Of course many of you misunderstood as well.
There is a thing called "exaggeration" or "forum trolling" or
"entertainment".
When he say, "girls should not be educated" actually he does not
really believe it. It is just simply a ploy to attract
attention.
Attention seeker is the word.
At most he is half-serious, but not really serious.
There are many people like him. This is called "internet
culture".
But I do think I should threaten him. Since he has stupidly
exposed himself when he indulge in internet culture.
Anyways, if he make anymore stupid topics, please send a PM to
me. I will jolly well commence a series of action that will bring
an enormous shock to him.
I do appreciate your thoughtful gesture to bring someone you deem a
nuisance to some for justice. However, I do have doubts about
such measures, for it amounts to nothing more than censorship and a
silencing of a voice.
No idea is a stupid idea until it is fully debated and challenged,
accepted by the majority. How dare we preach freedom of speech when
we personally deemed other viewpoints an affront to our
sensibilities? I do agree on national security and racial harmony
and the need to prevent it from raising emotions that may go beyond
the control of rational men.
However, if we can hold such discussions responsibly and
respectfully, would it not lead to a greater awareness to create a
better society? Those who show disrespect are often either ignored
or thrashed with total and absolute rationality that their
arguments would seem infantile and holds no merit.
We must grow up, be matured and rely on the merit and strengths of
our rationality to convince others of a better path to
progress. To weld the heavy hand may ultimately lead to
underground unfounded and even worse - unchallenged presumed
bitterness and it will create further strife and chaos later and
get out of hand.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We often start out
life with the noblest of intentions, but due to our environments
and conditions, surrender all that is pure in the end.
Thus we must question our environments and conditions to ensure
that we as a society will not fail, give credit where it is due,
and bring to light shortcommings where it can be further improve
on, and never to fight for the sake of fighting or wanting
something new our society may not be prepared for.
Simply put, I asked - would what you do be amounted to censorship -
the stifling of a voice? I apologise if you should presume me
challenging you personally for it is not the case, but each must
live with his conscience at the end of the day.
One person's meat may be another's poison. But if it was not
debated, NO one will know if it is actually meat or poison, to a
progressive society's loss.
