[JRS1]

How is that bookshop of yours, Goldberk?

How can you establish what is right and wrong without the right to discuss what is right and wrong.

[Decky]

What is the point of fighting oppression if we simply trade one oppressor for another?

Because the working class want to finally tun the tables and do some oppressing of their own.

[Goldberk]

How can you establish what is right and wrong without the right to discuss what is right and wrong.

What if it has been established, giving the same amount of respect to same sex relationships as to opposite sex relationships has been established for me so i see no point in discussing the merits of bigoted opinions, they are wrong.

[JRS1]

Dont discuss them then, that's your decision. Buts that wasn't your point, you stated that some views should be allowed to be expressed, and some should not. The book burners of the anarchist bookshop, perhaps thought the owners had no right to express their opinions and took action to suppress this.

You yourself have been given the right to form your opinions and come to your own conclusions and to express your conclusions. All this would have been done as part of a conversation with wider world. I think you should let others have the right to form and express their opinions, as you have done.

I'm with Andablue on this one, and quite frankly the argument cant logically be lost. And the reason why people are more accepting nowadays is because opinions were able to be freely expressed, even though they were found objectionable by wider society only 30 years ago.

Sorry to bang on, but I'm sick of the leftists on here supporting suppression / oppression.

[Goldberk]

Buts that wasn't your point, you stated that some views should be allowed to be expressed, and some should not

And some should not be allowed to be expressed, communities/societies should be able to censor members and surpress views that are dangerous.

he book burners of the anarchist bookshop, perhaps thought the owners had no right to express their opinions and took action to suppress this.

They were right to think that some views should be suppressed but not right in deciding which views.

Sorry to bang on, but I'm sick of the leftists on here supporting suppression / oppression.

All ideologies support suppression, some just do it more openly.

[Oxymoron]

Since being gay is a choice, I dont see why this adverisement should be banned. I dont understand this logic.

[JRS1]

Goldberk.

I heard you the first time. Dogmatic rhetoric seems en vogue on both sides of the fence.

You didn't actually argue anything there just ignored my main points and re-stated your initial opinion against where I put your opinion into context.

You have no right to tell me how to, or what to express. If you want to sod off into a commune where you suppress/ oppress one another - go for it, that is your choice.

[Goldberk]

You are correct, I have no right. But then rights are not a part of my politics, it is politicly expedient to convince others to believe what i believe and to eliminate beliefs that threaten myself and social constructs I wish to see created/maintain.

[JRS1]

Why do these beliefs threaten you? What is the social construct you are aiming for?

In theory you make sense, you don't care about peoples rights. You apparently believe in some kind of totalitarianism, based on your view of the world. In reality people will just tell you where to go.