Freedom of speech prevents the Government from silencing and suppressing your opinions.

However the same can't be said for private individuals (like the average Joe or feminist) and private institutions (like multinational corporations) who can silence you speech in any way they want. The same applies to private venues like this forum and reddit.

But at least the big bad government can't oppress you, right?

Tzadeck Wrote:I'm fairly intolerant of what I perceive as harmful stupidity. Like, if my Facebook friends post 'vaccines are a money-making conspiracy by the drug companies'/'vaccines cause autism' type of bullshit, it's really hard for me not to tell them to shut the ***** up. So that's usually what I do.

My question here would be where do you draw the line?

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:

toshiromiballza Wrote:I'm intolerant of leftist ignoramuses who think everything can be explained through sociology and nothing is genetic because "we are all the same." I tried talking with such people in the past, but I've decided it's not worth losing brain cells listening to their "arguments" any more.

I have been a lefty all of my life, from being battered and molested as a child to being taken into care and being on state benefits to being a successful businessman who happily pays taxes.

I am relatively well known around Liverpool for supporting freedom of speech and regularly go to fascist rallies to support freedom of speech even though I hate what they are saying. I have been assaulted by about 5 radical Feminists at one of these rallies. I am often attacked physically on the street in Liverpool for my support of freedom of speech.

It always surprises me when lefties/liberals attack freedom of speech.

It seems to me there should be better ways to show your support for "freedom of speech" rather than go to fascist rallies "even though I hate what they are saying". To me that's a very strange rational and doesn't really make sense. If you are attacked physically its obviously because you have done enough to demonstrate you do infact support these groups, or at least are giving a very strong appearance that you do.

And its okay, this is the internet, you can admit to being a fascist here and nothing will happen to you. I don't care anyway, but your post and thought process do not make any sense whatsoever.

And as Judge Judy would say, if it doesn't make sense its not true.

quark Wrote:I used a naughty word in my post, and it got replaced by 'leprechaun'.

Was it leprechaun?

Edit: it was

quark Wrote:Toshiromiballza didn't say anything about people silencing him or attacking him physically. He's merely whining because people are telling him the truth - he's a racist, and a bigot.

Hmm, I'm a "racist" and a "bigot" that is against white supremacy (or any other supremacy), want Europeans to return all the land they stole back to the natives (America, Australia, ...), and want every population on earth to be able to exercise their basic human right - to exist.

There must be some better term to describe me... Like... humanist?

Of course you (and your far-leftist kind) are way too intolerant and hateful to recognize that, so you simply call me (or any sane person that is against mass immigration) "racist" because it enables you to end the debate without needing to use your brain to process my arguments.

Let's try to demonstrate whether you truly are all-around hateful, or simply a hypocrite:

There are still indigenous people in the Amazon who have never had contact with the modern world, nor do they wish to. What if every year thousands of Muslims immigrated to the Amazon, eventually become the majority, impose their Islamic values on them, rape their women... forcing them to resort to "indigenous flight," until they're no more?

Unless you're a hypocrite, you won't have a problem with that. And if you don't have a problem with that, you just proved how full of hate you are.

I wonder, will you even have the courage to answer, or will you simply "end the debate" and leave the discussion, possibly with some more ad hominems?

He would probably simply disagree with the premise that the Muslims would impose their values on them or rape their women or force them to resort to "indigenous flight". If he rejects that premise then the entire question falls apart and there would be nothing for him to answer.

The question would become:
There are still indigenous people in the Amazon who have never had contact with the modern world, nor do they wish to. What if every year thousands of Muslims immigrated to the Amazon and eventually became the majority?

And the answer to that is that there would be thousands of Muslims that live in the Amazon and they would be the majority.

I have an uncle who is an unconditional anarchist-socialist. there is noone to the left of him. he is actually against freedom of speech, which surprised me when I heard it...but later it made sense.
"Leftist" (progressive) politics aren't necessarily aligned with individual freedom... the core objectives, economic fairness and pluralism, don't necessarily need civil rights. Look at 1984 for an extreme example.

