If I where to ask if everyone supports freedom of speech, everyone would answer in affirmative but when you study everyone's actions, you will notice that:
1) people have a poor understanding of what freedom of speech and expression( in general, human rights) is,
2) people think it's okay to have freedom of speech and expression expect when they deem it offensive and disrespectful.
3) even when people say they support freedom of speech and expression, they will not hesitate to attack or harass you(eg. slap you) if you say anything offensive or disrespectful.

To be brief, freedom of speech and expression means that you have the right to express, in any form, any idea or say anything you thing you want be it rational, irrational, pleasing, offensive, respectful, insulting or disrespectful. This means that you have the right to do the following :

[1} Insults someone's mother, relative or father(the reaction of many Nigerians to insults being thrown at their parent(s) exposes how much we understand and uphold human rights).
[2} You have the right to criticise, disrespect and mock people's sacred beliefs. It's your right.
[3} You have the right to criticise/insult Buhari or any other person.
[4} You have the right to tell a girl that her breasts and butts are lovely.
[5} You have the right to insult anyone and call them names. It's your right.
[6} You have the right to express any idea you want on a newspaper, magazine, on social media etc. whether or not society deems it a taboo.
[7} You have the right to wear any cloth you want or even run naked on the street. As a prostitute, you have the right to wear a hijab or a nun's uniform(the stuff catholic nuns wear). It's your right.

I could go on and on about the wide range of things permissible under this freedom but I think it's clear what freedom of speech and expression is. One important thing you must also note is that no one has the right to assault(in any form) you for using your freedom of speech and expression no matter how offended they are by your words or thr ideas you've expressed and you don't have the right to assault(in any form) anyone for using their freedom of speech and expression no matter how offended they are by your words or ideas they've expressed. In summary, no one has the right to not be offended. If you are offended by what someone says, that's your business and you don't have the right to assault or persecute someone for what they say or how they express themselves. You don't owe anyone nice words and no one owes you nice words.

Suppose someone insulted your parents or said mean things to you, what should you do? As a lady, if a guy said that you have a nice butt and lovely tits and you don't like that, what should you do? As a grown up, if a rude little kid insults you with a "veteran savage level," what should you do? If someone insults your religion, your religious organisation or holy prophet, what should you do? In all cases, you don't have the right to assault the person but here are options of what you should do:
1) Ignore the person.
2) Tell the person to fvck off(my favourite. After telling the 1diot to fvck off, I ignore him/her ).
3) Tell the person that you don't like what they say and you would like it if they mind their business.
4) Insult the person and call him/her name in return. Infact you can call his parents, relatives and ancestors names and wreck his/her "destiny" with insult.

Remember, you don't have to right to assault(slap, beat up etc.) anyone. Killing someone for their freedom of speech is unacceptable. I hope we now understand what freedom of speech and expression is and we can all develop a tough skin to handle opinions and remarks we don't like.

Contributions, if any.




Seun, lalasticlala, mynd44, Ishilove, farano, please push this thing to front page. Epp me.

insulting someones family member isnt human right and part of freedom of speech and expression...yes, you can insult someone family in private but when you know that when you do it in public, it can cause distress to an individual, the person also has the right to sue you..

also you need to understand that your rights have limitations, just because you have right does not mean you can disturb others and impose your thought and opinion on them.

under human right laws, it is an offence for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress. This can have serious implications on peaceful protestors and others exercising their freedom of expression, as someone who uses insulting language that might distress another were they to hear it could be guilty of an offence;

lilwetdick:
insulting someones family member isnt human right and part of freedom of speech and expression...

It is human right and part of freedom of speech and expression. You just proved my point:

If I where to ask if everyone supports freedom of speech, everyone would answer in affirmative but when you study everyone's actions, you will notice that:
1) people have a poor understanding of what freedom of speech and expression( in general, human rights) is,

also you need to understand that your rights have limitations, just because you have right does not mean you can disturb others and impose your thought and opinion on them

Disturbing others is harassment and imposing your beliefs on others is unacceptable. That's one of the many reasons why sharia is incompatible with human rights.

lilwetdick:


under human right laws, it is an offence for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress. This can have serious implications on peaceful protestors and others exercising their freedom of expression, as someone who uses insulting language that might distress another were they to hear it could be guilty of an offence;

Insult was my only focus. Anyway, you have the right to use insulting words eg. "I think those that believe in the doctrines of Mormon and scientology are idiots". The reason why you get arrested for using threats of violence that causes distress is to protect the person you are threatening because things can escalate quickly. However, the right to insult people's father and relatives are acceptable as long long as your words doesn't seriously imply that you are going to harm them.

