Should nazis have freedom of speech?

[minamoto]

They just simply dont agree. No ones cowering, people are just choosing not to waste their time arguing about something when theres no common ground or agreeable answer.

hey Jimbobito..how about u list down names instead of including all pipole....

 

[jimbobbity]

No he is cowering, he didnt say hes right he said he wont argue with me because i used one little insult which is just an emotional reaction to things antithetical to his conditioning. There is also such as thing called objectivity and in this case proving my argument wrong should be easily attained, but he obviously wont since its a fact.

Welp im not gonna argue here either cos to be frank, this topic doesnt interest me and itd just be a back and forth with no actual conclusion.

 

[jimbobbity]

hey Jimbobito..how about u list down names instead of including all pipole....

Im lost, whaddya mean

 

[minamoto]

Im lost, whaddya mean

nemervind...nothing..

 

[fiercerunner]

No he is cowering, he didnt say hes right he said he wont argue with me because i used one little insult which is just an emotional reaction to things antithetical to his conditioning. There is also such as thing called objectivity and in this case proving my argument wrong should be easily attained, but he obviously wont since its a fact.

It's not an emotional reaction. I just don't want to waste time talking to people who don't know how to debate. Dishing out insults for no reason indicates that you're the one who's emotionally tilted. Learn how to have intelligent discussions.

 

[minamoto]

It's not an emotional reaction. I just don't want to waste time talking to people who don't know how to debate. Dishing out insults for no reason indicates that you're the one who's emotionally tilted. Learn how to have intelligent discussions.

he is having a intelligent discussion...u just are not intelligent to realize that..

 

[kimb]

Alright, well I see your point. Maybe I was being too harsh and have said things that are uncalled for. NB has become increasingly toxic over the years and sometimes I guess I can conflate people who hold irrational ideology with people who may have one or two irrational viewpoints.

The thing is, we did argue about somethings which I consider to be objectively wrong on your part. The most notable one of course is financially punishing fat people for being fat. You also claimed to have been anti-war when we PM'd each other, yet not long ago you argued heavily in favor of a preemptive attack on North Korea. We've also argued about Islam where you believe the faith itself is the underlying reason for the terrorism and not the foreign and socio-economic history of that region which gave rise to extremism. Then you defended Trump and how he's not a racist. And just the principle of social safety nets and programs such as universal healthcare, where the fundamental argument was really people need to pick themselves off by their bootstraps and not mooch off of others.

It's positions like that where I found you incredibly ignorant and a lot of those viewpoints are held by right-wing commentators such as Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, etc. and the fact that you can't see how erroneous and sophist they are in what they preach is depressing for an individual like yourself.

Yeah, we agree on some issues, but usually those are not the big issues. Most of our disagreements come into play when it involves benefiting other people, defending people from discrimination, or the causalities of war. And those are things I'm passionate about. And when you criticized me for having my moral compass influence my political stance, it really gave me a bad impression of you.

I can't promise that I won't get passionate again, but I'll keep in mind that maybe I was overly critical and will try to keep our discussions civil.

Thanks mate, like wise. I keep in all the issues you see in my posts in mind for future reference.

 

[minamoto]

Thanks mate, like wise. I keep in all the issues you see in my posts in mind for future reference.

w8r w8 w8.. wut about me??..i also post amazing posts....

 

[Clown World]

It's not an emotional reaction. I just don't want to waste time talking to people who don't know how to debate. Dishing out insults for no reason indicates that you're the one who's emotionally tilted. Learn how to have intelligent discussions.

>dont know how to debate
in debates using insults is not against the rules man, its not a logical fallacy

 

[minamoto]

>dont know how to debate
in debates using insults is not against the rules man, its not a logical fallacy

no bro insults isn't right way to debate...

 

[Clown World]

no bro insults isn't right way to debate...

0k my mistake

 

[minamoto]

0k my mistake

no p...can u explain me ur sig???..

 

[Goetia]

Aim64C got it right, there's either a policy of free speech or there isn't. That being said, all ideas will be judged in discourse and discussion, the ideas people don't like will be phased out and abandoned. That's how it should be, all ideas should be given the chance to be judged based on any and/or all inherent merit.

>dont know how to debate
in debates using insults is not against the rules man, its not a logical fallacy

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Get off the computer retard.

