Ouroboros108 said: He was joking about it. His words were pretty clear. @Immahnoob Yes, because we should all praise the same dude who proudly said "Yeah, I fucked a priest when I was underage lol it was so goood." CPAC had every right to kick him out. Legal rights are irrelevant in this discussion. This isn't a matter of legality. Had Milo not said any of that, I wouldn't be here talking about this in the first place. I may not like Milo very much, but I've always supported his right to free speech. He was still technically exercising his free speech in this scenario, but this time there was a consequence for his actions. He crossed the line in my opinion. The consequences were disproportionate. He was met with anything but counterargument.Governmental censorship? There are some cases where it should be fine to censor certain opinions if they are directly promoting violence. What you let yourself be influenced by and what you act upon are only your fault. but free speech should be allowed in most situations. Easily all situations.Keep in mind that censorship isn't always needed. Certain cultural attitudes can facilitate and moderate hate speech. A Neo-Nazi can say "The holocaust was a lie" and still say it with 100% legality in the US, but I don't think everyone around him is going to go "gee golly, thanks for exercising your free speech!" They're probably going to go and say "Wow, you're such a dick." To attack someone's speech with speech is not disproportionate in any way, so that is fine. Hate speech is also not an issue. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
JustALEX said: Why don't you describe their political world view for me?@Thrashinuva I'm not a conservative because I HIGHLY disagree with their political worldview. It's just that simple. As for Milo....he brought this upon himself. He thought he could keep disturbing the hornet's nest and he would never be stung. Again...it was CONSERVATIVES that brought Milo down. Not liberals or the left, or the "liberal media". And you don't really think that he assumed he'd never be targeted, do you? |
Thrashinuva said: JustALEX said: Why don't you describe their political world view for me?@Thrashinuva I'm not a conservative because I HIGHLY disagree with their political worldview. It's just that simple. As for Milo....he brought this upon himself. He thought he could keep disturbing the hornet's nest and he would never be stung. Again...it was CONSERVATIVES that brought Milo down. Not liberals or the left, or the "liberal media". And you don't really think that he assumed he'd never be targeted, do you? Conservatives are "traditionalists" who hold on to certain values, typically "Family Values"... They are typically against any big changes such as gay marriage. They are also against things like recreational drugs legalization, abortion, euthanasia, and other social things... But my biggest beef of all? They are VERY religious (Christianity mostly).... And I can not tell you how much I DESPISE Christianity. |
JustALEX said: What you describe as Conservative is more closely Republican. The two are not the same. Conservatism is about following the constitution in the way that the founders intended, and also being "conservative" about the size and power of the government. Conservatives believe that the government is too powerful right now and that we need to downsize it, and that doing so would not disadvantage us in the slightest.Thrashinuva said: Why don't you describe their political world view for me? And you don't really think that he assumed he'd never be targeted, do you? Conservatives are "traditionalists" who hold on to certain values, typically "Family Values"... They are typically against any big changes such as gay marriage. They are also against things like recreational drugs legalization, abortion, euthanasia, and other social things... But my biggest beef of all? They are VERY religious (Christianity mostly).... And I can not tell you how much I DESPISE Christianity. Other than those positions conservatism is open to a wide variety of views and backgrounds. As it is in the Constitution, freedom of speech and religion are highly cherished values and as such they welcome anyone who is of upright moral character regardless of beliefs. For clarity I most closely align with these beliefs and more or less define myself as conservative (I'm not religious btw). I'm not a Republican however. If I had to choose it would be libertarian. |
| @Thrashinuva Nope, you only described Libertarian Conservatism and claimed that is what Conservative means. Conservatism is about attempt at maintaining or restoring pre-existing social order and hierarchies whether economic or religious or whatever as it differs on what it's focus is. So it's basically nostalgia the ideology. |
traed said: Thanks but you're wrong. Just because there are people with those ideals within the conservative sphere does not mean that those are conservative ideals. Just the same I wouldn't label safe spaces as a Liberal ideal. I defined it how it is. You're allowed to disagree just as you're allowed to be wrong.@Thrashinuva Nope, you only described Libertarian Conservatism and claimed that is what Conservative means. Conservatism is about attempt at maintaining or restoring pre-existing social order and hierarchies whether economic or religious or whatever as it differs on what it's focus is. So it's basically nostalgia the ideology. |
