Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion

Why? If it was a popular myth, why assume he wouldn’t try to confirm/deny it

According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah

So? I’m not presenting evidence for him being a Messiah. I am saying there is some independent evidence of him existing.

B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.

I agree that is bizarre, but not proof of it being fake. Though should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.

Who is Bart Ehrman and why relay his beliefs rather than speak for yourself?

And in the case of jesus, we have literally zero independent verification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

It even says that in the first line of the post

I agree, and not applicable in Palestine generally, but you can be a settler as in settling next to other people. Someone farming land doesn’t mean you can’t farm next to them and peacefully coexist.

Rip

Art and a rally are both forms of speech. Speech doesn’t mean just the literal act of saying a word.

And in essence what really is the difference between beating someone to a pulp vs wanting to verbally (or by typing) assault someones existence?

You can walk away from one and not the other.

You think it’s not okay to repeatedly stab someone with an small knife over and over until they bleed to death, but you do think it’s okay to repeatedly tell someone to kill themselves until they kill themselves?

Legality doesn’t determine morality. Me thinking it should be legal doesn’t mean I think it’s okay.

“Its telling you stopped replying once I pointed this out”

I’m sorry but that was just a ridiculous thing to say- it had been a couple hours, and I was doing other things in my life- plus was half asleep as it was 2am. I think its important to try to understand the situations others could be in aren’t identical to your own- that is empathy.

see the benefit of being philosophically correct when all it does is empower the right-wing vocabulary

To be honest

changes my point which is what censorship of censorship is not censorship.

Because censorship is a description of an action, not a judgement of it- think “killing” vs “murder”

Many kinds of speech are very broadly considered okay to restrict

Yes. Another is copywrited material, which I oppose the considered censoring off. I also oppose the censoring of slander.

But regardless, all of that, and especially this law is censorship

I never said you did? But this law does

Censoring is about speech, but that is a limitation on actions.

Yes it is censorship, and it’s fair think sometimes censorship is okay, I generally disagree but I’m sure you could think of a case where I would tolerate it. Censoring fighting words I definitely oppose though for example.

Attacking someone at random is wrong and illegal.

Attacking meaning what? Verbally?

Yes it is true I agree with both of those statements, I don’t know specifically about Scottish laws- but I remember hearing about this especially dumb case.

The dumbness was on the part of the government. It was censorship then, and it is still censorship now. I am nowhere near a fan of celebrating someone’s death. Still censorship, expanding what is censored is expanding censorship.

Limiting any speech is censorship. Speech is censored in some capacity everywhere, to use that as a basis for redefining it to not actually be censorship is very disingenuous.

I understand you oppose allowing speech that could lead to the rights of others being trampled. And that is a fair belief to have- it is however still censorship. Even to censor people calling for total thought control would still be censorship.

Also just checked the thread, I did not get notifications for some of these replies

deleted by creator

Well what is the law?

Idk if she did or didn’t, but censorship isn’t a liberal solution

I’d argue you also can’t support censorship and be a liberal.

Yeah don’t use the word Nazi when describing opposition to censorship, however well intentioned the censorship is