The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[arora]

Fair enough.

Personally I could care less who marries who, but if marriage is governed in a way to promote a sentiment of morality, well I guess that is the cause then. There are a whole slew of non tax related laws regarding marriage as well, we've discussed them in the thread before.

I said at the time I thought civil contracts for various things could be drawn in lue of government issued marriage licenses or some sort.

EDIT:

Its totally inaccurate to say that one group would only do it for financial reasons and another wouldn't, people are people, some will marry for love and some will marry for the tax breaks, straight or gay doesn't come into that.

My point being there should be no brake or whatever for married vs. single, we've been round and round this already, all be it far back in the thread maybe.

 

[Gonales]

Okay Famine, Im going to rephrase one last time.
Your ideas won't make it. Mine won't either.
I know nobody would agree with my statement to throw Romney in jail... But I don't care about that, it's now my first and most important statement in this thread.

But if you're agreeing to the fact of Freedom of Speech, that means you allow people to offend others. And that, in my opinion makes you no better than the ones offending.

I've come across some people who can't think farther than they're told, and everytime I tell them their statements are offensive, unwanted and not needed, they laugh and say they have freedom of speech.
My opinion: that should stop.
Freedom of speech, should only be allowed towards positive things, not negative. And you will probably reply: Why would they be negative?

Simple because none of us chose to be born this way.
For the ones that actually are homophobic: So what's the point making us feel uncomfortable with who we are? Does some religion tell you it is unnatural? Do you think it's cool to mock people?

And famine, I can not silence people online, in any way. There should be better ways to get rid of people like that online. As long as there aren't, I won't respect Freedom of Speech.

 

[arora]

I won't respect Freedom of Speech.

You might not respect it, but you sure like to exercise it 👍

 

[Gonales]

You might not respect it, but you sure like to exercise it 👍

Wrong mate, I don't offend people without reason to. And the fact Famine is offended by what I said, is not 100% intentional, nor 100% untrue.

 

[arora]

Wut?

It's not required to offend anyone in order to speak your mind freely.

 

[FoolKiller]

Don't know why I'm bothering. Pretty sure Im being ignored, but anyway:

But if you're agreeing to the fact of Freedom of Speech, that means you allow people to offend others. And that, in my opinion makes you no better than the ones offending.

Freedom of speech means the law doesn't prevent offensive speech. Famine, as a representative of this site can, and does, stop it on this site. Maybe you should think about that before you accuse him of something like that.

I've come across some people who can't think farther than they're told, and everytime I tell them their statements are offensive, unwanted and not needed, they laugh and say they have freedom of speech.
My opinion: that should stop.
Freedom of speech, should only be allowed towards positive things, not negative. And you will probably reply: Why would they be negative?

Actually, not why is the statement negative but what do you do when someone finds something you have to say is negative, like calling freedom of speech supporters average intelligence or religious people mentally unstable?

I can not silence people online, in any way. There should be better ways to get rid of people like that online. As long as there aren't, I won't respect Freedom of Speech.

Then don't be surprised if a lack of free speech bites you in the ass. I've already pointed out in this conversation where your own rules would have had you in trouble.

Think about that.

 

[The guy who did]

I think homosexuality is NOT ok and It's a sin against God. You can be born homosexual no more than you can be born a boeing 747. I'm ashamed to see 50% of the people voted that its ok.

 

[Gonales]

Don't know why I'm bothering. Pretty sure Im being ignored, but anyway:


Freedom of speech means the law doesn't prevent offensive speech. Famine, as a representative of this site can, and does, stop it on this site. Maybe you should think about that before you accuse him of something like that.

Famine, as a representative could have pointed that out and let it rest, instead of making a problem out of it.

Actually, not why is the statement negative but what do you do when someone finds something you have to say is negative, like calling freedom of speech supporters average intelligence or religious people mentally unstable?

Because I, instead of people that use FoS to be assholes, don't rely on it. If someone is offended by accident, I immediately apologise. IF not, I explain to them why I have said such things, and mostly with good reason.

Then don't be surprised if a lack of free speech bites you in the ass. I've already pointed out in this conversation where your own rules would have had you in trouble.
Think about that.

