Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Handel !tYHPZ2dvu6 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#338,010
People should be allowed to hate ( and voice their hate ) if people are allowed to love.
I'll tell you what should be banned: Public displays of affection.
postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#338,073
No, because when hate speech is banned, only the groups the majority decides are okay are protected from hate speech. For example, show me one place in the world where talking poorly about Pedophiles is against the law.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#338,134
as long as it is speech that is not meant to invite violence then it's pretty much open season on what you can say. be as hate-filled and vile as you like, but, don't expect people not to react to that speech without vile and spurn for you.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#338,137
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
10/10
Politicians do hate speek all the time.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 37 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#338,138
statism, liberty, decadence, etc
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#338,246
How do you determine what hate speech is? A lot of mainstream movements were founded with ideas which were seen as sacrilegious and rebellious by the mainstream society of the time.
Additionally, how would further ostracizing the fringe movements these laws are supposed to target making peaceful expression illegal for them somehow make them less belligerent? These laws are proposed and passed by people who care more about "expressing" their moral superiority than making a positive change. Nobody is actually protected by hate speech laws in the same sense that no rape was prevented by anti-pornography laws. Discouraging one form of expression just makes another more enticing.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#338,267
I'm sure he'd find that one guy can't do anything when the world is determined not to use violence, no matter how violent he himself becomes.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#338,268
@338,073 (postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
Well sure, there's going to be a value judgment about the people deserving of judgment, but the fact that these choices are made doesn't invalidate the entire scheme.
Surely you'd recognize a difference between "pedophiles" and "gays," right? One being a group classified by an attraction that's dangerous and harmful to engage in, the other an orientation that hurts no one to act out on?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#338,335
@338,267 (B)
He can kill and torture people. China's still running Tibet, is it not?
Pacifism is dehumanizing.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 16 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#338,474
Yes, he can. But he can be treated, or imprisoned humanely, and he will never have the capability to restructure society, set up a government and assume a leadership position in that government.
> China's still running Tibet, is it not?
But Britain doesn't run India or Egypt, and African Americans and American homosexuals have rights. Nonviolent resistance is the most effective way to ensure lasting change.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#338,502
An ad-hominem attack is when the person responding to an argument attacks the person he is arguing against rather than actually addressing the argument.
But to answer what I'm assuming your point was, no I don't feel the urge to pound down someone who any of my ex-girlfriends shack up with, and I think you're a caveman and a sexist for thinking that it's a good thing to do. Violence is never justified, and women aren't objects for you to own.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#338,538
@previous (B)
Oh get over it. I attacked you. Big fucking deal. I only did so because you are weak and pathetic.
Ohhh, I'm sexist. Ohhh, I'm a caveman. Fuck off. You've made no case whatsoever as to why being a caveman or a sexist is in any way detrimental to my person. Stupid fuck!
And the point was not whether or not you felt the urge to pond someone for fucking a girl you loved, but rather, whether or not you suffered as a result of that reality. But again, you'd have to have gotten laid to know the feeling.
> Violence is never justified
Thanks for your opinion, pussy. Now lube up that asshole real good.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#338,569
You seem mad. You should probably question what kind of a person you're becoming when you find that someone's refusal to be violent somehow makes you butthurt.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#338,618
how about we put it in terms of an apocalypse. When i come crawling out of my dusty and dilapidated bomb shelter i'm gonna be hungry, thirsty, and armed.
I'll specifically be looking for pacifists so i can break their arms and take what's mine. i'll be horny too
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#338,622
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Except all you will find is other horny men.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#338,623
@previous (D)
what are you saying, women are too weak to survive an apocalypse?
that's sexist.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#338,625
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
It is an undisputed fact that women are not as physically strong as men. (In general)
WadeWilson !ImAdick7a2 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#338,631
Cant Vote because someone cleared the cookies or something.
Who cares.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#338,632
@previous (WadeWilson !ImAdick7a2)
I never did vote & I still can.
WadeWilson !ImAdick7a2 replied with this 14 years ago, 19 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#338,785