Originally Posted by
ad3556
If the government did something you really hated like ban non-reproductive sex, wouldn't you wanna do something they dislike to make them change that rule? so you should be able to express your feelings by doing that.
Avoiding what I asked in my last post.
But do something they don't like because they did something I don't like? That seems like a roundabout way to solve a problem.
Originally Posted by
wefyb2
No point in an insult whe silence can be kept. And anyway, I could go out on the streets yelling anything I wanted, but I don't because I have JUDGEMENT. Judgement is the key here, not limits.
I agree up until this point. Not everyone has the same judgement, that can even be seen within toribash. How do we account for those with more lenient judgement? Stricter judgement?
Originally Posted by
Thorn
that is a restriction of natural rights and all that.
Acting on hateful thoughts in a way that is harmful to others is different.
Basing things off natural rights holds no ground if you cannot justify the natural rights. Argument invalid.
I don't want to turn this into a discussion about whether or not natural rights exist, so I'll just say that everything before that part of your post was golden.
Yes, acting on views and opinions is different, but again, where do we draw the line? Do you mean strictly physical harm? Emotional damage? Psychological pain?
How do we distinguish when somebody has crossed that line? And how do we prevent others from having to go through the same thing?