RE: How Steem Protects Free Speech Without Promoting Hate Speech
I didn't attack your character, YOU made the decision to pretend like 2 simple sentences and a compound sentence was confusing, yet you now expect me to believe you understand the legal issues at play??
I've seriously never understood the intent of that tactic you tried, it's never worked, and even if you came out and quoted laws to back up your position, I'm still left with the mentality that "hey, how is this guy legal expert when he barely grasped the grammar?"
Edit: Re-read your first response to me where you directly attacked my character, I point out your tactic to play dumb trying to look smart, and you start crying....
It's exactly a demonstration why people that want censorship are far too child-like to make those types of determinations. We end up with this type of faggotry.
How and why did I attack your character?
I not only understood what you said but I raised the question which directly deals with what you seem to have been avoiding. You've still to provide any kind of constructive solution to the concern raised. You bring up the issue of law and legality without explaining g what that could possibly solve or how. It indicates that you don't know what you're talking about.
You attacked my character by insinuating that I didn't understand either of you sentences despite their relative lack of complexity. You didn't bother to explain why and how that is so.
You now want to talk more about the type of person I am without addressing anything I've said, such as me not having the understanding of legality of the situation or that somehow the bullshit lie that I attacked you, even though you haven't explained why and how that is, is indicative of me being childlike or wanting censorship.
I have no reason to pretend, and you can keep insinuating that somehow you know what I pretend and what I mean instead of addressing why and how your response wasn't confusing, to begin with. You indicated by your initial response that you had no idea what the conversation was about or what concerns I was addressing, nor did you address why and how my response was horrible in the context of the concern voiced. You made it sound as if an extreme case was going to open the floodgates without explaining why and how that is so, should the consensus form to ban the abusers and/or should the front ends decide to blacklist them.
You clearly are confused, not only can you not explain why and how the law can deal with that extreme case, but you keep insisting that somehow they can by your nonsense of insinuating that I couldn't possibly know that. It seems you have a hard time understanding, and I won't stoop to your level and accuse you of pretending.
Posted using Partiko Android