(07-18-2019 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Interesting observation - just noticed that Tanq relies heavily upon the law in his responses. He talks about what is legal, what the Supreme Court has ruled, etc., regardless of whether or not the legality of an issue is of concern. This is a perfect example - we’re talking about a topic that is more concerned with ethics and morality, as opposed to legality. No one is saying that people should be held criminally liable for these chants, using a racial slur in the work place, etc., yet Tanq is relying on the legal system as a way to push back. But society has decided, mostly, that there are plenty of things that are legal, but not necessarily moral or ethical, and speech really falls in that category.

I think that is often where a lot of these disagreements come from.

Mainly because progressivism is fundamentally built on the foundation of enforcing a 'rule de jour' by coercion.

Rule de jour is the tool of despots, whether in the criminal realm, the civil law realm, or in private realm. I am using the Supreme Court case as a tool for those who dont understand the concept of 'vagueness' to do so.

I suggest you read a little more carefully, since none of my comments dealt at all with criminal law, but that is seemingly the crux of your pushback. Pretty much a strawman there, son. The issue I am trying to make isnt that the Supreme Court 'ruled x' or 'ruled y', but to point out the thought process that steered them that way. ANd how the thought process on the subject mirrors our discussions here.

If you think I am saying 'well the Supreme Court said x was legal and it should be applied by rule of law', then that is a very shallow level of that.