Why is it the "LEFT" think that they ONLY have the right to FREE SPEECH?

[attofishpi]

You are describing piracy and murder...?

Describing it and then refusing to clarify as well. It's like he knows he has something to be ashamed of.

He was banned before for threatening to come to the UK and do something terroristic. It was a matter of tie before he goes for more of that watchlist goodness.

HAHA LMAO - I was going to whisper in a Muslims ear something VERY profound -- nothing "terroristic"

PS. That wasn't why I was banned.

[attofishpi]

AGAIN --> for the virtue signallers (Flashpoopy pants and Flannel cumstain)

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

[Immanuel Can]

'The Left' gave us free speech. Stop calling wokism 'the left'. Makes you just a bad and moronic as they are.

Which "Left"? It certainly wasn't the modern Left.

It was what is called "classical liberalism," which is today treated as "conservative." It used to be centrist, really. And the right to free speech, like all rights-language, goes back to John Locke, the oddball Protestant. It was never an invention of secularism, which, to this day, has no grounded account of its own as to why any "rights" can be defended at all.

The modern Left is Neo-Marxist, and is totally repressive of free speech. Even the term "hate speech" is just a recent coinage, intended to justify censorship of any objections. But what it is right to criticize, and what is not right to criticize, cannot legitimately be decided merely by Leftist fiat. And nothing turns mere questions or critiques into "hate."

The Left hates dialogue, because in a rational debate it always loses. So it cuts off all criticism in order to preserve itself from dying of its own contradictions. That's all "hate speech" has come to mean. It doesn't mean anybody's "hating" at all.

And how would one even know what was in the heart of one's critics, anyway? What assures the proponents of the "hate speech" accusation that they are being "hated," rather than merely questioned or criticized? Is there a law against a person having a feeling? It's hard to see how one would make one.

The only real "hate speech," is incitement to violence, which has to be explicit. If somebody says, "How can a man become a woman?" or "It's wrong to let men punch women in the face in the Olympics," how are they guilty of hating women? And how can the person who says, "It's just fine for men to punch women in the face" be the one who is not "hateful"?

But if a man induces other men to punch women, is it not plausible that he's guilty of a kind of speech we ought to prevent? Sure. But that's not what the "hate speech" meme is being used for today. It's being used to protect violence against women, sanctioned by the IOC, for example, or the alleged "right" of male rapists to be placed in women's jails.

[Flannel Jesus]

See how desperate he is not to clarify what he said? Now he's stuck on repeat.

Sure - funny how someone as yourself that attempts many times to label me a coward has NO backbone to answer the questions.

The questions you're asking because you don't want to present your beliefs and your reasons for your beliefs... Because you're scared / ashamed...

[attofishpi]

See how desperate he is not to clarify what he said? Now he's stuck on repeat.

Sure - funny how someone as yourself that attempts many times to label me a coward has NO backbone to answer the questions.

The questions you're asking because you don't want to present your beliefs and your reasons for your beliefs... Because you're scared / ashamed...

The QUEST_IONS:-

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

[attofishpi]

...these that masquerade as intellects are PATHETIC.

[Flannel Jesus]

...these that masquerade as intellects are PATHETIC.

You didn't put enough underscores in the middle of words in this post, how am I supposed to take it seriously?

[attofishpi]

You didn't put enough underscores in the middle of words in this post, how am I supposed to take it seriously?

I think you mentioned me being some sort of "coward" - without reason.

Why are you and Flashpoopypants so scared to answer these questions?

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

[Flannel Jesus]

You didn't put enough underscores in the middle of words in this post, how am I supposed to take it seriously?

I think you mentioned me being some sort of "coward" - without reason.

Why are you and Flashpoopypants so scared to answer these questions?

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

The questions you brought up to evade other questions?

I'm not scared to answer them, my answers aren't relevant. The conversation is about the thing that you said, we're seeking clarity on that. My answers to those questions doesn't get us clarity on your suggestion.

[attofishpi]

You didn't put enough underscores in the middle of words in this post, how am I supposed to take it seriously?

I think you mentioned me being some sort of "coward" - without reason.

Why are you and Flashpoopypants so scared to answer these questions?

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

The questions you brought up to evade other questions?

I'm not scared to answer them, my answers aren't relevant. The conversation is about the thing that you said, we're seeking clarity on that. My answers to those questions doesn't get us clarity on your suggestion.

Oh...go on - what questions have I left unfulfilled? U pathetic whiney twat.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you mentioned me being some sort of "coward" - without reason.

Why are you and Flashpoopypants so scared to answer these questions?

- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" are not at all gentlemen for leaving their women behind?
- Do you think that the > 95% men that are seeking "asylum" should have felt they had "asylum" without further travel across the English Channel?

The questions you brought up to evade other questions?

I'm not scared to answer them, my answers aren't relevant. The conversation is about the thing that you said, we're seeking clarity on that. My answers to those questions doesn't get us clarity on your suggestion.

Oh...go on - what questions have I left unfulfilled? U pathetic whiney twat.

You said

The best plan is - NAVY patrols near the French coast prepared to slit the bladder of dinghies.

People have been trying for pages now to get clarity on exactly what you meant by that, but you've thus far been too cowardly to give clarification. Do you want the English navy to go murder people in boats in the English channel?

[attofishpi]

...this is seriously a rhetorical question - but what is it like to have no spine? You FDP and Keir Starmer know..

[Flannel Jesus]

...this is seriously a rhetorical question - but what is it like to have no spine? You FDP and Keir Starmer know..

Says the person who can't own up to any lies or clarify their own position on just about anything... You don't know what it's like to have a spine.

[attofishpi]

People have been trying for pages now to get clarity on exactly what you meant by that, but you've thus far been too cowardly to give clarification. Do you want the English navy to go murder people in boats in the English channel?

I answered it IDIOT. It means that patrols of British Navy operate along the SHALLOW shores of the French coast and sink dinghies - rather than BRITISH tax payers paying 500,000 pounds a year to the French for WHAT?

[Flannel Jesus]

People have been trying for pages now to get clarity on exactly what you meant by that, but you've thus far been too cowardly to give clarification. Do you want the English navy to go murder people in boats in the English channel?

I answered it IDIOT. It means that patrols of British Navy operate along the SHALLOW shores of the French coast and sink dinghies - rather than BRITISH tax payers paying 500,000 pounds a year to the French for WHAT?

Where did you say that?