Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 91 to 93 of 93

Thread: Don't Defend Disablist Drivel in the Name of Free Speech

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    24,740

    Default Re: Don't Defend Disablist Drivel in the Name of Free Speech

    Quote SEG said View Post
    Quote wolty said View Post
    I note you clicked dislike for this post SEG.

    Perhaps I did not explain myself properly, and I can see how what I said could be confusing. I jumped from one subject to another without bridging.

    The point I was making about the final sentence was that people that think they are 'special' invariably aren't. The idea that a CEO is more 'special' than a Teacher. Everyone is unique, just like everyone else.

    Or if there is another issue, please bring it up.
    Oh ok, sorry I misconstrued that. I thought that you were trivialising disabled people participating in sports or abled events. My son is a paraplegic and he is training for selection in the Para games. I can see that is not the case. Thanks for clearing that up or even caring that I may be offended.
    All good. I looked at my post and realised it could be taken in the opposite way of my intention.
    .
    .
    .


    The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

    Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
    óChaz Bufe, The American Hereticís Dictionary

  2. Like button SEG liked this post
  3. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: Don't Defend Disablist Drivel in the Name of Free Speech

    In a discussion over at Ratskep about Wilders being convicted for discriminatory speech, Byron, unsurprisingly, is defending absolute free speech.

    What is surprising is the asinine argument he uses to defend it:
    Sensible laws don't restrict speech, period: they restrict verbal acts such as inciting violence, defamation, or conspiring to commit a crime; acts that are only "speech" in the achingly literal sense of passing over a set of vocal cords, and aren't expressing opinions.
    IE saying we should have fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands, is apparently not expressing an opinion.

    Want to encourage people to commit violence? Apparently you can since that's not an opinion and therefore not a instance of speech.
    "Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."

  4. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toontown, in the Bible Belt.
    Posts
    7,393

    Default Re: Don't Defend Disablist Drivel in the Name of Free Speech

    The best mistake I've made was no longer being 'nice' about my disability

    I used to think to think I needed to be nice all the time. Not rock the boat. I was once invited to write News Corp's (now defunct) column The Angry Cripple, and I turned it down because I didn't want to put anyone off side. I worried it would be a reputation risk. For a long time, I stayed middle of the line, just like my Dad told me to. I wouldn't stray into the angry zone, because I wanted people to like me.

    After a while, I realised that being nice in disability activism was a mistake. Speaking out has not been. My transformation happened gradually, and I'd say it was my good mistake. Not a mistake at all, actually.
    Carly Findlay's up 'em, and good on her.
    EJB

    Iím not one of the dead ones yet. - Ms Fishie.


  5. Like button stylofone, THWOTH liked this post
    Thank button Goldenmane, THWOTH thanked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •