He was wrong? So the Earth doesn't orbit around the sun?
Oh, you mean he was "wrong" because the church locked him up for stating a fact. He refused to be quiet and got locked up.
No, I mean he was wrong about being above Church authority. See how the sentence "he believed he was above..." is right next to the one that says "he was wrong."? In this case they are put together because the second one adds to what the first one just said.
Which isn't censorship because...
I've never claimed it isn't. I just don't agree with the idea that censorship is inherently bad.
Meanwhile, the church ok'd heresies (since semantics are so important) like idol worship and praying to the dead.
Diagnostic: protestard.
Praying for the dead to intercede for us on the other hand is a salvific practice, as long as you don't literally worship them as if they were on the same level as God.
Oh? Ever heard of the practice of burying a statue of St Joseph in order to sell your house?
https://st-josephstatue.com/how-to-bury-st-joseph-statue/
St Joseph statue – Burial instructions
• Bury the statue in the yard in the front of the house. Favorable spots are either close to the “For Sale” sign or close to the road.
• Bury the statue upsidedown, facing the house.
•
Pray to Saint Joseph when you are burying him and keep praying until the house is sold.
• But the most important part is to have faith all the time, in yourself, in your Sale and
in Saint Joseph.
• After your
house is sold take him with you to your new home and put him in a place of honor.
• If you live in a condo, bury the statue of St Joseph in a pot.
I would be glad to explain to you the finer points of the differences between asking the saints for intercession and superstition in another thread (like the Traditional Catholicism thread!). This has little to do with the topic at hand, though, so the short version is; taking specific steps like this that have nothing to do with religion in order to obtain a material effect usually is a good sign you are dealing with superstition. Real devotion should turn you towards Charity or at least some other virtue, such as humbleness.
Let's consider this here. Why exactly aren't you complaining that people are put in jail at all then?
Actions vs opinions. Try to follow along.
And why do you suppose this difference is important? Or, to put it more concretely, take the example of Russia. The people who took the actual actions that led to the communist revolution are of course guilty of their own actions. But aren't the men who gave them their intellectual base just as guilty? Marx and others wrote specifically against what is true, rightful and correct and tried to represent the world as a social struggle; taking good qualities it might have and framing them as part of an evil system designed to keep the world from changing for the better. They weren't misinterpreted or co-opted. If they were alive, weren't they just as guilty as those who actually had blood in their hands? And if the authorities at the time had cut that short before so many lives were lost; would you blame them for infringing on the sacrosanct right of free expression? If so, then explain why you believe this right to be so sacrosanct.
Similar to the idea of freedom of speech is the idea of freedom of movement; the notion that people should be able to go where they want without restrictions from the government. Unlike freedom of speech, though, people are much more willing to let this one slide since doing otherwise would obviously destroy society. People shouldn't be able to go into private property of another ust because they want, obviously, otherwise the very idea of private property is lost. Likewise, saying the government shouldn't ever restrict the freedom of movement of someone would quickly result in a lot of dangerous people in the streets.
The difference is ownership. I can say something without infringing on your person or physical property.
Ownership is one of the possibilities. Other (legitimate) reasons to restrict mobility would include disasters, the person in question being unable to act rationally, the person in question being a dangerous criminal, punishment for a crime (even if the person is not dangerous), military service, other compulsory forms of work, and I am sure there are many others I don't even imagine right now.
Which is my point, the freedom of movement isn't a sacrosanct right; it is not taken as some kind of inalienable right; in fact, possibly no one even regards it as such. In that case, freedom of movement is not really something that guides lawmaking. Laws and rulings can and do infringe on it when they have reason to. And bad laws or rulings do so even when they don't (see how Australia is dealing with the issue right now for an example). If freedom of movement's importance is to say "hey, don't restrict your citizen's movements unless you have to; then it is just obvious common sense. My point is that the same should then apply to "free speech".
But I think this is a very telling example. Why exactly should the government be allowed to wield authority to stop someone from going somewhere, but not the authority to stop someone from saying something?
Because the suppression of movement isn't the suppression of ideas or beliefs, within reason.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You might as well be saying "well, murder is illegal, so why not children's books?".
The point is that both are freedoms delineated by the liberal movement at one point of time or another. Also, there are plenty of "children's books" [if you can call them that; they are neither fir for children nor for the written medium] that should be illegal. Again, if you want to argue that "opinions" are something that must be respected at all costs, then explain why do you believe so. Is this a moral belief; that is, do you think it is immoral to censure someone no matter how vile what they teach is? Is it a practical stance?
Obviously the world where that particular png file you responded with before doesn't equate to the paragraph you just wrote, and should have written to begin with.
The point of the meme is that you come across as a silly troll.
You say the "so-called conservatives", implying that you aren't one of them and that you're a real conservative. Ergo, you're the "conservative" I was referring to.
What world do you live in that understanding this is so difficult for you?
You wrote "conservatives" on the plural and without other qualifications; while comparing them (whoever they are) to liberals. The result is that whatever you say will sound like "group A usually works like this; while group B is the opposite". Not that you are talking about me in specific.
As for me being the real conservative; as far as the term goes, I suppose all groups have an equal right to say they are conservatives; even these guys:
But trying to conserve anything that has already absorbed liberalism is a losing proposition, I believe. The issue is that liberalism is ever changing, it takes its substance from the idea of putting will above intellect. As such, it is thrown around by diverse passions and always breaks with its past. At one moment, it is ruled by lust and breaks away from any traditions that try to preserve the family and dignity. Then it might be ruled by pride and attack the very ideals of "free love" it sought before because it "objectifies women". Then, ruled by frustration it might lash out against free speech; because now people want to make themselves women or men, or something in between, and they hate anyone who reminds then how poorly they emulate what they choose.
You want censorship. You advocate it even though it'd be wiser for you to advocate free speech until you can swing the pendulum of social power even slightly back in your direction. Yet here you sit, effectively advocating your own elimination because you live in the fantasy that any day now the Catholic/Orthodox/whatever church is going to start a new Inquisition and purge all the LGBT pedos from power.
I don't care for politicking. I advocate for what I believe to be right, not what is favourable for me. Nevertheless, I will speak against those who use such power to silence the Church or its doctrines. But just as policemen closing up Churches won't make me throw my lot in with the defund the police movement, neither will I deny that censorship can be a good tool for the public good just because it happens to be used against me.
Saying something is doing something. And frequently it is the worst kind of thing you could do. Also, again, which world do you live in? Do you really think people aren't thrown in jail for saying stuff nowadays?
Sticks and stones. There are a lot of assault or rape victims that would probably disagree with you that saying mean things is the worst thing you could do.
I match your rape victim and raise you to autist transgender who kills himself after four years dilating.
Seems like you're pretty far gone if you can't see that though, so not sure what else there is I can say other than good luck "making blasphemy illegal". Let me know how that goes.
It will become reality one day, one way or the other. Someone put a whole bunch of spoilers about that at the end of the Bible.
