Not sure where this hostility is coming from, and it makes it rather hard to have any kind of discussion around here anymore. Seems like far too many of the old-timers are becoming much too uptight and are taking themselves a bit too seriously.

I was just baiting you dude ;). It was in response to your final shin kicker "I thought that was pretty much a given and didn't need to be explicitly laid out.". That was unnecessary hostility, and when you do it, I'll bait you.

Anyway, who you calling old timer, I'm not even 30 (quite yet).

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell everyone.

No, I'm not wrong. I never suggested these people should be prevented from speaking their mind, just that certain beliefs should not be tolerated. That is to say, when presented with such ideas, the person holding them should be told that his beliefs are unacceptable and explain why. As I did.

While I absolutely respect the right to hold such beliefs and even discuss them, the beliefs themselves are not worthy of equal respect. Certain beliefs are now not acceptable in modern society - I never once mentioned that people should be arrested or prevented from having them, but if you want to hold ludicrously bigoted beliefs, be prepared to face the consequences. Those being called out on message boards and perhaps even losing your job (depending on the circumstances - for example I wouldn't expect an office worker to be fired because he has privately held racist beliefs - as long as they don't affect the workplace).

This is getting a bit rambley but what I'm saying is that no, not all beliefs are equally valid. Some are worse than others - however everyone has an equal right to hold any belief they wish. That doesn't mean we should tolerate them all, that doesn't mean we should say "well that's your opinion and I respect that". If someone were to say "I believe all cripples should be euthanised because they're a blight on society" - that's not an opinion worthy of any kind of respect.

BUT IS ONLY THERE AN ONION. I HAVE A DECIDE THAT I AM. WHERE SEE YOU IN CAN THE RABBIT? BUT YOU WILL HOW DO?

WHEN YURI GAGARIN EH A SPACE MAN YES? HE DOES THE SPACE AND NOW.

THERE GREAT IN TANGO FRUIT THRONE WHERE HOW LIKE LATE YOU ARE.

And who set you up as the arbiter of what is right and wrong / valid or invalid / what should be tolerated or not tolerated. By what standard do you judge these things to be so? You use straw man arguments to validate an invalid point.

DON'T YOU JUST HATE IT WHEN THE JAM JAR IS FUCKING STIFF AND YOU HAVE TO SMASH THE DAMN THING TO GET AT THE JAM?

I prefer Jelly ;-)

Sorry but you're wrong.
There are two kinds of rights, absolute and non-absolute.

Absolute rights are incontestable and cannot be infringed under any circumstance. For example - right to a free trial. It doesn't matter whether the person in question is Adolf Hitler, or the kid you shoplifted some candy, both deserve a fair and just trial.
Another one considered absolute (this one, under the European Convention of Human Rights) is the right to not be tortured or subjected to degrading treatment.


Then we have the rest of the mumbo-jumbo that people rightly claim as their rights, right to freedom of religion, right to have a family, freedom of speech, etc.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right by any standard, and is probably the most restricted / controlled one.

Think of such simple things:
-hate speech. This doesn't need to be "kill all the X/Y/Zs", but can simply be things like "my religion says that all X/Y/Zs are physically and mentally inferior", and backing this up with misleading "evidence". If free speech were an absolute right, we would allow such things.

-IP rights. If I wanted to make a company and start making computers, I would not have the freedom to call my company Apple, and have as its logo an apple with a bite out of it. Once again, this is a limitation on my freedom of speech. I won't be able to copy someone else's book word to word and sell it as my own. This is a limitation on my freedom of speech. For an even better example, think of songs. I cannot just take a song protected by copyright and commercialise it myself. We have IP rights. IP rights trump (in almost all occasions, the defence of free speech is a very narrow one) freedom of speech.

-Iibel. We (or at least, developed societies) have laws that don't let you say just anything about other people. We are barred from saying in public things that are erroneous and can as a result hurt the reputation of another.


As you can see, freedom of speech is extremely restricted. Probably the most restricted "right" of them all. Thus, there is no black/white discussion here.

If you check my earlier post I said "in some cases". Some cases are clear, some are murky and worthy of discussion.

If someone says "niggers are filthy criminals and should be put down" I can safely say that's wrong and the person who says it is a racist fucking moron.

If someone says "gay marriage is wrong" I think they're a bigot and also a moron.

Some things are clear cut. Whether or not you agree with the second example, I'm betting you do agree with the first. Do you concede that certain opinions/viewpoints are wrong/invalid?

BUT THIS DOES NOTHING TO SOLVE THE STIFF JAM JAR PROBLEM

THE SOUR MILK UNDER MY ARMPITS IS UNDERCRUSTING INTO THE EXTREME ARIZONA MOOSE

HOW DO I MADE THE COMPUTER DO THIS?

If they are clear cut - what is your standard for making that decision. I still do not see you making any point other than your personal opinion and dragging in Civil Rights issues to validate your point.

I HAVE A CLEAR CUT HAIR THING. MY BARBER DOES IT ALL THE TIME.