| "Omg, let me hate on everyone. But don't call me a bigot, that's rude.. even though it's quite literally accurate af." |
 Three things cannot be long hidden.. ...the s u n, the m oo n, and the tr u th. |
| @Ouroboros108 I had a feeling you were going to use the "LOL HE WAS JUST JOKING BRO" excuse. It's called an explanation.If he really was joking, it was a pretty shitty joke. Things said in jest are said in jest even if you believe them to not be funny.Though having listened to the podcast, he didn't seem very joking to me. "He taught me to give some good head, lol", totally not joking.Considering how he was sexually abused as a child, I think this might be some sort of coping mechanism. Yes, joking is a coping mechanism, why are you contradicting yourself?It seemed that he was defending his abuser however, which in of itself is fucked up. He never did that though.Considering the fact that he apologized for what he did, that clearly indicates that he was in some way at fault here. He apologized because he used the word "boys" in one part of the podcast, which made it easy for everyone to take what he said out of context, even if the context included the age of consent. When I said that CPAC had the "right" to kick Milo off, I used "right" less in it's traditional means, and moreso as an expression, as in "they had the capabilities to do what they did. So you're being irrelevant.Counter-argument? Yes, because supporting being sexually abused by a priest is truly worthy of a counter-argument. While I do understand your point, it's kinda hard to defend this. When you keep on repeating yourself despite the fact that your repetition has no basis.So if someone in the work place is harassing employees, we shouldn't do anything about it, no matter how damaging it may be? "Damaging", kek. If it's verbal only, it doesn't matter.Or if someone is saying "I'm going to fucking kill you" and means it seriously to someone, we should allow them and not care about the potential repercussions? If I were the boss of a corporation, I wouldn't go "Golly, you're just exercising your right of freedom of speech! Golly gee, isn't that wonderful?" Threats being investigated isn't an infringement of this supposed "everything is allowed" free speech that I am arguing for. Hate speech isn't an issue? So looks like we're just going to ignore the problem and pretend it doesn't exist then? That's some really sound logic right there. I'm not ignoring it because I just denied it to be an issue. Sorry, but hate speech even in its serious form does not do anything. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| @Ouroboros108 If it is an explanation, then it doesn't hold up as a sufficient explanation. I don't believe that he was joking, as there was no real setup or proper setup. It was just "lol i sucked the dick of a priest and i liked it, lol look how edgy i am." I don't really think it was said in jest, as I really don't see what's so funny about it. Things said in jest are said in jest even if you believe them to not be funny. Actually, he was abused as a child sexually, including by a priest. http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/21/milo-victim-child-abuse/ Never said otherwise. Not like it's really that important either. Regarding CPAC, I was merely just trying to explain my wording of the situation, and how I feel you might have misinterpreted it. That's all I was trying to do. Nope, them having the capabilities to eject him was never put under question, nor does it matter to the discussion anyway.Which is why you were being irrelevant. I don't recall him apologizing for that. If the article I linked to was any indication, he's not really one to apologize. Recall less then."I shouldn't have used the word "boy" -- which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age -- instead of "young man." That was an error." https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/posts/851826321621931 "Verbal only" as you put it, can be kind of inaccurate. Verbal abuse can be quite psychologically damaging, especially for those who were verbally harassed like say, by an abusive husband or spouse. Verbal abuse has nothing backing it up as "psychologically damaging". See above for my opinion regarding verbal abuse and by extension, hate speech. Rhetoric can be a powerful tool, and hate speech when used rhetorically can be at times harmful. Not enough to deny them out of the "free speech" mantra I am arguing for. Because at that point, you can easily claim any speech is harmful.While it did not harm anyone, it's genocidal and racist rhetoric inspired Timothy McVeigh to commit the Oklahoma City Bombings. Ban all violence in the media now?While the novel did not directly kill anyone, the hate speech it promoted certainly inspired others to do so. So someone made a conscious choice to follow his beliefs by committing actions that support those beliefs.But hey, you already agree with me, so I guess this isn't actually an argument you're presenting. