RootsBooster Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I'd love to, but regrettably your debating, erm, "logic" is proving quite hard to follow I think he's saying that we don't have the right to make false accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I think he's saying that we don't have the right to make false accusations.I don't know what he's saying. I just went by his posts, but he constantly shifts their meaning with a bit of passive-aggressive style thrown in, to the extent that it's like trying to debate with a donkey or running water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I don't know what he's saying. I just went by his posts, but he constantly shifts their meaning with a bit of passive-aggressive style thrown in, to the extent that it's like trying to debate with a donkey or running water Yeah, there's a few at that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) I don't know what he's saying. I just went by his posts, but he constantly shifts their meaning with a bit of passive-aggressive style thrown in, to the extent that it's like trying to debate with a donkey or running water It quite easy to read and understand what I wrote, all you need to do is go back and have another read. Quote by me: "I'm not suggesting anything other that we don't have true freedom of speech." Quote by you: "There is no 'true' freedom of speech in the sense you imply, never has been, and likely never will be, for the reasons I provided earlier on." Notice the similarity and that I actually implied nothing. Maybe you could point out the bit where I implied differently? Maybe this is the bit where you went wrong; Quote: "What are you suggesting?" You were trying to make out that I have suggested something that was not the case. Maybe you could also point out where I shifted meaning? Edited January 21, 2016 by apelike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) It quite easy to read and understand what I wrote, all you need to do is go back and have another read.Challenge accepted - here is the full context: Apelike: But the problem there is that in this country we do not have the right to free speech. Halibut: What are you claiming can't be talked about Apelike: A lot of things as in English law we are not exempt from libel or slander. L00b: What are you suggesting? That people be free to say and print malicious and damaging falsehoods about other people without consequences? Don't confuse freedom of speech for anarchy. Apelike: I'm not suggesting anything other that we dont have true freedom of speech which many seem to think we have. L00b: There is no 'true' freedom of speech in the sense you imply, never has been, and likely never will be, for the reasons I provided earlier on. Apelike: Because slander and libel is part of the reason why we don't have freedom of speech... Please keep up! I did not imply that we had "true freedom of speech" but just the opposite. Notice anything in the above? Do you need further help identifying your goalpost shifting...sorry, inconsistency of argument? Edited January 21, 2016 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Challenge accepted - here is the full context: Apelike: But the problem there is that in this country we do not have the right to free speech. Halibut: What are you claiming can't be talked about Apelike: A lot of things as in English law we are not exempt from libel or slander. L00b: What are you suggesting? That people be free to say and print malicious and damaging falsehoods about other people without consequences? Don't confuse freedom of speech for anarchy. Apelike: I'm not suggesting anything other that we dont have true freedom of speech which many seem to think we have. L00b: There is no 'true' freedom of speech in the sense you imply, never has been, and likely never will be, for the reasons I provided earlier on. Apelike: Because slander and libel is part of the reason why we don't have freedom of speech... Please keep up! I did not imply that we had "true freedom of speech" but just the opposite. Notice anything in the above? Do you need further help identifying your goalpost shifting...sorry, inconsistency of argument? Yes please make bold the bits and explain what bit in my position shifted or was inconsistent. Edited January 21, 2016 by apelike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now