Explain what you mean by that
Is it free speech that he is censoring, or foul language and insulting behaviour?
I did, you were too intent on building a strawman to noticeand also why you did not address it as such at the time.
There is no difference if the other interlocutor also engages and begins with foul language and insulting behaviour in the course of a discussion yet the censorship is only applied to one side.
Hmmm.... IQ what exactly is the free speech you claim is being censored?IQSRLOW wrote:Explain what you mean by that
I thought it was obviousIs it free speech that he is censoring, or foul language and insulting behaviour?I did, you were too intent on building a strawman to noticeand also why you did not address it as such at the time.There is no difference if the other interlocutor also engages and begins with foul language and insulting behaviour in the course of a discussion yet the censorship is only applied to one side.
All of the above, but not all in the same post/sIs it opinion only?
Is it insult?
Is it foul language?
Is it opinion with insult?
Is it opinion with insult and foul language?
Is it trolling?
Is it spamming?
Is it opinion with trolling?
Is it opinion with spamming?
No, I was correct based on your first presumptionOtherwise, you are wrong about the false dichotomy jazzerino...
You areI suspect that it is your insults and foul language that is being censored and not your opinions where they occur without insults and foul language. Of course, I could be wrong
How is the denying of foul language and/or insult an equal denial of free speech?IQSRLOW wrote:All of the above, but not all in the same post/sIs it opinion only?
Is it insult?
Is it foul language?
Is it opinion with insult?
Is it opinion with insult and foul language?
Is it trolling?
Is it spamming?
Is it opinion with trolling?
Is it opinion with spamming?
When one encompasses the other yet does not exist or interlopeHow is the denying of foul language and/or insult an equal denial of free speech?
But that's not the truth is it IQ? I often agree with some of the comments that get censored. That has nothing to do with what gets deleted. They are usually completel lacking inpolitical content.IQSRLOW wrote:No, I am arguing that people publish whatever and you selectively delete and ban that which you don't agree with.Are you arguing that because people are able to get in and publish whatever, I should be forced to leave it up permanently?
That is not my point. My point is to point out the hypocrisy in Freeloader censoring that with which he disagrees while he champions free speech.IQ, a person's right to express thoughts is not denied because one forum amongst many denies a certain number of those thoughts their expression, not at least whilst there are other forums where those thoughts can be freely expressed.People like freeloader deserve the scrutiny of eternal vigilanceWhen the Nazis came for the Communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a Social Democrat.
When they came for the Trade Unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Trade Unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Precisely. It is what you are guilty of.Hypocrisy involves a contradiction between what a person says and what they do
Also, in your case freediver, it involves a contradiction in what you allow one day, and what you disallow the next. You are indeed the ultimate hypocrit.Hypocrisy involves a contradiction between what a person says and what they do
Hell must have frozen overNed Kelly wrote:Also, in your case freediver, it involves a contradiction in what you allow one day, and what you disallow the next. You are indeed the ultimate hypocrit.Hypocrisy involves a contradiction between what a person says and what they do
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests