(September 23, 2016 at 12:20 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: This is what the OP said.
Quote:I agree that our freedom of speech should not be restrained, unless it can be shown that others have suffered some sort of harm.
Emphasis mine.
That is encouraging the banning of words under certain circumstances. I was responding to that.
No, not necessarily. "Restraint" does not mean "banning". Seems to me you're jumping to conclusions. This is a typical knee-jerk reaction among young people these days, whenever hot-button issues are mentioned, or alluded to. No sense of subtlety.
Your speech will pretty much always be restrained in one way or another, depending on the medium you use to convey your messages - by the laws of physics and your own self-preservation instincts, if nothing else. Get over it. But don't worry, nobody's trying to put a muzzle on you - no one, who realistically could do that, really gives a sh*t about what you have to say...
(September 23, 2016 at 12:20 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Next time you choose to criticize my replies to other posts, make sure you carefully read what I'm responding to at the very least.
Yeah, well - if you're going to express yourself in vague, naively idealistic, blanket statements, you can expect people to put similar amount of effort into deciphering what you mean.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
