Dove Soap Ad Features Transgender Mom, Facebook Censors Critics

a reply to: Gryphon66

I do support your right to speak your mind, and would die defending it. If you think that means I'm going to go along with your nonsense and support invalid thought and irrationality, no, I'm not.

Sorry but your argument is relativist nonsense.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do support your right to speak your mind, and would die defending it. If you think that means I'm going to go along with your nonsense and support invalid thought and irrationality, no, I'm not.

Sorry but your argument is relativist nonsense.

Relativist nonsense eh?

On the contrary, this whole little escapade of a thread depends on the whining of a few bigots about how a company decides to promote their products. Of coruse, that's not the real purpose of the thread, the real purpose is nothing but another in a long line of excuses to cry and complain about how others view their own identities.

No one wants you to "go along" with anything. However, as I've noted three times in a row now, your claim to be a supporter of "free speech" is absurd. You go to far lengths to insult, demean and belittle individual posters, as your paltry attempts against me reveal ... yet, when confronted with the facts of an argument, anything that goes beyond your opinion of how you've twisted what someone else has said ... you resort to insult and philosophical mummery.

And this small exercise here on my part is doing exactly the same thing ... so mea culpa.

I just thought you needed to be reminded that there are those in your "audience" that see your posts for exactly what they are.

Shoo. Now I can go back to skipping over this pedantic tripe.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Except you're the one making the thread about me.

The notion that I don't support free speech because I insult you is absurd. The problem is is that you can dish it out but cannot take it when given back in return, as your paltry attempts to hit back reveal. Your attempts to make an argument is no more than public relations, and it's boring.

What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?


If you don't agree with Facebook's decision to regulate and moderate their own site you don't believe in freedom.

What's to be offended about?


You want the government dictating to private companies all of a sudden?


Sheesh.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Please go back and see my post on page 5. Geez.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

"Since all life is futility, the decision to exist must be the most irrational of all" was penned by, I think, Emily Cioran.

I think looking towards a day where violence will not result from discussion is a noble pursuit. And I think technology will lead us to that point without religion.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Yeah I am shaking my head at this whole thread.
This is an non-issue. Facebook censors and bans people all the time. So what? Are you going to complain about ATS for that as well?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

This is just another case of the classic right-wing "Do as I say not as I do."

This could be a casebook study for cognitive dissonance.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Of course, they're going to complain about it. Private businesses only have the right to deny service when it agrees with THEIR political agenda, siwwy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Because your post was on my screen as i clicked through. I already tried to take him to task....and found that I could not disagree with his general position in our discussion (violence should not arise from words, and I have a whole metaphor for that, which i'll save you). So those two details led me to click "Reply".

If you think i approve of all he has said in this thread, you are mistaken. That much is certain.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think looking towards a day where violence will not result from discussion is a noble pursuit. And I think technology will lead us to that point without religion.

I agree up until the technology part but in the meantime I will temper my expectations and be ever vigilant and prepared to defend both my physical self and my honor in the face of an assault of either variety be it physical or emotional. I feel it necessary to clarify that 99% of the time I'm not just going to assault someone for their opinion no matter how half witted or offensive it may be. I do admit my brother once said something that started round 2 of one of the most brutal fights of my life ending in standstill. I will however return the same degree of verbal assault that they throw at me until something gives. They either shut up and we agree to disagree and go our separate ways or we end up fighting because they are now the ones who feel insulted and feel like attacking me. I'm an easily underestimated opponent and people have made the mistake of coming at me before, my name and reputation are built on the results of those follies.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Please go back and see my post on page 5. Geez.

I wasn't talking to you, it was a general response mate.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Because your post was on my screen as i clicked through. I already tried to take him to task....and found that I could not disagree with his general position in our discussion (violence should not arise from words, and I have a whole metaphor for that, which i'll save you). So those two details led me to click "Reply".

If you think i approve of all he has said in this thread, you are mistaken. That much is certain.

No no, I don't think that at all. You're a very reasonable, measured and complex thinker, and you know you have my respect.

I realize your point, and it is a well-taken one. Sometimes, however, we all react to over-inflated pomposity ... and today was just my day, LOL.

Mea culpa.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Facebook is, however, doing the bidding of a certain previous administration by acting as an unregulated intermediary, censoring posts and posters who do not tow the line of the progressive ideology and the leading figures who represent that ideology.

Got any proof of these slanderous accusations outside of your biased opinion?

For those railing on about free speech ?

It's FREE SPEECH to voice their opinion about how stupid a TG soap commercial is.

And the kicker is.

Political speech IS protected under the first.

Like already was said.

Dove isn't going to be in business long if they continue to alienate the people that fills their bank accounts.

a reply to: neo96

Last time I checked Facebook wasn't the government. So the First Amendment doesn't really apply.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I don't give a snip.

I don't think political ads should be running 24/7 365 days a year.

Get enough of that election time.

And that Dove ad is exactly that.

First world problems.

Don't like Dove's advertising/marketing?

Don't purchase their product.

But oh my the horror! The outrage! This is unacceptable! WHAT ABOUT DA CHILDREN?!?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I don't give a snip.

I don't think political ads should be running 24/7 365 days a year.

Get enough of that election time.

And that Dove ad is exactly that.

Only your sort is turning this advert political.

It's actually just a heartwarming advert.

So any identity politics is coming from your ilk.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Because your post was on my screen as i clicked through. I already tried to take him to task....and found that I could not disagree with his general position in our discussion (violence should not arise from words, and I have a whole metaphor for that, which i'll save you). So those two details led me to click "Reply".

If you think i approve of all he has said in this thread, you are mistaken. That much is certain.

And we're so much the better for it. There can be no discerning of truth without disagreement and dialogue.

Nonetheless, the confusing of word and deed, and the conflation of insult as violence, is built into the criminal code of a majority of countries. This is a pernicious form of magical thinking that is only a continuation of the blasphemy and heresy laws of old. Defending free speech is difficult on that account, because one is required to defend ideas and expression that he is morally opposed to, and that are universally condemned.