If the lack of free speech doesn't allow me telling someone I'm gay, thats ********. It's a fact nobody can deny. If there was no freedom of speech, (just going along with your line of thinking), why would religious opinions be allowed than? Where religious opinions are subjective, not even objective, like my statement. And if I offend someone, I take full responsibility. Most of the kids and asses online don't.

Famine's quotes:
"No heed whatsoever should be paid to the concept of offensiveness because no two people find the same set of things offensive.

If you limit speech based on what might be offensive, you censor all speech, because offence may be taken at any time by anyone and for any reason."

"Offence is taken, not given."

Famine, do you really think people are angels? How many people you think WANT to offend homosexuals? And what if I pointed out something that's offensive, and they laugh about it? Yes, people are assholes. Don't give them the law to be allowed to be assholes for **** sake. Thats liek giving everyone a gun and say go ahead. Shoot people you don't like.

 

[Famine]

But if you're agreeing to the fact of Freedom of Speech, that means you allow people to offend others. And that, in my opinion makes you no better than the ones offending.

That's because you're too emotionally attached.

You refuse to recognise that anyone can take offence at anything. You refuse to recognise that you can be offensive without trying. You think you have the monopoly on defining what is offensive and what isn't. You refuse to recognise that other groups can be discriminated against too. You refuse to recognise that the existence of freedom of speech is what allows you to identify as homosexual in the first place. You refuse to recognise that introducing laws that discriminate for any group discriminates against every group.

You want to ban people from having what you have. You have come up with no reason to do so or logic behind it. You've just got a statement that you effectively don't believe anyone should say anything that might upset you while failing to recognise that the same must apply to all other people and ban all speech.

You want to ban speech. You want to imprison people for their opinions. You want to force people to accept things by gunpoint. But you want to be able to say and think what you want. You are expressing every sentiment of extreme fascism.

My opinion: that should stop.

And you're free to hold that opinion. Problem is that everyone who likes freedom will find that offensive and thus, by your own rules, they should be able to lock you up for threatening our freedoms.


Your move.

Famine, as a representative could have pointed that out and let it rest, instead of making a problem out of it.

I did. You read it, quoted it and decided it meant something different.

We don't allow it on GTPlanet. Why? Because we have no interest in entertaining people like that. They are, of course, free to think it as much as they want.

But then GTPlanet is a private place. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that lawmakers have no business restricting speech - nor that people who ask for it to do so completely fail to recognise the irony of them having the freedom to do so. I'm not a moderator of the Earth

Because I, instead of people that use FoS to be assholes, don't rely on it.

Freedom of speech is what you rely on to say anything. It's what the term means. You have freedom. To speak.

If the lack of free speech doesn't allow me telling someone I'm gay, thats ********. It's a fact nobody can deny. If there was no freedom of speech, (just going along with your line of thinking), why would religious opinions be allowed than? Where religious opinions are subjective, not even objective, like my statement.

This is gibberish.

Freedom of speech allows you to tell someone you're gay.
Freedom of speech allows someone to tell you that they dislike the fact you're gay.
Freedom of speech allows you to tell someone that you dislike the fact they dislike the fact you're gay.
Freedom of speech allows a religious person to express an opinion.
Freedom of speech allows a non-religious person to express an opinion.

Banning freedom of speech doesn't ban the one of those things you don't like. It bans ALL OF THEM.

Famine, do you really think people are angels?

No. Why would you think I think that?

How many people you think WANT to offend homosexuals?

How many do you think want to offend straight people or bi people? Or black people or white people? Or male people or female people?

Probably quite a few.

And what if I pointed out something that's offensive, and they laugh about it?

Then you pointed it out and they laughed.

Yes, people are assholes.

If you call someone an asshole, aren't you being deliberately offensive to them. Whoops.

Don't give them the law to be allowed to be assholes for **** sake.

Why? You're using it to call them assholes. Why do YOU get special treatment.

Thats liek giving everyone a gun and say go ahead. Shoot people you don't like.

No it isn't.

 

[arora]

Because I, instead of people that use FoS to be assholes, don't rely on it. If someone is offended by accident, I immediately apologise. IF not, I explain to them why I have said such things, and mostly with good reason.

And you are the only one so high and mighty on this site to do that? I think not.

If the lack of free speech doesn't allow me telling someone I'm gay, thats ********. It's a fact nobody can deny. If there was no freedom of speech, (just going along with your line of thinking), why would religious opinions be allowed than? Where religious opinions are subjective, not even objective, like my statement. And if I offend someone, I take full responsibility. Most of the kids and asses online don't.

Cannot decipher, lack of free speech could very well prohibit you from proclaiming you are gay, it could also prohibit religious opinions. Oh of course, we are all kids and asses I forgot that part.

 

[DK]

I think homosexuality is NOT ok and It's a sin against God. [...] I'm ashamed to see 50% of the people voted that its ok.

By your (poor) logic, eating shellfish is also a sin against God, and therefore you should be ashamed to see x% of people voted that it's OK.

 

[Gonales]

That's because you're too emotionally attached.

Maybe I am, so what?

You refuse to recognise that anyone can take offence at anything. You refuse to recognise that you can be offensive without trying. You think you have the monopoly on defining what is offensive and what isn't. You refuse to recognise that other groups can be discriminated against too. You refuse to recognise that the existence of freedom of speech is what allows you to identify as homosexual in the first place. You refuse to recognise that introducing laws that discriminate for any group discriminates against every group.

1: No, i KNOW what is offensive by choice. If I choose to call you an idiot, i KNOW im being offensive. (not saying i am). If I offended you without wanting to and meaning to I will apologise, which for some people isn't important enough to do.

And I can define as a homosexual because it is a fact. You are saying, that without FoS i can'' state facts? Dont mistake FoS with the skill to speak mate -.-

You want to ban people from having what you have. You have come up with no reason to do so or logic behind it. You've just got a statement that you effectively don't believe anyone should say anything that might upset you while failing to recognise that the same must apply to all other people and ban all speech.

I don't care if they say something that offends me, stuff happens. But they can have the respect to apologise. Which a lot don't. And if they offend me with the meaning to be offensive they're less then the dirt under my shoes.

You want to ban speech. You want to imprison people for their opinions. You want to force people to accept things by gunpoint. But you want to be able to say and think what you want. You are expressing every sentiment of extreme fascism.

I don't want to ban speech, I want to ban intentionally offensive speech.

And you're free to hold that opinion. Problem is that everyone who likes freedom will find that offensive and thus, by your own rules, they should be able to lock you up for threatening our freedoms.


Your move.

No, they won't find that offensive. I haven't said they were idiots for thinking what they think. They will think my opinions differ from theirs, but nothing more. I'm not attacking them, by thinking like that. But when homophobes discriminate and think badly of homosexuals just because we are different,that's offensive.

 

[homeforsummer]

Freedom of speech, should only be allowed towards positive things, not negative.

Who defines postive and negative, then?

You?

If so, and our opinions differ, surely my speech isn't "free". If you decide something is negative but I disagree, then I'm not allowed to voice it. Freedom of speech cannot then be said to exist.

I can't figure out how you're finding this so hard to grasp. Restrict any speech, regardless of whether you find it offensive or not, and freedom of speech no longer exists.

Yes, you may disagree with what someone says - and it's within your rights to disagree.

But, let's flip this upside down. Let's assume that people can say whatever they want, but you have been banned from voicing your disagreement. Would you object to that? I suspect you would - and if you can't see that this scenario is exactly what you're advocating by "only allowing positive things", then you're beyond reasoning with on this matter.

And to respond to the post you've just made:

How do you decide what's "intentionally offensive"? It's not unknown for people in the UK to call each other See You Next Tuesdays (Google it if you must, but I certainly can't repeat the word on GTP). That, to most, is an incredibly taboo word, and it offends a great deal of people. BAN IT THEN! Or, perhaps not - since it can be said affectionately, believe it or not.

Just like you can reasonably say "you bastard" or "you bugger" without it literally being a slur against someone born out of wedlock or someone who likes sticking their winky up another man's starfish.

As Famine has said, multiple times, what is offensive to one person isn't necessarily offensive to someone else. "Intentional offense" can be - and should be - entirely self-regulatory. It's not nice to deliberately set out to offend someone, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Some people are simply a bit soft to these things.

 

[FoolKiller]

Famine, as a representative could have pointed that out and let it rest, instead of making a problem out of it.

