See you at the next Westboro Baptist meetup at that dead solder's funeral.
You're the one holding the "God hates fags" sign, right?
Can't attack the points, so you'll make up actual strawmen to try and attack a character you think I embody. But it's funny that you bring up, out of literally nowhere, actual unironic grifters that rely on overly emotional dipshits to attack them so they can get a payday.
Damn right I stand by there being a punitive measure for his actions. Words through a bullhorn in the town of a massacre saying it's fake within a week of the deaths of those children is more than words. It's action and if we let everyone get away with this stuff then we'd let the streets be aflame because of a perceived injustice towards a man who died while being arrested because of some phone footage.
Can you actually define what that "action" is? It's not even incitement, one of the few legs that pro-censorship types love to trot out to try and defend their calls for unapologetic censorship. Or is it just Different™?
Tell me, what's your stance on Snowden and Assange? Surely they're far more evil than Jones. After all, your concern is about supposedly causing harm, and maintaining a comfortable lie is far less dangerous than exposing harmful truths, right? Or again, is it Different™? And if it is Different™, is it purely based in emotional calls? So long as enough people have an emotional reaction, we can censor with glee? I mean, truth has played zero basis in your rationale.
What's next, you gonna say "It's just a prank brah!"?
Whew lad, you got any more of them opinions someone else fed to you? Any more slogans to churn out?
Again, it's funny how you have to try and attack character traits that YOU assert I have. Meanwhile, all I have to do is point out your ardent support of censorship because of hurt feelings and that's it.
So fuck it. You're not going to budge, I'm not going to budge. In the end, it simply comes down to you supporting a comfortable censorship rather than having to ignore a dipshit.
Can't attack the points, so you'll make up actual strawmen to try and attack a character you think I embody.
...
Tell me, what's your stance on Snowden and Assange?
...
Meanwhile, all I have to do is point out your ardent support of censorship because of hurt feelings and that's it.
Jones fucked up. He should have been punished for it. I'd have been happy with a simple apology but he decided not to do that, well, until it was well past due (As is his right!).
Boeing fucked up. They have got out of it for less than 1 million dollars per dead person (And that's just a fine for the government). That's fucked up and that's the point of the thread I took.
You can mi up your apples and oranges all you want. Both are wrong, both have been punished but the punishments are ridiculously out of kilter with what is just.
I'm allowing you to punish yourself left, right and centre by replying to you.
You chose to reply to me seeking a reply, should I deny you your right in that regard or does being able to say anything you want come with this price like it does for everyone else?
Can't attack the points, so you'll make up actual strawmen to try and attack a character you think I embody. But it's funny that you bring up, out of literally nowhere, actual unironic grifters that rely on overly emotional dipshits to attack them so they can get a payday.
Can you actually define what that "action" is? It's not even incitement, one of the few legs that pro-censorship types love to trot out to try and defend their calls for unapologetic censorship. Or is it just Different™?
Tell me, what's your stance on Snowden and Assange? Surely they're far more evil than Jones. After all, your concern is about supposedly causing harm, and maintaining a comfortable lie is far less dangerous than exposing harmful truths, right? Or again, is it Different™? And if it is Different™, is it purely based in emotional calls? So long as enough people have an emotional reaction, we can censor with glee? I mean, truth has played zero basis in your rationale.
Whew lad, you got any more of them opinions someone else fed to you? Any more slogans to churn out?
Again, it's funny how you have to try and attack character traits that YOU assert I have. Meanwhile, all I have to do is point out your ardent support of censorship because of hurt feelings and that's it.
So fuck it. You're not going to budge, I'm not going to budge. In the end, it simply comes down to you supporting a comfortable censorship rather than having to ignore a dipshit.
...
...
Jones fucked up. He should have been punished for it. I'd have been happy with a simple apology but he decided not to do that, well, until it was well past due (As is his right!).
Boeing fucked up. They have got out of it for less than 1 million dollars per dead person (And that's just a fine for the government). That's fucked up and that's the point of the thread I took.
You can mi up your apples and oranges all you want. Both are wrong, both have been punished but the punishments are ridiculously out of kilter with what is just.
If you believe a person should be punished, you do not believe it to be their right. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of rights.
I'm allowing you to punish yourself left, right and centre by replying to you.
You chose to reply to me seeking a reply, should I deny you your right in that regard or does being able to say anything you want come with this price like it does for everyone else?
A want is not a right. You would not be denying me anything.
This is just further cementing the idea that you fundamentally do not understand what a right is.