What was ad hominem? Fundie? How is it more ad hominem than your use of "Darwinist".

You predictably still don't bother to make a shred of sense.

@Putin - Why does someone as bright as you have to be so fucking offensive all the time. Don't be such a fucking asshat.

Putin gay conversion therapy really does work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=aslXZeg6-L4

Draug is on record defending the ability to freely engage in hate speech on here and tells people who are offended by it to suck it up. But calling out Fulham for his fundamentalist obscurantism is apparently on par with kicking puppies these days.

Grow up.

Why are you against gays, King Atom?

Let me guess....you're small town, white, lower-middle class American, english as a first language, high school or early college, religious, republican, live within 1 hr drive of where you were born, havent travelled outside your home state or country, and have never studied sociology, philosophy, or psychology.

Your dad hates gays, your mom doesnt talk much, cuz your dad doesnt like them there women folk whats thinkin.

And you like to touch animals where they pee.
Just sayin.

Well, just as you "disagree" with gays, so too do all intelligent people disagree with you.

'' ''Mafia someone's religious beliefs can be every much a part of their own individual identity as their sexual orientation. Why be precious about one and not the other?'' "

I think your misinterpreting what he is saying here. The YEC can say. I believe the earth is 6000 years old and he would be talking about a fact. For his identity is something he can shape. However as soon as he shifts to placing his views upon something else. By declaring the world to be a different age he is no longer declaring his identity but trying to shape the identity of the world in this case.

It's the same with LGBT individuals. They can declare their belief that they are gay. Which is fact. However if they were to try say declaring others were gay, or homophobic. They would be trying to place an identity on something else.

It's a pretty fuzzy example sorry. Basically it is a matter of word use. Both people are free to create their own identity but not to impose it on others.

At least that's how I read what Mafia is saying.

Actually, Putin, I'm on record for banning hate speech. I believe in allowing douchebaggery but will call it out when I see it like you did just now. But try again on my support of hate speech. You are full of shit, as usual.

@Draug:

As much as I hate to get dragged through the muck of a King atom thread...

Can you tell me why you are for banning hate speech or, perhaps more to the point, how you would do so without violating the First Ammendment?

Because I hate it as much as anyone...

But just like I'll protect the rights of those to burn a Flag, even if I find such an act disgraceful and disrespectful, I'll protect the right of any Neo-Nazi or KKK member to call me out as a kike or any other Jewish/greed/evil slur you wish to pick.

Because the moment you limit the rights of SOME to speak, you limit your rights as well, and it's one slippery slope...

It may be well-intentioned:

But it's not as far a fall from banning hate speech to banning FREE speech entirely...

And from banning and limiting speech, the mention and idea of thought crimes starts to creep in, and all of a sudden, 2+2=5 and there are FIVE lights.

Ah damain thank you! Someone else knew what I meant. I was beginning to worry I was actually crazy and the only person in the world who makes a distinction between myself, and everything else.

To answer fulhamish's question with a much much much much much much more valid analogy, I would not argue with an "ex-gay" even though there is absolutely no reason to believe conversion therapy works, so long as he only talked about his own story. If an ex-gay said, "I went through therapy and was able to become straight, and I've never been happier." I'd nod politely, and generally be agreeable without actually committing to any specific opinion. If however he started trying to convince me or someone else that the same thing could work for them, I'd have to argue with him. As long as he's only talking about himself, I have absolutely no right whatsoever to try and tell him he's wrong about his own identity. But as soon as he starts trying to impose his own idea of identity on someone (or something) else he's fair game to be argued with. Does that make my position clear?

You're lucky this forum doesn't have a search function.

? Was that at me Putin? Do you care to clarify?

@Maf - There is no honourary for the British English, it's honorary.

It's for Draugnar, sorry.

But the word is honour in British/Canadian English. Huh. That is so strange. Good to know. Thanks maple!

Banning hate speech is the exact same as banning free speech. The whole point of freedom of speech is that people can say unpopular things and express unpopular ideas. Speech that the majority agrees with needs no protection.

Always remember that when you advocate banning "hate" speech that you are not the one that will decide which speech is "hate" and which speech is "free".

