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.

 

If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?

page: 21
20
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   

rupertg

tsingtao
what? they lose the gblt crowd?

the millions of them, watching DD?
seriously?

does A&E even know what their demo is?

yeah, let's fire the chef when he says a customer has no clue what he's talking about.

smooth move exlax.


you forgot racist.

you can probably get away with one with water under the bridge
but not both.
just ask Mel Gibson.



racist? says who?

f gratuitous use of screaming racism, that really used to mean something.

now, not so much, too common.
now it's pb&j.




posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

buster2010
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Well ty I try. Btw I'm not against your values or perspective I just don't think they should be forced on people who don't want them.


NONSENSE. You USUALLY seem to be hyper-Johnny-on-the-spot to--with great hostility, harshness, gross generalizations, etc. appear to do your utmost to insist that my values and perspective are beyond the pale of what's tolerable in civilized sane society.

There's plenty of inference and innuendo--if not outright word choices and phrases toward the tone and attitude that anyone clueless and stupid enough to own my values and perspective should be considered too stupid, unscientific, unmodern, insane, etc. to be allowed to breathe air and take up space. Wellll, that may be an exaggeration but that is certainly the tone and flavor of your comments in my direction regarding my values and perspective.



Worse, when you write, it doesn't some across as "merely" against my values and perspective, it comes across as personally hateful and hostile. Yet you dare to pontificate as though you are the sanctimonious righteous one in terms of "hate" and "racism!"




buster2010:
I'm sure you can provide some links where I promote hate or racism based on my beliefs.


Hello? I'm telling you that your attitude, tone, assertions toward me on ATS are virulently HATE-FILLED--reflexively so; chronically so; relentlessly so; sometimes seemingly ruthlessly so. Look up almost any of your replies to me.

Your attitude toward me comes across as extremely similar to those who cried 2,000 years ago: "CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM!"

The oligarchy is quite successful at building that attitude in the minds and hearts of millions of "objectivists" and others in the land and around the world. They want the same attitude with the same result to help sweep away Christianity particularly but all religions in order to make the religion of literal satan worship the REQUIRED STATE RELIGION. I'm sure you'll be thrilled with THAT. /sarc



buster2010:
If you want hate or racism maybe you should read the bible for once.


I don't think you seem able to wrap your understanding minimally around the Bible in any language. When God noted that He is Love, He meant it and is accurate.

Buying willfully into nonsense that is deadly is not love nor rational. The Bible is purposefully fierce against folks selling themselves, their souls, their lives, their children, families, nations down the river to destruction. You appear to be unable and/or unwilling to understand that.



Who defines "hate?" Who defines racism?




buster2010:
In America we have something called laws these laws are voted on then checked by the Supreme court to see if it violates the Constitution. Our founding fathers saw how bad the church could be and sought to keep America from being controlled by it.


The satanic globalist oligarchy was in charge at our founding. If you want to play suck-up to their goals, agenda, values and perspective, help yourself. You've clearly been greatly influenced to join them in their values and perspective. So have 100's of millions. Not surprising given the globalists' full court press in the heavily controlled media, entertainment, educational institutions etc. Drinking the Kool-Aid has LOTS of company.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Awww I think Buster & BoXian are in love.
So sweet.

*sigh*



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

neformore
Nobody, and I do mean

NOBODY



Is banned from ATS because of their opinion.

People are removed from ATS because they break the Terms and Conditions

And anyone who is removed is only removed after discussion between the staff

Simple as that.

People need to read the T&C.

I am disappointed that a long term member felt the need to ask that question


You do realize this was a hypothetical exercise, don't you?




posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Ummm...No, I really don't think that your title question should ever be answered in the affirmative...

Jeez........Beez

Also.....No there is no such thing as a "frank" and free exchange of ideas.....see how I did that...
Everything has to pass the P/C muster.....even here at ATS we have to wade through the decidedly...decided maze of..."The Offended"......once you've traversed that clinging morass then if you can somehow remain "on topic" you get to receive the coveted star and/or flag.

