Search results

The factuality of the statement doesn't depend on it's audience but it's offensivness certianly does I make a big distinction between fire bombing someones house and a joke. None of the other discrimination is relevant to the speech issue. There is saying your piece, and there is...

Do you really think a questionare of people's opinions of themsleves, falls under the domain of empirical evidence. I sure don't. I skim read the questionaire and noticed numerous ambiguous questions, science my ass.

Acceptability is an issue, as liberal activist groups have already decided to ruin his career, unless he goes on an apology tour. I consider it a free speech issue, if activist groups are campaigning to have someone fired, if they said something they don't like.

One or more that's not been unaccounted for. It's not scientific then. Science is a certain thing, which this does not meet the criteria of. Really this is just occam's razor deductive reasoning, and it may be right, but it ain't science.

It's not his fault it's on the internet, he didn't put it on the internet, someone else did. If anything it's the person who put it on the internets who is too blame. Kind of, a tree is a physcial object, so it either did or didn't fall down. Speech is purely suibjective and it needs to find...

Your taking that out of context,as I was obviously talking about Tracy Morgan and what he did. Let us entertain your stupid point anyway, here we go again with rights, what does that mean in this context, I think they can do what the **** they want, if they want to feel they are victims, they...

I have no idea. I'm just pondering the philosophy of what rights actually are, and I still haven't come up with a definition I agree with. Generally I do my pondering when I'm high, which might be why.

That's not what I meant. I mean when a corporation and not the government prevents someone saying something, is it not a free speech issue. You said only the government can inhibit someones free speech, but corporations (or in this case, a mob of liberals) can too.

Why is the right to speech only applicable, when the government tries to take it away. What about any other power structures, like corporations, the media, political activists. Rights are a philosphical concept, they don't inherently exist. Why is it that rights only relate to government...

Free speech isn't just a legal issue, schools and universities are very fond of telling people what they can say. There are non-legal punishments to saying things, some people don't like.

You seem to be impyling that there is an objective standard of what's appropriate to say. Where does this objective standard come from, GOD? Even if you and I agree it's bad, doesn't make it objectively so. Unless he went out of his way to find gays to offend, then I don't see how they are...

You answered your own question, did you not? What did I say that pertians to biology not being scientific?

Science relies on isolating variables, there are too many variables involved, in how humans feel about eachother. Human feelings are also not testable, in the scientific sense.

which is the gay one?

You're being ridiculous. He was at a comedy club, not an elementary school. He didn't intend for kids to hear it, and his gay son doesn't exist.

Hence its not scientific, and can't be stated as a matter of fact result.

The worst part is, they get research money for that banal 'science', that could be going to the proper sciences. despicable.

Not really, Humans are irrational, and can't really be analysed the way an electron can. When did i say something homophobic?

social sciences pretending to be science.

TBH, I always though the teaparty talking points, were just code words for racism. Now I'm starting to think they actually believe in that nonsense.