Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:37:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2339 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
Insisting to have one’s way at the expense of the majority is bad.
|
Insisting to have one’s way at the undue expense of even a single person is bad,
even if you’re part of the majority. Figuring out who is bearing the greater
burden is the tricky part, and in this case, preventing a group to speak freely
of who they are is more burdensome than preventing a group from being subjected
to such speech.
| |
No, sir, but when you limit a person’s right to express it, it is.
|
Noone is limiting your right to say that the LGBT group should be oppressed.
We’re just saying that you’re wrong. It’s like when people advocate converting
to a socialist government. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to stand on a
soap box and shout about it until you lose your voice. It also guarantees the
right for people to stand in front of you and tell you that you’re wrong. The
only people I see who are advocating the limitation of speech are those who are
saying that the LGBT community shouldn’t be able to have their own subgroup if
they want one.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Sir, I do hate (or strongly dislike) the results of these actions. Can you honestly tell me that you enjoy (or would enjoy) painting over permanent marks on the walls, changing poopy diapers, and scrubbing vomit out of the carpet, in and of (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