Martinez39:
It is human right and part of freedom of speech and expression. You just proved my point:


Disturbing others is harassment and imposing your beliefs on others is unacceptable. That's one of the many reasons why sharia is incompatible with human rights.

you just read and sighted what suited you then conclude, an extreme case of confirmation bias

did you read where i wrote that human right has limitations and that insult can cause distress to an individual and can escalate to cause public disturbance..according to human right laws, any speech that can cause distress to an individual and can cause danger to society is against the law..you dont understand human right, if you do, you wont write what you wrote down.

human right is a western idea and cannot be compatible with sharia law or even African traditional laws.

Martinez39:
Insult was my only focus. Anyway, you have the right to use insulting words eg. "I think those that believe in the doctrines of Mormon and scientology are idiots". The reason why you get arrested for using threats of violence that causes distress is to protect the person you are threatening because things can escalate quickly. However, the right to insult people's father and relatives are acceptable as long long as your words doesn't seriously imply that you are going to harm them.

but you saw where they wrote insult, so you dont think insult can cause distress to a person?

lilwetdick:


you just read and sighted what suited you then conclude, an extreme case of confirmation bias

No, I did not.

did you read where i wrote that human right has limitations and that insult can cause distress to an individual and can escalate to cause public disturbance..according to human right laws, any speech that can cause distress to an individual and can cause danger to society is against the law..you dont understand human right, if you do, you wont write what you wrote down.

Including insult was were you made a mistake. Insult is free speech. Threats of violence is where there should be a limit because no one should take chances as certain threats are sincere and could escalate to something more sinister ie. the person giving the threats could end up carry it out.

Insults only lead to violence when the person being insulted gets offended and decides to retaliate via physical assault. The person being insulted has no right to right to assault anyone but the person dishing out the insults has the right to dish out the insults. Insults and threats of violence are two different things. Insult is free speech.

human right is a western idea and cannot be compatible with sharia law or even African traditional laws.

Obviously. What's your point?

@OP

Kindly stop misinforming the general public; freedom of speech and expression only confer one right to say anything on principle, however, they don't encourage expediency in any guise. Liberty doesn't negate decorum - and liberalism without conscientiousness is akin to sheep without a shepherd.

Your postulation is akin to that of people who do automatically mistake insensitive/tactless/controversial people for truthful people, or useless people for informal bad boys/girls.

lilwetdick:


but you saw where they wrote insult, so you dont think insult can cause distress to a person?

Insult is free speech. If what someone says causes you to be distressed or offended, that's your problem. Anyone could claim that anything distresses them. Certain people are distressed when atheists insult the catholic church, certain people are distressed when certain journalists draw a derogatory picture of Mohammed. Should these "offenders" go to jail? Don't they have the right to do what they did?

The reason why threats of violence gets the attention of the police in developed countries is not because it causes distress to the person receiving the threats but because there are chances that the person issuing the threats might be really serious about it. If he/she is really serious about it and the police doesn't put him/her in check, a life might be lost. Get it?

LordKO:
@OP

Kindly stop misinforming the general public; freedom of speech and expression only confer one right to say anything on principle, however, they don't encourage expediency in any guise. Liberty doesn't negate decorum - and liberalism without conscientiousness is akin to sheep without a shepherd.

Overwhelming ignorance on your part. You need to use your vocabulary accurately, you are really trying too hard. You just proved my point that Nigerians, many of them, have a poor understanding of what freedom of speech is all about. No one, under freedom of speech, is obliged to conform to what you think is the acceptable standard of speech and reasoning.

Your postulation is akin to that of people who do automatically mistake insensitive/tactless/controversial people for truthful people, or useless people for informal bad boys/girls.

Absolute rubbish. A very unrelated point and an irrational conclusion.

Martinez39:
Overwhelming ignorance on your part. You need to use your vocabulary accurately, you are trying too hard. You just proved my point that Nigerians, many of them, have a poor understanding of what freedom of speech is all about. No one, under freedom of speech, is obliged to conform to what you think is the acceptable standard of speech and reasoning.

