Videospirit Posted February 16 Report Posted February 16 (edited) 3 hours ago, User said: Um, no. All that zone means is that you can’t do things like silently pray. People are still free to walk along the sidewalks, drive, bike, stand around and gossip about life and things… The zone was put in place to restrict the actions of the public in order to protect the rights of citizens to access healthcare. This came into being after a series of incidents where health was jeopardized by protestors, some of which framed their protests as silent prayer vigils. These zones are enacted at the municipal level. Than this guy came along and started creeping people out by holding a prayer vigil, something that had been weaponized against individuals recently and had a negative context because of events that lead to the creation of the restricted zone in the first place, in the area that the community had setup to allow individuals unimpeded access to healthcare. Even people standing around and gossiping in this area could have them asked to leave, and this guy was obviously loitering in the area rather than using it in a permitted manner. You can have objections to the creation of restricted areas in what you feel should be public spaces, but this guys actions went above and beyond "just silently praying." when he refused to leave after being asked to do so, and to claim all he did was "silently pray" and that was the reason he was punished is blatantly false and untrue. People were afraid to seek out medical services because his presence was scaring them. He was in a space where that was not allowed, and he didn't give two shits about that fact when asked to leave and refused to comply with a reasonable request. This man does not deserve anyone's sympathy. If the cops had just rolled up and carted him off out of nowhere, that would have been one thing. This is a relatively new law and they tried to cut him some slack but the man was extremely belligerent and was asking to be charged. He could have done his prayer vigil anywhere else, but he chose to do it in the most harmful manner possible. Edited February 17 by Videospirit corrected typo Quote
User Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 3 hours ago, Videospirit said: This man does not deserve anyone's sympathy. I love how you started out saying this was all a lie, repeatedly tried to obfuscate and claim it was not true, to now finally you are just trying to justify it. OK, good luck with that. As I have already called you out before, I already know folks like you can't stand having anyone point out that slaughtering little unborn children for the mere convenience of it is wrong. To the point, its free speech and feeling uncomfortable while you go off to kill a child... boo hoo. Even then, all he was doing was standing there silently praying. If the European people can't handle that, they deserve to be called out for their cowardice in fighting for free speech. Back to the point, Vance was certainly not off base or misinforming people. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 This is like telling Czechoslovakia to be ‘reasonable’ about losing the Sudetenland. We know what happened next there. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 On 2/16/2025 at 4:17 AM, User said: In reality Vance mentioned Adam Smith-Connor who was in fact punished for merely standing near an abortion clinic and silently praying. In reality, Adam Smith-Connor sought out an abortion clinic to "silently pray" near, knew there was a law against it (implemented for various good reasons we could discuss in another thread), and spent almost two hours arguing with the officer who asked him to leave before he was finally removed. In reality, Vance's speech was a ranting balogna-fest from the culture-warrior grievance catalogue, underlined by the absurdity that it was delivered at a freaking European security summit, from the genius who broke the story about Haitians eating cats and dogs. 🤣 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 8 minutes ago, Moonbox said: In reality, Adam Smith-Connor sought out an abortion clinic to "silently pray" near, knew there was a law against it (implemented for various good reasons we could discuss in another thread), and spent almost two hours arguing with the officer who asked him to leave before he was finally removed. In reality, Vance's speech was a ranting balogna-fest from the culture-warrior grievance catalogue, underlined by the absurdity that it was delivered at a freaking European security summit, from the genius who broke the story about Haitians eating cats and dogs. 🤣 Oh no... he sought out an abortion clinic to silently pray?!?!?! Throw him in the gulag for the rest of his life. Honestly, is that the notion of "free speech" you support? How about Germans sending armed teams of police out to arrest people for posting memes? This is exactly the kind of crap Vance was rightly talking about. Europeans are going crazy with their war against free speech right now. Quote
Videospirit Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 43 minutes ago, User said: Honestly, is that the notion of "free speech" you support? How about Germans sending armed teams of police out to arrest people for posting memes? This is exactly the kind of crap Vance was rightly talking about. Europeans are going crazy with their war against free speech right now. You've got America's war against truth, and Europe's war against misinformation. The results of america's war is a corrupt government quickly destroying government agencies meant to prevent corruption, and in Europe you have healthy democracies actually working for the interests of their citizens. I think the results speak for themselves. It may chafe those with anarchist tendencies a bit, but the cost of inaction is pretty steep, as evidenced by what's happening in the US right now. So no, my idea of free speech is not "People are encouraged to lie openly and cause as much harm to others as they can without consequence for their own personal benefits." and "People who intentionally harm others should face consequences for their actions, even if the method they use to commit that harm is mere speech." is an acceptable alternative. 1 Quote