It's a really fun game.......quite challenging in fact

So.......You are awarded both...Give the man..."The Full Monty"

YouSir



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
As for the question, my answer is yes.

If a member were to highlight/bring to the attention of ATS staff an example of some disgusting views & opinions or examples of hate speech or anything that was against T&C and staff acted and banned the offending member, then that's fine, that's the system working.

A short while ago there was a spate of 'Hitler was misunderstood' and similar Nazi apologist threads on ATS, Springer (iirc) made a thread saying that it needs to stop and that these kinds of threads and that kind of sentiment is not welcome on ATS.
There have been members banned for racism, anti-semitism & homophobia (plus other stuff) and rightly so.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Your post is one of the most perceptive, accurate, meaty, . . . I've read on ATS in a long time. Thanks. I think much of it should be emphasized:


Helious
reply to post by beezzer
 


Beez,

Here is my take on it. The gay mafia is the very epitome of what they are claiming to fight. They attack christianity like wolves on a carcass, they cast aspersion on anyone that does anything else but completely accept the entire package, not even "acceptance" or "tolerance" but if you don't go so far to acknowledge that this movement is tantamount to the second coming of Christ then you are a bigot, plain and simple.

. . .

GLAAD however...... That's another story altogether. The problem is that despite what the liberal media tells you all, the majority is with Phil, the majority wants free speech protected, the majority wants the gay mafia to go away, the majority is sick of the gay mafia forcing unneeded things on people that didn't care before and don't care now. An overwhelming amount of people want that. Overwhelming.


THOUGH, I'M NOT SURE for how much longer--given the globalists full court press--not sure how much longer that overwhelming majority will stand.

The trouble is, even though the globalist oligarchy evidently has an uncommonly high percentage of homosexuals in their hierarchy . . . they interestingly are reportedly slated to trash the common serf and slaves homosexuals whenever they are done using them to shred the culture, society and as much to shred Christianity as they can use them successfully to do. Tyranny always puts it's early supports to the firing squad early on after their rise to power.



It's time to lower the voice of the liberal agenda from their own side, it's time to understand that if you keep pushing this fight, this pointless fight that the backlash is going to set you back a half of century.


IF the world were going to go on as it did more or less in the 1950's to 1970 or so . . . you might be right. It won't.

1. The trend lines won't allow it.
2. The basic structural outline of the END TIMES sequences, scenarios and unprecedented traumas was laid out 2,000 years ago and is unfolding to the letter.

3. The evil doers will overwhelmingly have their way for 3.5-7 years before they are wiped off the planet at Armageddon.

4. The liberals, homosexuals, satanists etc. have a LOT more to fear from God Almighty than they ever will have to fear from a "majority backlash." That majority is due to be shrunken massively and the remainder hunted down like rabbits in a country ruled by foxes.

The attitude of the rabid liberals and rabid homosexuals is but a microcosm of what's being set up, engineered, planned. The globalists will fan that relatively small flame into a bonfire then a forest fire.



More people than ever are willing to tolerate, accept but it's being pushed too far, too hard and so many more people still hold Christian values and even more just don't want to hear about "gay rights" in a time when their own rights as AMERICANS in general are being trampled on.


ABSOLUTELY INDEED. That's a very potent truth.



I promise you one thing. Stop this assault on Christianity, abandon this witchhunt for "bigots" and learn how to be at peace with yourselves and your sexuality without involving the rest of society or I can promise you one thing....... It will without question become a whole lot harder for you before it gets better any time in the foreseeable future.


I think your timing is off on that. That would be the case if the world were going to continue as it did, more or less, 1950's to 1970's. The oligarchy is working hard to overhaul the planet wholesale. They are on the brink of succeeding beyond all the expectations of the ignorant.



Authoritarian liberalism has a finite shelf life and if you don't try to get along with everyone else before it dies in America, what do you have left? Russia? There is the possibility of this type of backlash here as well, the numbers are on the side of people keeping their expectations in line with human nature and I think our liberal administration here in the U.S. has given people false hope about exactly the state of where human nature stands.....


