1.)this isnt even close to anything i said. Please dont make up lies and try to seel them as mine
We are supposedly having a conversation, so I am trying to understand. Accusing me of "making up lies" is not any civil way that I know of to have a conversation. It is simply just a very defensive way to bully people.
you asked what makes one a "bigot"
I answered
Yes, you did, however not without it's own vagueness, which led to the post I replied with, and you seemed to take offense at. Look, if you just want people to agree with you without clarification, then maybe you are in the wrong place. :shrug:
now you are on some NEW rant about what people can do or freedoms which i never comment on. Nice strawman but its a HUGE failure.
No, I am not ranting, I am, like I said trying to understand. Unless you simply want to have a 200 page thread filled with childish back and fourths, and name calling such as you display here?
how did you even read my post and see the parts I highlighted above and then proceed to HONESTLY accuse me of saying they cant speck thier views publicly, holy cow could your post be more dishonest?
Ok J, This sentence is fair. Maybe I should have posed the inquiry in a more straight forward question format, but I honestly thought that it read as though we were just talking....I couldn't imagine that you could twist it into some sort of attack....I was wrong. But, then let me ask, are you saying that once they step over the line to actually donate, (a protected right of free speech by the SC) then they are subject to this sort of attack?
now to answer your questions since you dont seem to understand rights
Totally unnecessary attack.
your meaningless hyperbolic opinion of "attacking and harassment" is meaningless unless you have proof of broken laws.
Odd. Many forms of "harassment" can be carried out without seemingly breaking a law.
To use your failed starwman others could EASILY argue the opposite that trying to deny rights is extremely harassing and attacking.
You could. However, I could then take your tact and ask you to prove that Eich in his business life used his personal beliefs to discriminate....
BUT im not using that argument just point out the HUGE hypocrisy in your failed argument.
See, I don't think I am being a hypocrite. How does one do that by just asking questions? If anything, I think your ultra defensiveness, displayed by how often in this post alone you feel the need to jerkishly attacking me personally.
If you dont like free speech thats your issue.
This isn't about me. And I am not stifling anyone's free speech....Notice, I am not the one in here trying so hard to dismiss others posts through personal attack.
maybe make a better argument next time with bigger more emotional words to describe free speech.
I am not making an argument. I am asking questions.
are seriously implying that only the CEO has free speech? i hope not
What was it you said about constructing strawmen? Seems that is exactly what this is.
well number one of yours got easily destroyed and proven wrong. now number 2
Only if you think that blasting out insults, and mis-characterizing what I said proves anything wrong...That I believe is a fallacious thinking on your part. The shame is, that I think you're a pretty bright guy, and could have some really good conversations on issues, but until that chip on your shoulder is set aside, I fear that you will only continue to provide vitriol, and attack to those with differing views than your own.
2.) more hypocrisy. Its free speech from both sides you simply dont like one side.
Although, what OKCupid did here, I guess you could argue was free speech, it was harassment in the sense that they informed their users that they would no longer use Mozilla as a browser until Eich was out. That to me crosses a line, attacking the business until an action is taken by the business. And to me it has some dark undertones of fascist suppression of speech that is not ethical.
So, did they break a law? No, I don't think so, but I am not a lawyer, I guess it depends on the complete story on what OKCupid said about Eich, and what he can prove damaged him....That would be slander, and hard to prove.
also be more specific with what you are claiming is being supported.
It's kind of simple really. We have a culture now trying to take hold, that everyone must agree with the mob, or not dare to speak up, otherwise they will be destroyed. I think that is dangerous.
so now in your next post you can stick to the original question i answered and not deflect and try to move the goal posts or we can continue with this new path and explain why you only think free speech you agree with is ok.
Threats are for bullies....Is that the point you are so trying to get across J? I guess in a way that IS what this is about...I have no problem with free speech, but don't think for a second that I have to agree with what you say to be a proponent of such. Just as OKCupid didn't have to agree with Mr. Eich's donation years ago. But, I don't have the right to go into your business and have you resign for what you say in here, they don't have the right to demand that he be let go because they disagree with him.
Now, a challenge for you J. Let's see if you can post to me without breaking rules, or spewing venomous attacks. I would love to see you put that energy into thoughtful posting rather than what you think is clever, not so veiled attacks.
eace
