{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/20/2016 10:53:51 AM
25
The people moaning about this are the same ones that normally argue there should be no limit to freedom of expression.
Go figure.
English
-
I don't think so I think a lot of people are just voicing their disagreement as i haven't heard anyone actually say they shouldn't have been allowed to say what they wanted. Personally I find what they said to be opportunistic self aggrandizement from a bunch of racists but they have every right to say whatever they want just as I have every right to say whatever I think about it. That's the great thing about freedom of speech its a two way street.
-
The basic conclusion I reached is that if you support the right to free speech you can't really moan when people exercise that right. Now of course Republicans and Democrats tend to disagree on where free speech should end but I think both parties agree that criticising the government/political figures is perfectly fine. Therefore I find Trump's whining ridiculous.
-
Fair enough that's your opinion, but Id say it pales in comparison to singling out one of your audience to publicly flame them and is inappropriate and uncalled for weather its a political figure or otherwise. To me it is not only petty but exhibits a lack of decorum in civil discourse. I might also add until very recently Democrats were very much against criticizing the government.
-
Um... I'm pretty sure the cast addressed him politely but the [b]audience[/b] booed. They can't be held responsible for the audience's reaction.
-
I'm aware of what they said and though i do find it hypocritical that a play with casting calls carrying the caveat "whites need not apply" stress diversity i am not opposed to what they said or the manner it was said in itself but the time and place in which it was said was inappropriate and in no way polite.
-
'Whites need not apply' is completely inappropriate. But if Trump is just whining because it's impolite he's just become an SJW.
-
Sjw? I don't think anyone would call Trump that unless they didn't understand what social justice Warrior means a dogmatic advocate of progressive values like feminism and multiculturalism, now does Trump with his pussy grabbing comments and his opposition to Muslim and illegal immigration indicate he is a multicultural feminist in the slightest? Obviously not, now if you were trying to say he's incredibly sensitive he is and has always been undeniably but I can't say I blame him at the moment considering he's just weathered the largest media shitstorm in American history.
-
Yeah I was being deliberately hyperbolic, I thought you would see that. But complaining that someone's actions, whilst perfectly legal, are hurting someone's feelings - well that's very much an SJW tactic, and as you pointed out it's one that seems rather hypocritical for someone like Trump to use with his history of not giving a damn about tact.
-
>says the socialist Irony lmao
-
Did that make sense in your head?
-
>believes socialists arent fascist anti free speechers HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
Why are you talking about socialists?
-
>denial of his own hypocrisy Please, sir, my sides are in orbit
-
Not one thing you've said so far has made any sense. You should try writing what you mean instead of just writing > before everything and pretending that makes a cogent argument.
-
I'm not surprised that you dont understand basic syntax and concepts that I'm boiling down and explaining for you
-
OK mate, don't explain then ;)
-
>sees explanation >doesnt understand it >assumes there isnt one because you cant understand it That's a real nifty education there
-
>avoids explaining position >ad hominems only Pointless conversation.
-
>still cant read greentexted explanation >uses ad hominem definition incorrectly There's a point and you're proving it - you're just not capable of putting the necessary amount of braincells together to crack the code
-
Ad hominem or 'to the man' fallacy involves attacking the person instead of the argument. Since you're unwilling to put together an argument that makes any sense and all you do is attempt to impugn my education (which I suspect is vastly superior to yours anyway) that's an ad hominem. Sorry, but it is. I'm going to leave now because you're not attempting to engage; all you really want is to have the last word in an attempt to look like you someone 'won' even though you can't even explain your own position. Well, go for it. I've got real stuff to do.
-
[quote]Ad hominem or 'to the man' fallacy involves attacking the person instead of the argument.[/quote] Implying there's an argument lol [quote]Since you're unwilling to put together an argument that makes any sense and all you do is attempt to impugn my education (which I suspect is vastly superior to yours anyway) that's an ad hominem. Sorry, but it is. [/quote] >cant understand a simple statement at all >bring out your inferiority complex with "muh eduhctin betr den u hurr durr" Still implying an argument was being made and not a point of hypocrisy being pointed out and referenced 3x so far which is ironic with your assumed intellectual and educational superiority that you used to deflect with [quote]I'm going to leave now because you're not attempting to engage; all you really want is to have the last word in an attempt to look like you someone 'won' even though you can't even explain your own position. Well, go for it. I've got real stuff to do. [/quote] Frustrated again due to lack of reading comprehension? I wonder if those "real" things to do require any critical thinking skills. I hope not or else someone's going to get hurt lmao
-
[quote]The people moaning about this are the same ones that normally argue there should be no limit to freedom of expression. Go figure. [/quote]
