On Saturday 21 January 2006 01:34, Albert wrote:
Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:
My point exactly. You say HE has no right to "inflict" his signature's message on you, but you in so saying ARE saying YOU have the right to "inflict" your desires on him. Either you both have the right, or neither.
One is offended by religion, the other one by calling his/her religion BS.
At the end of the day with freedom comes responsibility. Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean you can say what you want.
You have the responsibility to think of what you are saying to who you are saying it to.
I live in a country where we have freedom of speech, but where human rights are more important than freedom of speech. My human right not to be offended by your believes, racial prejudice and/or political status is much more important than your human right to make your believes, racial prejudice and/or political status public.
IF you believe we all have a "right to not be offended" by others then nobody else has a right to say or do anything. I find that offensive. What country are you in, so I can press charges? There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. You merely have the same, equal right as everyone else to express yourself. If someone else's expression offends you then you can say you're offended.