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?
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.
My privacy isn't censorship, you deranged fuckwit. Compelled speech, like you're trying to insist upon, is also immoral too.
Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human rights. You have done nothing to change my opinion on that. And the fact that you think privacy is the same as exerting force against another to prevent their freedom of speech is honestly concerning. And I do mean concerning as in I'm starting to believe you need legitimate help.
This is the problem with statists. You simply don't understand the basic concept of freedom. A right is not something a person needs to exert at all times. That's why it's a freedom. It comes with the choice to exert that right if they so choose, and not from the choices of others like yourself. And statists love to use these weird threats (even in a hypothetical) to justify why their other immoral injustices are actually good. It's the grand old "comply so I don't have to hit you" tactic. I feel sorry for you, and I hope you get better.
inb4 "you didn't give your deets, therefore you know you're wrong", even though I addressed the point you poorly tried to make.
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 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.
My privacy isn't censorship, you deranged fuckwit. Compelled speech, like you're trying to insist upon, is also immoral too.
Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human rights. You have done nothing to change my opinion on that. And the fact that you think privacy is the same as exerting force against another to prevent their freedom of speech is honestly concerning. And I do mean concerning as in I'm starting to believe you need legitimate help.
This is the problem with statists. You simply don't understand the basic concept of freedom. A right is not something a person needs to exert at all times. That's why it's a freedom. It comes with the choice to exert that right if they so choose, and not from the choices of others like yourself. And statists love to use these weird threats (even in a hypothetical) to justify why their other immoral injustices are actually good. It's the grand old "comply so I don't have to hit you" tactic. I feel sorry for you, and I hope you get better.
inb4 "you didn't give your deets, therefore you know you're wrong", even though I addressed the point you poorly tried to make.