Free Speech in the UK Gets Worse

a reply to: ScepticScot

I think you struggle to find a sociologist, psychiatrist or health professional who would agree with you so the "folk" position here is yours.

And you believe in sorcery.

You believe that people should be allowed to say whatever they want with complete freedom and will support child abuse to maintain that position. I think that has a very real bearing on your position.

First I'm a sociopath, now I support child abuse. All you can do is resort to fallacy, a clear sign of dogmatism.

a reply to: Kurokage

That is utter hogwash, history is scattered with words that have caused all matter of actions, be it war, love or anything in-between. Words and language are a part of humanity, not something separate as you seem to think.

Then surely you can give some examples, and we can see if it was words that caused them.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

I think you struggle to find a sociologist, psychiatrist or health professional who would agree with you so the "folk" position here is yours.

And you believe in sorcery.

You believe that people should be allowed to say whatever they want with complete freedom and will support child abuse to maintain that position. I think that has a very real bearing on your position.

First I'm a sociopath, now I support child abuse. All you can do is resort to fallacy, a clear sign of dogmatism.

Nope the only person talking about sorcery is you.

I am pointing out the absurd lengths you will go to to defend your self described absolutist position on free speech.

Would you prefer a different example of how obviously ridiculous your position is?

How about someone making a bomb threat?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage

That is utter hogwash, history is scattered with words that have caused all matter of actions, be it war, love or anything in-between. Words and language are a part of humanity, not something separate as you seem to think.

Then surely you can give some examples, and we can see if it was words that caused them.

Did Stalin or Hitler ever actually murder anyone? I am sure most people would accept the description of them as murderers. How did they possibly accomplish this sorcery?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Nope the only person talking about sorcery is you.

I am pointing out the absurd lengths you will go to to defend your self described absolutist position on free speech.

Would you prefer a different example of how obviously ridiculous your position is?

How about someone making a bomb threat?

Yes, your thinking is magical on this subject. Is my use of the term "sorcery" affecting you? Well, do as you always do, blame the words.

I will go to any length to defend a person's right to speak, yes. Sue me. What I am concerned about is the absurd and bootlicking lengths you will go to justify the opposite.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Did Stalin or Hitler ever actually murder anyone? I am sure most people would accept the description of them as murderers. How did they possibly accomplish this sorcery?

No, they used words to kill people. They affected them death with words.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage


Then surely you can give some examples, and we can see if it was words that caused them.

Many religious texts is a good place to start. Behind any war is a group of people who have ideals, which is communicated by words.

Wars and words.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Nope the only person talking about sorcery is you.

I am pointing out the absurd lengths you will go to to defend your self described absolutist position on free speech.

Would you prefer a different example of how obviously ridiculous your position is?

How about someone making a bomb threat?

Yes, your thinking is magical on this subject. Is my use of the term "sorcery" affecting you? Well, do as you always do, blame the words.

I will go to any length to defend a person's right to speak, yes. Sue me. What I am concerned about is the absurd and bootlicking lengths you will go to justify the opposite.

So you are concerned based on the words I used? They have clearly affected you then.

What opposite am I defending? I agreed with your OP in this specific case. It is your absolutist position that I find absurd.

I also don't think you know what the phrase boot licking means.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So you are concerned based on the words I used? They have clearly affected you then.

What opposite am I defending? I agreed with your OP in this specific case. It is your absolutist position that I find absurd.

I also don't think you know what the phrase boot licking means.

I don't care what words you use. They are a reflection of your thinking, not mine. What I am concerned about is how your absurd magical thinking will affect your behavior. The superstitious almost always do superstitious things.

You do not believe in free speech. That's the opposite I am talking about.

a reply to: Kurokage

Behind any war is a group of people

Full stop. Yes people start wars, not words.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage

Behind any war is a group of people

Full stop. Yes people start wars, not words.

It's the words spoken that cause the war. You can not separate human kind from language. It's just not possible and I gave examples where words led to war, you decided to ignore that.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

So you are concerned based on the words I used? They have clearly affected you then.

What opposite am I defending? I agreed with your OP in this specific case. It is your absolutist position that I find absurd.

I also don't think you know what the phrase boot licking means.

I don't care what words you use. They are a reflection of your thinking, not mine. What I am concerned about is how your absurd magical thinking will affect your behavior. The superstitious almost always do superstitious things.

You do not believe in free speech. That's the opposite I am talking about.

I do believe in free speech, it's your ridiculous extreme position I disagree with.

a reply to: ScepticScot


I completely agree with you and have the same position.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I do believe in free speech, it's your ridiculous extreme position I disagree with.

There is nothing extreme about letting people speak.

Nothing you have said indicates you give a damn about free speech.

a reply to: Kurokage

It's the words spoken that cause the war.

Sorcery.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

I do believe in free speech, it's your ridiculous extreme position I disagree with.

There is nothing extreme about letting people speak.

Nothing you have said indicates you give a damn about free speech.

There is at all costs.

Your position is ridiculous and I suspect you know it from your marked reluctance to actually deal with the examples given and your silly obsession with magic.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: ScepticScot


I completely agree with you and have the same position.

I must have used sorcery on you.

a reply to: ScepticScot

There is at all costs.

Your position is ridiculous and I suspect you know it from your marked reluctance to actually deal with the examples given and your silly obsession with magic.

I do not believe in magic. You should try doing the same. You believe words affect human beings, objects.

You're what Salmon Rushdie calls the "But Brigade". "I'm all for free speech, but..." No, you're not for free speech.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

There is at all costs.

Your position is ridiculous and I suspect you know it from your marked reluctance to actually deal with the examples given and your silly obsession with magic.

I do not believe in magic. You should try doing the same. You believe words affect human beings, objects.

You're what Salmon Rushdie calls the "But Brigade". "I'm all for free speech, but..." No, you're not for free speech.

No I just recognise that the right to free speech is not an absolute any more than the right bear arms let's people own nuclear weapons.

Rights are not with out limits. Your position is so absurd you will actually defend child abuse rather than deviate from it.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No I just recognise that the right to free speech is not an absolute any more than the right bear arms let's people own nuclear weapons.

Rights are not with out limits. Your position is so absurd you will actually defend child abuse rather than deviate from it.

Free speech is a principle. You either believe in or you don't. You're position is so timid you have to invent child abuse scenarios to talk yourself out of it.