And if you are someone incapable of understanding "nuance" and everything you believe must be taken to the limits, then you are by definition an "extremist".

If your definition of "drawing a line" doesn't let me draw the line at speech that is directedly hateful vs. speech that someone merely takes offense with and has to give a long-winded explanation why they themselves consider it hateful, then you are clearly not being reasonable.

And to call someone "unprincipled" for that? Makes you rather crazy...

No, it's not. It's not even logical.

If group A has a problem with something. And group B believes that someone is a part of a that problem. Obviously group B is a part of group A (otherwise B wouldsn't think that is a problem). But A doesn't consists only of B.

What principles, pray tell, do you have?

If you think morality can and should be legislated then yes, you are unprincipled.

You can't legislate morality because as soon as you do, it ceases to be morality and is reduced to legality, and it is painfully obvious that legality is an *incredibly* poor substitute for morality.

Morality is only morality if it is practiced of one's own volition, which means it can only be taught, and only by those who are willing and capable of setting proper examples.

Please read again what you posted.

If you have a point to make, please make it.

Already made my point, read what you posted when you are not drunk or under influence of other substances.
If you made this post while sober and aware of yourself, i have nothing else to add, except that i wish you completely ignore me from now on.

Edit: ok i was a jerk in my response, but seriously i hope you were not sober when you wrote what you wrote.
What annoyed me so much? The fact that every single line you wrote was so wrong.
number 1:
"if you think morality can and should be legislated then yes, you are unprincipled"

Here you are juggling with terms like morality, legislation and principle, in a way that shows you didnt pay attention to any of these terms.
Morality is a code, a set of rules, and sadly, just like fashion, it changes over time.
Morality has always been legislated...ALWAYS.
Its immoral to rape a woman....its also illegal to rape a woman.
its immoral to steal, its also illegal to steal.

number 2:
"you cant legislate morality because as soon as you do, it ceases to be morality and it is reduced to legality, and legality is a poor substitute for morality"

morality has always been legalized, its not called a moral code for nothing.
legality is applied (reinforced) morality.

number 3:
"morality is only morality if its practiced of ones own volition, which means it can only be taught, and only by those who are willing and capable of setting proper examples"

This is a long one with separate segments.
Morality practiced by ones own volition is not morality, its called virtue.
It does NOT mean it can only be taught.
Now the third part is where i totally agree with you, namely that those who teach others about morality should be the ones willing and able to set proper example, here i agree with you completely.

As a whole your post showed that you juggle with terms like morality, legality and principles in a way that made me think (probaly wrong) that you were drunk or under influence of stuff.
If mistaken, i appologize.

You clearly have no idea what "principled" even means.
There are limits to everything.

In terms of racial hate speech and my general principles.

Incitement and encouragement to violence should absolutely be legislated against.

Harassment and stalking should be legislated against. Where I'm defining harassment as someone going out of their way to continuously attack another, not just a single statement against someone. We are talking a repeated pattern that the victim has difficulty getting away from.

Opinions that generalise a race, should be frowned upon. But i don't believe it crosses the line into legal action. But if someone is repeating it constantly, so much so, that it cannot be avoided, you may belong in the category above.

See, real principles. You seem to think drawing no lines is some sort of principle, it may be one, but it's a very extreme one.

Upon further review, this post is unposted. ;p

yes i agree, edited my post before you posted this.

A person *cannot* be principled if they don't know and appreciate the difference between morality and legality, because that is *precisely* what *makes* a person principled -- and to be principled is to be virtuous, so no, I am not playing fast and loose with these terms.

And I am not suggesting that morality completely obviates legality, though it largely does.

Thank you for hanging in there. ;p
Thank you. Sincerely!

What public response are you talking about? Some vocal minority of sick people is insignificant, they will always cry about everything because this is what they do. It doesn't mean you can't do your job. People (and by people I mean residents of cuckish countries like Sweden, USA or Canada and not Poland, Russia or Hungary) need to grow a thicker skin and stop behaving like cowards who are afraid of their own shadow and hurting someone's feelings by being honest.

I think that what richlind33 tries to say is that morality is too nuanced to be legalised properly. Like if you want money and you kill a random person on the street to get it - that's definetely immoral. And it's easy to put it in the law - don't kill people just to get their property.

But when you shame someone for their way of life and that person commits suicide - that is very amgious situation. Was shaming viable? Did you know that a person would commit suicide? Those things are very hard to determine. Sometimes even you yourself don't exactly know if your action was motivated solely by pursuit of decency or there are some other emotions involved. That's why harshly shaming someone for minor transgressions is immoral, but you can't make a law that disallowes it.

Umm, that is a fallacy.

How it is a fallacy? I mean, you can of cause make any law, but the law that will punish people according to their assumed intent will more likely be abused than make people safer.

Morality is doing right because you value your dignity and have compassion for others, *irrespective* of legality.

Some people only comply with laws because they are afraid of being caught. This is amorality. If they think they can violate the law without being caught, they likely will. If they do, they are now immoral.

So which is superior, morality or legality? Obviously, the answer is morality, but it takes a great deal of effort and dedication for morality to become established in a society to a sufficient enough degree to offset corruption and allow for the possibility of ethical governance. And those whose hearts and minds are wicked will do everything in their power to stop such a thing from occurring, even going so far as to destroy a society. Or a world. So it is an extremely daunting task, and legality is ever so much simpler. But bear in mind that the world we see around us today is to a large extent a reflection of the limitations and deficiencies of legality, which is why I stated that it is a terrible substitute for morality. It magnifies corruption rather than counteracting it, because the lawmakers themselves are corrupt, and the primary effect of the legislation they constantly churn out is to create new opportunities for debasement.