Most tolerant countries

Yet a further example of how little intellect you have.

Ofc free speech includes the right to offend.

So you just want to stop people expressing their views how they like using that would mean that nothing ever changes as the qay these views are expressed have helped shape politics in the past

How you have said free speech then went against free speech, it seems it is you who has little intellect

Again, I would argue it doesn't. It depends on what one means when they use 'offence'.

Offense as in hurtful harrasment and incitement to violence- those aren't a part of free speech. But everything else is.

Again, I would argue it doesn't. It depends on what one means when they use 'offence'.




Yes because this is the 21st Century and we live in democracies. You can't just do and say what you please. If you want that, go the **** back to preschool.

What are you even talking about?

If I had said and done exactly that, then I would agree. However, I didn't. Your lack of intellect is being conveyed even further by your inability to comprehend what you are reading. I made clear distinctions and a clear argument. You have said the same, unsubstantiated rubbish from the word 'go'.

Things like the civil rights movement wouldnt have happened if your ideas were in force.

So you are once again saying you dont believe in free speech

You talk about free speech then say that certain things said arent free

That would be because certain things are not. **** me, it's like talking to an infant.

Good because you're not debating - you're failing.



First Link: Right, and how is that acceptable? The man should be condemned for that. For one, it's putting all muslims into the same boat and it's hateful. It's assuming all muslims are terrorists which is extremely offensive and unreasonable. How you can even use that as an example makes me ****ing die laughing.

Second Link: I don't understand how this argues your point either?

The CNBC link doesn't show what is said about anything? Invalid, again.

Can you all not just ****ing realise already that you have no basis for this irrational argument?

Woah there, relax for a minute, for somebody yearning for a rational argument, your fervent way of responding even makes Plato turn in his grave. Your insertion of f**ks does not make your arguments any rational either.

With regard to the first link, please do explain to me how that man's words were hateful or condemnable in any way. He asked her to explain "Brussels"; she could have given him a reply like Cameron's typical bile "Islam is not a religion of hate" and that would have done just fine. It was a question, not an accusation, not a single word of hate. Asking somebody a question, regardless of what you might assume of the person's intention behind that question, does not count as hateful or offensive. If you want to find out more about rationality, I recommend Descartes' Discourse on the Method or rightly conducting one's reason.

So you do believe in free speech but not free speech.

PRSOM
I suggest you don't bother with the overwhelmingly rational responses you get from that user, you won't go anywhere.
As for free speech, that's a privilege we won't have for long anymore.
"It doesn't matter if it was free speech, somebody was offended and that's against the law"
[video="youtube;mISSV--OFEU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mISSV--OFEU[/video]

My use of bad language is because I have sat here repeating things over and over and you are all being pedantic and unnecessary. It's out of pure frustration.

You are seriously being ridiculous about this. You do not just go up to a random person and ask them that; are you also going to tell me that it's a total coincidence she was muslim? Because if so, I honestly have no time for you.

Don't spout philosophy at me - go read up on Aquinas and learn about the relevance of intention.

Socrates sat there repeating things over and over to people, and he didn't mind.
Your frustration seems to originate from seeing people disagree with your views or comments. Instead of acting frustrated, either don't bother or spare your cortisol and offer a calm, yet candid response. That's the first step in having people listen to you, and not being forced to sit there and repeat things.

We are not being ridiculous, we have our opinions. Who is frustrated over what we see is being written on this thread? Haven't seen another person yet.
I am pretty sure he was aware she was a muslim from her garb. Again, I am asking you with patience, how was what he asked hateful? As far as I know, you were not supposed to be charged for approaching people and asking them a question. Did he ask her when will her kind go extinct? Or why is she a terrorist? No. He asked her to explain Brussels. Not at any point was she touched, threatened or even forced to answer the question.

I'm afraid I am not aware of Aquinas' work. Could you explain to me, as briefly as you can what were his views on intentionality? I would love to hear it from you, given that you're implying you know what he meant. Let me know if you want a discussion over Descartes, I'll be happy to share what I know of his essays with you.

I didn't say the direct comment was hateful. He was trying to make a point 'subliminally' if you like. There is a reason why he asked a muslim person. He then made comments about it online. It fuels hateful interpretations of Muslims.

Through his teleological theory of Natural Moral Law, Aquinas talks about interior and exterior acts and argues for the intentions of a person to be very important in moral decision making and whether or not an action is right or wrong. Although this is not really the thread to have that talk in.

I will simply agree to disagree with you.