Originally Posted by
carmicaeld
you are quite the charmer are you not? i admire your fluency in french.
does the word disclaimer ring a bell? because that statement was one. lest you classify me as one of the people you perceive as "extremist" or "fundamentalist".
(notice that i have added some horizontal dividers. this makes it easier on your part)
again, you don't read my post before you refute any of my claims, do you? the quote which you refer to in this reply (which i have qouted) is not in response to "incompatibility" with democracy, but rather, on your statement that you "do not condone" whatever the accused has done. quotes 1 and 2 from my previous post are there to make a single argument, that you are perceived to be condoning the act of the accused. think before you click.
case and point.
i never said you misunderstood or misread my post. i stipulated something much more severe: that you didn't read. refer to counter-argument at the previous quote of this post.
who voted for these lazy, incompetent fools? we get the government that we deserve. our own people had a hand in creating the law. the church does not enjoy the monopoly of the blame for this wretched provision.
even if the law is, in your opinion, not compatible with democracy, it does not change the fact that it was written. so it shall be upheld. my position is not "that it's democratic and freedom loving", rather, i am of the opinion that our laws are not perfect, and in some cases may not be even moral. dura lex, sed lex : even draconian laws must be followed and enforced; if one disagrees with the result, one must seek to change the law. that is why some people advocate that the supreme court declare unconstitutional the latest bruhaha on laws : the anti-cybercrime law.
again, how does this help prove your point?
i never said you talked about hitler. i said you made frequent use of the "hitler card", but you replace hitler with religious fundamentalits/extremists instead. would you like an explanation on what a "hitler card" argument is?
whether or not the accused performed a much horrible act than the neo-nazis is irrelevant. the issue here is not the way he expressed himself, but where he did so. the punishment is severe, yes, i agree. but nothing can be done unless the law is repealed. he must be punished as mandated by law.
what kind of logic this is? well, i would say flawless. but don't mind me, that's just my opinion.
i merely gave you a reading suggestion, to expand your point of view, so to speak. that is, of course, if you are open to expanding your point of view.
cheers.
Haha man.. you've got a caricature-sized ego grossly out of proportion to your actual intelligence.
This debate is over as far as I'm concerned because you've already declared your own arguments flawless and are completely blind to your shortcomings. Is this now a self-rating contest? Oh, wait let me guess.. you rated yourself a 10. Hahaha.. You give good laughs, sir.
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
