Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
With all due respect, someone needs to buy you a book on usage.
The person in question didn't say, "I oppose X in every single instance." He said, "I oppose the existence of X" and suggested, as you've tried to do, that this meant "I oppose X." If you insisted on this sort of illogical and conveniently manufactured usage in a freshman English course in a strict college, you'd find yourself with a rather unsatisfactory grade.
Being opposed to something is polemical. Being opposed to the existence of a thing is advocating mandatory erasure.
|
With all due respect, being opposed to the existence of a thing DOES NOT EQUAL advocating mandatory erasure. If I say I oppose the existence of racism, it does not mean I want to mandate every aspect of human behavior so that racism cannot be practiced anywhere by anyone. The cure would be worse than the disease.
And in any case, you know darn well that the original statement was not intended to be a full-fledged statement of a philosophical and ethical principle.
Quote:
|
This argument doesn't work: "Because A, who advocates free speech, is questioning B's right to oppose something's existence in the legal sense, A is as intolerant as B and therefore hypocritical." It doesn't work because the positions of A and B aren't parallel no matter how hard or long anyone trolls or how many negative reactions they might collect.
|
A seems to have a lot of trouble distinguishing between government vs. private entity, taste vs. discrimination, censorship vs. value judgments.
And of course the Supreme Court long ago held that obscenity is a category not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.