It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

------FORUM GUIDELINES------

page: 6
168
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
If people were allowed to freely discuss advocating and rec. use stories it would completely RUIN ATS,



I dont think anyone is disagreeing with that.


It just the fact of how can one disscuss the war on drugs when disagreeing with it borders on a T&C violation?

It seems you can only disscuss if you agree with it.
edit on 25-7-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


that's the thing, it's NOT as simple as you say, and you came off as condescending, and dismissive....i take GREAT offense to that kind of attitude...if that was not how you intended to portray yourself, then perhaps i owe you some measure of apology.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by whyamIhere


Some of us have been waiting a long time to discuss the Drug War in an intelligent manner.





But how can you disscuss it if you cant disagree with it


I do not think one person on ATS agrees with it.

You can talk about the outrageous use of money and resources used to fight the "War".

You can expose corruption in the "War". You can discuss the huge number of dead Mexicans.

What you cannot do is advocate use. You cannot say "I use this" or "Try this kind" stuff like that.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


it's gonna go poorly, and end badly, lol

i'd love to discuss the subject in an intelligent manner as well, but as another member pointed out, the framework of the T&C simply don't allow for it, because the most important questions can still never be asked (chief among them being "why?"), without your words being nuked, and you being forever banished...

i don't see a happy ending to this, or the drug war section being a permanent fixture



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


That's not the kind of person I am. I can see how you reached that conclusion, but I stand by what I said, it's pretty simple and if you don't want to be "trapped", as you call it, then don't partake in the convo.

All I'm saying and I'm not trying to be rude.

Cheers!

-SAP-



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


which then, inevitably, turns to why you would disagree with it....and then you get banned.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
You cannot say "I use this" or "Try this kind" stuff like that.


Im not arguing with that. No one is.


But if you read SO comments its a lot stricter than that.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


it's gonna go poorly, and end badly, lol

i'd love to discuss the subject in an intelligent manner as well, but as another member pointed out, the framework of the T&C simply don't allow for it, because the most important questions can still never be asked (chief among them being "why?"), without your words being nuked, and you being forever banished...

i don't see a happy ending to this, or the drug war section being a permanent fixture


You might be right. It has failed before.

I do commend SO for giving us a chance. It's a big risk if you are sitting in his seat.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


yeah...i've already decided i'm going to steer clear of that section, because it seems a bit trap-ish....

looks like we had a miscommunication. no harm, no foul.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by whyamIhere


Some of us have been waiting a long time to discuss the Drug War in an intelligent manner.





But how can you disscuss it if you cant disagree with it



We should be looking for topics about how the war on drugs may be intentionally being used to undermine the constitution, keep the federal prison system fat, provide for money bleeding and laundering to sources outside the country, militarizing the police, the fattening of federal law enforcement agencies ect ect with the tax payer picking up the tap all the way down the line, even paying several ways for the human damage on the tail end of the mess.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
, it's pretty simple a



Unless you agree with the war on drugs and the laws its not.

At what point point does dissagreeing with it cross into advocating as what SO has said so far the line is very very thin and can so easily be crossed.

You are apprently not even allowed to say you dissagre with a certain law as that comes under advocating.

So unless you are 100% pro War on drugs and pro law you are walking on egg shells.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock



We should be looking for topics about how the war on drugs may be intentionally being used to undermine the constitution, keep the federal prison system fat, provide for money bleeding and laundering to sources outside the country, militarizing the police, the fattening of federal law enforcement agencies ect ect with the tax payer picking up the tap all the way down the line, even paying several ways for the human damage on the tail end of the mess.


Thats fair enough. And maybe things should be made clearer to reflect this.

As it stands now I see alot of members accidently miss reading and falling foul of the T&C's.

I commend SO for what he has done. Im just trying to offer constructive critism to prevent a banning bloodbath.

edit on 25-7-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


it's gonna go poorly, and end badly, lol

i'd love to discuss the subject in an intelligent manner as well, but as another member pointed out, the framework of the T&C simply don't allow for it, because the most important questions can still never be asked (chief among them being "why?"), without your words being nuked, and you being forever banished...

i don't see a happy ending to this, or the drug war section being a permanent fixture


You might be right. It has failed before.

I do commend SO for giving us a chance. It's a big risk if you are sitting in his seat.


agreed...there are so many ways to could go sideways....but that's the thing..

there is a MASSIVE difference between saying "i do this, and that", or spout off about legalization for recreational use, and posting news articles and links to university, and medical community studies showing real facts about stuff....information that PROVES that the drug war is a scam to rob the people blind...

i think legit stuff should be allowed, and idiotic talk about recreational use should totally be curtailed.

i mean, jesus, what if one day, they find out a way to turn something like PCP into a radiation shield for spacecraft? (unlikely) we're not gonna be able to talk about it, lol...seems a bit extreme, that's all i'm saying

i'm not for legalization for recreational use....there are far better things people can be doing with their time, than wasting it getting stoned....my point was that there is a huge difference between advocating personal or recreational use, and talking about legit things, which i apparently can't go into here, because i'll get bant...



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I just hope we get another forum to do with animals or a zoology forum, many topics are to do with these but end up in the general forum.
(sorry Iam a cheeky monkey but I feel the ATS members would appreciate one
).



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
, it's pretty simple a



Unless you agree with the war on drugs and the laws its not.

At what point point does dissagreeing with it cross into advocating as what SO has said so far the line is very very thin and can so easily be crossed.

You are apprently not even allowed to say you dissagre with a certain law as that comes under advocating.

So unless you are 100% pro War on drugs and pro law you are walking on egg shells.


I don't know how to say this.

The rules are so tough for a reason...This topic can rapidly devolve.

SO is not trying to trap anyone. He can kick 10 people a day off if he wants to.

I guess the word I would use is "clever". You will get a warning if it is not flagrant.

God knows I have a collection of them...



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Glorification of or Advocating for recreational use....

TABOO/VERBOTEN




That's how I understand it.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


and you can't do that without asking the fundamentally important question "why is it illegal?"

when you have THAT discussion, then you get banned. without being able to have that discussion, there is no counter to "the drug war is fine, because anyone who has anything to do with drugs is a filthy degenerate"....it becomes a very one-sided issue.....not at all fair, and not at all conducive to intelligent discourse, or debate.

without being able to prove the war on drugs is a sham, you can't really talk about all those things you mentioned.

do you see my point?



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Glorification of or Advocating for recreational use....

TABOO/VERBOTEN




That's how I understand it.


The problem is the line between dissagreeing and advocating because as it stands now its very hard to tell.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


i thought there was a forum for cryptozoology here..



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus

they announce a section to talk about the drug war, then tell us that we can't say anything that could been seen as advocating use, but if you disagree with the drug war, then you're automatically advocating use...



Incorrect.

I don't use drugs - not even aspirin. I do not advocate their use. NEITHER do I advocate their legislation into oblivion. I just don't care. I care nary a whit what someone else's preferred method of self-destruction is, and would never try to deny them their pet poison.

The problem is not in the substances, it's in the legal enforcement. It's not just stoners getting burned in these paramilitary messes.Innocent people are getting burned by the efforts against the vices.

Because of that, I can trash silly laws and enforcement practices all day long and never once say "burn one, baby!"

I had a long, drawn out response typed up for another member in the important distinction between a "military" and a "paramilitary", and how paramilitaries - rather than militaries - are being used to entirely sidestep the possee comitatus act, but the computer ate it. Rather than typing it all out again, I just said "F- it. It'll all come out in the wash as the forum rolls along".

lazy of me, I know.




top topics



 
168
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join