Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.
Acually, that is why you are wrong. Words are not actions.
For example, if Obama gets up and gives a speech about Hindus, and someone then goes out and burns down a Hindu temple because Obama "told" him to, I see no reason to hold Obama responsible. On the other hand, if you hand out matches, and then talk about how racist assholes that write slurs on restaurant receipts should be punished, and that person then goes out and burns down the house an innocent person, you should be held responsible for giving them the matches.
Funny thing, my position is a lot closer to what the Supreme Court says than yours.
Actually you cant read. Were did I say words were actions? You seem to enjoy lying. Their action is in speaking opinions that encourage people being racist. For that I get to hurt them financially or career wise if I don't do it illegally. You dont like it. Tough shit.
You don't even remember what you wrote now? Hint, it was in the post I quoted, which makes your lack of memory even more telling. It also explains why you keep insisting I said things I didn't.
You said you want to hold them accountable for their actions, even if their actions only involve expressing an opinion you don't like.
I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.