Free speech is already a sham, the only people who are "protected" are corporations and bigots. People who express actual political speech that is "unpopular" get terrorized and jailed.

People only get up in arms about the rights of hatemongers and thugs, though. Says a lot.

Putin arrives and everyone starts shouting at one another, a pity.

@obi - Hate speech is already bannned and comes with federal charges. Doesn't affect the internet at all, but I am for banning it on the site. Not all speech is protected by the first amendment.

@Putin - Google search itvwith the webdiplomacy.net prefix. You wont find me supporting hate speech and several of the mods here can attest to my desire to have maple banned for his hate speech, you asshat.

@ mafia. I would not challenge anyone with anything if they said ''I am gay that is my idendity''. If they said that ''I am gay and I was born like that'', this is every much a declaration of fact as the guy who says ''The most important thing for me is to live my life by the word of God who created the Earth 6,000 years ago''. I don't think that we are going to get any further on this one I am afraid.

Fulham, how about you actually answer a question for once without your usual bs. How are bio-physical reactions/impulses the same as beliefs?

@ Mafia. I think that the penny has finally dropped and I understand what you are saying, forgive me for being so slow. You say that you would not challange the statement ''I was born like that'' because it is an entirely self-contained description of identity. Presumably then you would challange the statement which goes along the lines of ''gays are born like that and not made like that'', because it goes outside of self? Also presumably you would say that these chaps (http://www.queerbychoice.com/) should not be challenged when they talk about their individual identities?

What intersts me more is should the guy who says ''I was born a homophobe/racist/anti-semite/woman hater etc.'', be the subject of challange or is that too a matter of personal identity?

I am afraid that i see much danger in allowing your rule of unchangable declarations identity to prevail. In my view we must always strive for the truth however, ''inconvieniant'' this might be.

Homophobe/racist is in the same category as religion. What part of 'belief' don't you understand?

@Draug:

Not all speech/expression is protected, no...you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, as we all know...

But what "Hate speech" is a federal crime?

Because I haven't heard of it, and there are those funny-looking fools in the Deep South with the white bedsheets and Grand DRagons--or whatever make pretend D&D-style ranks they like to give themselves--shouting hate speech and the "N-word," and you still have Neo-Nazis and skinheads whoi'll hate my race into the ground (or oven, whichever they prefer.)

So what hate speech IS banned, exactly, then?

Because I can't think of any plain "speech" that can be banned due to it MERELY being hateful...if it's hateful AND harmful, yes, if you burn a Cross on a front lawn or carve a Swastika on someone's front door, sure, now I can see some clear harm and intimidation going with that speech, and that's prohbited.

But since when is the actual speech itself banned?

I SUPPOSE in thist War on Terror, Post-9/11 America, hate speech directed at US officials specifically or threatening-sounding phrases might bring in the feds...

But even in that case, I can burn a Flag, and THAT seems to decry America and can be seen as a threat...I could burn a picture of Obama publicly, if I was on that side of the political aisle, and I'd be within my rights...

So when is it you mean, that hate speech is actually banned NOW?

How is hate speech not harmful? America is as backward on speech as it is on guns. Fascists abroad use the US as a haven to create their violent websites to incite hatred against groups in their own country, just like how wannabe mass murderers use US gun laws to import their weapons to carry out their campaign of violence.

You people claim it's impossible to draw a line about hate speech but how many Der Sturmers do you need before you get the the Sturmabteilung?

Incite someone to murder a class of people (as in a race or other discernable factor) through your speech and it is a hate crime. It isn't always pursued, but is on the books nonetheless. The KKK has had to tone down their rhetoric in recent years and can't advocate killing blacks as it would get the speaker thrown in a federal pen.

Oh, and in case you weren't aware... the first amendment only applies to the government not abridging the right to free speech. You step on my lawn and spew hate, I spew rock salt out the end of my shotgun at your ass. There is no first amendment protections in private residences. Offend the owner of the property and he may evict you as forcibly as he likes.

As if anybody gives a fuck about your first fucking amendment, Fag-Naur.