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.
Yes, you're free to be an asshole. I know, it's such a shocking revelation that freedom involves the freedom to do things I personally don't like.
Just because you're a fragile little turd that wants to punish people that are mean doesn't mean others are. Some people have these things called principles that we stick by, even when it's not entirely comfortable or convenient. Must really suck being so strongly controlled by fleeting emotions.
You really are that deeply wounded by words, aren't you? You tried to put a gotcha out there and it failed miserably. Now you're grasping at more straws to try and make me out to be the immoral one.
Biden's words are the least of my concerns with regards to whether or not he should be punished. The fact you're getting hung up on his words and not his actions is pretty funny. The man is a career politician with a bunch of suspicious ties going back half a century, but the real thing that crosses your line is best interpretation a poor choice of words in retrospect and worst interpretation was coded language (and my money is closer to the latter than the former, but that becomes complicity with arranging a hit, rather than an issue of speech, not that you'd understand basic nuance like that).
Though now you'll probably try and say that conspiracy (as in the act of conspiring) is ackchewallie just free speech and that's why we need censorship (but we can't call it censorship because it's the double plus good kind of censorship).
Are you annoyed that Thomas Crooks missed?
No. But it seems like you're happy he took the shot. Who cares that an innocent man is dead when you get to have a martyr that you can use to try and bludgeon people in a pithy internet argument. That's some really, really sad shit. And you're trying to take the high-ground regarding Jones? Really?
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.
Yes, you're free to be an asshole. I know, it's such a shocking revelation that freedom involves the freedom to do things I personally don't like.
Just because you're a fragile little turd that wants to punish people that are mean doesn't mean others are. Some people have these things called principles that we stick by, even when it's not entirely comfortable or convenient. Must really suck being so strongly controlled by fleeting emotions.
You really are that deeply wounded by words, aren't you? You tried to put a gotcha out there and it failed miserably. Now you're grasping at more straws to try and make me out to be the immoral one.
Biden's words are the least of my concerns with regards to whether or not he should be punished. The fact you're getting hung up on his words and not his actions is pretty funny. The man is a career politician with a bunch of suspicious ties going back half a century, but the real thing that crosses your line is best interpretation a poor choice of words in retrospect and worst interpretation was coded language (and my money is closer to the latter than the former, but that becomes complicity with arranging a hit, rather than an issue of speech, not that you'd understand basic nuance like that).
Though now you'll probably try and say that conspiracy (as in the act of conspiring) is ackchewallie just free speech and that's why we need censorship (but we can't call it censorship because it's the double plus good kind of censorship).
No. But it seems like you're happy he took the shot. Who cares that an innocent man is dead when you get to have a martyr that you can use to try and bludgeon people in a pithy internet argument. That's some really, really sad shit. And you're trying to take the high-ground regarding Jones? Really?