> > But it was pro and against same sex civic partnership if it makes any difference for you.
> Why would someone be against same sex civic partnership? If you're not homosexual, it doesn't impact you at all.
So it's fine to sexually assault a protester if you don't get why protester may hold such opinion?
> Yes there is a fine line. I'm accepting of that fine line but you want to just eliminate it. It's not that you for for free speech rights, it's just that you want one group to have them and another group to be restricted from having them. You accept that speech is important but you don't grasp why -- because it's meant to accomplish something. Speech is powerful, useful, and even dangerous.
Are you saying „you“ as in me? Or talking about hypothetical „you“? If this is former, I'm for free speech. But those who want to use their „free speech“ to prevent other from speaking are not exercising „free speech“. If people would use such „free speech“ to prevent people from your political side, would you still look at it the same way? Or does different standards apply here, because you believe your ideas are so open and accepting nobody could do that?
> Sure, and you know what is also authoritarian? Authoritarians sharing authoritarian ideas, convincing others, and implementing. If you're tolerant of intolerance than you up with nothing but intolerance and you achieve authoritarianism that way. It's not like there's no historical precedent for this. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
So it's authoritarianism one way or another. Nice and accepting political ideas right there...