Where freedom of expression should end

Former Member

A Photograph Of Me wrote:

rather than driving them underground

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

I'm sure I won't have to lecture you about the difference between correlation and causation, but you will notice that the genes haven't been identified, and the scientists have no clue which genes may or may not be responsible.

So whilst I'll accept the possibility of a genetic element in homosexuality, I can't accept your assertion of there being "a lot of evidence" to show it.

Well I did say "to some extent." I was going to amend my post 'cause I thought you might say this. I know, for example, that it is possible to have identical twins, one gay, one straight which rules out a 'gay gene'. Perhaps what I should have said was that there is a lot of evidence for homosexual behaviour being natural (though people are free to frown upon many 'natural' things).

But the main point is that if there is some evidence that gay people are "born that way" do you think they should have the protection against these types of protests as race and sex?

Former Member

A Photograph Of Me wrote:

Yes racists should have the right to freedom of expression, because it's alot easier to prove them wrong, rather than driving them underground.

I'm not of the view that there should be no limits to freedom of expression - there does need to be a line drawn somewhere, but it seems to me that those placards were being...provocative for the sake of being provocative, and therefore getting the reaction they obviously wanted in the first place.

Of course when the other side doesn't take the bait, like in this case, it's the people trying to be provocative that end up with egg on their faces. When you do take the bait, you end up looking stupid. God knows how many films have benifited from Christian groups voicing their disapproval, after they've blatently attempted to gain a reaction. There's nothing funnier than someone trying to gain a reaction, and noone paying attention or taking them seriously.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

What i mean to say is, someone like Nick Griffin could be openly....out argued (for want of a better term)...proven wrong, on question time, or just by studying his policies, whereas something like the KKK is a little more shady.

Former Member

Well tbh I believe in freedom of speech (no matter what your political/social/cultural etc background is) but you need to back up your opinions with good arguments and facts...this whole christian "justification" thingy is a load of shite though...pay as little attention as possible to this shite.