Paul,

You shall stay in after class on Thursday for trying to be funny and do 300 lines; " I must not mock, nor slander, my betters.".

//You shall stay in after class on Thursday for trying to be funny and do 300 lines//

But sir, he'll just copy and paste. I think you should make Paul pick up litter in the playground, sir. He's a greenie, he'll enjoy it.

Hi paul,

Gosh, it's fun to take any argument that one disagrees with to a ludicrous extreme. And also to divert discussion any way one can.

Look, a unicorn ! Over there !

So what are the issues that need to be examined on this thread ? A person's right to express themselves, and their obligation to deal with any criticism of their opinion. We all have those rights and obligations. Any chance you can get back to those issues ?

Nah. Unicorns are more fun.

Joe

'Would he have supported the head of the multinational capitalist firm, Qantas ? Maybe not, but he would certainly have empathy for him. And supported his right to his point of view, as you and I do.'

Personally Loudmouth I think Jesus would of offered Alan Jocye eternal life. I don't think he would care to much that he is the head of a multinational capitalist firm. It seems to me its the marxist who envy those who had 'made it' in the coporal world. Many of those that envy seem to be in highly paid government jobs. They would not have earned half the amount in the real world.

Loudmouth, finally someone noticed that this conversation went off topic, and quite a while back. The only thing that might be rescued from where the discussion is now, is if somebody points out that because it is about freedom of speech, they are free to choose what 'speech' they wish to engage in. I personally would prefer it to stay within the guidelines of the subject matter, and I believe the over-riding point here is Political Correctness. Now this is where we begin with our freedom of speech being denied. I don't know how, but someone hi-jacked the meaning of PC to be about not hurting other people's feelings. Rubbish! PC is nothing more than sugar coating a lie. It's no different than someone telling someone to 'get stuffed', but with a smile. I for one will not sugar coat my comments as history on this medium, and others, will show. If people cannot have a free and frank debate/conversation the end result will be moot, and the whole thing was a waste of time because the result will not be true. You cannot influence a debate with emotion. If someone is offended by what is being said, that merely shows a high level of immaturity on the part of that person and it is irrelevant to the debate. If in the course of the debate the tone goes into the gutter then, so be it, the conversation then is held in the gutter, as long as we are aware of it then let it be so. Bearing in mind by doing so we are then off topic.

Hi Alt-Rave,

Maybe our resident expert on logical fallacies, A. J. Phillips, can add No-Offensiveness to his huge collection: the 'Non Offendite' argument. Since offence didn't seem to worry the Romans, I've had to make up a Latin name for this new fallacy, which is surely telling.

Offending has been with us for perhaps thousands of years - Aristophanes even mocked Socrates in his plays more than 2400 years ago. Socrates was probably very offended, but copped it sweet. Voltaire ridiculed philosophers in 'Candide'. Moliere mocked all and sundry in his plays. Some of the best literature is viciously cruel, and great fun.

I realise that young people these days are much more frail, that offence can cause them terrible anguish but .....

Suck it up, snow-flakes.

Joe