Absolute rubbish. A very unrelated point and an irrational conclusion.

Bumpkin.. . not even your lunatic parents can pick on me, now direct your further mentions to them.

LordKO:



Bumpkin.. . not even your lunatic parents can pick on me, now direct your further mentions to them.

Lol. The hypocrisy . As expected, you've made no valid point. Now, go sleep.

Martinez39:
Insult is free speech. If what someone says causes you to be distressed or offended, that's your problem. Anyone could claim that anything distresses them. Certain people are distressed when atheists insult the catholic church, certain people are distressed when certain journalists draw a derogatory picture of Mohammed. Should these "offenders" go to jail? Don't they have the right to do what they did?

The reason why threats of violence gets the attention of the police in developed countries is not because it causes distress to the person receiving the threats but because there are chances that the person issuing the threats might be really serious about it. If he/she is really serious about it and the police doesn't put him/her in check, a life might be lost. Get it?

if insult is free speech why are racists people who talk bad about black people or other race put behind bar when reported?

why did the man who insulted a black man city player lose his job and got almost jailed by the court?

you do not understand freedom of speech..just because you have freedom of speech doesnt not mean you have the right to make other people uncomfortable and violent.

i can sue if an individual if i believe what he says can lead to defamation and also distress....you are thinking from the layman point of view.. and who told you journalists are not sued by Islamic leaders in the west when they insult or ridicule Mohammed in the papers, dont you know it could incite violence....

lilwetdick:


if insult is free speech why are racists people who talk bad about black people or other race put behind bar when reported?

Racist are not put behind bars for saying merely racist stuffs. In some countries, it can be different but that is against human right. They are put behind bars for threats of violence — something common among hardcore racists. Society frowns on racism so racists are readily condemned and shunned as long as their rights are not violated. Can you show me a case were an anti-black racist has been thrown in jail for saying mere racist stuff?

why did the man who insulted a black man city player lose his job and got almost jailed by the court?

A CEO has the right to fire anyone on good reasons. If the CEO is anti-racist, he has the right to fire a racist. Society has the right to condemn a racist. However, no one has the right to assault a racist or throw him/her in jail for saying mere racist stuff. You can only condemn and cut ties with them. It's just the truth, you would do well to remove sentiments and educate yourself on this issue.

you do not understand freedom of speech..just because you have freedom of speech doesnt not mean you have the right to make other people uncomfortable and violent.

Except in the case of indication and threat of violence, robbery, kidnap, sexual assault etc. if what Mr. A says make Mr. B uncomfortable then Mr. B needs to grow up and toughen up. If Mr. B gets violent, Mr. B should be thrown in jail. You don't have the right to not be offended.

i can sue if an individual if i believe what he says can lead to defamation and also distress....

See, read my write up again.

you are thinking from the layman point of view.. and who told you journalists are not sued by Islamic leaders in the west when they insult or ridicule Mohammed in the papers, dont you know it could incite violence....

Sorry to say this, you are a f00l . Don't you know that any Tom, Dick and Harry can sue any Tom, Dick and Harry for anything? Didn't you see where a man sued god? Mr. A can sue Mr. B for anything but that doesn't mean what Mr. B did is wrong. If insulting your holy prophet makes you violent, then you have a problem and you should be jailed for years if you assault someone or kill them. For the umpteenth time, you don't have the right to not be offended, why is this so hard to understand?

Martinez39:
Racist are not put behind bars for saying merely racist stuffs. In some countries, it can be different but that is against human right. They are put behind bars for threats of violence — something common among hardcore racists. Society frowns on racism so racists are readily condemned and shunned as long as their rights are not violated. Can you show me a case were an anti-black racist has been thrown in jail for saying mere racist stuff?

A CEO has the right to fire anyone on good reasons. If the CEO is anti-racist, he has the right to fire a racist. Society has the right to condemn a racist. However, no one has the right to assault a racist or throw him/her in jail for saying mere racist stuff. You can only condemn and cut ties with them. It's just the truth, you would do well to remove sentiments and educate yourself on this issue.

Except in the case of indication and threat of violence, robbery, kidnap, sexual assault etc. if what Mr. A says make Mr. B uncomfortable then Mr. B needs to grow up and toughen up. If Mr. B gets violent, Mr. B should be thrown in jail. You don't have the right to not be offended.