How is it even possible for him to be a anarchist and socialist? He wants the government to control businesses but also for there to be no government?

blackbrich Wrote:If he rejects that premise then the entire question falls apart and there would be nothing for him to answer.

If he/she rejects that premise, that makes him/her ignorant, but I don't think anyone is that stupid, so it must be the "la la la, I can't hear you, la la la" kind of ignorance. You know, like Creationists who believe dinosaur fossils were put there by the Devil to fool mankind.

blackbrich Wrote:And the answer to that is that there would be thousands of Muslims that live in the Amazon and they would be the majority.

...and the existence of the indigenous populations and their cultures would be endangered, leading to "indigenous flight" and their eventual extinction.

Why did you leave that part out?

blackbrich Wrote:How is it even possible for him to be a anarchist and socialist? He wants the government to control businesses but also for there to be no government?

See here

toshiromiballza Wrote:Racial purity, nasty Muslims, bla, bla, bla, bla.

I'm not a 'far-leftist'. Believe it or not, I have some problems with Islam. Islam, but not Muslims.
Anyway, I'm not going to get into a debate with you, because there's no point in doing so. Getting into an argument with you is going to do nothing for me except make my blood pressure go up. You can take that as me being an ignorant coward who hates diversity or whatever bullshit arguments you're going to make. I just don't think you're worth devoting that much time to.

toshiromiballza Wrote:I wonder, will you even have the courage to answer, or will you simply "end the debate" and leave the discussion, possibly with some more ad hominems?

No surprise here.

toshiromiballza Wrote:LOL! I'll be damned if you're not my college professor. In any case, I won't know what your response will be, because this is the last time I opened this thread. I've got better things to do than argue with ignorant leftists (or read your nonsense). Take care!

From http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...#pid199356

Since what's going on in this thread is exactly the same as the other thread (arguing with "ignorant leftists" and reading their "nonsense"), just wanted to clarify if you actually had any "better things to do"? Better things to do include but are not limited to: attending company board meetings, going on a date with your girlfriend, taking care of your sick mother, home renovations, participating in a non-violent protest, writing a letter to your senator, watching reality television.

Or does your "better things to do" consist of arguing with ignorant leftists in a separate thread?

Which I guess is a technically legitimate loophole IE. "I've got better things to do than argue with ignorant leftists (or read [their] nonsense)... [in] this thread [such as] argue[ing] with ignorant leftists (or read[ing] [their] nonsense) [in a separate thread]"

Apologies for the fragmentations in the quoting. Words in square brackets were added by me in order to create a cohesive quote with correct grammar/punctuation.

quark Wrote:Anyway, I'm not going to get into a debate with you, because there's no point in doing so.
...

I just don't think you're worth devoting that much time to.

See above.

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:It always surprises me when lefties/liberals attack freedom of speech.

It shouldn't necessarily be surprising. Supporters of freedom of speech often want to have the privilege of calling black people niggers (in a malicious manner and outside of the context of a comedy club). If this supporter of freedom of speech is white and male (usually the case) and calls a black person a nigger, and if or when the black person being called a nigger proceeds to physically attack the white male, the white male might respond "you're oppressing my right to free speech!"

What is the net result of this exchange? Well, the black person is offended, his day ruined for arguably no good reason. Similarly, the white person suffers physical harm for again, arguably no good reason.

What I think is the logic of the leftist/liberal is that by opposing certain forms of speech (such the privilege of calling a black person a nigger outside a comedy club or friendly setting), the entire above scenario is nullified. The black person continues having a good day without being disturbed by white people and the white person does not receive physical harm and continues doing something productive (such as fixing a car, going to the bank, or watching a movie) rather than unproductive (calling a random black person a nigger).

[Zgarbas]

toshiromiballza, don't insult other forum members.

Same for quark.

(man, didn't we give out a warning to HonyakuJoshua to stop randomly mentioning his violent personal life? I'll let it pass this time. Again.)

Speaking of which, wasn't there a debate thread made precisely to gather up all flame wars in one place?
Take it to the debate thread, guys!