[noxer]

That's absolutely correct I don't seem myself as the judge either. I can however decide on my own what I want to read/hear/see and what not and I make use of that. I have no need to brush things right or wrong for others I want to decide for myself and I want other to be able to decide for themselves. The order of priorities is quite clear, its choice and freedom on top and not correctness as defined by whoever is in charge at a time.

[lowtolerance]

You appear to be admitting in plain — though horribly ungrammatical — English that you don’t care about the difference between right and wrong. Why should anyone value the opinion of someone incapable of making simple moral judgements?

[noxer]

You are trying really hard to misunderstand me. Whether something is right or wrong is obviously important but not to deciding whether it should be banned or not because it never should be banned if its an expressed opinion.

There are people who openly say that division though zero gives infinite. There are people who openly say the earth is flat. There are people who openly say there is a dude in the sky that will burn you for you wrongdoings after you die. There are people who openly say some races are subhumans. There are people who openly say gays can be healed.

Where is the difference in all of them? We probably agree that all of them are wrong so that can't be the factor that makes some of these opinions bannable and others not. I'm not incapable of moral judgement for me, I don't want moral judgements be part of the decision making. Because what is banned and what not should not depend on moral judgement of someone. Moral judgement is biased. My own moral judgement is, so why would I want anyone else's moral to be enforced for all. Id rather have 99 garbage opinions not banned than a single falsely banned opinion. Because I can ignore the 99 garbage opinions but I can't "nu-ignore" what I don't knew was there.

[lowtolerance]

Perhaps the problem is that you aren’t making much of an effort to be well understood? Not to be rude, but your writing is so bad that I’m genuinely struggling to make sense of it.

What you seem to be saying is that morality is subjective, and therefore it should be immune from critical scrutiny. Am I off base?