See, read my write up again.

Sorry to say this, you are a f00l . Don't you know that any Tom, Dick and Harry can sue any Tom, Dick and Harry for anything? Didn't you see where a man sued god? Mr. A can sue Mr. B for anything but that doesn't mean what Mr. B did is wrong. If insulting your holy prophet makes you violent, then you have a problem and you should be jailed for years if you assault someone or kill them. For the umpteenth time, you don't have the right to not be offended, why is this so hard to understand?

i swear to god,i am done with you..you are the damn fool that does not know the difference between human rights and its limitations. i am tired of argueing with idiots and ignoramus especially when i chat with one like you, your writeup now, just summarise your stupidity....pls tell me why harassment is a crime?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-racism/south-african-woman-jailed-in-landmark-ruling-for-racist-rant-idUSKBN1H42DA

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-18251807 (Racist Tube rant woman Jacqueline Woodhouse jailed)

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/14/us/nyc-subway-tirade-arrest/index.html

lilwetdick:


i swear to god,i am done with you..you are the damn fool that does not know the difference between human rights and its limitations. i am tired of argueing with idiots and ignoramus especially when i chat with one like you, your writeup now, just summarise your stupidity

Stop being a f00l and counter my points. So you think people freedom to criticise Islam should be obliterated because muslims will get violent and sue the critics? The fact that muslim leaders in the west sue critics of Islam doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the right to criticise Islam. If you get violent before of people's opinion then you have a problem.

You just keep proving my point that most Nigerians don't understand fundamental human rights.

Martinez39:
Stop being a f00l and counter my points. So you think people freedom to criticise Islam should be obliterated because muslims will get violent and sue the critics? The fact that muslim leaders in the west sue critics of Islam doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the right to criticise Islam. If you get violent before of people's opinion then you have a problem.

You just keep proving my point that most Nigerians don't understand fundamental human rights.

you dont understand human right with the nonsense you have written...muslim leaders do not sue critics of islam..they only sue the press when they write a defamatory article of mohammed. .

in human right..they talk about religious tolerance, the ability to tolerate other religion points of view and way of worship

so we can say that those criticising and talking bad about mohammaed or islam are not tolerant and are breaking one of the fundementals of human right

lilwetdick:


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-racism/south-african-woman-jailed-in-landmark-ruling-for-racist-rant-idUSKBN1H42DA

Sentencing the woman for mere racist words is wrong. Coincidentally, according to article, this happens to be the first time such would happen. Such violation of human rights is the South African government's immense effort to combat racism. According to the same article,

"However, in October, two white farmers who had been filmed pushing a wailing black man into a coffin were sentenced to jail for attempted murder, assault and kidnapping."
They weren't charged with racism. Anyways, though I do not support it, people have to right to make racist statements but if such statements contain threats of violence, the police should step in. If a racist attacks someone, they should be charged with assault. Under freedom of speech and expression, you may not agree or like what one has to say but they have the right to say such.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-18251807 (Racist Tube rant woman Jacqueline Woodhouse jailed)

This woman was arrested for assault not racism.
"Woodhouse admitted racially aggravated INTENTIONAL HARASSMENT, at the court, earlier in May."...
"She became loud, foul-mouthed and aggressive. She targeted her behaviour at those who weren't white.
" She THREATENED VIOLENCE against more than one person and it took place over a prolonged period."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/14/us/nyc-subway-tirade-arrest/index.html

I know about this story and I watched the incident on YouTube. She wasn't arrested for mere saying racist stuff. She was arrested for assault as clearly stated in the article:

"A Brooklyn woman whose racist, profanity-laced tirade on the New York subway was captured on video this week has been charged with felony assault after she struck a fellow passenger, authorities said."

Was she changed with racism? Hell no. Your problem is your ignorance and illusion of knowledge on this matter. As I have said, racist have the right to say mere racist stuff but when they start making serious threats of violence or start assaulting people, the police gets involved. Let's go back to the article and see how you make a f00l of yourself by your ignorance and stvpidity.

"Lushchinskaya yelled profanities at the victim on the northbound D train, hitting her with an umbrella and keys, the NYPD said. On video captured by witnesses, Lushchinskaya can be heard calling the woman a racial slur."

"The victim suffered cuts to her face, the NYPD said. She told CNN affiliate WABC, which said she wanted to remain anonymous, that she was grateful people intervened."

