https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24797649
> Do you agree that there are objective facts that should be accepted by the society for the well being of the society?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24795296
> They should be cancelled if they are proven to be dangerous to the society
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24795078
> I do not believe my unlimited free speech rights is of higher priority the health and wellbeing of the overall society.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24793340
> The whole "absolute free speech is a sacrosanct human rights for everyone" is an ideal that simply would not scale with the 21st century civilization.
> But we can all agree that freedom isn't free, at one point in the future the cost would be so high that the whole civilization would be facing a "give me freedom or give me death" moment.
Feel free to clarify what you meant, which is precisely what I was asking about.
> Where did I say people should be killed for believing different things?
I explicitly said that was an example, not something you specifically said.
Where did I say discussion of certain topics should be banned? Where did I say people should be killed for believing different things? It’s literally strawman after strawman from you.
> you must explain, as a matter of implementation, who gets to decide what is banned.
No I don’t. I pointed out a problem, but I am not suggesting solutions, and I sure as hell don’t owe you an implementation.