Moonbox Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 1 hour ago, User said: Oh no... he sought out an abortion clinic to silently pray?!?!?! Oh no, he was told he had to move 100m away to "silently pray"?1?!? Better send the Vice President of the United States to harangue (supposed) allies at a security conference over it. 🤣 I think you'd have trouble trying to rationalize and explain why the rights of belligerent fundamentalists to "silently pray" specifically within 100m of abortion clinics somehow supersedes the rights of vulnerable women to seek medical help with a measure of privacy and dignity, without shame, judgement, harassment and/or intimidation. Pray 101m outside. Problem solved. 🙃👍 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 5 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Oh no, he was told he had to move 100m away to "silently pray"?1?!? Yes, because silently praying too close to an abortion clinic... needs to be a crime? 6 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Better send the Vice President of the United States to harangue (supposed) allies at a security conference over it. Better cry about the United States Vice President accurately pointing out how European Countries are abandoning free speech. As Germany sends armed police teams to raid homes to arrest people over a meme. 7 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I think you'd have trouble trying to rationalize and explain why the rights of belligerent fundamentalists to "silently pray" specifically within 100m of abortion clinics somehow supersedes the rights of vulnerable women to seek medical help with a measure of privacy and dignity, without shame, judgement, harassment and/or intimidation. To the larger point here... this was just an example for arresting someone for silent prayer to point out that people in their own homes that are too close to an abortion clinic do rightfully fear the full meaning of the threatening letter sent to them for what they can and can't do in their own yard. And yes, that is the entire point of free speech, it might just make you uncomfortable. 8 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Pray 101m outside. Problem solved. Don't be bothered by someone standing and silently praying. Problem solved. Don't send letters threatening people in their own homes. Quote
User Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 1 hour ago, Videospirit said: You've got America's war against truth, and Europe's war against misinformation. Your entire premise is a load of BS. There is no American war against truth and to the point of this discussion here, we are talking about the European war against someone praying silently on the street or on their own property... or the police state arresting people over social media posts/memes. That is not a war against misinformation, that is a war against dissent and freedom of speech. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, User said: Yes, because silently praying too close to an abortion clinic... needs to be a crime? Like I said, we know you can't actually explain or rationalize why, specifically, these donkeys need to pray within earshot of abortion clinics, and why that crucial right is somehow more important than that of vulnerable women being able to seek medical treatment with some privacy and without having to fear harassment or intimidation from protestors, which is really what these silent prayers really are. You're going to do your regular mental gymnastics, just as you did with Vance's cat-and-dog eating, and talk about anything but what you're being pressed on. It's boring, and even better, completely irrelevant to the topic of Ukraine, just like Vance's speech was in Munich. 🤣 Edited February 17 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 2 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Like I said, we know you can't actually explain or rationalize why, specifically, these donkeys need to pray within earshot of abortion clinics, and why that crucial right is somehow more important than that of vulnerable women being able to seek medical treatment with some privacy and without having to fear harassment or intimidation from protestors, which is really what these silent prayers really are. That is the point of freedom and free speech. It doesn't matter why you think they "need" to do it or not. Almost *ANY* protest is designed to get attention and spread your message to some degree. Are you now opposed to all free speech because just about all of it makes someone feel uncomfortable when they don't agree. Noticed you completely ignored the part about people in their own homes... 7 minutes ago, Moonbox said: You're going to do your regular mental gymnastics, just as you did with Vance's cat-and-dog eating, and talk about anything but what you're being pressed on. It's boring, and even better, completely irrelevant to the topic of Ukraine, just like Vance's speech was in Munich. Let me know when you have something specific to say here. Quote
