Phil is Back On

So you do think there is a limit to free speech? Offensive, vile, and immoral speech should be censored? So who gets to decide what is too offensive for free speech?

It seems a lot simpler to me to simply say free speech is free speech, regardless of how offensive it is.

 

Each of us decides what it too much to handle. Our free will gives us the ability to walk away, turn the channel, or whatever. We are free human beings and decide for ourselves. Do we really need an outside force to decide that for us?

 

That is not what I am advocating or what I posted. Seems to be natural consequences took and are taking place. With regard to legally being able to say anything, I think the traditional limit is defined as yelling 'Fire' in a theater (when one knows there is no fire) thereby causing possible bodily injury to the public.

My point is that Bashir had no moral ground on which to stand because pooping in someone's mouth is generally considered vile behavior (immoral) whereas, Robertson has his moral beliefs. Hence Bashir walked and Robertson hung in there. Since both characters are hired by private entities, I'm not sure how far the legal right to free speech would or should go.

 

That's what I'm saying.

However, while I don't agree with A&E's original intention to suspend Robertson, I'm sure there was nothing unconstitutional about it.

 

According to you, sure, but there were plenty of people who think Robertson's remarks were also immoral.

Why should one need moral ground to expect freedom of speech?

 

Cool.

A&E had every right to run their business how they see fit. I can't blame them for being concerned about protecting their interests. In the end they learned exactly what was in their best interest and reversed themselves. I think they made the right move.

 

i'll certainly agree that a&e was well within their rights to treat the situation however they saw fit. they are, after all, a private entity and i fully support the freedom of the private sector to do whatever they see fit as long as no one's rights are violated. the expression of one's religious beliefs may be among those rights, but i don't believe that even that most basic right should stand in the way of an enterprise performing its function. that being said, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy shown in the way these basic rights are honored and that needs to be pointed out. had his comments offended any group other than our "protected classes", little would have been made of the matter and there certainly wouldn't have been a national furor anything like we have seen.

as for the comparison between bashir's comments and robertson's, the two have very little in common. where the one was asked a question and answered it with a brief list of what a vast segment of the population considers to be sins, the other was merely a rude comment designed to belittle an individual and nothing more. where robertson's words were twisted and then described as vile and "hate speech", bashir's suggestion truly was vile and crude and was made simply to titillate his dim witted audience. where one was a man being interviewed and asked a question the interviewer most certainly knew would result in controversy, the other was a petty little man who used his pulpit to spew his bile at someone with which he disagreed. what is most telling about the parties involved in these two controversies is the way they unfolded. the first thing done with robertson's comments was to twist them to fit the narrative most beloved by the cult of victimhood engendered in our protected classes. the lies came fast and thick and were loudly proclaimed as front page news almost immediately. bashir's comments, fit only for the most impolite of company, were quickly relegated to the back page and he was allowed to quietly resign, though he should have been publicly and noisily humiliated for his complete lack of even the most rudimentary good taste. instead he was covered by the rest of his cronies in the liberal media as he scurried back into the hole from whence he came.

 

Or maybe the owners of A&E simply support gay rights.

So you support free speech insofar as it is within what you consider to be good taste?

 

What ground does Bashir stand on in advocating having someone poop in another human being's mouth? Why should a network stand for such garbage-mouthed representatives?

 

So does rape murder and incest bud and no one is stupid enough to claim those are natural just because they are found in nature.

no one said homosexuality doesn't exist. we simply factually state homosexuality has never been proven to be natural or genetic as supported by basic science and biology.

 

You have no proof that sexual identity, either heterosexuality or homosexuality, is a choice. You lose.

It's odd that you use religion and nature against homosexuality while ignoreing that same sex couplings are seen throughout nature while religion is exclusive to humans, thus completely against nature.

So the consensual relationship between two people, in your mind, equates with murder and rape - in previous posts you have linked to beastialaty and the destruction of society.

Amazing arguments, and you wonder why those against ssm cannot win a court case.

 

This is where you fail. You automatically assume it is the burden of those against gays to prove their side yet those for gays can't prove it either. This is the reason nothing should change without proof...from those who support gays. Without that there is nothing supporting the idea that gays should have equal rights.

 

Typical liberal, blanket every single person that doesn't agree with them as a bigot or racist or greedy or etc.

It probably never occurred to some fascist liberal such as yourself that the point is duck guys right to say what he wants, not about what he said.

 

You do realize the same argument could be made about religion, correct? Prove your chosen deity exists or lose all protections... Having to prove one deserves equal rights is a very interesting notion though, thank you for the insight.

 

Phil who? Is he a friend?

 

No not at all. You are comparing apples to hammers. Try again.

 

Talk to 1 or 2, ask them why they are gay. Ask them why they like to be tortured and ridiculed.

 

You're right...... Martin Bashir had to learn that lesson - again.......

 

Your post makes no sense.

 

How so, you stated that gays should not be treated as equal because it has not been proven (or disproved) they have no choice in the matter. I equated this to religion, religious people and their orginizations have a choice not to be religious but yet they are afforded equal (some would argue special) rights without having to prove their belief.

I am genuinely interested in your belief that one should have to prove they are deserving of equal rights when that is the opposite of what happens in reguards to religious protections (the same group of people arguing that two people marrying that they will never meet is violationg their said freedoms).

Please enlightnen me.

 

What is back on? Cult Dynasty!

 

Actually, doombug, dairyair's question does make sense - well, to me anyway..... b/c that's the question I had asked myself many yrs ago.

'Would a person deliberately chose a sexual orientation where they would know that they would be mocked, ridiculed, harassed, tortured, sometimes killed?'.... remember Matthew Shepherd?

In my way of thinking, NO, a rational person would NOT, if they had a choice.....

Then, much later after I came to this conclusion, I became friends w/some neighbors, who had 4 sons.....3 were straight and 1 was gay. What happened to Kevin, who was gay? He had been born to the same parents, had the same love, nurturing, same family values, same everything..... when it finally came out in his teens that he was gay, he told his parents that he always 'felt different'....

Why some people are born gay, who knows? It's just that their brains are wired differently.... that's the only way I can look at it.

I have a friend who's a lesbian, a very nice gal and what's so nice about her is she doesn't push her gayness at people. Sarah didn't chose to be gay anymore than I had chosen to be straight......

 

Yes he did. There are consequences for what you say. He learned that and rightly so.

 

S & M is a big part of homoerotic culture. I thought you knew.

 

You might as well face reality.

The sexual perverts got a social and political beat down by the American people.