Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pie
tw, you're very good at arguing with yourself.
|
Who's arguing? If you think I am arguing, then you have no grasp of the constructive intent in my posts. Provided are talking points (examples) to frame a definition, a principle, or a better comprehension of this subjective concept called 'freedom of speech'. To define limits upon which one can challenge a law with legitimate reasons.
Why does free speech in Austria get to be less than in America and still be considered acceptable or not acceptable? The answer to that is found in reasons or guidelines. Examples were posted to help define or justify those guidelines. Instead you think I am arguing with you? Of course not. We should be moving onto a better understanding or better principles upon which to judge Irving, pedophiles, and Kevorkian.
Upon what basis or principles would one judge the innocence or guilty nature of each? Even subjective judgments are not valid without underlying reasons or principles. What would those principles be that Pie might use to decide? There is no argument. There exists a open ended question just begging to be challenged by one's grasp of worldly ideas.
One can think those Mohammed Cartoons are acceptable or are worthy of killing. OK. Why? Upon what principles does one make such decisions?