Maybe I am wrong here but the talk about deplatforming that I have seen was mostly about punching Nazis and Berkeley.

I think some of the problem is both sides are starting from different places and so people are talking past each other. Speech to stop speech is fine. Violence to stop speech is not ok even when that speech is terrible.

I speak honestly and openly, and if people insult me I'll insult them back.

It makes others who observe this behavior have an intense dislike for me. All good, join the club. They are sitting over there (waves to the group of pussies behind Fly).

You understand that CPAC deplatforming Milo is not the same as Berkeley cancelling Milo due to violence?

Just realize how this makes you look in terms of being intellectually honest about any topic. You berated me for not looking at your data and then when you provided even more data wasted my time by posting nonsense.

Anyone reading this thread can just take a few minutes and do exactly what I told them to do and come to their own conclusions who is correct in this argument. I am correct.

This discussion is over. Save your 200 bucks and buy some zit cream with it, you juvenile douchebag.

Now that is funny.

Hahaha. You didn't have ****. So much for "Speak honestly!"
What a ****ing coward.

You think it looks bad on me, that you said you had proof, I said I would donate $200 to charity if you posted the proof you claim you had, then you said that you won't post the proof and the topic is over? You're a delusional coward.

That's most of the problem.

Of course. It was our now gone missing 'free speech absolutists' who were struggling with such distinctions.

Let's all take a deep breath, relax, be respectful, think, and get back to the substantive discussion.

I'm not a coward at all. A coward would have never spoken about a topic like this, ever.

I am an honest and open person who will give my opinions and defend those opinions when I'm under attack. I am in this thread and have been called everything from a pedophile supporter to a homophobe. Neither of them is true. I am under attack by at least, what, 20 different people and I'm still here, destroying people like you.

Is that really the actions of a coward? I'm simply tired of discussing anything with you. You aren't worth the time. I do have to thank you, though. You came after me so hard that it wound up making you look like a complete fool.

Learn how to do it right, follow people like Trolly's example. He comes in a thread, throws out an insult or two, then rolls out. That's how it's done. Pushing the point until someone has to be declared a winner, especially when you are talking about a subject you don't really know much about, will result badly. You made this choice, to talk about something you are obviously unfamiliar with. Bad choice.

So people in Kansas or Arkansas or Alaska or Wyoming constantly travel to bang as many people as possible and cause the average to jump by a factor of 35x?

Or do guys in NYC, San Francisco, LA, and Houston bang 3,500 people and drive up the average to compensate for those sex-starved Idahoans?

So how much sex gay men have is going to be left to each state to decide?

Again, Chez asked me not to speak about it, and I'm no expert in this area. I don't wish to speculate.

Well, you're both, so...

Chez really should look into having you as a 2nd mod.

Though you should have thrown in the "this is the last warning, next time it will be a timeout"

Psychos are people who deny tragedies involving schoolchildren.

Question for all those who defended Milo until his recent pedophilia comments surfaced:

Why would you support and give a platform to a guy who intends to use it to be cruel to others? Before it was transgender people, women, and undocumented immigrants. The only difference is now it's kids. Why was it okay before but it's not okay now?

Example:
The Solution To Online Harassment is Simple: Women Should Log Off by Milo
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/0...women-log-off/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/m...ne-trolls.html

The "a coward would never have brought up pedastry as a positive" is my personal favorite.
What a lovely series of posts.
Nowhere do I see chezlaw telling you not to post anything though!

I googled it and did not find anything that supported your view. There were many links dispelling such conclusions tho.

I don't even know what the term free speech absolutist even means. Like using speech to commit a crime isn't protected obviously.

My overall point was that attacking a generic poorly thought out argument that your opponent 'might' say is a bit cheap. Unless Milo supporters were starting to say the government should step in, I'm not sure why free speech should be brought up. Even then, the goal should be to try to figure out how the strongest version of your opponents argument is wrong.

Awww. Was he too mean? Did he hurt someone's feelings?

Lol. Grow up.

ya I had no idea what that post meant.

no doubt that along with being a hateful bigot that takes great pleasure in the suffering of others, nq is a crazy person.

My google must be lying to me. Shrug. Oh well!

I consider the matter closed. Everyone can come to their own conclusions. It matters little to me.

Yes, that seems to be the only reason he exists. Why support this content? Do you just enjoy cruelty?

You need to be more explicit about what you mean about "being cruel" is exactly. If a woman is married to an overweight man and I state that your husband could stand to lose a few pounds am I being cruel, honest, or both?