All that you have written in this conversation pertains to what should people be allowed to say. My response opened with "The trouble with limitations on free speech is who shall do the limiting?" Your statement that you did not say anything about censorship is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Censorship is implicit in your w…
All that you have written in this conversation pertains to what should people be allowed to say. My response opened with "The trouble with limitations on free speech is who shall do the limiting?" Your statement that you did not say anything about censorship is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Censorship is implicit in your words. But you didn't use the word censorship, neither did I, but we were both speaking to the idea of limitations on some speech. My question is still valid, you wrote nothing to legitimately challenge that question.
Yes, when people can all speak freely there will be crackpots and the uninformed speaking along with the well informed. It means we make our own choices. Politicians are not what I consider to be informed experts and politics don't influence my thoughts on the non-political.
My friend (your thought process twin from the other side of the isle) has been a friend for decades based in things having nothing to do with the insanity of partisan politics. Difference in political opinions don't make or break friendships. Not only do I see friendships but family relationships being torn apart over differences in political opinion. Life is too short to give that much space in our heads to political foolishness. Our last Presidential election gave us a choice between Trump and Bidin. If that doesn't shine a light on the absurdity of "our democracy" I don't know what will. Base friendships on opinions about a choice between those assclowns? Good grief!
I go to a board-certified cardiologist, rather than to Jasmin the Hoodoo concoction mixer down on Front Street. She is allowed to say that her concoctions "may support heart health" like the vitamin sellers say. "May support" as a requirement for things not rigorously evaluated is a reasonable restriction. Indeed, your rant seems to indicate that the idea of "who decides" is an absolute valid question and argument.
Politics is not a rigorous science in spite of college degrees being granted in Political Science. Intelligent, highly educated people have differing opinions on the political. Control of the political narrative, call it bias or censorship as you wish, is more likely to be about suppressing opposing ideas than about truth, though even a stopped clock can be correct depending upon when you look at it.
Closing you mind to everything from another tribe keeps you in a bubble preventing the possibility of considering the things they have to say that could be better than the things our own tribe thinks. There will be "some" things and partisanship does not decide that. We should not live in fear of an idea that could challenge our cherished ideas. My views have changed a number of times through the years, and I am fortunate to live a longer life, might shift again.
Quoting Muhammad Ali, “If a man looks at the world when he is 50 the same way he looked at it when he was 20 and it hasn’t changed, then he has wasted 30 years of his life.”
I do not belong to any tribe, my writing is not a rant, and I am a lot more open-minded than most people. I am comfortable drawing lines; I dismiss arguments by flat-earthers and libertarians with no regrets.
Your writing is abusive and dismissive, you wantonly misrepresent what I have written, and this exchange is over.
All that you have written in this conversation pertains to what should people be allowed to say. My response opened with "The trouble with limitations on free speech is who shall do the limiting?" Your statement that you did not say anything about censorship is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Censorship is implicit in your words. But you didn't use the word censorship, neither did I, but we were both speaking to the idea of limitations on some speech. My question is still valid, you wrote nothing to legitimately challenge that question.
Yes, when people can all speak freely there will be crackpots and the uninformed speaking along with the well informed. It means we make our own choices. Politicians are not what I consider to be informed experts and politics don't influence my thoughts on the non-political.
My friend (your thought process twin from the other side of the isle) has been a friend for decades based in things having nothing to do with the insanity of partisan politics. Difference in political opinions don't make or break friendships. Not only do I see friendships but family relationships being torn apart over differences in political opinion. Life is too short to give that much space in our heads to political foolishness. Our last Presidential election gave us a choice between Trump and Bidin. If that doesn't shine a light on the absurdity of "our democracy" I don't know what will. Base friendships on opinions about a choice between those assclowns? Good grief!
I go to a board-certified cardiologist, rather than to Jasmin the Hoodoo concoction mixer down on Front Street. She is allowed to say that her concoctions "may support heart health" like the vitamin sellers say. "May support" as a requirement for things not rigorously evaluated is a reasonable restriction. Indeed, your rant seems to indicate that the idea of "who decides" is an absolute valid question and argument.
Politics is not a rigorous science in spite of college degrees being granted in Political Science. Intelligent, highly educated people have differing opinions on the political. Control of the political narrative, call it bias or censorship as you wish, is more likely to be about suppressing opposing ideas than about truth, though even a stopped clock can be correct depending upon when you look at it.
Closing you mind to everything from another tribe keeps you in a bubble preventing the possibility of considering the things they have to say that could be better than the things our own tribe thinks. There will be "some" things and partisanship does not decide that. We should not live in fear of an idea that could challenge our cherished ideas. My views have changed a number of times through the years, and I am fortunate to live a longer life, might shift again.
Quoting Muhammad Ali, “If a man looks at the world when he is 50 the same way he looked at it when he was 20 and it hasn’t changed, then he has wasted 30 years of his life.”
I do not belong to any tribe, my writing is not a rant, and I am a lot more open-minded than most people. I am comfortable drawing lines; I dismiss arguments by flat-earthers and libertarians with no regrets.
Your writing is abusive and dismissive, you wantonly misrepresent what I have written, and this exchange is over.