Everyone’s OPINION has to be tolerated. If you dont tolerate the people you deem “the intolerant” then those people will see you as intolerant (against them) aswell. According to you, they would then be right not not tolerate you (as “the intolerant” that doesnt tolerate them).
As long as they dont take away from anybody else’s freedom (and by just stating one’s opinion one doesnt do that) it has to be tolerated, otherwise it is censorship.
Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant. Right now radical fascists and Nazis have all the free speech they could possibly ask for, yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi arguing only for Nazi free speech.
Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant
I dont care for US shows though if FoxNews and AM Radio are private companies, they can IMO do what they want
yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi
Im not complaining about censorship, there is nothing that is currently bothering me, Im just arguing for the principle of a general non-exclusive freedom of expression. For absolutely everyone.
The problem with your “private company” defense is that they used government power to ensure their voice was heard loudest above all others. They literally censored in the most literal sense of the word.
Not tolerating someone (“the intolerant”) makes you, to a certain extent, intolerant yourself. According to your own logic, they then should not tolerate you (the shouldn’t “tolerate the intolerant”).
Essentially, who is “intolerant” depends on your subjective opinion and cannot be objectively determimed, except if that person accepts all voices to be heard, in that case we could say they are very much tolerant. In any other case, it depends on your opinion.
It’s similar to the concept of being an outlaw. If you decide to break the laws, then laws no longer apply to you, including those that serve to protect you. If you do not tolerate, then you do not get the protections of tolerance.
What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored? Go ahead and say it here. Let’s see if it’s something we haven’t already heard a million times and rejected.
What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored?
Im not arguing for a specific thing not to be censored, Im arguing that everyone should have the freedom of expression, no matter their political views. That is a matter of principle.
Everyone’s OPINION has to be tolerated. If you dont tolerate the people you deem “the intolerant” then those people will see you as intolerant (against them) aswell. According to you, they would then be right not not tolerate you (as “the intolerant” that doesnt tolerate them).
As long as they dont take away from anybody else’s freedom (and by just stating one’s opinion one doesnt do that) it has to be tolerated, otherwise it is censorship.
deleted by creator
(Wrong). Its interesting that you think that just because I argued everyones opinion should be allowed.
Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant. Right now radical fascists and Nazis have all the free speech they could possibly ask for, yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi arguing only for Nazi free speech.
I dont care for US shows though if FoxNews and AM Radio are private companies, they can IMO do what they want
Im not complaining about censorship, there is nothing that is currently bothering me, Im just arguing for the principle of a general non-exclusive freedom of expression. For absolutely everyone.
The problem with your “private company” defense is that they used government power to ensure their voice was heard loudest above all others. They literally censored in the most literal sense of the word.
So if you don’t tolerate the intolerant, then they will be intolerant? I don’t follow this logic.
Not tolerating someone (“the intolerant”) makes you, to a certain extent, intolerant yourself. According to your own logic, they then should not tolerate you (the shouldn’t “tolerate the intolerant”).
Essentially, who is “intolerant” depends on your subjective opinion and cannot be objectively determimed, except if that person accepts all voices to be heard, in that case we could say they are very much tolerant. In any other case, it depends on your opinion.
It’s similar to the concept of being an outlaw. If you decide to break the laws, then laws no longer apply to you, including those that serve to protect you. If you do not tolerate, then you do not get the protections of tolerance.
deleted by creator
Why must person A tolerate person B’s belief that person A should not have the right to life and liberty?
You can call it an opinion all you like, but the truth is that opinions inevitably become actions.
what’s the value of me tolerating someone who’s stated aims are to do me, my family and friends harm?
What’s the value of tolerating any other opinion than yours?
What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored? Go ahead and say it here. Let’s see if it’s something we haven’t already heard a million times and rejected.
Im not arguing for a specific thing not to be censored, Im arguing that everyone should have the freedom of expression, no matter their political views. That is a matter of principle.