1. 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

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by LeftishBritInPA, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. Naragdaban

    Naragdaban Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    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"?
     
  2. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,523
    Ratings:
    +70,345
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You ought to answer some questions posed to you before asking more of others.
    Advocating governmental lawlessness to suppress speech is quite harmful too.
     
  3. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    61,752
    Ratings:
    +19,572
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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.
     
  4. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,523
    Ratings:
    +70,345
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That seems unfair. If his questions correctly represent his pro-homo/anti-liberty views, then it's honest but weird & frustrating.
     
  5. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    20,926
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    20,926
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    I agree with that
     
  7. Father Heathen

    Father Heathen Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    34,979
    Ratings:
    +20,391
    Who the **** said that? Not I.

    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.
     
  8. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,523
    Ratings:
    +70,345
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    61,752
    Ratings:
    +19,572
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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.
     
  10. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,523
    Ratings:
    +70,345
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I see. Still, "intellectual dishonesty" is sometimes just a poster wrestling with inconsistent beliefs.
     
  11. Chisti

    Chisti Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    780
    Ratings:
    +42
    Pro gay, anti racist/sexism etc. are universal, nothing to do with geography.
     
  12. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,523
    Ratings:
    +70,345
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  13. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    50,236
    Ratings:
    +14,910
    Religion:
    not a theist
    :facepalm:
     
  14. CaptainXeroid

    CaptainXeroid Following Christ

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,778
    Ratings:
    +751
    The viewpoint that the government should 'step in' is borne out of a woefully ignorance of the dangers of a totalitarian state:facepalm: NO, the government should not step in and tell people what to think and where to donate their money.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Father Heathen

    Father Heathen Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    34,979
    Ratings:
    +20,391
    Agreed.
     
  16. Chisti

    Chisti Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    780
    Ratings:
    +42
    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.
     
    #76 Chisti, Jul 30, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
  17. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    195,523
    Ratings:
    +70,345
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
    #77 Revoltingest, Jul 31, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2012
  18. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    50,236
    Ratings:
    +14,910
    Religion:
    not a theist
    no it isn't.
     
Loading...