nath
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 8,009
I think you missed the point of my post as that's more or less exactly what I'm saying. People are free to hold their beliefs, and people are free to criticise other peoples beliefs. The law shouldn't factor in to it whatsoever. I was just saying, we shouldn't have to respect peoples opinions, only their right to have opinions.where is the line drawn between what is heinous nath? and how do you punish it. and 50 years down the line if the populations oppinion changes? im using it as an example i hope to god it never does. theres a good reason the thought police doesnt exsist long may it stay that way. example look at the difference in america in 100 years regarding the black population. general oppinion has changed what was once accepted (slavery) no longer is.
i agree with your point of view to a degree but i think there are wider implications to consider, me and you can turn round and say we think neo nazi's are the scum of the earth thats our oppinion and we condemn them for it. but thats as far as it goes. those people have the same right to believe in that evil bastard hitler as christians do in god. we may not like them for it but we cannot take pre emptive action on people simply because they do not agree with the majority oppinion. that is the most dangerous path we as a species could follow because we will end up a nazi state while trying to safeguard against becoming one.
