clearly, nazism repugnant doctrine practiced damaged people. it's not illegal. it's legal there nazi party, nazi media, nazi gatherings , nazi chants , speeches. if don't want that, need outlaw it. if it's not outlawed, can't deny them same rights rest of enjoy.
it? if it's legal, have tolerate presence. if act against legal rights, in wrong. let phelps family shout horrendous things. difference there when nazis chant vulgarisms? both groups of brain damaged , emotionally stunted people publicize hate others. long no other laws broken, obligated allow them same freedoms of assembly , expression reasonably allow other torch-bearing, racist group.
if take away rights, has (constitutional) reason. thoughts?
i don't think has ever advocated taking rights away. know , realize say, platform is, , how go 1a protected right.
problem here when stands against them, try play victim , wanting say, platform, , how go presented platform being taken away, infringing on 1a right.
there major cognitive dissonance there, because 1 can not equate using own 1a right speak out against them, petition against them, , assemble against them removing rights same. problem lies.
can have 1a right; play victim when uses 1a right asinine. it's "religious freedom laws" trying passed, , playing victim there wanting others "accept , tolerate our intolerance". same applies here. we'll accept , tolerate it; doesn't mean don't have stand against it. , when stand against it, have tolerate as have tolerate them.
if can't, need find country live. hear dprk in need.
bl.
Forums Mac Community Politics, Religion, Social Issues
- iPhone
- Mac OS & System Software
- iPad
- Apple Watch
- Notebooks
- iTunes
- Apple ID
- iCloud
- Desktop Computers
- Apple Music
- Professional Applications
- iPod
- iWork
- Apple TV
- iLife
- Wireless
Comments
Post a Comment