Why we still have Democrats


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest LiterateParakeet
Just now, mirkwood said:

How was I evasive?

What is your true intent with these questions? 

I gave you an honest answer and yet you don't trust it and implied that I'm lying. What gives? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To see if you will openly condemn the leftist efforts at shutting down conservatives right to free speech?

Nothing evasive about that at all.

It is a simple question really. 

Yes I condemn those actions or no I do not condemn those actions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

What is your true intent with these questions? 

I gave you an honest answer and yet you don't trust it and implied that I'm lying. What gives? 

What @mirkwood is looking for is a strong statement of condemnation.   You did say you were concerned about it, but that falls a bit short of direct condemnation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

To see if you will openly condemn the leftist efforts at shutting down conservatives right to free speech?

Nothing evasive about that at all.

It is a simple question really. 

Yes I condemn those actions or no I do not condemn those actions.

 

Why was my previous answer so unacceptable to you?  I realize you want a simple yes or no, but I don't see this as a black and white issue. I tried to address that in my response. In my mind, I gave you better than a one word yes or no answer

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

What @mirkwood is looking for is a strong statement of condemnation.   You did say you were concerned about it, but that falls a bit short of direct condemnation. 

Thank you. That does help.  Like I told him, I rarely see things in black and white. Yes, I am concerned but I don't feel comfortable making the blanket statement that is being asked...its too black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Thank you. That does help.  Like I told him, I rarely see things in black and white. Yes, I am concerned but I don't feel comfortable making the blanket statement that is being asked...its too black and white.

I can understand that.  And maybe we disagree on this but even though many things are nuanced, this isn't one of them, in my view.  The instant we start using censorship to shut up people with undesirable opinions, we have now established a precedent that says that free speech isn't for everybody.  Once that happens it's only a matter of time before it's gone completely.

So I too condemn, in no uncertain terms, efforts at political censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

No, you dodged condemnation.  You said it was a concern, but you won't condemn 

I didn't "dodge". That implies hiding something. I'm not hiding anything. Just because we disagree doesn't make me a liar...do we agree on that at least?  

You are welcome to your opinion but if you are going to continue insinuating that I'm being anything less than honest. I'm out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I can understand that.  And maybe we disagree on this but even though many things are nuanced, this isn't one of them, in my view.  The instant we start using censorship to shut up people with undesirable opinions, we have now established a precedent that says that free speech isn't for everybody.  Once that happens it's only a matter of time before it's gone completely.

So I too condemn, in no uncertain terms, efforts at political censorship.

I agree...in a concerned but not condemning way, Lol.  See the problem is that the other side uses the same argument to protect pornography...all censorship is wrong they say. 

You know how in self defense they warn that any weapon could potentially be used against you...censorship...is the same. 

Censorship, government, guns etc....so many things...are like fire. They can save your life or take it.  

That's why I take it on a case by case basis....

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree...in a concerned but not condemning way, Lol.  See the problem is that the other side uses the same argument to protect pornography...all censorship is wrong they say. 

You know how in self defense they warn that any weapon could potentially be used against you...censorship...is the same. 

Censorship, government, guns etc....so many things...are like fire. They can save your life or take it.  

Agreed.  And I'm of two minds when it comes to stuff like free speech vs. porn.

On the one hand, as a Libertarian I have to concede that the rules do apply to all, equally.  So if that's what consenting adults want to do, then neither I nor the Government ought to have the authority to prevent it.

At the same time, morally, when I look at what each political side is fighting for what to do with their freedom, it becomes quite clear which side is the true moral side.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 I didn't "dodge". That implies hiding something. I'm not hiding anything. Just because we disagree doesn't make me a liar...do we agree on that at least?  

You are welcome to your opinion but if you are going to continue insinuating that I'm being anything less than honest. I'm out. 

Yes you are dodging an answer.

No you are not a liar because we disagree.  That does not even make you a bad person (disagreeing.)

I did not call you dishonest or a liar.  

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Why do we still have liberals? (To phrase the question in a nationality neutral form).

Maybe, because God and Jesus are both liberals. I merely suggest the possibility for the purposes of discussion. So far as I can make out, their characters are both consistent with 'letting people go to Hell in their own way', even if interpreted differently by the various authors of the various scriptures. So far as I can make out, Jesus did not ban anything; just made it clear that there are only two fundamental requirements; to 'Love God', and to 'Love each other'*. If we can only get those two properly in place, I don't think God or Jesus care very much what we get up to.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Mark 12: 30-31, Matthew 22: 36-40, Luke 10:25-28 KJV

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
19 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Yes you are dodging an answer.

No you are not a liar because we disagree.  That does not even make you a bad person (disagreeing.)

I did not call you dishonest or a liar.  

Thank you for this. I assure you am not dodging, either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
27 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Agreed.  And I'm of two minds when it comes to stuff like free speech vs. porn.

On the one hand, as a Libertarian I have to concede that the rules do apply to all, equally.  So if that's what consenting adults want to do, then neither I nor the Government ought to have the authority to prevent it.

At the same time, morally, when I look at what each political side is fighting for what to do with their freedom, it becomes quite clear which side is the true moral side.

I agree that its complicated. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree that its complicated. :)

I think sometimes it's complicated, but that doesn't mean we can't come to simple, basic truths.  Silencing political speech is wrong.  Period.  There's no ambiguity there.  None.  That's not complicated at all.  There's no nuance there. 

We can  talk about nuance in free speech as it pertains to adult material and such, but that isn't political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Yes, I am concerned but I don't feel comfortable making the blanket statement that is being asked...its too black and white.

So then: No, you will not openly condemn the leftist efforts at shutting down conservatives' right to free speech.

That was easy. Here's a follow-up question:

If conservatives were to make an open attempt to shut down liberals' exercise of their free speech rights, would you openly condemn that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

You're being disingenuous.

So in other words, you do not accept @LiterateParakeet's answer because she's not wording it with the words that you want her to type?

If it was the other way around, would you condemn conservatives efforts at shutting down leftist right to free speech?

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maureen said:

So in other words, you do not accept @LiterateParakeet's answer because she's not wording it with the words that you want her to type?

 

She has avoided directly answering the question.  I was pretty clear about that.

 

Quote

If it was the other way around, would you condemn conservatives efforts at shutting down leftist right to free speech?

M.

 

Absolutely.  I condemn anyone attempting to shut down free speech.

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
19 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

Absolutely.  I condemn anyone attempting to shut down free speech.

Even those who  claim pornography as free speech, and protect it that way? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
40 minutes ago, Vort said:

So then: No, you will not openly condemn the leftist efforts at shutting down conservatives' right to free speech.

That was easy. Here's a follow-up question:

If conservatives were to make an open attempt to shut down liberals' exercise of their free speech rights, would you openly condemn that?

Fair question, but I thought I already answered that with my point about pornography. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
45 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I think sometimes it's complicated, but that doesn't mean we can't come to simple, basic truths.  Silencing political speech is wrong.  Period.  There's no ambiguity there.  None.  That's not complicated at all.  There's no nuance there. 

We can  talk about nuance in free speech as it pertains to adult material and such, but that isn't political.

Okay, perhaps we may have common ground here, but first I need to know what you define as political speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share