Videospirit Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 (edited) 3 hours ago, User said: Yes, because silently praying too close to an abortion clinic... needs to be a crime? Yes it does. I know this may seem strange to an American, with your dysfunctional healthcare system that people refuse to use because it's too expensive, but most of the west considers access to healthcare to be a human right, and trying to prevent people from accessing healthcare should be a crime. 3 hours ago, User said: Better cry about the United States Vice President accurately pointing out how European Countries are abandoning free speech. As Germany sends armed police teams to raid homes to arrest people over a meme. Free speech, as you in your war on truth, misunderstand it, has never existed. It has never been legal to intentionally hurt other human beings using speech without consequence. For example, defamation laws in the united states predate the American revolution and the country itself, inherited from the legal system of its colonizers. 3 hours ago, User said: To the larger point here... this was just an example for arresting someone for silent prayer to point out that people in their own homes that are too close to an abortion clinic do rightfully fear the full meaning of the threatening letter sent to them for what they can and can't do in their own yard. This was an example of arresting someone for trying to harm people by denying them access to healthcare. The context is controversial enough that bad actors like yourself are likely to misunderstand the context as "being arrested for silently praying in their own homes.", but such people deserve consideration too, so you could criticize the letters sent out to these homes as not taking enough care to reassure residents that they won't be unjustly punished, but to act like this is an assault on freedom of speech is a morally vile act. Anyone who does so champions the idea that humans have no rights to their own person, life, or dignity, and that individuals should have the freedom to harm and even kill each other without consequence. All free speech is, is the belief that individuals should not be punished because of the words they say alone. But if that speech causes harm, they can still be punished for that harm without violating freedom of speech. Edited February 17 by Videospirit Quote
User Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Videospirit said: Yes it does. I know this may seem strange to an American, with your dysfunctional healthcare system that people refuse to use because it's too expensive, but most of the west considers access to healthcare to be a human right, and trying to prevent people from accessing healthcare should be a crime. Skipping past the irrelevant stuff, how does someone silently praying near an abortion clinic prevent access? Also, many types of "healthcare" are regulated or outright banned. Including in European countries. 4 minutes ago, Videospirit said: as you in your war on truth, Yet again, this is a baseless assertion. 4 minutes ago, Videospirit said: It has never been legal to intentionally hurt other human beings using speech without consequence. This is a strawman. Free speech doesn't equal anarchy nor was that what I was arguing for. No one is "hurt" by someone standing and silently praying. 5 minutes ago, Videospirit said: This was an example of arresting someone for trying to harm people by denying them access to healthcare. Nope. No one is harmed and no one was denied access. 6 minutes ago, Videospirit said: Anyone who does so champions the idea that humans have no rights to their own person, life, or dignity, and that individuals should have the freedom to harm and even kill each other without consequence. Strawman. Quote
Videospirit Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 12 minutes ago, User said: Skipping past the irrelevant stuff, how does someone silently praying near an abortion clinic prevent access? This question basically sums up all the nonsense your rant devolves from. It really doesn't reflect well on your character that you are asking this after it's already been explained in this topic, suggesting you have not been interacting with this conversation with good faith until now as it's been brought up before, but I'll repeat it once more just in case we somehow have not been clear enough to you. Many individuals have been protesting in front of healthcare facilities in the united Kingdom. One of the common forms these protests have taken is mass groups holding "Silent Prayer Vigils" in an extremely public manner and this was intimidating individuals into not entering the facilities. Residents complained that these people were scaring them, and that they weren't able to access healthcare because of the emotions they were experiencing as a result of these protestors, so these zones were setup to allow individuals to freely access healthcare without intimidation. So yes, it needed to be stopped to prevent harm. Quote
User Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 3 minutes ago, Videospirit said: This question basically sums up all the nonsense your rant devolves from. It really doesn't reflect well on your character that you are asking this after it's already been explained in this topic, suggesting you have not been interacting with this conversation with good faith until now as it's been brought up before, but I'll repeat it once more just in case we somehow have not been clear enough to you. All completely unnecessary commentary trying to make this personal about me instead of defending your bad arguments. 4 minutes ago, Videospirit said: Many individuals have been protesting in front of healthcare facilities in the united Kingdom. One of the common forms these protests have taken is mass groups holding "Silent Prayer Vigils" in an extremely public manner and this was intimidating individuals into not entering the facilities. The question was how does this prevent access. Nothing here on that yet... 5 minutes ago, Videospirit said: Residents complained that these people were scaring them, and that they weren't able to access healthcare because of the emotions they were experiencing as a result of these protestors, so these zones were setup to allow individuals to freely access healthcare without intimidation. So, they can access it, they just didn't like people standing around praying. They could already freely access, they chose not to. Quote