YES. Authoritarian liberalism DOES have a finite shelf-life. But not before they rule the world wholesale and quite tyrannically as a more ruthless gestapo State than has ever existed before or will ever again exist.

God will use them to highlight the utter deadly destructiveness of those values and perspectives. Then HE will wipe the poo off the planet and start over with those who truly love Him and are willing and ready to cooperate in Love, freedom-in-obedience etc.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



beezzer
Are my customers upset because of poor customer service and my employees refusal to obey the rules of my shop?


OK. So, you're not going to answer the question that has been CLEARLY asked... You're going to continue to beat around the bush and try to get out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

You did said A&E were cowards...



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer
 



beezzer
Are my customers upset because of poor customer service and my employees refusal to obey the rules of my shop?


OK. So, you're not going to answer the question that has been CLEARLY asked... You're going to continue to beat around the bush and try to get out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

You did said A&E were cowards...


First off, not nice. *shame on you*

Second, it is an entirely different set of circumstances. You are trying to paint me into a corner where I would have to deny someone the right to freely express themselves.

Why would you want to do that?

For what you describe, if an employee of mine gave an interview where he said things that I didn't agree with, I could care less. When under MY direct supervision, that employee breaks the rules and standards of conduct that I set out for my business, that person would be punished.

A&E didn't punish Phil until AFTER the GLAAD phone call.

You're comparing apples to ice-cubes and calling it the same thing.

We can cherry-pick tiny instances and extremes all day long but in the end, you are illustrating that if someone doesn't agree with your specific ideology, they should be silenced.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


In a word, no. Being banned from the site only occurs when an infraction of the Terms and Conditions of the site has been committed. One person being upset by someone utilising their freedom of expression does not constitute a violation of the T&C unless the upset was demonstrably caused deliberately and with malice.

I am a Christian. Many people believe that my beliefs, my ideology, is flawed, and some are offended by faith in general for reasons which, largely speaking, have more to do with them, than with the people they are offended by and the beliefs they hold. Just because my faith is offensive to some, does not mean I could be banned.

That is the way I read the rules anyway. I am sure that somewhere on this site there is someone who could argue otherwise, but I would have thought moderators and other enforcers on the site would probably agree that this is a logical way to approach the subject. Frankly, though I have love for all the ATS family, there are some people who carry ideologies which I do not support, like a dislike of immigrants, legal or otherwise, an inability to separate the actions of a government from the wishes of a nations people, the nationalists and those who still have not grasped that the only differences between two human beings, regardless of beliefs, come down to little more than geography when all else is stripped away...

I may not agree with some people, but I would not say that gives me the right to insist that they are banned, unless of course they break the rules.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



beezzer
For what you describe, if an employee of mine gave an interview where he said things that I didn't agree with, I could care less.


But it's NOT that A&E disagrees with his opinion. You're making that up. They have CLEARLY stated that the reason Phil was suspended was that his comments comparing homosexuality and bestiality were in conflict with “the fundamental values of the company.” That's from your source.



The executive said that any notion that A&E had a conflict with Christianity was also absurd, considering A&E’s History just aired the hit miniseries, “The Bible.”
...
“A&E decided to consider the company’s brand and corporate values over that of the show’s audience,” Eric Schiffer of Reputation Management Consultants told TheWrap. “It was a measure of deference to the larger company’s demographic.”


Now, you may not believe them, but you can't just make up stuff that suits your conclusion.



When under MY direct supervision, that employee breaks the rules and standards of conduct that I set out for my business, that person would be punished.


We don't know that the contract was broken. You're making that up.



A&E didn't punish Phil until AFTER the GLAAD phone call.


I sneezed and later that day, the dog bit me. Must have been the sneeze, huh? That's a logical fallacy.

