Oh, also straw-man fallacy.

​I will restate what I mentioned in a previous comment:

​Offense (or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech.

​Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.

​When LGBTQ+ people fought for their rights, when Black people did the same, or when abolitionists fought against slavery, all of these individuals were viewed as “hate groups” (in the terms of their respective eras), “violent groups,” or “dangerous groups” because they were challenging the status quo and the power structures that oppressed them.

deleted by creator

Ad hominem fallacy.

​He isn’t saying that spreading hate is something that should be done or that it is good; rather, he is merely stating that there is a huge logical, epistemological, and ontological leap between “I hate X” (whatever that X represents) and “we should kill X” or “X should die.”

​Moreover, offense ( or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech. Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.

Freedom of speech SHOULD be an ABSOLUTE and UNRESTRICTED right, even over any other right.

Bro, I’m just joking, relax yourself, don’t take everythijg that seriously.

Removed by mod