General Discussion

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)

28. We're debating principles - the test is internal consistency

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 07:58 PM

Mar 2015

Your stated principles are not consistent. You masquerade as a free speech absolutist when it comes to racial slurs and hate speech. If you have exceptions, you are not an absolutist. So the question is very simple: are you a free speech absolutist? Is your position consistent? If you answer the questions posed above, we can determine whether your position is consistent. If you refuse to answer those questions, we must assume that you CANNOT answer them, or you WILL NOT, because your position will be exposed as an inconsistent farce.

Your position is so childish that you can't even construct the proper means of demonstrating it.

But I'll play your game anyway. What kinds of evidence would you like to see for my questioning of your claims? Since I am only trying to determine the consistency of *your* position (which you refuse to engage), I'm curious about what kind of evidence you'd like me to provide. Here's a clue: first you have to determine what you think my claim is.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I find all racial epithets extraordinarily offensive. [View all] Wella Mar 2015 OP

Who is saying to outlaw any word? Is there some proposed legislation somewhere... anywhere? boston bean Mar 2015 #1

Is someone asking for laws to be passed to limit use of some words? uppityperson Mar 2015 #2

Huh, outlawed? Is the teaparty up to being stupid, again? NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #3

I can't speak for anyone on the right side of the aisle, and, increasingly, not for my own party Wella Mar 2015 #4

But who said it was to be illegal, am I missing something? Are you referring to something NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #5

Perhaps it's in reference to OU Matrosov Mar 2015 #43

Yes, but what does that mean? Since nobody has EVER suggested we outlaw speech NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #44

It seems some people view expulsion as outlawing speech Matrosov Mar 2015 #49

Just because something is labeled hate speech does not mean people are punished for it Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #6

Actually they are: both legally and socially Wella Mar 2015 #9

Vandalism is not free speech Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #12

No, actually, they're not Scootaloo Mar 2015 #27

The harm that results from a crime may be considered in establishing the punishment geek tragedy Mar 2015 #42

No-one is proposing a law, as far as I'm aware Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #7

Wondering? Do you think slander and libel should remain offenses? HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #8

False equivalence. Wella Mar 2015 #10

Ok, but do you believe libel and slander should remain offenses? HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #11

Not helping you with your false equivalence argument. Wella Mar 2015 #13

So you post on a discussion board to educate others HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #15

No, I post to hear intelligent comments of others Wella Mar 2015 #16

That poster did make an intelligent comment and you blew it off Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #18

The poster was given a response. Wella Mar 2015 #23

Crying "false equivilence" without even explaining how it is a false equivilence is not a response Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #26

Here is demonstrating that you are not an absolutist on free speech alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #14

You've proven nothing. Wella Mar 2015 #17

Why don't you answer the questions? Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #19

The statement in the OP is self-explanatory Wella Mar 2015 #21

The statement in the OP is completely baseless Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #24

You are unable to debate because you have a childish, alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #20

When you provide the evidence of your claim, then we can have a real debate Wella Mar 2015 #22

And exactly what evidence have you provided of your claim? Bjorn Against Mar 2015 #25

We're debating principles - the test is internal consistency alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #28

Oh dear, there is no punishment for hate speech- hope you feel better now, lol. bettyellen Mar 2015 #32

Here's a LOLZ for you - Results of Jury BumRushDaShow Mar 2015 #29

It is official, silencing me and those like me is very important to certain people. NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #34

I have seen that BumRushDaShow Mar 2015 #35

More proof that allowing liberal voices to be potentially silenced by rightwingers is simply NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #36

The GOP weakness BumRushDaShow Mar 2015 #39

I cant find a single liberal radio or tv person who doesnt understand that the Bill Kristol/Hillary NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #40

As spring moves to summer BumRushDaShow Mar 2015 #47

You nailed it. Number23 Mar 2015 #50

You would think that Discussionist BumRushDaShow Mar 2015 #54

Wut Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #46

I call it an "ad hominem alert". BumRushDaShow Mar 2015 #48

Strange Op dude... trumad Mar 2015 #30

Did you misread somewhere that someone wants to outlaw them? Poor dear- bettyellen Mar 2015 #31

I don't think outlawing is on the table at all treestar Mar 2015 #33

Yep, thanks for the reminder. Rex Mar 2015 #37

You've managed to argue something no one disagrees with and against a law no one is proposing. stevenleser Mar 2015 #38

Maybe the point is while they wouldnt use the words they want others to be able to freely NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #41

Super strawman gollygee Mar 2015 #45

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #51

Actions have consequences Kalidurga Mar 2015 #52

No one I'm aware of is being thrown in jail for using racial epithets. So this seems like a strawman nomorenomore08 Mar 2015 #53