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| @Ouroboros108 Actually, the fact that he was abused by the priest was relevant. You had said that he was not defending his abuser, but combine the fact that he bragged about having sex, and that the priest had actually abused him is relevant, as people who are sexually abused sometimes try to rationalize their abuse by suggesting that they secretly liked it. Do you really want to argue that now victims are incapable of any rational thought when it comes to what happened to them?No, the fact that he was abused doesn't matter in this discussion, since he never defended the priest, he "clarifies" (not that it needed clarification) himself. But I guess victims can't be trusted with anything of the sort because they're vegetables when it comes to anything related to the crime committed upon them. And supposedly, every act of violence, because they are crimes, all end up with victims, no matter what. That's another nice way to rationalize away fringe groups because it's icky to think about it. Based on what evidence? Or exactly, what reasoning is behind your statements that verbal abuse isn't harmful? You're the one that made the claim that it is, I don't see you bringing any evidence to the table.What I'm trying to say is that harmful speech would be speech that is intended to induce or promote harming others, such as when radical Islamic clerics advocate suicide bombing and terrorism. As I said, I don't see the issue. The people acting on the beliefs are the issues, the ideas do not kill anyone.People would understandably want to ban such rhetoric, but somehow when Neo-Nazis advocate murdering minorities that does not induce the same response? Shouldn't we do something about what they are saying if they are actively promoting terrorism. Yeah well, people like you that can't differentiate between speech and action tend to want free speech to have arbitrary ways in which it is limited.We shouldn't ban violence, no. I generally like media such as The Godfather, Doom, and various other products that are quite violent. However, those movies aren't saying "yeah, go out and kill people everyone!" The violence is used for the story, not as a serious promotion of illegal murder. So you're all ok for censorship that "promotes "illegal" murder"? I guess e.g. Hatred shouldn't exist or be banned and maybe the people that made it jailed or fined in some way or another for "promoting violence".Censorship in art is always bad. And what of it? Of course it was his own choice, but it also a horrific tragedy, a tragedy fueled by a combination of Timothy's own psychological problems and far-right white supremacist rhetoric. Combine the two together, and the results are not very encouraging. It doesn't matter though, as I said, it was his choice, and his mental illness is an argument for me, he clearly wasn't in a right state of mind if he acted upon those ideals. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| I don't recall Mr Yiannopolous being imprisoned after making the statement, several organisations that he was close to simply decided to distance themselves from him because of it. It's one thing to say that people should not be punished by the state for saying something, but quite another to suggest that people should not be allowed to condemn, criticise or end professional relationships with people who say controversial things. There is however an interesting point to be made here. I'm fairly confident that everyone reading this right now uses Google as their search engine. According to the argument I just made Google should, as a private business, be allowed to control the content that it shows you, censor or exclude information that it doesn't agree with. But the amount of power google possessed, in such a case, would be greater than the state in a lot of ways. And so I feel that a company like Google, should be obligated to respect freedom of speech. Another issue is discriminatory behaviour, as in the bakeries that refused to make gay wedding cakes. Should these businesses be forced to do things that go against their personal beliefs? If the answer is no, then they should also be allowed to refuse people based on race, ethnic origin or if they have a disability. Such policies do not lead to a harmonious society. Throughout the above there is a distinction to be made between saying things and actions. Milo Yiannopolous should be free to say what he likes but his business partners are not obligated to support him when he does so. Google should be obligated to include all types of speech, but not hold any liability for it. The bakery should be free to express its disagreement with gay marriage, but barred from discriminating against homosexuals. My worry is that there is some inconsistency here. I don't doubt that this would yield the best results, but it might require one to bend the rule of 'everyone is equal before the law'. Would be interested in hearing any critical interpretations. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| @AnnoKano Your first argument relies on a strawman. This was never a legal issue for anyone against these decisions. They can do whatever they want as private companies, but that doesn't mean that it's right. This is more of a matter of "human rights" (I say "freedom of speech" is a human right), since those are deemed inherent, regardless of law. And as you yourself said: My worry is that there is some inconsistency here. Milo Yiannopolous should be free to say what he likes but his business partners are not obligated to support him when he does so. The bakery should be free to express its disagreement with gay marriage, but barred from discriminating against homosexuals. These two are contradictions. First of, it's not supporting his views to let him have a platform, that's an important distinction to make. Second of, both of these are services, they both should be able to allow or disallow who to serve or who to give a platform to, why should one be unable to say "no" but others can? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| The only INDIVIDUALS who should be protected from speech are people who are NOT public figures, that includes relatives of public figures, who are not public figures themselves (for example Barron Trump). Everyone and everything else is free game. Of course when people pretend to not be public figures, while still having much more influence over everything than it seems (for example donors who control politicians from behind the scene with money), then they should be free game as well. The only grey area is when someone has much influence on world-events by accident, for example if someone invented something that has a big impact in the world, but wants to be anonymous, only to then have his/her identity leaked because, for example, ISIS happens to have gained some kind of adventage due to the invention and someone who knows the identity of the inventor and blames the inventor decided to therefore leak the identity of the inventor. As for so-called "collective groups" who could not possibly have a valid spokesperson who can properly represent that collective because the people within the collective don't necessarily see themselves as being part of it (for example the so-called "collectives" of people with their respective skin color): This should disappear from the field of discussion entirely, because it's in general intellectually lazy and usually only result in either pointless bickering, or extreme hatred between the so-called "collectives". |
 |
Thrashinuva said: traed said: Thanks but you're wrong. Just because there are people with those ideals within the conservative sphere does not mean that those are conservative ideals. Just the same I wouldn't label safe spaces as a Liberal ideal. I defined it how it is. You're allowed to disagree just as you're allowed to be wrong.@Thrashinuva Nope, you only described Libertarian Conservatism and claimed that is what Conservative means. Conservatism is about attempt at maintaining or restoring pre-existing social order and hierarchies whether economic or religious or whatever as it differs on what it's focus is. So it's basically nostalgia the ideology. It's not an opinion i's a fact...why the fuck do you think it's called conservative? It's about conserving. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conservatism http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conservative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism |
| Speaking of safe-spaces: There already is a certain long-established safe-space in pretty much every university. As to what it is, the young man in the following video will tell you: |
|
| @Ouroboros108 I am not at all arguing that. What I am arguing is that this was perhaps Milo's way of coping with his past abuse, and when it was brought up he said that he liked what the priest did to him despite being the subject of awful abuse. No, he never did say that and the implications you're thinking of came out of a joke he made.It's sad that you repeat yourself even after being debunked on the matter. As for bringing evidence, here's some articles that might help. Sources without any peer reviewed material backing them up are opinions. They hold as much relevance as my or your word do.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mysteries-love/201503/15-types-verbal-abuse-in-relationships http://www.loveisrespect.org/is-this-abuse/types-of-abuse/#tab-id-2 The fact that you assimilate other's beliefs of you and harm yourself is only your fault. So you're implying that Neo-Nazis don't act on what they say, but radical Islamists do act on what they say? No.Hatred didn't necessarily promote illegal murder either. Even though the protagonist clearly commits acts of illegal murder, the audience is intended to be horrified by what he is doing, rather than embracing what he is doing. The very game itself was intended as pure shock value, and little else. It clearly gives you the reigns to kill anyone and everything that moves, in very gruesome ways, and the game never once chastises you for it, it actually just makes him succeed (and you), him still holding his beliefs and you still having killed everyone with his persona. So games like Rapelay, by the way, are all fine and dandy? They clearly promote rape, by portraying women as willing if you continuously submit them to it. It's clear as day that he wasn't in the right state of mind after all, but clearly. the rhetoric that he was inspired by also played a role in conjunction with his mental illness. There are many mentally ill people who do not commit such crimes, but giving unstable people radical rhetoric won't help matters either. Neither will banning this rhetoric. The rhetoric did nothing to kill anyone. Only the people assimilating and acting upon them killed instead.How many times do I have to tell you? It's easy, there's speech, there's belief, and then there is action. Only action should be an issue since that's the only thing that actually harms. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