I'm pretty sure he did, and I know I did.

Because I, instead of people that use FoS to be assholes, don't rely on it. If someone is offended by accident, I immediately apologise. IF not, I explain to them why I have said such things, and mostly with good reason.

And how many illegal things do you know of where you get to say, "Yes, I broke that law, but I wasn't being an ass about it and I had good reason," and then be let go? Better yet, how do we draw the line? Your statement on average intelligence shows a clear prejudice, as you said it without looking for clarification or meaning in what the poster meant by his statement, nor did your statement clarify that you meant bigots who hide behind the freedom of speech to justify saying hurtful things. No one here would disagree that a bigot calling you names is not justified, even though he is within his rights.

If the lack of free speech doesn't allow me telling someone I'm gay, thats ********. It's a fact nobody can deny. If there was no freedom of speech, (just going along with your line of thinking), why would religious opinions be allowed than? Where religious opinions are subjective, not even objective,

It is called Iran. And it is exactly the kind of system I have been telling you can come from your line of reasoning. A country where the government is a theocracy and people like you and even just non-Muslims, like me, can be put to death for speaking out for what is right.

 

[Famine]

1: No, i KNOW what is offensive by choice.

Why do you get to decide for the planet what's offensive?

And I can define as a homosexual because it is a fact. You are saying, that without FoS i can'' state facts? Dont mistake FoS with the skill to speak mate -.-

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak. If it doesn't exist you don't have the freedom to speak. For all your "skill", you would be mute. "Mate".

I don't care if they say something that offends me, stuff happens. But they can have the respect to apologise. Which a lot don't. And if they offend me with the meaning to be offensive they're less then the dirt under my shoes.

A call you can make for yourself and yourself only.

I don't want to ban speech, I want to ban intentionally offensive speech.

You don't get to define intent or offence for the planet.

No, they won't find that offensive.

Yes, I do find the concept that you want to rape everyone of their freedoms offensive.

I haven't said they were idiots for thinking what they think. They will think my opinions differ from theirs, but nothing more. I'm not attacking them, by thinking like that.

You mean except when you said freedom of speech was for the "averagely intelligent"?

Looks intentionally offensive to me.

But when homophobes discriminate and think badly of homosexuals just because we are different,that's offensive.

Boo hoo.

When racists discriminate and think badly of white people just because we are different, I don't give a crap. I'm not going to support ditching my freedoms to spite them.

 

[Gonales]

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.

Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of one or more characteristics. Examples include but are not limited to: color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

 

[arora]

I love me some good pornography, then when I'm done I feel all guilty such.

 

[homeforsummer]

Limitations to freedom of speech

Does not compute.

 

[Gonales]

who defines positive and negative, then?

You?

If so, and our opinions differ, surely my speech isn't "free". If you decide something is negative but i disagree, then i'm not allowed to voice it. Freedom of speech cannot then be said to exist.

I can't figure out how you're finding this so hard to grasp. Restrict any speech, regardless of whether you find it offensive or not, and freedom of speech no longer exists.

Yes, you may disagree with what someone says - and it's within your rights to disagree.

But, let's flip this upside down. Let's assume that people can say whatever they want, but you have been banned from voicing your disagreement. Would you object to that? I suspect you would - and if you can't see that this scenario is exactly what you're advocating by "only allowing positive things", then you're beyond reasoning with on this matter.

and to respond to the post you've just made:

how do you decide what's "intentionally offensive"? It's not unknown for people in the uk to call each other see you next tuesdays (google it if you must, but i certainly can't repeat the word on gtp). That, to most, is an incredibly taboo word, and it offends a great deal of people. Ban it then! Or, perhaps not - since it can be said affectionately, believe it or not.

Just like you can reasonably say "you bastard" or "you bugger" without it literally being a slur against someone born out of wedlock or someone who likes sticking their winky up another man's starfish.

As famine has said, multiple times, what is offensive to one person isn't necessarily offensive to someone else. "intentional offense" can be - and should be - entirely self-regulatory. It's not nice to deliberately set out to offend someone, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Some people are simply a bit soft to these things.

I know what I find offensive, so if I state that fact, the other person should not be able to express his opinion again. If he does, he is in violation of FoS, simple as. Not to mention an asshole. I'm not gonna repeat myself again.

