When does freedom of speech become unacceptable?

[mjw47]

There is a very simple rule of thumb with regard to freedom of speech.

 

Before you make a derogatory remark about a religion, race or nationality, ask yourself would you be prepared to make that remark to the face of someone who belonged to that particular group?

 

If not, then you are acting in a cowardly manner secure in the knowledge that your prejudice will go unchallenged.

 

Anyone who talks about whole groups of people as though they are all exactly the same isn't thinking very clearly.

 

As for religion if someone derives comfort from it why try to upset them with your view which holds no more credence than theirs?

 

Obviously, if someone decides to hold a debate on the subject then you are entitled to your view.

[onenerveleft]

There is a very simple rule of thumb with regard to freedom of speech.

 

Before you make a derogatory remark about a religion, race or nationality, ask yourself would you be prepared to make that remark to the face of someone who belonged to that particular group?

 

If not, then you are acting in a cowardly manner secure in the knowledge that your prejudice will go unchallenged.

 

Anyone who talks about whole groups of people as though they are all exactly the same isn't thinking very clearly.

 

As for religion if someone derives comfort from it why try to upset them with your view which holds no more credence than theirs?

 

Obviously, if someone decides to hold a debate on the subject then you are entitled to your view.

 

 

Nonsense. By that logic that means that because i can defend myself i can say more.

 

The only question to be asked it is it true? If so - say it

 

Nobody should fear attack because they disrespect things that are not true

 

As for the credence of religious belief that just tells me how little you know of science

[charmer]

 

As for religion if someone derives comfort from it why try to upset them with your view which holds no more credence than theirs?

 

I'm sorry but my scientific opinion on say, evolution, which can be observed, demonstrated and replicated has far more credence than someone believing it was all the work of a level 100 super wizard.

 

 

With regards to freedom of speech, of course there needs to be limits. These limits can only ever be imposed by other humans (as the only authority we have is that of man over man). As such, mistakes in the drawing of these limits can be made.

[mjw47]

 

Nonsense. By that logic that means that because i can defend myself i can say more.

 

The only question to be asked it is it true? If so - say it

 

Nobody should fear attack because they disrespect things that are not true

 

As for the credence of religious belief that just tells me how little you know of science

 

Ahh a know it all.

 

And yes, if you said that to my face believe me that would be my retort.

 

You are the font of all wisdom are you? You know what is true do you?

 

And as for how much I know about science, apparently a little more than you if you are under the impression that science has the answer to the God question.

[monkey104]

Oooh I forsee one of those never ending to-ing and fro-ing conversations coming on.

Edited February 5, 2015 by monkey104

[mjw47]

I'm sorry but my scientific opinion on say, evolution, which can be observed, demonstrated and replicated has far more credence than someone believing it was all the work of a level 100 super wizard.

 

 

With regards to freedom of speech, of course there needs to be limits. These limits can only ever be imposed by other humans (as the only authority we have is that of man over man). As such, mistakes in the drawing of these limits can be made.

 

In your mind it has, and you are fully entitled to your opinion but as you have no definitive proof that is all it remains, an opinion.

 

As a matter of interest whilst I have no problem with abiogenesis nor evolution as there is proof of both, perhaps you could answer me a question that I have always found puzzling?

 

Both are processes, agreed?

 

They are unthinking unguided processes which proceed naturally given the correct environment and no outside influence has ever had any effect upon them, correct?

 

So how, and why, did the first cognizant thought occur?

 

What came first, the thought or the brain?

[onenerveleft]

Ahh a know it all.

 

And yes, if you said that to my face believe me that would be my retort.

 

You are the font of all wisdom are you? You know what is true do you?

 

And as for how much I know about science, apparently a little more than you if you are under the impression that science has the answer to the God question.

 

false premise strawman refutation. Smart

 

You are obviously wrong but im not here to teach or preach

 

Let steven fry say it instead

 

[JonBladesman]

It becomes unacceptable when it starts endangering people

 

The idea that we have freedom of speech in this country is somewhat old fashioned.

 

Ahh a know it all.

 

And yes, if you said that to my face believe me that would be my retort.

 

You are the font of all wisdom are you? You know what is true do you?

 

And as for how much I know about science, apparently a little more than you if you are under the impression that science has the answer to the God question.

 

Just out of interest. Is God Science or is Science God, or is it inevitably one of the same?

[charmer]

In your mind it has, and you are fully entitled to your opinion but as you have no definitive proof that is all it remains, an opinion.

 

As a matter of interest whilst I have no problem with abiogenesis nor evolution as there is proof of both, perhaps you could answer me a question that I have always found puzzling?

 

Both are processes, agreed?

 

They are unthinking unguided processes which proceed naturally given the correct environment and no outside influence has ever had any effect upon them, correct?

 

So how, and why, did the first cognizant thought occur?

 

What came first, the thought or the brain?

 

 

I don't have the answer to that so I admit my ignorance. This is instead of believing a fairy tale and getting angry when someone points out I am an idiot.

 

Opinions with the weight of evidence behind them are to be respected more than those opinions with no evidence behind them.

 

Take gravity. I decide that the theory of gravity was wrong as there is no conclusion proof of it (just a large volume of evidence) and decide that my opinion is that everyone is stuck to the ground by invisible elastic bands. My opinion (elastic bands) should not be given as much respect as the gravity theory, simply because my theory has no evidence to support it.

[janie48]

:

 

As for the credence of religious belief that just tells me how little you know of science

What more do you know in science that states that religious belief has no credence? Edited February 5, 2015 by janie48