Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods? (page 11)

Jacobi

cofty, my comment was aimed at freemindfade. I don't see why your question is relevant. Do you think my comments suggests such a link?

cofty

Jacobi this is a discussion forum. If you want a private conversation with anybody in particular try using the PM function.

I'm curious about your question regarding inciting terrorism. Do you really think there is a moral equivalence between that and criticism of a fascist theocratic worldview?

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. Its all laid out in the constitution. What is considered "speech". Harmful expressions and communications are not constitutional speech. And if you consider something that hurts your feelings "harmful" sorry that's not gonna get suppressed. You just need to get hurt feelings.

Jacobi

no, cofty. but your question feels pretty random and has a bit of a "do you beat your wife" quality. You must have misread or misunderstood something I have written severely to ask me that...

to be clear: I believe in a very broad definition of free speech but with some limits (fire-in-theater)

Jacobi

freemindfade:

Ok, so you agree with me that some forms of speech should be banned after all? i.e. (in your words) speech that is "harmfull"?

Our discussion began with you disagreeing with me on free speech so if you don't know what the discussion is about you can perhaps return to what I have said you think is wrong :-).

(btw, nowhere did I suggest that speech should be banned simply for being harmfull. That is WAY to restrictive in my oppinion. This is also why I use a more specific examples of speech I think should be limited).

Jacobi

I feel you guys are having a discussion with some other person than me who has ideas that are contrary to those I actually express.How about giving each other the benefit of the doubt?

Simon

Ok, so you agree with me that some forms of speech should be banned after all? i.e. (in your words) speech that is "harmfull"?

You obviously can't grasp that the "harmful" has to extend to be actual harm. It's why inciting people to commit violence is not free speech and should be held accountable, but criticizing bad ideas should be covered by free speech because 'hurt feelings' don't count as real harm (outside of leftist safe zones).

Jacobi

Simon, did you even read my post? I wrote SPECIFICALLY that I don't consider "harm" to be sufficient to limit free speech (this was in response to free mind fade who brought up harm as a criteria for limits on speech). In fact I wrote:

"btw, nowhere did I suggest that speech should be banned simply for being harmfull."

holy cow I am beginning to understand why visual aids are considered usefull by many posters on this forum.

hothabanero

Jesus Christ what a moron. Speech should not be limited. Stop mincing words with stupid examples. Liberals want to limit our speech by redefining harm to include their feelz. You are attempting a GIANT bait and switch by first saying u want to limit harmfull speech, and then DISHONESTLY SWITCHING definitions to include ur stupid feelz.

We are not falling for your dishonesty. OMFG I can't even.

cofty

Jacobi - Lots of intelligent posters seem to have completely misunderstood your point. It can't be everybody else's fault can it?

How about going back to your complaint that, 'terrorism perpetrated by Muslims .. in Canada recieving so much more attention and concern on this thread than terrorism perpetrated by right-wing terrorists' and present your point as clearly as possible. Bear in mind that your objection was answered very fully by more than one contributor.

Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

Share this