"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


No, I believe that freedom of expression (speech is only one aspect of
it) should be limited to those activities which are deemed appropriate
by the majority of society. What *I* think is only relevant if it is
in agreement with what the majority wants.

Based on THAT sort of nonsesnical thinking, you and the "majority" could
make it illegal for teens to wander around the mall with rings through their
noses or eyebrows.


You realize, of course, that the opposite to reasonable restriction is
a slippery slope chain of events which leads to anarchy. Unless you
support anarchy, the only difference between you and I, is where we
draw the line.

Define "anarchy".


I believe that adults should think for themselves.

That's fine until one of those "free thinking adults" does something
which infringes on the rights of someone else. Then what?

What's wrong with that? You advocate infringing on private property rights
all the time, remember?



It's funny that you seem to be advocating a free-for-all attitude with
respect to freedom, yet also seem to support the right of minority
people to be "offended" by the acts, customs, and traditions of the
majority. A curious duplicity if I must say.

Being offended is one thing. Physically stopping someone's actions is
another. I think nose, tongue and eyebrow rings are disgusting and that the
people who wear them are idiots. But, I have no intention of doing anything
to stop the behavior.

YOU would put a stop to certain actions for another, very common reason: You
have an abnormal need to control other people.