 | | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Pretty simple - if it doesn't hurt anyone to make a statement, it should be protected. But if we start restricting things because it upsets someone, we're starting down a slippery slope. Offensive speech is the only type that really needs (...) (21 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) argument/question. But then, isn't it possible for Ross to deny that he made snide comments at all? Although I suspect that would be a pretty bold denial, since Ross does make snide comments all the time. I guess my point is that its a bit (...) (21 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Its called a Loaded Question, a type of fallacious argument. A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition[1]. In your case the presupposition is that ROSCO's comments are snide. Ross in turn countered with the classic (...) (21 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Actually, no he isn't. You are. You said "should we restrict someone's right to ACT like a jerk if they want to?" "Act" generally means action, not speech. (...) I'm not sure Nick is advocating the legal restriction of speech in any respect. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Basis of Nazism, was Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) There is an old saying that I enjoy: "The opposite of love is not hate, it is apathy." What love and hate have in common is that are a deeply passionate caring about someone else. "Caring" in the sense of concern/wonder about what happens to (...) (21 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
