No, only upset over the double standards with which the West applies its much beholden freedoms.
Double standard? That's presumptuous.
Just because the practice is outlawed doesn't mean it doesn't happen, frequently.
Absolutely.
The rest of your comment was just "no". Instead of just covering your eyes and ears and shouting nonono, why don't you defend it?
Irony much?
I haven't the leisure of
fabricating my points.
While i can opine on the merits of may 20th, i'm not quite as handy at declaring my [rainbow]
imagination [/rainbow] as fact, as you are.
Perhaps it presented a public danger?
More's the reason to draw
cartoons, then.
Any population that'll be stirred into a state by
such simple means represents a constant danger;
I don't think
it's worth being hypersensitive about any longer.
The fact remains that freedom of speech is arbitrarily selected as what's ok and what isn't. Why is racism banned but bashing a religion not?
Well...
...depends what you mean by "banned", and what country your in, don't it?
Hate crime legislation differs significantly, even in western countries;
Perhaps a boo at Ann Coulters' latest adventure in ottawa might illustrate the variety, here, no?
How about the fact that racism was closely incorporated into the page, but it still wasn't banned.
Your definition of racism is pitiable.
I don't accept this statement, because it's boneheaded.
You haven't provided a shred of argument to support any of facebook's actions.
I have no interest in supporting/discussing facebooks' policies...
you've decided to make that my mandate, and i'm not being roped into it.
Sorry.
p.s I assure I know the meaning of racism. If anything it is you who should look up the definition.
Buddy, the fact that your definition has the word "culture"
in it doesn't support your assertion that cultural discrimination is
rasism.
When you said:
-"
racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
The grammatical implication is that
the belief of inherent (i.e. genetic) differences among
races determine the social and cultural mobility
on account of their race!
Your subsequent interpretation was
so wrong that i left it alone...
...i kinda, sorta thought upon rereading your post, that'd be
obvious.
However, to better illustrate (as the dictionary definition you provided was
lost on you) take the example:
...the
assertion that my familly is
descriminated agains because:
-They're southeast asian
Would easily qualify as
racist.
To then go on and declare the same because:
-Makes chillie with curry
...
would not.
That you would marry the two concepts...
...(and you have)...
...is your own poor synthesis for some
messy, messy pleading.
I'll admit, i'm taken aback that you're so far unable to parse the distinction between the transmission
inherited genetic traits and the realm of
ideas. Here while free speech is the mechanism that allows no idea to be so sacred that it can't prodded, explored or ridiculed, for that matter. Just as i ridicule your horrible marriage two distinct concepts.
My sacred cow or
yours, it's all up to with
as we please.
Now I would, at this
juncture, implore to further research the difference between :
-Genes
and
-Chilie.
Good luck!