>>124498
>implying free speech is bad because it lets you lie cheat and deceive
It is the responsibility of you, the listener, to not be deceived. As long as the deceit does not result in you being abused or censored, you have no right to censor others on this basis. You can call anything deceit if it's persuasive or uses propaganda. Lies are not inherently evil and should be allowed. Cheating in gambling is illegal and not an inherent product of free speech. Contracts and laws are built to combat speech which in itself censors and abuses others.
>implying free speech only exists as a strategy to undermine power structures
No it doesn't; don't lump me in with those postmodernist bastards who treat free speech solely as a weapon and not as a necessary product of enjoying freedom.
>implying free speech is the enemy of truth
If free speech is the enemy of truth, then that makes the truth censorship. If truth is censorship, then truth is evil. If truth is evil, then it is not good and should be destroyed. Truth is not the enemy of free speech. Freedom is an extension of truth, and free speech is an extension of freedom. Don't create a false dichotomy.
>implying free love exclusively means sex
>implying sex cannot be performed safely
>implying sex cannot be used for bonding
>implying that sex impedes bonding
>implying sex does not facilittate bonding
Free love means free love. This is done through families, friends, and intimate bonds. This can involve sex but does not have to, and if it does we have the medicine and technology to ensure it's safe for those who don't want to suffer and die. Taking away sex with many takes away a means of obtaining a multitude of bonds which, because they are not mandated but are freely chosen, will thus be more enjoyable and comfortable because the bonds will not serve as chains.
>agreeing with the concept of free union but acting as if you disagree
Normie contrarian.
>agreeing again but still acting like you disagree
Double normie contrarian who is probably hella gay.
~Epyc Wynn