[QUOTE="Laihendi"]No, not everything has the threat of physical force, and that is a ludicrous claim. My existence and actions do not threaten anyone with the initiation of physical force. I advocate force only as a means of self defense. That means force in reaction to an initiation of force, not the initiation itself. Individuals engaging in free trade do not threaten anyone with the initiation of physical force. That is, by definition, an act carried out voluntarily by all involved parties. Please explain to me what I do not understand about people in the UK being arrested for condemning homosexuality or Islam.Ace6301
I mean every action at it's extreme has a threat of physical force. Go ahead and refuse to pay anything and see how it works out. Hell most companies are quicker to anger and more aggressive than any civilized government. You say your existence and actions do not threaten anyone but you've also said you'd be fine with putting down undesirables so...I kind of disagree as a lot of things you've said would case great harm to many.
Again you don't seem to get what the law regarding speech is in the UK. It isn't condemning homosexuality or Islam that is illegal, it's the incitement of hatred and supporting actions to cause harm to others.
Why do so many of these threads suddenly revert to Lai's unique look on the world? Also the only gay person I know who is completely disinterested in gay rights. Unless Elijah Wood is discussing gay rights. Then it's awesome.
jimkabrhel
Because most topics here are dull and correcting someone who is chronically wrong is more interesting than seeing people say "Good". If there was someone here who would rather talk about how gays don't deserve rights or something dumber than what Lai says than he'd get the attention. Lai really only gets attention because we've banned the more controversial members. Someone has to be the town fool. 1. If you refuse to pay for something you take then you are stealing someone's property. Theft is an act of aggression and the victim (or anyone acting on his behalf) is entirely justified in intervening, as such an intervention would be an act in defense of the victim. The distinction between theft and trade is apparently too nuanced for you to grasp, but I will say this again because it is true: free trade does not impose violence on anyone.
2. I have never condoned the initiation of coercion in any capacity against conscious individuals. What you are accusing me of is a falsity at best, and a lie at worst.
3. This man was arrested for his religious beliefs with regards to homosexuality. As far as I know he was not advocating violence against anyone. You cannot harm someone without the intitiation of violence.
Log in to comment