Freedom to curse and to thief..but this?

[provo]

Thanks To "TRAV" for sticking up for me.

And how do suppose we do that? Education. These people are uneducated they hate it, you going to force them to the class room via gun point?

Yes. Losing the right to be uneducated is far less important than the right to free speech, additionally, people ARE already forced to classrooms in Australia (as minors your parents can get into serious legal trouble for not ensuring you are educated).
For sure I agree that it violates a few tenants of liberalism and also throws up a whole lot of problems around what's appropriate education to be mandated but I think it's fairly well established that to force people from a young age into an environment where critical analysis and learning is encouraged has a big positive effect.

I agree, but the practicality?
1. I agree that education would work, and i personally would step over just about any right in the world to make people good people. I wouldn't limit such education to children and include adults as well. But There are practical limitation in that not everyone is smart and might not get it, or that we don't have time to teach people stuff, they need to work, so we all have things and eat and live in houses. I have no idea the time and resources commitment to make people critical and educated against there will. Not to mention making them work will give them enough luxury’s to be so comfortable they don't really care about politics.

Is re-education not complex suppression of free speech?
1. But how would you know if a person has completed education and can now re-enter society? They stop expressing idiotic views and say the things that are OK to say? So essentially you will keep them in education and away from productive work, by restricting other liberties until they say the things that are OK to say? It could certainly be viewed as giant effort to limit free speech, not empower it, by withholding other liberties until they stop abusing free speech.

For liberals(as in liberty) it is a contradiction that they support total free speech but fuck on other rights, (but me and trav are not liberals we can )
1. It a contradiction to say freedom of speech is worth protecting in totality, but not the rights that your trample on to make people educated. What do you do if an adult refuses education? Prison fines, pick him up and chain him to the school desk? Not to mention the argument of what is legitimate opinion to teach to people. If you distrust people to the extent you would force them to be educated and trample on their rights to make them educated why do you believe free speech is worth protecting?

2. The entire process of forced education is an affront to liberty, which free speech is part of, if someone doesn’t support liberty so passionately (like myself and maybe trav) they can get away with such education projects and admit limiting rights here produce positives results, however for a liberty minded person its a contradiction in there augment. Why is it ok to limit the right for someone to be uneducated but not to limit the right of someone to express uneducated opinions.

Forced education is not going to happen.
1. Those who support liberty would rip your head off for suggesting forced education. Its a political impossibility, thus making it a limited policy option.

I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I DO agree with you that it is morally wrong to incite violence, however I also think that not everything that is morally wrong should be illegal. You're also right in that I'm first and foremost an idealist, and have no experience in setting policy or fulfilling any sort of large scale leadership role.

I agree
1. I agree we do agree more, and thats the point of ration discussion, to find out where our disagreement really is.

End of that issue
1. As for the morality of inciting crime, end issue. its not important and we agree.

Idealism and the abuse of practicality
1. As for your idealism, its great to have an ideal in your mind, but all im saying is, "that will not work in practice", which is something that happens to anyone who is an idealist. My problem is that people who argues a practical position then gets abused by the idealist for not pursuing the "perfect" solution according to their rationality. Which is why i had a go at you for equating calling the police for race-hate to castration, although im not sure how seriously ou were making that comment. This “demonization” is particularly used by those who hold their idealism so firmly they view any compromise as a "slippery slop" to total oppression and therefore any compromise is the equivalent of supporting total oppression.

2. I have to personally temper my own idealism because letting it run free will not achieve the political objectives that i support. Such as fighting racism via mass social intervention, its just not going to happen, everyone being smart and self critical, will not happen either, which unfortunately leaves us with other solutions that will at least work even if they are not idealistically pure.

Gah, it's things like this that show that people need lower salaries and more working hours.
We're talking about the game, not laws, not rights, not hate, not morality; stop branching out.

Some people WERE talking about censorship in the game. That discussion has more or less ended. WE are NOW talking about laws, rights, morality. If you don't want to participate in the current discussion then leave the conversation, don't run around shouting for everyone to shut up, it makes you seem like an ass hole and you're not.

@provo: stop.
No one wants to read your walls of text. You're wasting your time.
Learn to state your argument concisely, or no one is ever going to listen to you.

I want to read his big walls of text, and I'm doing so and responding to them. His points are quite clear and concise, he's just got a lot of them. See my above response to Blaze, same thing applies to you except I'm less sure of whether you're an ass hole or not.

Complex arguments are complex
1. It not easy dismantling my disagreement of total freedom of speech and explaining it in an non-offensive and clear way. It might be easy to express how Immigrants took your job concisely, but allot harder to express how loosing your job is an inevitable development in modern free-market economic cycles. And that’s why people rather hear a "concise" racist argument rather then complex economic one.

2. As Trav said, i made lots of points concisely, some people are just too lazy to read them all and then think about them. I admit there are allot points and i have made no effort to arrange them in a logical way, and i have provided limited sign posting to make it easy. But it doesn't take that much work to link what is being said and overcome the random organisation.

3. I know this is a game forum and its in the wrong forum area, but everyone knows this topic was off topic when you clicked on it. the reality is people don't want to have to think about issues, even if they come up naturally as part of a conversation. And this is what me and trav are talking about, people avoid political critic and don't take responsibility for being critical. They dislike complex argument in favour of simple "concise" arguments that don't need/have a rational backing, allowing populism to spread easily, because people are too lazy to read and try and understand a complex argument!

I know trav doesn't support many of the views that im arguing against, but im not against trav im opposed to certain arguments. The education rant was because some liberals don't see the contradiction and i think trav and I will not mention it much again, and the idealism one might be disagreeable to trav, so that’s pretty much the only issue left.