527
Whats your such opinion (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
1195 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between "should be allowed" and "should be cencored". It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Few matters of law are objective when you get down to it, but existing organised crime laws could be interpreted to include genocide - seems straightforward enough.

    Edit: You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it. Somehow I suspect you still haven't bitten that bullet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago

    It's not a strawman - it's a straightforward demonstration of the fact that you don't belive in the legal argument you put forward. Try to avoid talking about logical fallacies you don't understand, and putting forward arguments you don't believe.

    If the legal argument is nonsense (of course it is - this is a conversation about morality), and you've stated that all censorship is bad, how do you square that with your (apparent?) pro-censorship stance on death threats, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and child porn?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 years ago*

    You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it

    Ummm... my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything... I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent