natty dread wrote:thegreekdog wrote:natty dread wrote:thegreekdog wrote:natty dread wrote:
My definition is "everyone should be free to do whatever as long as it causes no harm to others or impede their respective freedoms".
But hey, I guess you know what I think better than I? After all, you have so much more experience being me than I do...
I'm not really sure that's your definition.
Oh, ok! So you do know what my definitions are better than me. How fascinating! Do tell me, how long have you been me? 30 years? 31?I'm just going by the general tenor of your posts in the forum. You seem to be rather judgmental of others, regardless of whether their doing whatever does not cause other people to be harmed.
I'm only judgemental of actions and attitudes which go against said principle.
And regardless of that, my statement of personal opinion about any certain activity does not count as trying to impede on other people's freedom. My freedom of expression does not impede on other people's freedom to whatever, ergo I am allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as I'm not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing or silencing/marginalizing way.
But as always, good luck providing some evidence for your claims.
Ah, you're not impeding others by being judgmental. I get it. I think Phatscotty is also allowed to criticize ideas and concepts, as long as he's not doing it in a derogatory, dehumanizing, or silencing/marginalizing way too.
I suppose some could read your posts (and mine and Phatscotty's) as derogatory or marginalizing. Which, frankly, doesn't impede anyone from posting their beliefs or opinion, but, seem to fall under your definition of impeding. In sum, I'm not sure how Phatscotty's posts are any different than yours in the way they criticize or opine on current events with respect to whether they impede or don't impede someone's point of view. Phatscotty offers a point of view. You offer a point of view. I offer a point of view. Phatscotty's point of view does not impede your ability (or anyone else's) to do or say anything, just like your point of view does not impede Phatscotty's ability to do or say anything.
Example - Your idea of equal rights for women may be very different from my idea of equal rights for women. Does that mean your idea of equal rights for women is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"
Example - Your idea of freedom of religion may be very different than my idea of freedom of religion. Does that mean your idea of freedom of religion is "people should be free to do the things I think people should do?"
Oh, so your argument is basically the good old "if you're intolerant of intolerance, then you're just as bad as the intolerant people"... gotcha.
When the person who is being intolerant of intolerance is also the one defining intolerance, then yes.