You're correct. I came on pretty strong with the "fantasy" "idiocy" "pointless" and "outrageous" remarks. Had I not used them, would you have replied in a more conversational tone or would your response have been the same?
Thank you for that apology. Would I have been more conversational? Almost certainly. (Recall my welcome to you that you said gave you a laugh.)
Would I still have tried to demolish your central thesis with vigour? Absolutley: I thought it was flawed. I still do.
I'm a pretty laid back type of person. I'm old fashioned as hell and I'm very strict about manners, both from me and too me.
I am both old and old fashioned. While I favour manners (an willl argue that nothing in my posts was umannerly) I favour clear thinking even more.
In the absence of clear thinking, in the presence of weak thinking, bad decisions get made. Decisions that lead to events like the Holocaust. So I place clear thinking well ahead of good manners in any heirarchy of actions.
I used the example of someone making a remark about literally eating children to a group that contains children because most people would find that type of statement very upsetting.
It might not be upsetting in a society in which cannabilism was an accepted practice. I believe the New Guinea natives saw it as a mark of respect to eat their enemies.
Now in such a society, speaking out against the accepted norm would be discoureage, or more likely forbidden. You said earlier 'Those restrictions are developed via a consensus of opinion within that society. It exists. It's in place and is practiced.'
I agree this is what happens. And with those restrictions in place, with no free opportunity to speak of alternatives, it is very difficult for change to occur. So if you restrict speech to what the society finds acceptable at that time then you support and defend the status quo.
And that would mean slavery, suppression of women's rights, racial segregation and a host of other practices we now feel to be wrong, would have been sustained fro longer. And had true freedom of speech been in place when they were fought against they would have lasted fro less time.
So, yes, when you ask me do I think people should be allowed to say anything I reply with a definitive yes.
And what if someone does stand up at a local community meeting, with children present, and begin to advocate child cannabilism? I also believe in freedom of action. The speaker will find it difficult to speak with a fist in his mouth.
Am I denying the speaker their freedom of speech? Temporarily. They are free to distribute their ideas in a more palatable form (pun intended) at a later date.
And I shall not contest any civil or criminal action brought against me for my assault on the individual.
That's where I am coming from.