I'm sorry if the tone of this response is a tad vexxed but how many times will I need to repeat that I wasn't the one who made the claim nor used the word? The

I'm sorry if the tone of this response is a tad vexxed but how many times will I need to repeat that I wasn't the one who made the claim nor used the word? The Socratic method[1] is well known as an effective means of uncovering the problems in a line of reasoning. As I'm the one using it you can safely assume I have found a problem in the line of reasoning and am attempting to uncover it. To point out to me that there are problems with the line of reasoning and then attribute them somehow to me is, frankly, a bit dense. The "facetious[ness]" of my question, as you put it, is simply part of the method, which is not facetious at all. If the challenge of a simple question cannot be met then it exposes the problem. Please do not bother me again with this, ask the person that made the claim to justify it. Thanks. Finally: > Should all speech always be lawful? No. As we've already pointed out, lying in court would be an exemption from protected speech. I can think of several others that are contentious (is following an order as a soldier a war crime?) and far more interesting than something as self-refuting as being pro- (or should that be anti?) "hate"speech. I will now exercise my freedom not to say any more, and not to listen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method