Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you agree that comedy clubs charging money for jokes about sex with 5 years, should be able to operate if they get the patronage?
I think most Americans feel it is up to the pubic to decide (by patronizing the comedian) than the government to decide what we can and can't say.
I just can't imagine a government like that for the simple reason that I don't think of the government as a ruling class. I can say what I want and I want others to have that right as well. If someone thinks I am ugly, they have the right to call me that.
I think most Americans feel it is up to the pubic to decide (by patronizing the comedian) than the government to decide what we can and can't say.
I just can't imagine a government like that for the simple reason that I don't think of the government as a ruling class. I can say what I want and I want others to have that right as well.
So you're fine with comedy skits about sex with 5 year olds then? - customer is always right I guess?
So you're fine with comedy skits about sex with 5 year olds then? - customer is always right I guess?
Customer is always right. If he's not fine with it, then he wouldn't go. It's a simple concept that you're not able to grasp. The interesting part is you probably have never heard of or attended that comedian's shows. That's common for liberals. They "boycott" businesses that they don't actually patronize, which involves shutting down things that they aren't involved in. That's why liberals love and depend on government. You can only control people and force them to follow your demands by crushing them with government force.
You don't have the right to forcefully stop anyone from telling a despicable joke. That is the concept of the first amendment.
Jokes are fine, but mentioning specific individuals (even kids) isn't -or would you be cool with me making explicit jokes about your 5 year children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momomanno
Customer is always right. If he's not fine with it, then he wouldn't go. It's a simple concept that you're not able to grasp. The interesting part is you probably have never heard of or attended that comedian's shows. That's common for liberals. They "boycott" businesses that they don't actually patronize, which involves shutting down things that they aren't involved in. That's why liberals love and depend on government. You can only control people and force them to follow your demands by crushing them with government force.
You're happy with people verbally attacking individual nine year olds for money, yet you live in a country where at any time, you could be seized off the street, wrongfully convicted and murdered by the state -sounds like you let the government decide right from wrong for you. Obviously not someone who truly understands liberty.
You're happy with people verbally attacking nine year olds for money, yet you live in a country where at any time, you could be seized off the street, wrongfully convicted and murdered by the state -sounds a bit wishy washy to me.
Americans discussing freedom is a comedy skit.
Here are the problems with your post.
1) "You're happy with": oddly, you equate me saying people should be allowed to do something with saying that I not only support it but feel happiness and contentment when it occurs. That's because that's your only tool to try to gain control over other people's lives: to claim they aren't fit to live their lives.
2) "for money": Here, you try to imply that financial gain is bad. I'm not sure if you mean that if it was "for free" that it would be OK. It's odd that liberals detest money so badly except when they are demanding it from other people.
3) "at any time, you could be seized off the street": That's odd, if that is true, then I assume it should happen to basically everyone. Also, it's odd because you know what that actually describes? The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I mean, you could be just talking and the next day you receive word that you owe someone $50,000. But that's cool with you.
4) "wrongfully convicted and murdered by the state": I thought you loved the state convicting people of doing the wrong thing. Also, if the state is murdering people, they why aren't they murdering the people who say they are murdering people? That's who I'd kill first, I assume.
So, yeah, in one sentence, you made four errors. That's Canadian-level awesomeness, eh?
1) "You're happy with": oddly, you equate me saying people should be allowed to do something with saying that I not only support it but feel happiness and contentment when it occurs. That's because that's your only tool to try to gain control over other people's lives: to claim they aren't fit to live their lives.
2) "for money": Here, you try to imply that financial gain is bad. I'm not sure if you mean that if it was "for free" that it would be OK. It's odd that liberals detest money so badly except when they are demanding it from other people.
3) "at any time, you could be seized off the street": That's odd, if that is true, then I assume it should happen to basically everyone. Also, it's odd because you know what that actually describes? The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I mean, you could be just talking and the next day you receive word that you owe someone $50,000. But that's cool with you.
4) "wrongfully convicted and murdered by the state": I thought you loved the state convicting people of doing the wrong thing. Also, if the state is murdering people, they why aren't they murdering the people who say they are murdering people? That's who I'd kill first, I assume.
So, yeah, in one sentence, you made four errors. That's Canadian-level awesomeness, eh?
1) You either support something, or you don't
2) I'm certainly a lot more cynical where money is involved
3) When you are innocent and facing the death penalty, "seized off the street" is appropriate. I don't repeatedly make jokes about specific 9 year old for money, so I wouldn't be expecting any fine.
4) Don't tell me, tell it to those who were murdered by the state.... you know, the ones who are dead.
This is nothing to do with error, and everything to do with personal belief -yours and mine.
My view is that kids as individuals, are off limits to people that want to debase them.
Yours is the murky line between debasing the individual child for fun in the name of the freedom, and empowering pedophiles.
I don't bother with the tiresome liberal/conservative narrative, but I do beieve that sometimes, if you aren't against something, you support it
Got any dirty jokes about kids? You're either against that or you support it.
Does that make sense?
Do you genuinely lack the ability to understand the concept of free speech?
Voltaire; I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