Besides, it's 'unavoidable' to deliberately offend someone? Really? :/

i'm pretty sure he did, and i know i did.



And how many illegal things do you know of where you get to say, "yes, i broke that law, but i wasn't being an ass about it and i had good reason," and then be let go? Better yet, how do we draw the line? Your statement on average intelligence shows a clear prejudice, as you said it without looking for clarification or meaning in what the poster meant by his statement, nor did your statement clarify that you meant bigots who hide behind the freedom of speech to justify saying hurtful things. No one here would disagree that a bigot calling you names is not justified, even though he is within his rights.


It is called iran. And it is exactly the kind of system i have been telling you can come from your line of reasoning. A country where the government is a theocracy and people like you and even just non-muslims, like me, can be put to death for speaking out for what is right.

Because Iran is a country socially less developed than most countries. Less developed than should be. Yes, I know this might be offensive, but it's kind of a fact. If people don't want me to voice that opinion again, fine. Let them prove me otherwise.

why do you get to decide for the planet what's offensive?

Because I know what is offensive to me. Duh? :/

freedom of speech is the freedom to speak. If it doesn't exist you don't have the freedom to speak. For all your "skill", you would be mute. "mate".

Read my last post.

a call you can make for yourself and yourself only.

Obviously. But than I'm in my rights.

you don't get to define intent or offence for the planet.

No, but I do get to define it for ME, as a person.

yes, i do find the concept that you want to rape everyone of their freedoms offensive.

Wrong, they would have the same freedom of speech they have now, they just can't be assholes anymore.

you mean except when you said freedom of speech was for the "averagely intelligent"?

Looks intentionally offensive to me.

It was. And I already told me, if you want to give me an infraction for that, go ahead. That's my opinion. People wouldn't need FoS, if they were decent people having a decent conversation.

boo hoo.

When racists discriminate and think badly of white people just because we are different, i don't give a crap. I'm not going to support ditching my freedoms to spite them.

You don't give a crap, because your family hasn't left you because of it, you didn't get stuck with a broken relationship and a LOT of bullying at school. Or did you? For being white? -.-

Does not compute.

Haha, really? Which is what none of you people seem to be getting, there ARE limitations.

 

[FoolKiller]

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.

That doesn't make it right.

Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.

There are limits on pornography? Since when? My Internet disagrees.

Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of one or more characteristics. Examples include but are not limited to: color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

You don't get Comedy Central in Belgium, do you? If you don't have government Internet filters then google Tosh.0. Come back and tell me about the legal limits on hate speech.

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Again, check out some US TV shows. Then notice that the US isn't burning from racial riots.

EDIT:

Because Iran is a country socially less developed than most countries. Less developed than should be. Yes, I know this might be offensive, but it's kind of a fact. If people don't want me to voice that opinion again, fine. Let them prove me otherwise.

So, you agree a country that strictly limits speech to protect the moral decisions of society from being offended is socially less developed?

Keep in mind, all it takes is a majority who disagree with you to take control in order for your rule to be turned against you.

 

[Gonales]

That doesn't make it right.

It does, in my opinion.

There are limits on pornography? Since when? My Internet disagrees.

There are, they just cant enforce them, thats the difference.

You don't get Comedy Central in Belgium, do you? If you don't have government Internet filters then google Tosh.0. Come back and tell me about the legal limits on hate speech.

If you need racism and stupid jokes to be funny, your thing, not mine.

Again, check out some US TV shows. Then notice that the US isn't burning from racial riots.

Exaggerating a little bit maybe?

 

[homeforsummer]

I know what I find offensive, so if I state that fact, the other person should not be able to express his opinion again. If he does, he is in violation of FoS, simple as. Not to mention an asshole. I'm not gonna repeat myself again.

Good, because you're repeating dross each time.

The burden of offense lies with you. Nobody else. Only you know exactly what you find offensive. If you ask someone not to be "offensive" and they continue to offend you, that is them exercising their freedom of speech (being an asshole, perhaps, but they're still exercising freedom of speech), not "violating" it.

"Violating" freedom of speech is taking away someone's right to free speech - exactly as you have advocated many times already.

