No, I didn't. I wasn't arguing boundless freedom of speech, the post I was answering was.

It is quite obvious from the context that I think that my first hypothetical is not, and should not be, uncurtailed speech.

Reading comprehension is hard, isn't it?

Really, for someone who does not know what 'begging the question' in formal logic means, you shouldn't talk logic. I did use it correctly, and from the context it is obvious that I know of both the correct and incorrect usages.

If someone points out that you sound immature, effectively shouting "AM NOT!" does not help, you know.

And if you hadn't noticed, I had decided quite a few posts ago that you're not worth arguing with; on the other hand, your posts are so disarmingly immature and so gratifyingly full of insult material, that you make an excellent target for insults.

Because your posts sound like the screeds of a teenager with an entitlement complex. That's why people keep assuming you are one.

Really, just begging the question that the only real violence is physical, that's straight out of the mental world of the Randroids, making you either a teenager with zero life experience or as mentally stunted as the Holy Messiah and her Inner Circle.

And I'm not saying your argument is incorrect because you are young (that would be an ad hominem fallacy). I'm saying that your use of an incorrect argument make you sound young. There is a difference. Try and see if you can spot it.

And yet I don't see you trying to defend his idiotic contention that speech cannot be violence.

The complete naÃvety of the content of his posts bolster my position more than your snark defends his. Too bad for you.

You've heard The Ickle Jones: he should just grow a thicker skin.

Which of course nicely demonstrates that our Ickle is just another teenager who should fuck off back to 4chan where he belongs.

We're specifically talking about free speech here. There are no fists, I assure you.

The day you finally finish High School and move out of your parents' basement you may find out just how wrong you are.

In terms of content, you can say whatever the fuck you like about me.

Cool, so I can put up a webpage alleging that you are a paedophile then?

Despite what some loudmouths on Internet may proclaim, there are forms of speech that are damaging and therefore infringing on other people's rights. A government does have a legitimate interest in having those forms of speech curtailed, as much as it has an interest in having harmful physical acts like assault and battery curtailed.

Harassment, slander and libel, direct incitement to violence? It is up to the Frea Speach advocates to defend why these should be allowed, not for the rest of us to why we shouldn't have to put up with this in a civilised society.

And of course that would have to be " ... they mean A".

Fuck it. I'm out of this discussion, the stupidity is catching.

Literally every time anyone says "I don't A, but B", they mean B but are just too cowardly to come right out and say it.

So why don't you go and take your concern elsewhere and fuck off, you misogyny apologist.

Naah. The poster is samzenpus, that ought to give you a hint: this is part of the ongoing neo-con rewrite of history to make them out to be the good guys, and to always have been the good guys.

And given that you just blindly repeated the misogynistic lies about Zoe Quinn, I think you just proved GP's point.

To stay with the observable facts: there is absolutely no proof that Zoe slept around to get good reviews. There has been no positive article on her work that can be directly attributed to her relationship.

And that Gamergate was born on this lie and acting as if they care about journalistic integrity, while staying mostly silent on 'Shadows of Mordor' tells a spectator exactly what the priorities of Gamergate are: shutting up the uppity women.

No. Once they invaded Poland, they were doomed from the start.

With the state of their Navy, Air Force and operational doctrine, they had nothing to force Britain to capitulate. Churchill put his finger on it when he said "Hitler knows he has to break us in this island or lose the war". Germany had no means to succesfully invade and conquer Britain. At best approximation they had the forces to force a small beachhead, and be thrown back.

Then there is the fact that the Molotov-von Ribbentrop pact was a marriage of convenience. While Stalin may have been complacent enough to disregard a German breaking of the pact, there is no way there would not eventually have been a war between two ideologies who were fundamentally opposed to each other. With Nazi Germany bleeding out in a campaign against Britain and the US (and a sustained push against Britain would have brought in the US), the temptation to open a second front and grab most of Eastern Europe would have been too great

Any way you look at it, unless you have Wehrmacht fanboi goggles, the strategic situation had always to have been in Germany's disfavour.

Fuck off and die please. The world could do with less PVV voting scum.

No, they forgot Algol, which begot both Ada and Pascal.