On the other hand, his argument makes no sense. For in his reasoning it means that since I got away with it (Fizzer has not censored or banned it) I actually do have what I said I did.
"HFor in his reasoning it means that since I got away with it (Fizzer has not censored or banned it) I actually do have what I said I did."
No.
Completely illogical.
Just because someone hasn't edited and/or removed your comment doesn't mean you have freedom of speech.
You lack freedom of because someone "can" do so. They don't need to exercise their ability to moderate for that to be the case.
Based on your logic everyone in Iran who hasn't been jailed for speaking out against the government has "freedom of speech". (Hint: No one in Iran has anything close to freedom of speech, skype is illegal in the country because communication via skype is encrypted and can't be monitored as such)
If you had freedom of speech it'd mean no one legally could edit your posts.
You're certainly not the only one, it's a very common occurrence on the internet for people to claim they have freedom of speech in a manner which it isn't applicable in, but just like the other people to make such claims you're 100% wrong.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That is the first amendment. Spot the key parts:
"Congress"
"law"
It does not relate to any private property (websites ARE private property). If you come into my house and say something I don't approve of, I am fully within my rights to ask you to leave, freedom of speech is not applicable, it is my house, you do not get to speak as you wish while in my house. You only have the right to speak your mind in YOUR house, not in other peoples.
Same with websites, you can post what you want on your sites, on other peoples you can post what they approve of you posting, no more, and no less.
But no, I won't kiss her:
1) She's only 14, thus underaged. Now I know that is totally no problem in Italy, but here in the Netherlands we have different morals.
2) I'm already in a relationship, tends to make me slightly less promiscious
3) I don't even know how Naomi looks like, she might not even be my type
4) Why would I kiss ??
5) She's more into boys then into girls so might prefer a kiss from the One Direction guy instead of me.
He was using the picture of Naomi Campbel not to refer to the money-whoring fashion model with that name but as a reference towards someone with the same name.
Naomi, one of the warlight users. She's part of the "Warlighters" clan.
If you looked above Red's (Anonymouse) post you could have seen a reply from Naomi.
Aranka's right, I would prefer a kiss from a boy. BUT I would be less inclined to kiss a popstar. And love, I'm not a fangirl either. All that said, I think I might honestly want to kiss Aranka more.. but it really is quite a close race.
*really doesn't feel like being manwhored upon for a single night*
not quite
a manwhore is used to describe a promiscous man having no appreciation for his sexual partners or regard for a relationship, since it also refers to a male prostitute.
being manwhored is new to me, allthough common sense dictates that it is not refering to a one night stand, rather a moment were you become the tool of a promiscous man`s relief.