Banning someone from speaking because you don't like what they say is fascism. And if they continue to offend you and it causes you harm somehow, that's where other branches of legality take over - sexual harassment at work being one example. Pestering someone with unwanted advances can get you fired, because it goes beyond speech and turns into harassment.

Besides, it's 'unavoidable' to deliberately offend someone? Really? :/

Yes. You've proved this quite nicely by seemingly taking offense at people's opinions on here - among other things, saying the staff promote homophobia when that clearly isn't the case.

The responses to you were deliberate. Yet somehow, they unavoidably offended you.

Also see: An "offensive" comedian's routine. He can be continually "offensive" to someone, but does so unavoidably - it's part of a routine, the routine may not work without the supposedly "offensive" element.

Haha, really? Which is what none of you people seem to be getting, there ARE limitations.

If there are (arbitrarily imposed) limitations to speech, THEN IT ISN'T FREE.

The clue is in the name, for Christ's sakes.

With freedom comes responsibility, but that doesn't mean removing aspects of the freedom to artificially create an environment in which people can say things without offense.

 

[Gonales]

Good, because you're repeating dross each time.

The burden of offense lies with you. Nobody else. Only you know exactly what you find offensive. If you ask someone not to be "offensive" and they continue to offend you, that is them exercising their freedom of speech (being an asshole, perhaps, but they're still exercising freedom of speech), not "violating" it.

"Violating" freedom of speech is taking away someone's right to free speech - exactly as you have advocated many times already.

Banning someone from speaking because you don't like what they say is fascism. And if they continue to offend you and it causes you harm somehow, that's where other branches of legality take over - sexual harassment at work being one example. Pestering someone with unwanted advances can get you fired, because it goes beyond speech and turns into harassment.

I just stated there are limitations to FoS. So YES, they are violating it.

Yes. You've proved this quite nicely by seemingly taking offense at people's opinions on here - among other things, saying the staff promote homophobia when that clearly isn't the case.

The responses to you were deliberate. Yet somehow, they unavoidably offended you.

Also see: An "offensive" comedian's routine. He can be continually "offensive" to someone, but does so unavoidably - it's part of a routine, the routine may not work without the supposedly "offensive" element.

I haven't asked them, nor told them to stop right? I want to see how they think, even if it seems stupid to me.

 

[homeforsummer]

I just stated there are limitations to FoS. So YES, they are violating it.

And I've just stated, in not so few words, that "limitations" to freedom of speech mean it isn't free speech.

They are not "violating" it. YOU are violating it by imposing restrictions on something which is supposed to be free.

"You are a free man - but you must never leave this room".

See how that works?

I haven't asked them, nor told them to stop right? I want to see how they think, even if it seems stupid to me.

So now the line is drawn between offense and non-offense on whether you ask people to stop it or not?

Seriously, this is getting more ridiculous all the time.

 

[Scaff]

Or did you? For being white? -.-

Being white doesn't preclude you form understanding what prejudice involves, as we could have discussed had you bothered to reply to my post when you accused me of both making assumptions and being unaware of prejudice.

 

[Gonales]

Being white doesn't preclude you form understanding what prejudice involves, as we could have discussed had you bothered to reply to my post when you accused me of both making assumptions and being unaware of prejudice.

When you're with 5 or 6 people sending me posts that im supposed to read thoroughly, that are at least 30 sentences long... Don't judge me on that. Makes no sense.

Just read back. You stated you had a theological, and religionbased discussion. I take it you were never offensive in purpose, so there would be no problem, would there?

Quoting Scaff:
"You may not have said it directly, but the second you remove the rights of free speech from any group and propose locking people up simply because of what opinion they hold (as you quite clearly have) then those are the actions you are condoning."

I never said such a thing. I do not mind people speaking their opinion, but if asked to stop they should, as explained the last 2 pages. So yes, you did make an assumption of what I thought of Freedom of Speech.

 

[Scaff]

When you're with 5 or 6 people sending me posts that im supposed to read thoroughly, that are at least 30 sentences long... Don't judge me on that. Makes no sense.

I haven't judged you in any way at all, you however did judge me. I replied both politely and in detail, only to be ignored by yourself.

That you are either not able or not willing to keep track of discussions you have engaged in is not my issue, but yours.

You accused me of not understanding prejudice and of making assumptions. Neither were correct and I would appreciate you having the good manners to acknowledge that.

