In fact, I do think the care/harm foundation is the ultimate one. The adjudicator which resolves the others. But I am talking abt *harm*
-
-
I value right to be non-religious more than right not to be offended by religious ideas. So I must defend the same right for religious ppl.
-
Because I wouldn't want religious ppl to claim both as rights - to be religious & not to be offended by the ideas of the non-religious.
-
If ur demanding the right to express &live by your own views *and* the right never to be offended by ppl expressing &living by opposing ones
-
...you are not liberal. If you know this &think its a good thing, at least ur honest. If ur still claiming to be liberal, fucking get a grip
-
And this is how I end up spending a day defending Morris dancers (FFS!) right 2 keep wearing their silly face paint as they have for 500 yrs
-
And religious ppls right to talk bollocks, & the far-right & left to advocate illiberalism & radfems right to be wrong abt almost everything
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
unfortunately,few groups (left or right) are thinking about this coherently. One wants to protect feelings selectively. 1/2
-
2/2 the other denies that there are legitimate issues leading to selectively hurt feelings.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.