"F*** off," Lushchinskaya allegedly said several times before striking the victim with her hand.

"She then took off her sunglasses and gloves, pulled her hair back and took her umbrella and keys from her bag, according to the video. Then, she began kicking the woman, who defended herself."

If you keep reading the article, you will see many acts of violence from Ms. Lushchinskaya. SHE WAS ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT NOT FOR RACISM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1fgLXBf64E



Your stvpidity, ignorance and foolishness is immense. You are arguing about a subject you know little about. Even when I asked you to bring evidence, you quickly googled and brought out sites without reading them in hopes to prove me wrong. If you had read my previous posts to you, my arguments and the websites you were bringing as evidence, you would have been properly educated and would have seen that I was right all along.
You've once again proven my point that most people in this country have a very poor understanding of what freedom of speech and expression is. Joke is on you. Too bad I share this planet with 1diots.

Martinez39:


This woman was arrested for assault not racism.
"Woodhouse admitted racially aggravated INTENTIONAL HARASSMENT, at the court, earlier in May."...
"She became loud, foul-mouthed and aggressive. She targeted her behaviour at those who weren't white.
" She THREATENED VIOLENCE against more than one person and it took place over a prolonged period."

I know about this story and I watched the incident on YouTube. She wasn't arrested for mere saying racist stuff. She was arrested for assault as clearly stated in the article:

"A Brooklyn woman whose racist, profanity-laced tirade on the New York subway was captured on video this week has been charged with felony assault after she struck a fellow passenger, authorities said."

Was she changed with racism? Hell no. Your problem is your ignorance and illusion of knowledge on this matter. As I have said, racist have the right to say mere racist stuff but when they start making serious threats of violence or start assaulting people, the police gets involved. Let's go back to the article and see how you make a f00l of yourself by your ignorance and stvpidity.

"Lushchinskaya yelled profanities at the victim on the northbound D train, hitting her with an umbrella and keys, the NYPD said. On video captured by witnesses, Lushchinskaya can be heard calling the woman a racial slur."

"The victim suffered cuts to her face, the NYPD said. She told CNN affiliate WABC, which said she wanted to remain anonymous, that she was grateful people intervened."

"F*** off," Lushchinskaya allegedly said several times before striking the victim with her hand.

"She then took off her sunglasses and gloves, pulled her hair back and took her umbrella and keys from her bag, according to the video. Then, she began kicking the woman, who defended herself."

If you keep reading the article, you will see many acts of violence from Ms. Lushchinskaya. SHE WAS ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT NOT FOR RACISM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1fgLXBf64E



Your stvpidity, ignorance and foolishness is immense. You are arguing about a subject you know little about. Even when I asked you to bring evidence, you quickly googled and brought out sites without reading them in hopes to prove me wrong. If you had read my previous posts to you, my arguments and the websites you were bringing as evidence, you would have been properly educated and would have seen that I was right all along.
You've once again proven my point that most people in this country have a very poor understanding of what freedom of speech and expression is. Joke is on you. Too bad I share this planet with 1diots.

i know your game and your game is to provoke me to get a response so that you can make this thread important.

when individual insults, do they smile or get aggressive.... insult can also come in form of harassment and defamation which are crimes and are not cover by your human right, mr man learn to think, learn to think, you are the real definition of a dummy, a slow brain, I hope you don't have down syndrome

but this will be the last time i will reply your dumb brain... you talked about insult... do you know insult can lead to assault, every normal human knows that even kids know that..people fight and defend their ego and pride when insulted i guess the idiot in you cant accept that fact

the more you show your stupidity, the more i am happy to read them and start to ignore them because they dont make one sense, you just beat around the bush, take comments and then analyse them in a distorted way then say some emotional shit then cry that Nigerians do not understand human rights... your write up infact shows that you are the one that do not understand human rights,anyway, i am done with you...i personally do not banter with illiterates because they take their foolishness for wisdom and you proved that today.

lilwetdick:


you dont understand human right with the nonsense you have written...muslim leaders do not sue critics of islam..they only sue the press when they write a defamatory article of mohammed. .