I never said such a thing. I do not mind people speaking their opinion, but if asked to stop they should, as explained the last 2 pages. So yes, you did make an assumption of what I thought of Freedom of Speech

You stated that Romney should be locked up for opinions he holds, so yes you did. You did so not because he has carried out any of these opinions, put them into practice or even into law (and he has never been in a position to do so, nor could he ever have been), but simply because he held them.

So yes you have quite clearly and categorically stated that its OK to lock people up simply because of the opinion they hold.

 

[Gonales]

I haven't judged you in any way at all, you however did judge me. I replied both politely and in detail, only to be ignored by yourself.

That you are either not able or not willing to keep track of discussions you have engaged in is not my issue, but yours.

You accused me of not understanding prejudice and of making assumptions. Neither were correct and I would appreciate you having the good manners to acknowledge that.

You made an assumption. Can't deny that.

I'm not sure where I said those things about prejudice, if you would be so polite to point me towards the meant post?

 

[Famine]

Because I know what is offensive to me. Duh? :/

The question was why you get to decide for the planet.

We've been saying all along that you get to decide for you but no-one else because everyone chooses their own level of what's offensive to them. No-one, you included, gets to decide for the planet.

If you cannot discuss without denigrating others' intelligence - particularly after pages of gibberish, personal attacks and lip-service reading - you do not belong here.

Wrong, they would have the same freedom of speech they have now, they just can't be assholes anymore.

Which. Isn't. Freedom. Of. Speech.

Dear Xenu, what about this aren't you getting? Limiting something denies freedom of it. If Islam is banned, you don't have freedom of religion - the sentiment "They still have it, they just can't be Muslim" is nonsense.

It was. And I already told me, if you want to give me an infraction for that, go ahead. That's my opinion. People wouldn't need FoS, if they were decent people having a decent conversation.

Since the start of this was you insulting the intelligence of people who can construct a reasoned, logical argument and at every turn you've managed to abuse and insult others, you've just talked yourself into your own prison cell.

You don't give a crap, because your family hasn't left you because of it, you didn't get stuck with a broken relationship and a LOT of bullying at school. Or did you? For being white? -.-

I may well have done. My personal experiences aren't relevant because I'm not using my personal history, fuelled by emotion, to construct an illogical argument to destroy the freedoms of society.

If your family left you because some guy called you a fag, they're not much of a family. Your issues seem to stem from something deeper than people saying mean things about homosexuals and more from people's dislike of homosexuals. How much do you think they'll like them if they're told to never be mean about them again or face prison? I'll give you a clue - it's "not that much".

Haha, really? Which is what none of you people seem to be getting, there ARE limitations.

Limiting speech is Limitation of Speech. No limitation is Freedom of Speech.

Once you limit it for one reason, you have precedent for anyone else to limit it for any other reason, some of which you might not like all that much.

You may not have said it directly, but the second you remove the rights of free speech from any group and propose locking people up simply because of what opinion they hold (as you quite clearly have) then those are the actions you are condoning.

I never said such a thing. I do not mind people speaking their opinion,

Have you actually read about Romney? What kind of person he is? Yes he deserves to be locked up.

For once, towards the Close of Day Matilda, growing tired of play and finding she was left alone went tiptoe to the telephone, and summoned the Immediate Aid Of London's Noble Fire-Brigade...

 

[FoolKiller]

It does, in my opinion.

That's kind of the point of the debate isn't it?

There are, they just cant enforce them, thats the difference.

Maybe in your country. Around here, so long as all participants are consenting adults, I can see almost any pornographic act I want, and they even have their own awards ceremony and conventions.

I have studied it in depth.

If you need racism and stupid jokes to be funny, your thing, not mine.

Just pointing out that what you claim are limits on free speech are not universal.
But I will let Key & Peele know that their black stereotype jokes are unappreciated and deemed hate speech in Europe, even though they are black themselves.

Exaggerating a little bit maybe?

No. I said there aren't race riots. We allow things that have caused Europeans to be imprisoned for hate speech, which your law defines as speech that may invite violence and yadda, yadda, yadda. We don't have this racial violence after every comedy show, despite how your quoted definition would like to defend its limits on freedom.