault, and I'm the one sick in the head.

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MadLad

Question.

If you support absolute freedom of speech, do you then believe that it is wrong for an individual to face legal consequences for entering into a highly sexualised conversation with a child for the purposes of that individuals sexual gratification.

If you think it is wrong for them to be in prison then you're just sick in the head.

If you think its right for them to be sent to prison then your arguments is flawed.

Either way this one point highlights the absurdity of your argument so I don't expect a straight forward answer.

You guys keep bringing up sexual assault, and I'm the one sick in the head.

Well you're the only one who seems to be supporting an argument that says it's ok for a pedo to have a perverted chat with a 12 year old and not face any kind of legal consequences all in the name of absolute freedom of speech.

So yeah, I think most folk would say that makes you sick in the head.

Anyway like I said, didn't really expect a proper answer from you and you didn't disappoint but honestly av got better things to be doing with my Sunday night than trying to explain why its wrong to have pedo's talk to kids with the guy who is defending their right to do so...

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MadLad

Question.

If you support absolute freedom of speech, do you then believe that it is wrong for an individual to face legal consequences for entering into a highly sexualised conversation with a child for the purposes of that individuals sexual gratification.

If you think it is wrong for them to be in prison then you're just sick in the head.

If you think its right for them to be sent to prison then your arguments is flawed.

Either way this one point highlights the absurdity of your argument so I don't expect a straight forward answer.

You guys keep bringing up sexual assault, and I'm the one sick in the head.

Well you're the only one who seems to be supporting an argument that says it's ok for a pedo to have a perverted chat with a 12 year old and not face any kind of legal consequences all in the name of absolute freedom of speech.

So yeah, I think most folk would say that makes you sick in the head.

What? I've never said such a thing. This is coming from the guy who was scared of exposing child grooming gangs. Sick dude.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Makes me wonder tbh is he in the UK?.

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Makes me wonder tbh is he in the UK?.

Since when did I become the thread topic? Was it the moment you realized you couldn't support your dogmas with reason?