FriendoftheFallen said:After you insulted me I ignored the rest. If you said you were over it you should apologize for insinuating that I was stupid and uneducated instead of attacking me more. If you are over it thenstop insulting me. Simple.
I have an argument, you keep ignoring it.
You keep committing the same fallacies and being abusive to me so we likely won't getting anything interesting or productive out of this by going any further. Seeing how you massively cursed out people a few days ago for disagreement in what seemed like a very emotional and hateful manner I find you getting tired of emotionality to be ironic. If you are over it then just move on. Taking more potshots just proves my point.
Insulted you? You spent 3 paragraphs calling me a horrible person before I ever made a quip about it ... either that or for making a joke about religious freedom, because you apparently have a beef. How the fuck was any original joke targeted at you (beyond pointing out how ridiculous the rhetoric has become, how punching is bad but no one seems to argue how institutionalised discrimination isn't somehow worse for the same reasons)? My reply to that was how I was going to let that slide for the sake of the argument.The difference is that one is embraced by law. That is part of actual acceptable legal defence that you can void a workplace agreement for things people have not right or rightly demands or credulity in the merit of sale. Outlirrs does not an acceptable legal defence of religious sensinilities in the marketplace make.
If one party is more guilty of this then why have I never seen you defend them? I might be in the wrong here, but the solution I put forward (enforcing equitable exchange and strong defence of the written contract to the exclusion of arbitrary nonsense). As I said before, one neo-Nazi in a city of millions getting punched is little compared to people who are beaten by police and murdered for conditions they have no means to acceptably relinquish or can do to begin with. The difference is that it still comes down to a freedom of expression. The bearing being that I am advocating that freedom of expression, at us core, is the capacity of self expression and its moral right is in the pursuit of self-construction as per an existential authenticity of self as put forward by philosophers like Sartre and Beauvoir.
The importance is profound, that person punching a neo-Nazi will be charged with assault. An employer who fires an LGBTQ person who comes out about it will get defended by government saying that's okay. Also... when you speak of misrepresentation, how about not doing so right here... eh? My argument is that the reason for striking the neo-Nazi comes from a different place than a government that caters to the special snowflakes in 31 U.S. ... states (argh... I refuse to just say 'American' because that's equally weird) ... who seem to think the marketplace should be a church.
For the sake of trying to salvage the thread... I'M NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN IT. So how about if we both drop it and maintain a cohesive argument here?