Free speech and dead babies

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


So your argument is that people are idiots, and we therefore need to tailor the arguments to fit them?

And you are defending this?

I am defending the right to have your arguments take whatever form you wish

and to tailor them however you wish

if we had a much more intellectual society, arguments would be fashioned for them

we do not, so arguments are fashioned the way they are

this is not just for the pro-lifers, but everyone else who has an oppinion to voice does this as well

Jon Miller

[CyberGnu]

or ending a life

What relevance does this have?

or not allowing people to speak in a public forum

Well, as long as you agree that hate speech should be allowed right next to it, at least your view is consistent. I don't agree with it, but I see your point.

[Jon Miller]

I don't see how this is hate speech

but yes, the US is founded on the principles of free speech, once that is removed, there will be tyranny

(BTW, you have not even stated that it was hate speech before, are you suddenly changing arguments because you loast the last one?)

Jon Miller

[CyberGnu]

Our positions could thus be summed up as this:

I only consider an opinion based in reality a 'political opinion'.

You consider any opinion a 'political opinion', no matter how outrageous. correct?


BTW, I was planning to have a little exhibit here at Caltech called 'There are some fine-looking 14 year olds out there, let's legalize pedofilia NOW'. I have some pictures I found on an undisclosed website, that clearly shows how attractive 14 year olds can be.

In this display, I will carefully omit any mention of the real issue about pedofilia (that a 14 year old is not mature enough to consent, rendering pedofilia non-consentual), hoping for the red neck vote.

Could you contribute a dollar or two to my legal fees?

[DinoDoc]

Cyber: It's impolite to bludgeon people with red herrings.

[Jon Miller]

so you are saying that anything that agrees with your notions of reality, ie everything that you agree with, can be presented, everything that does not agree with your notions of reality, what you do not agree with, must be banned

do you see how youa re being tyrannical here?

and yes, the exhibit would be legal (and should be presented if put through the proper channels)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

as long as what was hown on the exhibit was legal, I should add

Jon Miller

[Lincoln]

The plain fact is that they are showing the product of abortion. They are protesting abortion. They are protected under the first amendment.

[CyberGnu]

Jon, it is equivalent to hate speech. see my 07-07-2002 20:57 post.

Regarding 'changing my views', I assumed that none of us had issues with forbidding hate speech. I see I was wrong about that.

Furthermore, while imposing your view that abortion is wrong based on lack of knowledge, wishful thinking or religious dogma would be illegal, arguing the science isn't. Much like the sentence 'black people have a higher potential of becoming long distance runners because their muscle tissue is shaped diffrently fran whites' isn't racist, while 'black people run faster because they have to chase the white peoples buses each morning' is.

So we are back to square one. Feel free to argue abortion, just stick to revelant issues.

[CyberGnu]

Dino, do you mean a strawman? A red herring is a false clue...

But is not a strawman. It is an analogous protest, where I protest the illegal nature of an act with an argument that has nothing to do with the issue.

[Dr. Nick]

Rights for Cancer Clumps!

Rights for little toes!

[CyberGnu]

so you are saying that anything that agrees with your notions of reality, ie everything that you agree with, can be presented, everything that does not agree with your notions of reality, what you do not agree with, must be banned

do you see how youa re being tyrannical here?

*sigh*

you aren't reading what I'm writing, apparently. Feel free to argue that the fetus is a human being, but base it on logical reasoning.

[Jon Miller]

but you are defining lack of knowledge, wishful thinking and religious dogma

why should you be able to say that I can not say any of my speech because you disagree with it (think it is one of the three above) when I think that it is not one of the three above

it is not your right, in fact it is against my rights, for you to say what is reasonable speech for me based upon something as nebuluous as speech that is wrong based upon lack of knowledge, wishful thinking, and religious dogma

you have no right to define what those are, because I disagree with you about what those are

and limiting my speech based upon those who be tyrrany of the extreme

if people who thought as you did controlled the nation, I would have no other choice but to take part in a violent aprising against you (and I prefer to change things in a democratic manner)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Rights for Cancer Clumps!

Rights for little toes!

but no rights for those who wish to protest something, apparently

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


*sigh*

you aren't reading what I'm writing, apparently. Feel free to argue that the fetus is a human being, but base it on logical reasoning.

but arguments and protests use more than jsut words, they use pcitures and emotions also

as such, posting a picture of a dead child in a public place is a proper form of protest

Jon Miller