Let's roll back to when you said "So you would ideally like to see a scenario where they are forcefully repressed from expressing their views?". That was what you said despite me making no statement to that effect. I never said anything about anyone being "forcefully repressed" from airing their views, in fact what I was saying (which seemed to fly over your head) was that Free Speech is not what the EDL are partaking in. So in essence what I was saying was Free Speech is fine and dandy but hatred based upon nothing but religious intolerance is not Free Speech and therefore anyone (including the EDL) should be forcefully repressed from expressing their views when those views are based upon nothing but blind ignorance.
In precisely what way is having a different viewpoint an "intimidation". If you state that free speech has to be tempered by what one strata of society (rightly or wrongly) adheres to then you are precluding people from free speech just because it does not "sit well with your viewpoint". A dangerous road to go down no matter what your viewpoint. Verging on Facism and no say for anyone that does not "toe the majority's (or minorities) point of view.
What Donald is suggesting is that he does not belive in Human Rights so who's the facist? ps Trev, just **** off you moron.
Both of them are in that they have no understanding nor any intention of understanding someone that has a radically polarised view to their own. That in itself is inherently intolerant and Facist.
Human rights are arbitrary. They don't exist in reality. I can invent a 'human right not to be offended' or a 'human right to ironing boards' which is complete bullshit and has no more legitimacy than any other 'human right'. I don't believe in either which means that's false. No, it's my belief in the self-evident natural law of human autonomy. Is any other person born with a legitimate reason to forcefully shut others up? No, because we are only born as ourselves and not as other people which means that unless they agree to enslave themselves, they are self-determined beings who should not legitimately be aggressed against. That's moral idealism for you. When I spoke of human realities, I was talking about the autonomy of the human being, not the tyranny of governments. But yes, it is the reality that laws suppress free speech and that's something we're all forced to live under at gunpoint. You're just repeating what was said earlier, see my previous answer about the only reasonable alternative to your proposition being a forceful repression. Anyway, you admit to wanting to forcefully repress free speech below so it's a moot point. Why is hatred based upon nothing but religious intolerance not free speech? Any person speaking freely is free speech, it doesn't matter what sounds they are making with their lips or what letters they are forming with their fingers on a keyboard. Their reasoning might be flawed and their beliefs might be repulsive, but unless I've missed something, free speech does not discriminate against opinions. That's for other people to do with their free speech. The fact you forcefully want to repress that shows you do not think free speech is "fine and dandy" at all, it's only fine and dandy when it suits you for it to be.
I believe everything should be consensual in life. I'm neither a facist, nor a fascist, for they believe that unagreed compulsion is acceptable in life.
Don't be a dick duck. You are talking a right load of old ****e now and even if I believed you were serious I would not entertain you with a debate. Suffice to say that you seem somewhat confused or just ****ing downright dense.
I should have known, you are/were that ****ing idiot Loiner who thinks he's prfound. Newsflash, you are a ****ing tool so **** off with you nonsense and stop trying to be clever.
1-0 to the duckman as Dev Advocate pussies out of the argument in a flurry of ad hominems and non sequiturs.
Not really, you talk in riddles and evade when necessary (which is often), your comments on this thread alone show you for what you are and are typical of the sort of nonsensical drivel which is posted just to cause an argument. Go and pester someone who has time to waste arguing with your gibberish, but if they have any sense they will see through you and ignore you too.
Children, the mentally ill and animals aren't able to reasonably give consent in my opinion. Which means that sex with them is tantamount to rape.
Absolute cop-out. Are you trying to tell me a 13 year old girl isn't able to give consent to having sex? That's bullshit mate and you know it. But to admit it you would have to admit your claim that "I believe everything should be consensual in life" is wrong and you aren't man enough to do that, are you?
Fair enough, I failed to qualify that with a clause about those I feel are inable to reasonably give consent. I'll admit that, it was an oversight. I stated the rule without stating the exceptions. Deciding when a child is able to give consent is a toughie. It can't be determined with an arbitrary age threshold which decides when every child becomes an adult; I guess it's just one of those arbitrary things in life where if kids are consensually having sex, they're consensually having sex. I still think it's gravely wrong if an adult uses forces of compulsion or airs of authority to make them do that.
What the **** are you talking about? I'm simply stating the blindingly obvious that a person's right to be a racist bigot has to be balanced (legally and morally) against the rights of the individuals of that race/religion not to be subjected to racism. How is that even vaguely controversial far less 'verging on facism (sic)'?
In a few short months you have revealed your true leanings towards both bigotry and fascism. You are doing well sonny Everyone in a free society is allowed a voice even one as banal and insipid and idealistic as yours.
