why i have more than 1 name and constantly consider limiting x posts per name

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from spect8or:

You -- you loo-hoo-zer -- were the one that the right to free speech doesn't mean the right to "hate speech". Which is obviously not true, because it certainly does include the right to hate speech. Not the right to 'fighting words', as you keep bringing up, but the right to 'hate speech'.

You did not give me the Supreme court ruling you dufus. You gave me a supreme court ruling; and a supreme court ruling that deals with the subtopic of 'fighting words', not the general concept of 'hate speech'.

It is you that is (yet again!) backtracking -- apparently unaware of what you previously said. Mav, I really don't know who you think you're fooling here, given that anyone can quickly look back at what you wrote and see that your attempts to deny or distort it fall laughably short. Really, I think it's quite clear to all who the "beaten man" is here (yet again!).
More...

Why is this so hard for you. I said in my first post that hate speech was not protected by the Supreme Court. I did not say all hate speech, re-read my post 100 times if you have to. I then gave you the ruling which yes, covered fighting words, but I then went on to say that hate speech in and of itself can be used as fighting words. I made this very clear. You refuse to admit this.

Are you that dense that you can't put one and one together? Seriously, take a few minutes to read over this thread again and get back to me. You are wasting my time with this gibberish.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Why is this so hard for you. I said in my first post that hate speech was not protected by the Supreme Court. I did not say all hate speech, re-read my post 100 times if you have to. I then gave you the ruling which yes, covered fighting words, but I then went on to say that hate speech in and of itself can be used as fighting words. I made this very clear. You refuse to admit this.

Are you that dense that you can't put one and one together? Seriously, take a few minutes to read over this thread again and get back to me. You are wasting my time with this gibberish.
More...


Rofl.

Riiiiggghht Mav!

"Hate speech isn't protected by the first amendment".

Oh, oh, oh,....but I didn't mean all hate speech.

Oh, oh...and I made this "very clear". Of course you did, mav, of course you did.

:D
 
Quote from spect8or:

Rofl.

Riiiiggghht Mav!

"Hate speech isn't protected by the first amendment".

Oh, oh, oh,....but I didn't mean all hate speech.

Oh, oh...and I made this "very clear". Of course you did, mav, of course you did.

:D
More...

The problem with your argument is you are making assumptions about what I say. Sure, maybe I did not make that clear, but look at your first statement to me. You said show me the Supreme court decision. So I did. If I had any idea that this was going to drag on for 5 pages I would have made a huge post detailing and defining every freaking word for you. But let me put an end to this really quickly. Here is where you are making your error. You are assuming that hate speech and fight words are used mutually exclusive of each other. When in fact, these words can be used mutually inclusive as well as mutually exclusive.

In other words, hate speech can also be fighting words and fighting words can be considered hate speech. In other instances, hate speech may not be the same as fighting words.

If I walk into a bar and call a black guy a "Niger", that would be considered fighting words as it promotes a physical confrontation. But it would also be considered hate speech.

Next time you make an argument with somebody, don't make so many assumptions. If I tell you that the weather outside is really nice, I might just be referring to the weather in Chicago, not the weather all over the country. You do know that we can have a nice weather in Chicago while having bad weather in NY at the same time?

Well, better luck next time with your argument.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

...If I walk into a bar and call a black guy a "Niger", that would be considered fighting words as it promotes a physical confrontation...
More...
I think in the name of science, you both should go into a Chicago bar, pick out the biggest black guy and test out both your theories.

Constitution, First Amendments, etc etc not withstanding, you might be in for a surprise.

nitro
 
Quote from nitro:

I think in the name of science, you both should go into a Chicago bar, pick out the biggest black guy and test out both your theories.

Constitution - First Amendments, etc etc not withstanding, you might be in for a surprise.

nitro
More...

I know exactly what would happen. LOL. I don't think Spect8tor does, but I do. That's not rocket science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top