3 ms·
Some opinions aren't worth having a discussion about. If someone says that "all fags should be rounded up and shot" there's nothing discussion worthy there. A r
by fredfoobar42 11y ago
Some opinions aren't worth having a discussion about. If someone says that "all fags should be rounded up and shot" there's nothing discussion worthy there. A rape survivor is under no obligation to have a discussion with someone who says "all rape victims deserve it, or are liars, or both."
These are extreme examples to be sure, but the principle remains.
And nobody is saying "you can't say 'all fags should be shot.'" They're saying 'You can't say it _here_." Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard.
- talmand 11y agoUsing extreme examples does not prove a point. Especially when one of them advocates criminal violence. Saying I don't want to hear what you have to say and actively preventing speech are two completely different things. If a group of students don't want to hear a speaker, they have the right to not show up. They don't have the right to prevent the speech from happening. I don't know if you intended it, but your response is an effort to change the context of what I stated. "Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard" is what people actively preventing free speech fall back on to justify their actions against the speaker. Not that I'm lumping you in with that way of thinking, just pointing it out.
- tomp 11y ago> If someone says that "all fags should be rounded up and shot" there's nothing discussion worthy there. Actually, I believe that by discussing the statement you're much more likely to change the person's opinion or open up their empathic capabilities than by being an intolerant asshole and attacking them verbally.