The muslim leaders have the right to sue while the journalists have the right to write defamatory articles of Mohammed. Funny enough, in such cases, what they call defamatory are actually factual. Mohammed was a pedophile, a warlord who spread Islam by the sword. Mohammed beheaded a lot of Jews and forced Islam down the throat of people he conquered. Even if Mohammed was a saint, people still have to right to say sh1t about him. The same applies to any religious figure.

in human right..they talk about religious tolerance, the ability to tolerate other religion points of view and way of worship

so we can say that those criticising and talking bad about mohammaed or islam are not tolerant and are breaking one of the fundementals of human right

Not only have you proven repeatedly that you have a poor understanding of human rights, you have also shown to be a thoughtless and stvpid individual.

Human rights guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Everyone must acknowledge your right to hold or reject any religious view and this right must be defended and you shall not be persecuted for joining any religious group. That's what religious tolerance is all about. However, religious tolerance is different from respecting and disrespectful religion. You have the right to verbally disrespect and mock any religion but you can't take away people's right to embrace their religion.
I acknowledge people's right to follow Mohammed but I have the right to talk sh1t about Mohammed and draw a caricature of him. If any muslim gets violent, that muslim is to be arrested.

Martinez39:
The muslim leaders have the right to sue while the journalists have the right to write defamatory articles of Mohammed. Funny enough, in such cases, what they call defamatory are actually factual. Mohammed was a pedophile, a warlord who spread Islam by the sword. Mohammed beheaded a lot of Jews and forced Islam down the throat of people he conquered. Even if Mohammed was a saint, people still have to right to say sh1t about him. The same applies to any religious figure.

Not only have you proven repeatedly that you have a poor understanding of human rights, you have also shown to be a thoughtless and stvpid individual.

Human rights guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Everyone must acknowledge your right to hold or reject any religious view and this right must be defended and you shall not be persecuted for joining any religious group. That's what religious tolerance is all about. However, religious tolerance is different from respecting and disrespectful religion. You have the right to verbally disrespect and mock any religion but you can't take away people's right to embrace their religion.
I acknowledge people's right to follow Mohammed but I have the right to talk sh1t about Mohammed and draw a caricature of him. If any muslim gets violent, that muslim is to be arrested.

you have a rear case of psychosis..end of discussion, nothing substantial can come out of you...guess this write up is one of your psychosis episodes

lilwetdick:


i know your game and your game is to provoke me to get a response so that you can make this thread important.

when individual insults, do they smile or get aggressive.. you are the real definition of a dummy, a slow brain

but this will be the last time i will reply your dumb brain... you talked about insult...insult lead to assault and then lead to jail, every normal human knows that even kids know that..people fight and defend their ego and pride when insulted i guess the idiot in you cant accept that fact

the more you show your stupidity, the more i am happy to read them and start to ignore them. because they dont make one sense, you just beat around the bush, take comments and then analyse them in a distorted way then say some emotional shit then cry that Nigerians do not understand human rights... your write up infact shows that you are the one that do not understand human rights and that every rights has its limitation...anyway, i am done with you...i personally do not banter with illiterates because they take their foolishness for wisdom and you proved that today.

If, indeed, you are wiser on this issue, I dare you to refute a single thing I wrote in my last post. Do that I will close down this thread. You cannot hence you spew emotional and incoherent nonsense and you called it a day. Where are your facts? Where are your sound arguments? Will sentiments and whining prove a point? Oga chop your "L" and admit the error of your ways.

Here are the following facts about you as far as this thread is concerned :
1) You've made no sound and irrefutable point.
2) You have a very poor understanding of human rights. You have shown this repeatedly.
3) You have displayed immense stvpidity, f00lishness and ignorance. You have done this repeatedly.
4) You are full of sentiments and emotions without little regards to logic and sound reasoning.
5) You don't have the humility to accept your error. When you cannot refute my argument, you just say pointless nonsense and call it a day. What an evasion! A move common among opinionated dingbats and the dishonest.

Each time I call you stvpidity or idiotic, I don't say it because I want to pick a fight, I say it because it's what you are as far as this topic is concerned. Have a good night.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED. IF YOU ASSAULT SOMEONE FOR THEIR OPINION AND EXPRESSION, YOU ARE AN ASSH0LE AND YOU SHOULD BE IN JAIL.

lilwetdick:


you have a rear case of psychosis..end of discussion, nothing substantial can come out of you...guess this write up is one of your psychosis episodes

When self-important, dishonest, silly and opinionated simpletons can't counter an argument, you say rubbish and call it a day. Good night.