Khabib Interview in Turkey (Translation)

[king_ebeneezer]

either you're deliberatly lying either you have no reading comprehension.
i know i'm fluent in english but come on...

So you agree they should be free to make their comics?

 

[king_ebeneezer]

I find it ironic how he praises Ali in the next question
If he were fighting Ali , Ali would have called him a fake Muslim would have dissed his whole family and his country and did it in a way that had more visceral then Connor could have ever done

The more Khabib talks the less he is respected

And it would've rhymed lol Ali was a poet.

 

[frontkick1]

I'm well aware people disagree. I'm simply making the argument as to why hate speech should be protected. You haven't made any argument to the contrary. I'm waiting.

lol grow up. i already gave multiples arguments despite the fact i don't speak fluently. truth is you're just showing your intolerence and mabe a bit of racism hidden behind a false sense of morality

 

[frontkick1]

So you agree they should be free to make their comics?

but not being over agressive and without constantly insulting other ppl's belief. what can't you understand about that ?

 

[king_ebeneezer]

but not being over agressive and without constantly insulting other ppl's belief. what can't you understand about that ?

And who gets to decide what is "over aggressive" and what happens when they apply that standard to speech reasonable people would deem "not over aggressive" and silence them because they don't like it?

 

[king_ebeneezer]

lol grow up. i already gave multiples arguments despite the fact i don't speak fluently. truth is you're just showing your intolerence and mabe a bit of racism hidden behind a false sense of morality

No you didn't. You called me ignorant. That isn't a contrary argument lol

 

[frontkick1]

Free speech is about the freedom to say anything without suffering retaliation from authorities.

that's dumb as F. as i said every concept has its own limits. spread hatred but don't be surprise when things could backfire. when it comes to being civilized free speech means nothing without moderation

 

[frontkick1]

And who gets to decide what is "over aggressive" and what happens when they apply that standard to speech reasonable people would deem "not over aggressive" and silence them because they don't like it?

common sense

 

[king_ebeneezer]

common sense

lol at trusting governments to have common sense. Why are you so concerned about protecting violent criminal radicals from words?

 

[frontkick1]

No you didn't. You called me ignorant. That isn't a contrary argument lol

yes i did. this discussion didn't start with me calling you ignorant. if that's all you retained there's not much i can do for u

 

[king_ebeneezer]

that's dumb as F. as i said every concept has its own limits. spread hatred but don't be surprise when things could backfire. when it comes to being civilized free speech means nothing without moderation

I never said free speech should be consequence free. It should simply be protected from authorities and regulation. We already have laws for violent acts. If someone is triggered by words and lashes out they should suffer the consequences just as the person who triggered the violence suffered.

 

[frontkick1]

lol at trusting governments to have common sense. Why are you so concerned about protecting violent criminal radicals from words?

wrong. either you embrace the chaos either you moderate what you say especially in a sensible context.

 

[king_ebeneezer]

yes i did. this discussion didn't start with me calling you ignorant. if that's all you retained there's not much i can do for u

I can only retain what you reply to me with and initially you offered no counter argument to my post.

 

[king_ebeneezer]

wrong. either you embrace the chaos either you moderate what you say especially in a sensible context.

I disagree. I don't trust the government to moderate speech.

 

[frontkick1]

I never said free speech should be consequence free. It should simply be protected from authorities and regulation. We already have laws for violent acts. If someone is triggered by words and lashes out they should suffer the consequences just as the person who triggered the violence suffered.

yet you implied that hate speech should be protected at all cost.

"We already have laws for violent acts."
but laws should not prevent us to use our common sense

 

[ChrisPalmquest]

I find it ironic how he praises Ali in the next question


The more Khabib talks the less he is respected

lol by who?

Sherdork whitebelts who account suicided after Conor lost?

 

[king_ebeneezer]

yet you implied that hate speech should be protected at all cost.

"We already have laws for violent acts."
but laws should not prevent us to use our common sense

Nope. You misunderstood. I said hate speech should be protected. I never said hate speech is without consequence.

Saying something hateful is not a crime.

Violently attacking someone is a crime.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

yet you implied that hate speech should be protected at all cost.

"We already have laws for violent acts."
but laws should not prevent us to use our common sense

yes hate speech should be protected as long as it is not threatening anyone with violence, that's the point of free speech. Just go look at countries where talking bad about religion or the government is considered "hate speech" is that what you want?

When you say the response charlie hebdo got was an expected consequence you are only proving their comics to be an accurate depiction of muslim extremists. so you are basically saying their comics are accurate and should be banned because the extremists might attack them just like they say they do in their comics. you are ridiculous

 

[frontkick1]

I can only retain what you reply to me with and initially you offered no counter argument to my post.

you didn't give any valid arguments other than parroting your whole simplistic "free speech be protected" which you've been brainwashed with. other than that you didn't say anything interesting to learn.

 

[king_ebeneezer]

you didn't give any valid arguments other than parroting your whole simplistic "free speech be protected" which you've been brainwashed with. other than that you didn't say anything interesting to learn.

I gave reasons why it should be protected. You are misrepresenting my argument.