Look, No doubt the GLAAD phone call contributed to their decision, but you're insisting on blaming the victim here, and no one else. They are the victims of gay-bashing, mistreatment and defamation and have been for many years. You don't blame the sponsors, any straight people who were offended and may have called the station to let their views be known, the company itself or Phil Robertson, for saying something so stupid and offensive in a public forum. The only people responsible for the suspension of Phil Robertson are the execs at A&E. They are responsible and FULLY within their rights, legally and morally, for letting him go and they have clearly stated why, yet you and the other gay-bashers here insist on blaming the people at GLAAD. Why pick that ONE organization to take all the blame?



We can cherry-pick tiny instances and extremes all day long but in the end, you are illustrating that if someone doesn't agree with your specific ideology, they should be silenced.


BS, beez. Again, you're making that up. If you have to make up 3/4 of your argument, it's really VERY weak to begin with.

Source
edit on 12/23/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Well said!

What this all boils down to (and why I structured this thread the way I did) was to illustrate how important free expression is.

We have people trying to justify A&E's and GLAAD's actions because it is speech they don't agree with.

But we can't go down that road. We have to support speech even if we don't agree with it, because the next time, it might be something you DO agree with that is being punished!



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Nobody was silenced Beezzer. Phil spoke his views to GQ, GLAAD spoke their views to A&E, and A&E exercised their free will as an employer in firing Phil. Phil will go on speaking, GLAAD will go on speaking, and A&E will go on doing their thing as a network.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


If you are such a proponent for free expression, then why are you not supporting the Robertsons?



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   

kaylaluv
reply to post by beezzer
 


Nobody was silenced Beezzer. Phil spoke his views to GQ, GLAAD spoke their views to A&E, and A&E exercised their free will as an employer in firing Phil. Phil will go on speaking, GLAAD will go on speaking, and A&E will go on doing their thing as a network.


You're right.

he wasn't silenced.

He was punished.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I 100% support Phil's free speech. Hell, I have vocally supported Fred Phelps' free speech rights here! I don't show Phil any more or less support than I show Phelps. My first post on the subject says that Robertson had every right to say what he said.

But I support A&E also, for their actions, just as I support the Patriot Guard.

AND I support GLAAD and the sponsors who voiced their opinions on the matter. If you REALLY supported free speech, you'd support them ALL, too.

I don't have to "take a side". They're ALL right.

edit on 12/23/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I'm not American, so maybe my view on "free speech" is different.
Free speech would suggest tat you have the right to say what you like. But not that you are protected from the consequences.
Yes he is religious and he can have and share his opinions. But at the end of the day they were pretty horrendous for those of who's morality is based on right and wrong rather than the bible.
It wasn't just his opinions on gays, and blacks, but also his opinions on women that were pretty rank.
People complained and the company did the only thing they could.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   

beezzer

kaylaluv
reply to post by beezzer
 


Nobody was silenced Beezzer. Phil spoke his views to GQ, GLAAD spoke their views to A&E, and A&E exercised their free will as an employer in firing Phil. Phil will go on speaking, GLAAD will go on speaking, and A&E will go on doing their thing as a network.


You're right.

he wasn't silenced.

He was punished.


I heard he wasn't really interested in being on the show anymore. I hardly see this as a punishment.
Frankly, I think everybody got what they wanted.
edit on 23-12-2013 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer
 


I 100% support Phil's free speech. Hell, I have vocally supported Fred Phelps' free speech rights here! I don't show Phil any more or less support than I show Phelps. My first post on the subject says that Robertson had every right to say what he said.

But I support A&E also, for their actions, just as I support the Patriot Guard.

AND I support GLAAD and the sponsors who voiced their opinions on the matter. If you REALLY supported free speech, you'd support them ALL, too.

I don't have to "take a side". They're ALL right.

edit on 12/23/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


I won't side with anyone or any group that would inhibit or punish the free expression of ideas.

Other than that, I would support the right for anyone or any group to speak freely and rebut what Phil Robertson said.

And exchange of ideas is key. Not the inhibition of expression, through censorship or threat of punishment.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


One more thing.

When I joined this site, there was a member that had as a signature, "Freedom of speech is supporting someone you don't agree with."

I loved that and sourced it and repeated it often.

Remember who that was?

It was you.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join