instead of using scepticism to question your own positions on the matter (As is your right).
Either you're a moron, or you've switched to trolling rather than actually engaging in the point because you have no ground to stand on as a pro-censorship turd.
But I must admit, I sometimes can't help myself with bait: try avoiding your pretentious vernacular and affinity for verbosity, and explain yourself. And if it wasn't clear, explain yourself clearly in normal english instead of vague allusions to evolution and predetermined conversational manipulations. Walk me through it like I were a toddler, because clearly there's a disconnect between a person having the right, the unlimited freedom, of speech, and then having to face repercussions for exerting such a right. It flies in the very face of what a right is, and shifts into a privilege, one that is granted at that.
What's that about a strawman argument being used again?
Alec done goofed. He said something that would rightfully get him a smack in the mouth by a law abiding citizen (As has been allowed on many occasions by the law).
I hope that clears up why pissing on the fresh graves of children for YouTube clicks doesn't sit well within the social contract that we each agree to by not killing each other.
Back to the OP; Jones was being a dick and punishing him stops others from doing so. He was certainly over-punished to the degree of farcical. Boeing did actually knowingly murder people and deserve an actual punishment instead of their farcical slap on the wrists which will be absorbed into their profit margins.
All I see here is commies winning (Hiding behind capitalism).
What's that about a strawman argument being used again?
What's the strawman here? That I think you're retarded and should be dismissed, or that you're trolling and should be dismissed? That's not a strawman. It's an ad hominem if anything. Except it wasn't in lieu of an argument, making it merely an insult, rather than a logical fallacy.
Alec done goofed. He said something that would rightfully get him a smack in the mouth by a law abiding citizen (As has been allowed on many occasions by the law).
Interesting. So you're operating off the Fighting Words Doctrine, is that it? That's very funny. Also, I don't care if it was enshrined in law since the founding of England, let alone America. Law is not morality, and only a moronic statist would make such an inference.
the social contract
Talking of moronic statists......
The Social Contract is a retarded term used by retards to justify their use of force against elements they personally dislike. It's almost exclusively used for an "ends justify the means" argument.
Jones was being a dick and punishing him stops others from doing so
Yes, that is how censorship works. Tell me, why is it that you see government as a paternal figure intended to shape and mould people? That force is merely a tool to be exerted upon people should they engage in freedom in a way you disapprove?
You're putting in a LOT of effort here to justify censorship, but nothing to disprove your support of censorship. See how that would lead to people believe you're a censorious cunt?
He was certainly over-punished to the degree of farcical
And this is the problem. You have zero issue with censorship. Your only complaint is that the sentence was too harsh, not that there shouldn't have been a sentence in the first place. You're fine with censorship, you just don't like the totalitarian imagery that comes along with it.
Boeing did actually knowingly murder people and deserve an actual punishment instead of their farcical slap on the wrists which will be absorbed into their profit margins.
Don't care. We agree Boeing has gotten a slap on the wrist for their criminal negligence. It's irrelevant to the point that this has move into, which is your ardent and unwavering support of censorship.
All I see here is commies winning (Hiding behind capitalism).
You're unironically supporting censorship. You have no room to talk about "commies winning" with a statist belief like that.
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.
You are working towards conclusions already set about me instead of using scepticism to question your own positions on the matter (As is your right).
The only person denying you the right to evolve in this matter is yourself.
Either you're a moron, or you've switched to trolling rather than actually engaging in the point because you have no ground to stand on as a pro-censorship turd.
But I must admit, I sometimes can't help myself with bait: try avoiding your pretentious vernacular and affinity for verbosity, and explain yourself. And if it wasn't clear, explain yourself clearly in normal english instead of vague allusions to evolution and predetermined conversational manipulations. Walk me through it like I were a toddler, because clearly there's a disconnect between a person having the right, the unlimited freedom, of speech, and then having to face repercussions for exerting such a right. It flies in the very face of what a right is, and shifts into a privilege, one that is granted at that.
What's that about a strawman argument being used again?
Alec done goofed. He said something that would rightfully get him a smack in the mouth by a law abiding citizen (As has been allowed on many occasions by the law).
I hope that clears up why pissing on the fresh graves of children for YouTube clicks doesn't sit well within the social contract that we each agree to by not killing each other.
Back to the OP; Jones was being a dick and punishing him stops others from doing so. He was certainly over-punished to the degree of farcical. Boeing did actually knowingly murder people and deserve an actual punishment instead of their farcical slap on the wrists which will be absorbed into their profit margins.
All I see here is commies winning (Hiding behind capitalism).
What's the strawman here? That I think you're retarded and should be dismissed, or that you're trolling and should be dismissed? That's not a strawman. It's an ad hominem if anything. Except it wasn't in lieu of an argument, making it merely an insult, rather than a logical fallacy.
Interesting. So you're operating off the Fighting Words Doctrine, is that it? That's very funny. Also, I don't care if it was enshrined in law since the founding of England, let alone America. Law is not morality, and only a moronic statist would make such an inference.
Talking of moronic statists......
The Social Contract is a retarded term used by retards to justify their use of force against elements they personally dislike. It's almost exclusively used for an "ends justify the means" argument.
Yes, that is how censorship works. Tell me, why is it that you see government as a paternal figure intended to shape and mould people? That force is merely a tool to be exerted upon people should they engage in freedom in a way you disapprove?
You're putting in a LOT of effort here to justify censorship, but nothing to disprove your support of censorship. See how that would lead to people believe you're a censorious cunt?
And this is the problem. You have zero issue with censorship. Your only complaint is that the sentence was too harsh, not that there shouldn't have been a sentence in the first place. You're fine with censorship, you just don't like the totalitarian imagery that comes along with it.
Don't care. We agree Boeing has gotten a slap on the wrist for their criminal negligence. It's irrelevant to the point that this has move into, which is your ardent and unwavering support of censorship.
You're unironically supporting censorship. You have no room to talk about "commies winning" with a statist belief like that.