 

[Clown World]

no p...can u explain me ur sig???..

my s1g is lord jacob rothschild holding a book called siege by james mason, it is just irony

Aim64C got it right, there's either a policy of free speech or there isn't. That being said, all ideas will be judged in discourse and discussion, the ideas people don't like will be phased out and abandoned. That's how it should be, all ideas should be given the chance to be judged based on any and/or all inherent merit.



"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Get off the computer retard.

lol i didnt use an adhom if you read the definition you got from google it even agrees with me that an insult is not one and i didnt divert any argument-um away from the topic. I did however put forward my own argument and attack his shitty thesis. Nice try though atleast you know a logical fallacy the next thing is figuring out what its meaning is.

 

[fiercerunner]

Insulting the other person immediately shows your lack of intelligence. It's like a cave man throwing a fit because he's upset that someone disagrees with him.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Yes. As disgusting as it is, speech is a right for everyone.

No it isn't. Degenerates should shut the hell up.

The line is only drawn when it comes to threats of violence or defamation. As with our current law, that is something one can press charges for.

Why that alone? Isn't that hindering free speech?

 

[Shanks]

I believe everyone should have freedom of speech but at what cost ?

You kid have no idea about nazis. Not even your fathers experienced. Just take the old interview of holocaust survivors and visit concentration camps. You will truly accept Nazis were horrible people on this earth.

I just cannot fathom how people even are fascinated with nazis i understand generation gap and social media giving a sorts of wrong messages most youngster i have met are fascinated wth nazism and fasicst regime.

 

[Lightbringer]

No it isn't. Degenerates should shut the hell up.

In the U.S. it is....it's literally the First and most important Amendment of the Constitution.

The reason why free speech is a right for everyone, including people who hate and disagree with, is because if speech was censored, then who gets to decide what is restricted? What if Trump got to decide what speech is allowed or is not? It's a good thing he can't.

Limiting speech paves the way for a dictatorship.

Why that alone? Isn't that hindering free speech?

Because that's already established law and those things directly hurt individuals or put their lives at risk with a direct threat.

 

[Made in Heaven]

In the U.S. it is....it's literally the First and most important Amendment of the Constitution.

I don't care about the USA. I'm arguing that not every should have freedom of speech, otherwise you'll have people like racists and nazis spouting hateful and evil ideologies.

The reason why free speech is a right for everyone, including people who hate and disagree with, is because if speech was censored, then who gets to decide what is restricted?

God.

Limiting speech paves the way for a dictatorship.

No it doesn't. It paves the way for peace. There will always be a need for some level of control over a government's citizen's in order to have peace. Otherwise, everyone would just go wild and do as they please. Holding people accountable for what they say and the sinister propaganda they spread is not the same as stopping free speech.

Because that's already established law and those things directly hurt individuals or put their lives at risk with a direct threat.

Circular reasoning much? So what if what I proposed is already an established law?

 

[Lightbringer]

I don't care about the USA. I'm arguing that not every should have freedom of speech, otherwise you'll have people like racists and nazis spouting hateful and evil ideologies.

Ok, but do you care about democracy? Censoring speech is literally what gives rise to dictatorships. You'd be no better than the Nazis if you argue that some don't deserve to voice an opinion. Well imagine if Nazi's were in control and they decided that they didn't like the opinion of Jews....oh wait.

God.

This answer disqualifies you from this discussion.

If "God" was the arbiter of speech, then religious individuals would censor anything they deemed blasphemous. There are countless historical and current examples of this.

You have countries like Saudi Arabia that behead atheists for their disbelief in God.

Unless you're telling me you have a direct line to God, this isn't an answer.

No it doesn't. It paves the way for peace. There will always be a need for some level of control over a government's citizen's in order to have peace. Otherwise, everyone would just go wild and do as they please. Holding people accountable for what they say and the sinister propaganda they spread is not the same as stopping free speech.

History and real-world examples prove you wrong.

Circular reasoning much? So what if what I proposed is already an established law?

Not really. The beauty of a Democracy is that people are able to vote. When slavery was established law, eventually people regarded it as an evil and decided it needed to be repealed.

Free speech for everyone is the cornerstone of any Democracy. Slander, libel, and direct threats of violence being the line drawn are sensible laws agreed upon as a society as the reasoning is it directly impacts the individual's well-being in more than just an emotional way.