Videospirit Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 1 minute ago, User said: They could already freely access, they chose not to. Wow... Someone wants to return to the days of voter intimidation, where political thugs would stand around at polls trying to intimidate voters into voting for the ruling party it seems. That was banned for causing the same kind of harm these protests are. There is a reason political campaigning is not allowed within a certain distance of polling locations, even in the U.S.. Seriously, sod off and go educate yourself about politics before getting involved in politics. Your ignorance is disgusting. Quote
User Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 6 minutes ago, Videospirit said: Wow... Someone wants to return to the days of voter intimidation, where political thugs would stand around at polls trying to intimidate voters into voting for the ruling party it seems. That was banned for causing the same kind of harm these protests are. There is a reason political campaigning is not allowed within a certain distance of polling locations, even in the U.S.. Seriously, sod off and go educate yourself about politics before getting involved in politics. Your ignorance is disgusting. Is your position now that *ANY* protest in a public place is "intimidation" and should then be unlawful? You are using "intimidation" loosely here when talking about someone standing silently. And yet again, your argument was not about intimidation, it was about access. Intimidation as you are using it is entirely subjective. No one was prevented access here by someone standing silently. Quote
Videospirit Posted February 17 Report Posted February 17 17 minutes ago, User said: Is your position now that *ANY* protest in a public place is "intimidation" and should then be unlawful? Well, it's a kind of intimidation regardless of where it's taking place, but if we banned all intimidation no one would be allowed to protest anywhere. But like the right to vote, the right to life is pretty damn important too. Don't infringe on people's ability to access healthcare is not an unreasonable policy. The intimidation is also not much of a problem when it's far away from the location either, as people can easily find a route where they don't have to pass by the protests when it's far enough away from the target of those protests. I'm not sure I'd oppose putting minimum distances between protests and the target of those protests as a law universally applicable to all protests though, there's certainly an argument for it. The only reason I'd consider opposing such a law at all is that it makes protests less effective, but I'm not sure people have a right to cause losses to businesses and scare potential customers away just to make their protests more effective, even if doing so isn't a huge human rights infringement for most scenarios. Quote
User Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Videospirit said: Well, it's a kind of intimidation regardless of where it's taking place, but if we banned all intimidation no one would be allowed to protest anywhere. There is a legal definition of intimidation; it is not this subjective everything is intimidation because someone feels intimidated by stuff you are arguing here. Either way... the argument was not about intimidation but your claim about access. 1 hour ago, Videospirit said: But like the right to vote, the right to life is pretty damn important too. Don't infringe on people's ability to access healthcare is not an unreasonable policy. Now you are conflating different things here. 1. right to life - no one's life is being threatened here. Well, except the life of the unborn child that is about to be slaughtered for the mere convenience of it. You don't care too much about that childs right to life. 2. Access to "healthcare" - call it what it is abortion. Not "healthcare" and again, you have yet to show someone did not have that access. They were free to walk in, and right on past anyone standing nearby silently. Edited February 18 by User Quote
Videospirit Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 11 minutes ago, User said: There is a legal definition of intimidation; it is not this subjective everything is intimidation because someone feels intimidated by stuff you are arguing here. "Person shall be guilty of intimidation if with the intention of forcing someone to do or to abstain from doing something without a valid reason, they use violence or threats of violence; damage someone's property; intimidate that person; persistently follow them; hide objects; stalk or watch the victim." Pretty much every protest ever meets the legal definition of intimidation. Every Anti abortion protest at a healthcare facility certainly does. 24 minutes ago, User said: 1. right to life - no one's life is being threatened here Intimidating people into neglecting healthcare has and will continue to result in people dying because of it. Get a clue. Your only argument is "I refuse to accept reality. These people are just cowards. There's nothing wrong with intimidating people if you weren't going to actually do anything to them if they walked past you." Which just isn't how reality works. It isn't how the law works. It shouldn't be how the law works. You have no argument other than "Intimidation should be legal." which if that's the hill you want to die on, commit to it, but don't try to dress it up as anything else, that's what you're arguin., I mean, perhaps you can dress your argument up as "Intimidation should be legal as long as it's not violent intimidation.", since it's only the softer forms of intimidation you've openly endorsed, but that doesn't change the fact you fundamentally endorse intimidating people into neglecting their health. Quote
User Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 1 hour ago, Videospirit said: Pretty much every protest ever meets the legal definition of intimidation. Every Anti abortion protest at a healthcare facility certainly does. That kind of law is going to vary based on location, but the usual common denominator is the target. You see, I made this point to highlight the silliness of your application of intimidation here to someone standing around silently praying. There has to be a specific target, not a general cause or the general public as well as some other components as well. Why? Because it is silly to say someone subjectively feeling intimidated means everyone is guilty of intimidation. 1 hour ago, Videospirit said: Intimidating people into neglecting healthcare has and will continue to result in people dying because of it. Get a clue. You continue to avoid your original assertion... which was access. Its because you can't objectively defend that assertion so now you continue to hang your hat on the subjective "intimidation" No one was dying because they chose not to get an abortion here. I have a clue and you are just grasping at straws now. 1 hour ago, Videospirit said: Your only argument is "I refuse to accept reality. These people are just cowards. There's nothing wrong with intimidating people if you weren't going to actually do anything to them if they walked past you." I have provided plenty of arguments here, none of them were this. You can't deal with what I actually say, so now you are just making stuff up. 1 hour ago, Videospirit said: Which just isn't how reality works. It isn't how the law works. It shouldn't be how the law works. You have no argument other than "Intimidation should be legal." which if that's the hill you want to die on, commit to it, but don't try to dress it up as anything else, that's what you're arguin., Yes, I am well aware of how the law is working, the point here is that Vance was spot on and not misinforming as you originally tried to claim by pointing out how awful European countries are with their criminalizing free speech activity like this. 1 hour ago, Videospirit said: I mean, perhaps you can dress your argument up as "Intimidation should be legal as long as it's not violent intimidation.", since it's only the softer forms of intimidation you've openly endorsed, but that doesn't change the fact you fundamentally endorse intimidating people into neglecting their health. No, the whole intimidation thing is your last refuge, not mine. Quote
Videospirit Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 36 minutes ago, User said: That kind of law is going to vary based on location, but the usual common denominator is the target. You see, I made this point to highlight the silliness of your application of intimidation here to someone standing around silently praying. There has to be a specific target, not a general cause or the general public as well as some other components as well. Why? Because it is silly to say someone subjectively feeling intimidated means everyone is guilty of intimidation. You continue to avoid your original assertion... which was access. Its because you can't objectively defend that assertion so now you continue to hang your hat on the subjective "intimidation" No one was dying because they chose not to get an abortion here. I have a clue and you are just grasping at straws now. I have provided plenty of arguments here, none of them were this. You can't deal with what I actually say, so now you are just making stuff up. Yes, I am well aware of how the law is working, the point here is that Vance was spot on and not misinforming as you originally tried to claim by pointing out how awful European countries are with their criminalizing free speech activity like this. No, the whole intimidation thing is your last refuge, not mine. Look, I can't help it that you don't understand simple concepts like you don't have access to healthcare if you are intimidated into staying away from all places that can provide you with healthcare. And if you do get access to healthcare at a location, if someone tried to prevent you from accessing the location they infringed on your access to healthcare. This is a you problem. Maybe focusing on access wasn't the most clear way to describe the situation, but "protestors are intimidating individuals into not accessing healthcare." has always been my, it's not even right to call it an argument, it's just an objective explanation of the situation, but that message is what I've been trying to communicate to your willfully ignorant self. 47 minutes ago, User said: No one was dying because they chose not to get an abortion here. In 2023, the maternal mortality rate in the United States was 18.6 deaths per 100,000 live births So uh, it seems you are just wholly unqualified to discuss reproductive health. Seriously, just go away. This is common knowledge among anyone with the least bit of interest in women's rights. You're ignorantly condemning people to death. You aren't treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves, and you have no intention to treat it with the seriousness it deserves, and you have no stake in the issue. Do everyone a favour and just stay silent if you aren't going to put in the effort to educate yourself. Quote
User Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 11 hours ago, Videospirit said: Look, I can't help it that you don't understand simple concepts like you don't have access to healthcare if you are intimidated into staying away from all places that can provide you with healthcare. Irrelevant personal snipe aside, once again, you just keep making this baseless assertion that I have already dismissed. It is on you to put forth a logical fact based argument explaining how a dude standing around silently praying stopped someone from getting an abortion. If someone decides not to because of that, it is on them. No one stopped them, they are free to walk right on by. 11 hours ago, Videospirit said: And if you do get access to healthcare at a location, if someone tried to prevent you from accessing the location they infringed on your access to healthcare. This is a you problem. Prevent... how? It is on you to put forth a logical fact based argument explaining how a dude standing around silently praying stopped someone from getting an abortion. If someone decides not to because of that, it is on them. No one stopped them, they are free to walk right on by. 11 hours ago, Videospirit said: Maybe focusing on access wasn't the most clear way to describe the situation, but "protestors are intimidating individuals into not accessing healthcare." has always been my, it's not even right to call it an argument, it's just an objective explanation of the situation, but that message is what I've been trying to communicate to your willfully ignorant self. Maybe? No, it was a bad claim, one you have yet to defend with any good argument or reason. It is on you to put forth a logical fact based argument explaining how a dude standing around silently praying stopped someone from getting an abortion. If someone decides not to because of that, it is on them. No one stopped them, they are free to walk right on by. 11 hours ago, Videospirit said: In 2023, the maternal mortality rate in the United States was 18.6 deaths per 100,000 live births OK... and? This is not an argument, its a statistic. 11 hours ago, Videospirit said: So uh, it seems you are just wholly unqualified to discuss reproductive health. Seriously, just go away. This is common knowledge among anyone with the least bit of interest in women's rights. You're ignorantly condemning people to death. You aren't treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves, and you have no intention to treat it with the seriousness it deserves, and you have no stake in the issue. Do everyone a favour and just stay silent if you aren't going to put in the effort to educate yourself. Yet again, all you did was provide a statistic. Where is the argument here? Quote
Videospirit Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 1 hour ago, User said: Irrelevant personal snipe aside, once again, you just keep making this baseless assertion that I have already dismissed. It is on you to put forth a logical fact based argument explaining how a dude standing around silently praying stopped someone from getting an abortion. If someone decides not to because of that, it is on them. No one stopped them, they are free to walk right on by. Prevent... how? It is on you to put forth a logical fact based argument explaining how a dude standing around silently praying stopped someone from getting an abortion. If someone decides not to because of that, it is on them. No one stopped them, they are free to walk right on by. Maybe? No, it was a bad claim, one you have yet to defend with any good argument or reason. It is on you to put forth a logical fact based argument explaining how a dude standing around silently praying stopped someone from getting an abortion. If someone decides not to because of that, it is on them. No one stopped them, they are free to walk right on by. OK... and? This is not an argument, its a statistic. Yet again, all you did was provide a statistic. Where is the argument here? This was sufficiently explained why that dude standing around silently praying was stopping people from getting abortions. If you still believe the argument to be faulty at this point that is a problem with your reading comprehension. If you can't present a counter argument besides "I say reality is wrong" shut up and stop posting. Stop being pathetic. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 18 Report Posted February 18 19 hours ago, User said: That is the point of freedom and free speech. It doesn't matter why you think they "need" to do it or not. It does, because freedom of speech isn't limitless, even in the United States. That's why you can get arrested for harassing or threatening people, among an exhaustive list of other limitations. It's not like we saw you supporting the Gaza protestor's freedom of speech either, is it? 20 hours ago, User said: Noticed you completely ignored the part about people in their own homes... Because it's absolute nonsense. Ignoring that JD Vance outright lied (just like he did with the Haitians eating cats and dogs) and no letters were sent out saying you can't pray in your home, the whole idea of people not being allowed to pray in their own home is ludicrous to start. What is the Scottish government going to do? Install cameras in everyone's house, and peer through windows to make sure nobody's praying inside? That's the sort of silliness you're reduced to when you're defending these goofs. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.