Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It isn't. That's not something that you may simply unilaterally declare. I don't recall anyone appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are. Remember " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "? Authoritarian liberals are trying to grab the authority to dictate what we may and may not discuss and we mainstream liberals must prevent that at all costs, lest we…
I didn't "simply unilaterally declare" my point - I included a link to a video that provides a much better explanation than I can give in a short post. > appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are. I not claiming such authority. I'm a stranger on the side of the road who thought it would be a good idea to offer warn you the bridge you are about to9 drive over is unstable. You have the freedom to heed…
Note the verbal sleight-of-hand pdk95 uses (and I don't mean the obvious false dichotomy): he presents his behavior as a kindness to others, the hidden assumption being that his viewpoint (assessment of the bridge's instability) is an unassailable truth that we should not question. Ironically, he is using the same sort of rhetorical trickery as the kind he condemns his opponents for using.
I don't know about the rest of you but the more frantically someone assures me that their statements are totally correct and that I need not verify them for myself or listen to differing opinions, the more suspicious I get. What exactly are pdk95 and people like him so terrified of? Is it that we are not clever enough in their opinion to recognize bad ideas and reject them ourselves?
Take the third choice. Inspect the bridge yourself and make up your own mind whether it's stable.
> Is someone's speech being banned? Free speech does not mean you are guaranteed an audience.
Odd, I don't recall mentioning banning anywhere in my post.