True or Not?

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I support the right to loudly disagree with the KKK. If this drowns out their message, so be it.

I don't support the government silencing the KKK.

Agreed. I want to know who disagrees with me so I can have a conversation. There is no way to know who I disagree with if I suppress their messages.

[Daywolf]

I suppose you and Ma0 would agree in this topic then, and maybe set to repeal his ban? ...which I hope is a permaban, imo no place for expression/speech like that anywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
That's right, I think that sort of expression is shit.
No, I know it is.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

This is true, but should we?

If we fully embrace Liberty we condone muder, rape, torture, etc.

Of course we can all agree those things are bad, so we can accept the proposition the rest of the time right?

No we cannot due to varied understandings of right and wrong. My tolerance threshold is harm/disruption. If you are not harming anyone then you should be left alone. Of course then we have define what harm means...

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is true, but should we?

If we fully embrace Liberty we condone muder, rape, torture, etc.

Of course we can all agree those things are bad, so we can accept the proposition the rest of the time right?

No we cannot due to varied understandings of right and wrong. My tolerance threshold is harm/disruption. If you are not harming anyone then you should be left alone. Of course then we have define what harm means...

You're in a slippery slope there.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is true, but should we?

If we fully embrace Liberty we condone muder, rape, torture, etc.

Of course we can all agree those things are bad, so we can accept the proposition the rest of the time right?

No we cannot due to varied understandings of right and wrong. My tolerance threshold is harm/disruption. If you are not harming anyone then you should be left alone. Of course then we have define what harm means...

Agreed. My observation is this, that the meaning of a thing is sometimes and often dependent of the originator of what was said. In this case, it's not the OP, but that of someone that I know I fully disagree with. Unfortunately, cultural Marxism (I didn't say "marixst" alone) tends to redefine it's dictionary, just as much as the word was perceived to mean speech rather than "expression" - which could be manifest into the physical beyond speech.

Of course even other conservatives I disagree with, like you could have two conservatives in a room and have five different opinions, well at least they usually mean what they say in most cases. But yeah, I perceive the quote of this guy likely to be deceptively misleading, even to all sorts of terrible acts that no civilized world could withstand.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Agreed. My observation is this, that the meaning of a thing is sometimes and often dependent of the originator of what was said. In this case, it's not the OP, but that of someone that I know I fully disagree with. Unfortunately, cultural Marxism (I didn't say "marixst" alone) tends to redefine it's dictionary, just as much as the word was perceived to mean speech rather than "expression" - which could be manifest into the physical beyond speech.

Of course even other conservatives I disagree with, like you could have two conservatives in a room and have five different opinions, well at least they usually mean what they say in most cases. But yeah, I perceive the quote of this guy likely to be deceptively misleading, even to all sorts of terrible acts that no civilized world could withstand.

You need a rocker, (*points) here, go sit. Your argument lends credence to that any notion given is true. Would you sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse an inaction of desire?

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You need a rocker, (*points) here, go sit. Your argument lends credence to that any notion given is true. Would you sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse an inaction of desire?

More like based on absolutes. Like why would I absolutely consider surrendering my big plush lay-z-boy recliner I'm in right now for some dumb rocker?

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

More like based on absolutes. Like why would I absolutely consider surrendering my big plush lay-z-boy recliner I'm in right now for some dumb rocker?

Doesn't understand nor answers my question which is a postulated form of a statement from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

More like based on absolutes. Like why would I absolutely consider surrendering my big plush lay-z-boy recliner I'm in right now for some dumb rocker?

i think his point is dementia, not a discussion of chair types

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're in a slippery slope there.

Noam is the one who framed it as a binary absolute. I am just pointing out that all reasonable people endorse limits on expression. The sentiment of tolerance of expression is not misplaced though.