It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: burdman30ott6
They also ban photography at events as it may intimidate delegates from overseas, so our photo is a suggestion of what the delegates might look like.
Oh.... My.... Goodness....
That photo is worth a 1000 words. Talk about a lack of self respect and dignity.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Yes, evidence was offered to the contrary in both examples, would you like it again?
Cable channels are evidence of special treatment: Movie channels, sports channels, shopping channels, educational channels, etc. There are specialty channels in almost all of those areas. The argument you're parroting claims that Black Entertainment Television proves that blacks are given "special treatment" or "special rights" ... and I assume (because no actual citation was made to any real channels) that LOGO TV proves the same thing for "the gays."
If so, then as repeated, the Golf Channel proves that golfers are being given special rights, the BBC in America proves that Brits are given special rights, the Cartoon Network proves that cartoons are ... get the picture? It's an absolutely absurd claim.
Grants and scholarships are proof of special treatment: If so, then scholarships based on financial need are giving "special rights' to the poor, and grants based on Grade Point Average are favoring good students, or requirements for graduate scholarships based on having an undergraduate degree unfairly discriminates against those who didn't graduate.
How much ad absurdum is needed?