Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
Actually, they are allowed to. They're allowed to be alot of things. We both (I assume) agree that they probably shouldn't, but they are as allowed to be outraged at the ability of people to be allowed to say it as they are to do anything else. The law limits their actions, not their beliefs. Thank God.
|
You are right, people can be outraged at free speech, I guess I should have said that they aren't allowed to actually limit free speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
Pardon, but it did. You did not outright say it, but that's the definition of implied - you didn't need to say it outright. It might not have been what you meant to say, but considering the context, it really was what your comment came off as implying.
|
I didn't think so, and that definitely wasn't my intent, I thought my rhetorical comment to the defacer clarified that it was about what was allowed to be said (since he was limiting what was allowed to be said).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
When used properly, perhaps it could be used well. Jon Stewart comes to mind. However, I think the internet is proof that it is rarely, if ever, used properly - especially on message boards.
|
Heh, anything that involves input from random people is ever used properly, especially on the Internet.