[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Not faith as infallible, when I wrote "they're" I meant as in them, whoever is expressing their faith. Your example is of something not infallible, because it's no certainty. That "guy" just shifted the burden of proof onto you. Not being able to be proven wrong, does not equal certainty of truth. It equals certainty of faith.

The problem is that what is faith from my point of view is truth from his. And how can you argue against the truth?

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Ninth

The problem is that what is faith from my point of view is truth from his. And how can you argue against the truth?

The problem occurs when they get offended because you don't abide by their laws.

Note: somethings that are "truth" to someone, can be argued, yet some beliefs are unprovable.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Slow down there, I wasn't commenting on the reasoning to as of yet not expressed limits.

Motive makes each of the examples I mentioned, accept confidence, which I shouldn't have included, but it probably needed to be listed somewhere.

You'll have to explain more what you mean, as I really don't understand how motive is a factor. I may have motive to hate a Jewish person, doesn't mean I have motive to hate all Jews.

Yet you can. I think it goes against the spirit of free speech to tell people what they shouldn't express.

Here's where we fundamentally disagree. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to disrespect people or their views. You can disagree, but direspect is another thing entirely. Engage in debate with respect to the other person, sure... but what I read from you only condones argument and other conflict.

That's why free speech as a buzzword doesn't really work. For society to work it has to work together, which is where respect comes in - and that respect has to go each way. Both from the side who causes the offense and the side that takes it.... otherwise there is no limits, and these kind of protests start and are actively allowed to get out of hand.

I'm sorry, but in my view, it does. Obviously people's judgement can be clouded with emotion and pride, but after they have stepped back, if they're still offended by it, they clearly lack reason.

I could argue your view on free speech is a lot to do with pride - "I can do what I want, when I want, say what I want and there should be no repercussions". Unfortunately life isn't like that, as I'm sure you know.

This also clashes with your point of view - free speech is for all, but you can't be offended. A Muslims love for their prophet is not pride. In general, it's love. Moderates love their prophet, so naturally any offense to him is an offense to them. You might not understand it, or want to, but it's a fact. They've got right to express it... as you say, you think the reaction is an overreaction. That the violence is irrational. They agree with that. But also you're attitude to free speech allows people to do what they want and say what they want...

... society has limits, otherwise it wouldn't be society.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

You'll have to explain more what you mean, as I really don't understand how motive is a factor. I may have motive to hate a Jewish person, doesn't mean I have motive to hate all Jews.

Dafamation is about motive to defame, a.k.a malice. Incitement is intent to incite other people to do harm. While harassment requires someone to be persistent/repetitive.

Here's where we fundamentally disagree. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to disrespect people or their views. You can disagree, but direspect is another thing entirely. Engage in debate with respect to the other person, sure... but what I read from you only condones argument and other conflict.

That's why free speech as a buzzword doesn't really work. For society to work it has to work together, which is where respect comes in - and that respect has to go each way. Both from the side who causes the offense and the side that takes it.... otherwise there is no limits, and these kind of protests start and are actively allowed to get out of hand.

That's not freedom of expression. That's supression of free speech. Respect is not something definitive. Respect someones rights, sure, but people have different moral codes, and no one should have to follow someone else's. Even if I don't agree with what they say, I'll defend their right to say it.

I could argue your view on free speech is a lot to do with pride - "I can do what I want, when I want, say what I want and there should be no repercussions". Unfortunately life isn't like that, as I'm sure you know.

How is that pride? Am I boasting that I can? Obviously not... if their were no reprecussions, then it's not something to be proud about, because anyone should be able to have the same right.

This also clashes with your point of view - free speech is for all, but you can't be offended. A Muslims love for their prophet is not pride. In general, it's love. Moderates love their prophet, so naturally any offense to him is an offense to them. You might not understand it, or want to, but it's a fact. They've got right to express it... as you say, you think the reaction is an overreaction. That the violence is irrational. They agree with that. But also you're attitude to free speech allows people to do what they want and say what they want...

Muslims can be offended, I'm not going to stop them, I'm just expressing my opinion on the Muslims that are offended, which is my right. Yes, my attitude to free speech allows people to do what they want(requiring it respects other rights) and definitely say what they want(accept dafamation, confidence, harassment, incitement, etc...). There is no other free speech, if it isn't that, then you're misleading people with the "free" part.

[SakSquash]

And the beat goes on.

How long has it been now?

[Maquisard]

This is such utter f*cking bullshit. It seems like some folks will just take any excuse to go completely apeshit crazy?