Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Ric, 30 Jan 2020.
Bet he wouldn't really.
I know people who spend all day doing that, it's pure idleness and sloth.
Well he wouldn't now, he's dead.
Can’t stand people that try and dictate what the likes of ‘twitter/Facebook etc should be doing - they’re social media sites and not compulsory and there’s hundreds of other platforms to spout shite - if Twitter or Facebook want to ban someone because they’re a twat then so they should, it’s their website and they can do as they please.
Spot on. There is not a single freedom or right that doesn't come with some restriction, condition or caveat, and for a good and simple reason; an absolute right/freedom inevitably infringes upon the rights and freedoms of someone else. This was properly understood and sorted out over 300 years ago by Social Contract theorists.
For example, an absolute freedom to go around hitting people would infringe upon other people's right to be free from physical harm. That's why we have laws against it. An absolute right to take ownership of anything we want would infringe upon other people's right to own things. That's why we have property laws to govern such rights.
The same goes for speech; if we had an absolute freedom/right to say whatever we wanted then we would risk causing harm to others in some way (directly or indirectly). And I'm not talking about criticising beliefs or opinions here; that's fair game. The rule is simple - no 'ad hominem'. Play the ball and not the man, basically, and don't use speech to deliberately inflict physical or mental harm. I suspect that Hopkins is probably smart enough to grasp that concept, but decides to ignore it anyway for money/retweets.
Looks like she's back now.
Shame. I was hoping she'd be stuck for something to do without Twitter and would decide to try playing with the traffic on the motorway.