• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chick-Full-of-Hate caught pretending to be a teenage girl, then denies it

Do you imply that gov't should decide who is a bigot & who isn't, & then deny liberty to the bigots?

I wonder at what point the secular-liberal fundamentalists draw the line. If they think that prohibiting those that they disagree with from owning property or starting businesses is a legitimate course of action, then are they really better than those they claim to be opposing?

Would they also claim that the government is justified in taking even further steps in curtailing liberty in the name of vapid political talk of "equality" and "democracy"?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Even without the govt., can't you tell that homophobia, racism etc. hurt people?
You ought to answer some questions posed to you before asking more of others.
Advocating governmental lawlessness to suppress speech is quite harmful too.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Homophobia has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

It has everything to do with freedom of speech.

If you want to deny people rights, at least be open about it. Go ahead and say that you don't think that bigots should have freedom of speech and then defend your position. What you're doing here is dishonest.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
So we just throw away freedom of speech now?

Who the **** said that? Not I.

Who is worthy to be the judge of what should be tolerated and what should not?

One can not tolerate something without insisting that the law ban or censor it. Not too hard to grasp. People have the right to be ignorant and bigoted, but that doesn't mean their views have to be respected. You can allow something and still speak out against it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So we just throw away freedom of speech now?
Who is worthy to be the judge of what should be tolerated and what should not?
I suppose the president could judge which speech is acceptable, & which speech should be punished.
So we'd have had Dubya telling us what we could've said for a while.
Now Obama would listen with sword in hand, ready to slice & dice the non-PC speaker.
Next, will it be Romney controlling our discussions?
Or maybe the Supreme Court would vote on which speech costs you the liberty which others would continue to enjoy.
Chisti seems to approve of locally established speech restrictions. So it would depend upon where you live. Some
places would punish pro-gay stances, while others would punish anti-gay stances. I guess we'd have to move to some
county where one's ilk is tolerated, eh?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That seems unfair. If his questions correctly represent his pro-homo/anti-liberty views, then it's honest but weird & frustrating.

I was referring to his claim that curtailing disagreable speech has nothinv to do with freedom of speech; I think that's an intellectually dishonest argument. If he had argued that this issue is important enough to curtail free speech, I would have still disagreed, but I wouldn't have considered it dishonest.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I was referring to his claim that curtailing disagreable speech has nothinv to do with freedom of speech; I think that's an intellectually dishonest argument. If he had argued that this issue is important enough to curtail free speech, I would have still disagreed, but I wouldn't have considered it dishonest.
I see. Still, "intellectual dishonesty" is sometimes just a poster wrestling with inconsistent beliefs.
 

Chisti

Active Member
I suppose the president could judge which speech is acceptable, & which speech should be punished.
So we'd have had Dubya telling us what we could've said for a while.
Now Obama would listen with sword in hand, ready to slice & dice the non-PC speaker.
Next, will it be Romney controlling our discussions?
Or maybe the Supreme Court would vote on which speech costs you the liberty which others would continue to enjoy.
Chisti seems to approve of locally established speech restrictions. So it would depend upon where you live. Some
places would punish pro-gay stances, while others would punish anti-gay stances. I guess we'd have to move to some
county where one's ilk is tolerated, eh?

Pro gay, anti racist/sexism etc. are universal, nothing to do with geography.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Pro gay, anti racist/sexism etc. are universal, nothing to do with geography.
But as we see, if a city like Chicago can impose their own standard of speech regulation,
then so can other cities, each of whom would set their own. Some could punish pro-gay
statements. And thus, geography is crucial to your approach to liberty.
 

Chisti

Active Member
But as we see, if a city like Chicago can impose their own standard of speech regulation,
then so can other cities, each of whom would set their own. Some could punish pro-gay
statements. And thus, geography is crucial to your approach to liberty.

We accept certain things as universal, that's the point. Discrimination is wrong, and this ought to be a universal concept. Murder is condemned, it is universal. We don't make laws saying murder is okay in certain places. Nor do we talk of rights of bigots to commit murder. The freedom not to be dehumanized is more important than freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We accept certain things as universal, that's the point. Discrimination is wrong, and this ought to be a universal concept. Murder is condemned, it is universal. We don't make laws saying murder is okay in certain places. Nor do we talk of rights of bigots to commit murder. The freedom not to be dehumanized is more important than freedom of speech.
But you propose that local government may determine what is bigoted, & then use illegal punishment.
The problem is that there is no universal agreement on what constitutes bigotry. "Murder" is just a
red herring. And no one is dehumanized by religious speech. If someone feels dehumanized, then
that is their personal problem. (I don't feel less human in the least just cuz some say that I'll burn in
Hell for eternity.) But to allow government to take away someone's liberty.....that is dehumanizing.
 
Last edited:
Top