(February 26, 2017 at 3:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: People shouldn't lose book deals over suggesting the age of consent be the same that it is in much of western Europe.
Businesses have the freedom of association, too. They need not support speech with which they disagree. People should lose book deals if they espouse ideals their publishers detest, if their publishers so decide.
(February 26, 2017 at 3:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Free speech is more then just a law. I don't think you and me are actually at a huge disagreement, but re-read the first few pages of this thread and tell me that there aren't anti-free speech sentiments in it.
I'd never advocate for Milo being shushed by the government. Free speech is just a law, but it's a law that protects both him, and the peaceful protestors, from governmental opprobrium. It doesn't mean that a private entity must give him a stage for his speech, it doesn't mean that a publisher should have to publish his book (depending on how his contract is written).
Me, I think the best antidote to obnoxious speech is more speech pointing out how obnoxious it is (which is what you're seeing in action in the tussle between Fool the Not-so-Great and myself).
(February 26, 2017 at 7:52 pm)pool the great Wrote: It seems I'll really have to spell this out for you sigh:
Bodily autonomy is not a gendered issue.
Then why are you all for government regulating the bodily autonomy of women, but reject it for yourself? What's the difference between you and a woman, that you'd advocate for the government requiring them to submit to a pregnancy they may not wish to carry to term?
You clearly haven't thought through this position of yours. I won't be holding my breath, either. Thinking doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
