Originally Posted by stubborn_d0nkey
He (sometimes) seems to be implying that freedom of speech grants him the right to have a discussion the way he wants, not just what freedom of speech grants a person. If he really does think that, the simplification is a step in the right direction, a stepping stone to him understanding what freedom of religion really is.
In such circumstances, when somebody might have such an exaggerated notion of what freedom of speech really is, the simplification is, imo, an acceptable evil on the path to enlightenment, since its easier to grasp and even if the person doesn't come to realize what freedom of speech really is and gets stuck at the simplification they at least have a much better grasp of what freedom of speech is.
Though. if the other person's notion is closer to what freedom of speech really is than the simplification definitely becomes an unacceptable evil and I wouldn't use it in such circumstances.
im not saying define freedom of speech, because its a really vague amendment proven with the many court cases involving it, all im saying is, no it does not cover everything you say,[like telling a kid, no you can't say fuck you in the ass] that isnt complicated to understand, if u were to say, yes it means you can say anything you want, he'll never get it later on when u tell him its not, its better to start off with telling him its not.
// this is experience from telling KIDS how things work, i think i know what it means to simplify things so they understand, but also get the concept that yes it is this way but it doesnt stop there. once he gets that, later on hell ask the questions WHY is it like that, ie like a kid who has reached the age of being curious and asking why to everything. before this point they just accept what u tell them. this is where this guy is at. he's not at the "why" part, he's at the stage where he thinks this is this, theres no reasoning.