You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

DarkMath ago

"freedom of speech on topics like sex"

Where did I say the guy isn't allowed to speak?

You should be smart enough to know what a Straw Man is given the "UK" in your username. And you just built a doozy. You can't attack my argument which is fucking children is wrong. So what do you do? Why you make this about free speech and then try to brow beat me into submission.

That sex educator has every right to give that talk. And I would fight to the death to make sure he will always have that right. But guess what, free speech goes both ways. I get to come here and make fun of his idiot ass. That's MY right.

I don't know how you ended up here but your comment is odd as fuck. It's very close to accusing me of "Hate Speech" which is the Left's polite way of robbing someone's right to express his opinions.

"In the future Fascists will be called anti-Fascists." - DarkMath

;-)

DerivaUK ago

Ignoring your misplaced quotation, I was merely making an observation about the video regarding the use of metaphor in regard to sexual reference and speech and making the comparison about our differing cultural restrictions. No attack or refutation of your argument was either implied or intended. Nor similarly any accusation of hate speech. Indeed, we agree on your fundamental premises that fucking children is wrong and the right of this man to say what he wants is worthy of a battle to the death. However, I will argue that the right to call him an idiot is not yours exclusively. There was no informal fallacy here. I was not arguing with your statement, my comment was purely observational, as stated. Maybe you're shill weary and it's maybe making you hyper touchy, for your apparent "counter attack" was not justified given that there was no attack from me (or even argument) in the first place. I have respect for you, in truth.

DarkMath ago

"Ignoring your misplaced quotation"

Misplaced? You didn't know that Churchill didn't say that?

Regarding the remainder of your comment I can tell you're highly educated, English and possess a high verbal aptitude which basically means you could "concern troll" a vulture off a meat truck. I think if you go back and look at what you wrote again you'll acknowledge use of the words "taboo" and "censorship" along with the freedom of speech line we just talked about all add up to a "Begging the Question" fallacy where in this case you put down "taboo", "censorship", and "freedom of speech" and pray the reader starts to feel like a deplorable shit lord.

But the problem is I'm American and can spot your ruse that I'm pretty sure you can't even see yourself and you wrote it.

Whiiiiiiiiiich gets to my final point, the problem isn't criticizing a man for slinging around an idea that's so wrong and morally repugnant my teeth hurt.

The problem is you're English. In England evidently you're too polite to call a spade a spade. Isn't that the English way? Be polite at all costs?

But why and for what? There is no reason. The English aren't polite, they're afraid. The aristocratic class has brow beaten you poor sods for so long it's still part of your culture even though your aristocracy went the way of the doe-doe.

It's time to break your shackles random English guy I'm talking to on the Interwebs. We did it a little over 225 years ago and it feels sublime.

Free your mind and your ass will follow.

:-D

DerivaUK ago

No. I had no idea Churchill had ever said that. I'm sorry but you've misconstrued my observational comment to be an attack. I can't defend that. This is a debate on semantics rather than content and I apologise if I did not express myself clearly enough in that regard (see, Im being polite again) I do however, welcome the backhanded compliment although refute that my aptitude should ever be used for such purposes. I do agree about the British having been beaten into submission when it comes to argument with politeness and that it is indeed endemic - although I personally am not shackled by it - but identify with a sense of fairness that is intrinsically linked to that politeness, and I won't knock that as you do - hence the apology. That you would describe this as weakness or fear is where our opinion would differ. We are on the same side when it comes to the fundamentals, friend. Potato - potahtoe debates aside. Careful with those gender assumptions though ;)

DarkMath ago

"I personally am not shackled by it"

You could have fooled me.

"but identify with a sense of fairness that is intrinsically linked to that politeness"

There are many reasons people are polite. Some are natural but some are forced. We're polite to judges and to police, at least I am. That politeness is because of the exact opposite of a "sense of fairness". I'm polite to judges and police because I don't want to risk them being unfair.

Gender? So you're a woman. That explains everything.

DerivaUK ago

"I'm polite to judges and police because I don't want to risk them being unfair" Take that as a backhanded compliment by return. As for the clip? I'll take that as you intended, and at least I will leave with a smile ;)