Dear David,

<<However, that is one of the risks of a free society...If we ban speech we have destroyed our free society.>>

Is all else well in the Kingdom of Denmark? Are we indeed, other than free speech, living in a free society?

The state limits our life in so many other ways, from before we are born till after our death, including in matters that have no bearing over other people's freedom or well-being, so why pick on this luxury, this minor issue of speech (in public, because nobody limits our private conversations) which does actually carry the risk, as you say yourself, of hurting other people? Is it so important that we be able to talk and talk and talk forever while government doesn't care, knowing well that the only outcome would be us growing tired?

I'd be more worried for example about your statement:
<<We must be able to punish acts of discrimination>>

Discrimination is perhaps the highest human faculty and you want it banned? Now this is not speech-police, this is thought police!

People should be free to have their own ideas of what and who is desirable and undesirable for them, whose company they seek and whose company they avoid. Are you saying that while people should be able to say all they like, they still should be forced to associate with others they don't like and stay away from those they like?

Dear Yuyutsu,

When you deny a person employment on the basis of some criterion which has nothing to do with the person's ability to do the job that is illegal and should be. I think you know that and are just playing with words. That has nothing to do with thought police. That is what is meant by discrimination. Stop playing stupid.

Yuyutsu – Discrimination is not a faculty it is a behaviour which is defined by law. It is the act of behaving in such a way that withholds a right to which everyone is entitled and to withhold it for no valid reason other than the colour of their skin or their gender or some other immutable distinction. You seem to have your own dictionary and talk about situations that exist only for you. Unless you agree about what words mean and talk of concrete situations then it is impossible to engage with you.

Your post makes absolutely no sense to anyone but yourself but unless you can find common ground about words and real situations with those whom you seem to want to debate with it is futile to continue.

Suggesting that we should not protect the value of free speech because other problems exist in society sounds like you have an agenda to reject this society in favour of another one that operates like the one inside your head.

Dear David,

Most people spend their money on things they believe will make them happy.

What right have you to demand that they spend their money instead on something they believe would make them unhappy?

Dear Phanto,

<<It is the act of behaving in such a way that withholds a right to which everyone is entitled and to...>>

Are you suggesting that everyone is entitled to my money?

<<Suggesting that we should not protect the value of free speech because other problems exist in society>>

Free speech, besides its potential to harm others, can provide a delusion of freedom, rather than actual freedom. One is allowed to stand on the roof and talk until the cows come home, but it would still be a criminal offence to sell their raw milk.

David
It is indeed a profound relationship between mother/father and child, but as a doctor can you elaborate what the father/mothers' genitals have to do with their nurturing relationship?

It is a foolish argument you are trying to backwardly engineer to conform with your inherently conservative values. I am happy to here a genuine reason - if you can find one.

On the issue of free speech you are applying your logical mind and I congratulate you. On this issue regarding which gender should raise children there is no reasoning except biology and anthropology

Dear Yuyutsu,

Our dialogue is ended since you do not make sense to me.