traed said: Thrashinuva said: Thanks but you're wrong. Just because there are people with those ideals within the conservative sphere does not mean that those are conservative ideals. Just the same I wouldn't label safe spaces as a Liberal ideal. I defined it how it is. You're allowed to disagree just as you're allowed to be wrong. It's not an opinion i's a fact...why the fuck do you think it's called conservative? It's about conserving. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conservatism http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conservative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conservatism Liberal: "Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own" "Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms." Conservative: "Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values." Between the two these definitions surely paints Liberals in a shining glorious light full of hope, while the other seems very bleak and socially closed off. I think it's fairly clear that this is not representative of the political environment of America today, and is either more representative of the political environment in Great Britain, which many of the definitions reference repeatedly, or the definitions themselves are political in nature. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conservative "The noun is attested from 1831, originally in the British political sense." Not relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism "American Conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, economic liberalism, anti-communism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from perceived threats posed by "creeping socialism", moral relativism, multiculturalism, and liberal internationalism. Liberty is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government, and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur. American conservatives consider individual liberty, within the bounds of conformity to American values, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice." https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism "Politics in the United States never quite conformed to the doctrinal patterns exhibited in continental Europe or even Britain" |
Immahnoob said: @AnnoKano Your first argument relies on a strawman. This was never a legal issue for anyone against these decisions. They can do whatever they want as private companies, but that doesn't mean that it's right. This is more of a matter of "human rights" (I say "freedom of speech" is a human right), since those are deemed inherent, regardless of law. And as you yourself said: My worry is that there is some inconsistency here. Milo Yiannopolous should be free to say what he likes but his business partners are not obligated to support him when he does so. The bakery should be free to express its disagreement with gay marriage, but barred from discriminating against homosexuals. These two are contradictions. First of, it's not supporting his views to let him have a platform, that's an important distinction to make. Second of, both of these are services, they both should be able to allow or disallow who to serve or who to give a platform to, why should one be unable to say "no" but others can? Sexual orientation and race are social categories humans are put into, views are opinions humans hold. Very different things. Thrashinuva said: Ideas and opinions are protected. Statements such as "I think the age of consent should be 3 years old" is an idea, and an opinion, and a person can say such a thing on live national TV and incur no penalty (if the law is working as it should). Someone's feelings may be hurt, but people are not protected from the distress that ideas may bring, unless those ideas are clear threats. The idea itself does not imply any kind of harm, other than what someone's opinion of mental harm would be to a child.. Thinking the age of consent cause physical harm is not an opinion in the slightest. It's either fact or fiction, but it's not an *opinion*. Mental harm would be more apt, but physical harm is a very objective thing here. |
| ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ |
| @ashfrliebert Sexual orientation and race are social categories humans are put into, views are opinions humans hold. Very different things. His views hold the same weight as sexual orientation, race, etc when it comes to "discrimination".E.g. being fired for a "wrong opinion" is at the same level as being fired for being "Mexican". Although, it's clear you didn't understand the context at all: The bakery should be free to express its disagreement with gay marriage, but barred from discriminating against homosexuals. Milo Yiannopolous should be free to say what he likes but his business partners are not obligated to support him when he does so. If the bakery disagrees with gay marriage, it can but it shouldn't discriminate against them by not baking them cakes.If Milo says something controversial, a platform like CPAC can disagree, but it shouldn't discriminate against him and not allow him the platform if he was invited/paid for it. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: His views hold the same weight as sexual orientation, race, etc when it comes to "discrimination". E.g. being fired for a "wrong opinion" is at the same level as being fired for being "Mexican". No it's not. Sexual orientation and race aren't "opinions" that can be changed, it is harmless things that people are born with it. It is not the same category as an opinion, so it cannot be compared. If Milo says something controversial, a platform like CPAC can disagree, but it shouldn't discriminate against him and not allow him the platform if he was invited/paid for it. I haven't seen you give a single good reason why not. |
| ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ |
| @ashfrliebert Analogies are hard for you it seems. The fact that opinions can be changed does not mean that they're not as irrelevant as sexual orientation or race. I haven't seen you give a single good reason why not. Because you're missing the point. @AnnoKano said that a bakery should not discriminate but CPAC should, which is a contradiction.And free speech is a single and ultimate good reason that I mentioned several times throughout the conversations. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| feedom the speech -ur have right to hold ur own opinons & express them, w/ government unable arest ur for dis -however dis does no shield ur from criticism. just as ur have right say thing, other ppls have right to hold opinons of ur thing & express them -unless ur say is ilegal ofc. such as leaking privaet info, inciting violkence, etc |
Immahnoob said: @ashfrliebert Analogies are hard for you it seems. The fact that opinions can be changed does not mean that they're not as irrelevant as sexual orientation or race. And free speech is a single and ultimate good reason that I mentioned several times throughout the conversations. Because you're missing the point. @AnnoKano said that a bakery should not discriminate but CPAC should, which is a contradiction I think you are the one missing the point. AnnoKano said a bakery shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation because it does not lead to a "harmonious society", sexual orientation, *not* opinion. Milo Yiannapolous exercised his free speech with no problems whatsoever, Simon & Schuster in return exercised their rights to cancel publication and the ACU exercised their freedom to kick Milo Yiannapolous out of CPAC. Not because of his sexual orientation, as in @AnnoKano example, or because of his race as in yours, but because of his opinion. No logical fallacies here, everything seems consistent enough. "The bakery should be free to express its disagreement with gay marriage, but barred from discriminating against homosexuals. - @AnnoKano" See? Barred from "discriminating against homosexuals", sorta like CPAC is barred from "discriminating against homosexuals" but is alright "kicking out kiddie-porn advocates who just happen to be homosexual". The bakery is choosing to explicitly discriminate against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation in the fantasized example, the CPAC is choosing to explicitly kick out one homosexual who made a controversial statement. It's not categorical in nature, ergo, not discrimination. |
ashfrliebertFeb 25, 2017 5:39 PM
| ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ |
| @ashfrliebert AnnoKano said a bakery shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation because it does not lead to a "harmonious society", sexual orientation, *not* opinion. And I told you it's the same thing, being antagonistic towards sexual orientation is just as retarded as being antagonistic towards an opinion, that is why they're contradictions. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Well if you are just another worthless human and nobody gives a damn about your opinion then you've got the Freedom of speech, but if you are someone that people admire or if you are a celeb/politician/public figure or any other famous person then you can't express your opinion freely because if some people don't like it or if it's wrong then there will be consequences. So, in order to gain respect or power you sometimes need to sacrifice your freedom. As Edward Elric from Fullmetal Alchemist said:- In order to gain something, you need to lose something of equal value |
swirlydragonFeb 26, 2017 5:19 AM
 Join Emilia's self-proclaimed knights club if you are a fellow Emilia fan |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |