So, when some random white guy punches a black man for being "uppity" that doesn't affect the black man's right to Freedom of Speech? Nonsense. You know it does.

I don't deny that words can be very dangerous. That is why we confront them with a weapon of equal power—our own words. Only when someone physically assaults us is it okay for us to physically assault in return.

We do not live in those countries. Their laws are not ours. I can pretty much guarantee that in a democratic nation, if you allow laws where "dangerous" ideas are not allowed, you will wind up finding your own ideas are not those of the majority and will be deemed dangerous.

Cave people weren't American citizens. :)

Too vague a response for me to understand what you're getting at.

You must need some brushing up on your history if you don't know that people's sexuality was regularly discovered by the powerful in government. They don't even have to come to the door to find it out. Look up J. Edgar Hoover. Look up the F.B.I. History. Learn it. Realize what we should not go back to.

Then you agree that Trump's anti-immigration laws are good things—when they keep out the people you want to keep out?

No false equivalency, so no reason to stop. You consider speaking of genocide a real threat, and so it's okay to confront that threat with physical violence. Other people consider homosexuality a real threat. If you help make it okay for words to be considered real acts of violence, and for it then to be okay to meet…

we refuse to call him a “provocateur,” because he probably enjoys that

If you think the only way to keep the world from going up in flames is to inflict violence first, and so thoroughly as to wipe the opposition out, you are clearly a supporter of George W. Bush's war policies, whether you know it or not. Also you are a supporter of the Vietnam War, and our government's current actions…

You're just afraid to examine yourself and your presuppositions. But call it stupid if you want. You might want to read "Pudd'nhead Wilson" while you're at it…

It is totally accurate. The "religious values" nut who sees a drag queen parading down the street as a hostile act to "normal" behavior and even the "salvation" of both of them (and innocent bystanders) is motivated by exactly the emotions you are describing. There is no difference. You are claiming that ideas and…

But my argument is about American laws and American democracy, and an consciousness that is starting to pervade America, and Americans are recklessly following to their own detriment.

It isn't a false equivalence. You are arguing that it's okay to hurt and terrify people we consider dangerous whatever their actual actions might be. "All Nazis should be afraid all the time" is the very mentality that led to the invasion of Iraq, spying on Americans at home without cause and keeping "others" from…

On the contrary, we are going in the opposite direction. We have more freedom in this country for more kinds of people than has ever existed in the past or, frankly, anywhere on the planet. Ruth Bader Gisburg has explained this very well, on multiple occasions: we've taken a concept—freedom for all—and the history of…

No, it's a non-weird "the concepts our country are based on require specific things different than the laws of other countries require of others."

Nice try but fail. First of all, I'm gay. And I'm in my 40's, so I grew up gay under circumstances and stress much more difficult than you can imagine today. Your bigger fail is that if we start banning dangerous ideas, the first ideas to go are likely going to be gay marriage, rights, and desegregation. Do not forget…

So you are willing to leave the punishment up to Jewish gays?

Perhaps we can uses his remaining skin for a lampshade?

So you agree with Trump that radical Islamists should not be allowed in our country, and we need to thoroughly police the boarders for these dangerous people? I guess Malcolm X deserved to be assassinated. This is the path your logic is going down.