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

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer

 

We each draw our own line. There doesn't have to be a universal line which no one is allowed to cross.

Merry Christmas, Beez.

Who is in control of the line... Not anyone of us, you may like to think that this is a voluntary line set by these networks, but we can FEEL that it is not.

Outrageous, Outrages, just a bunch of rubbish, on purpose to waste all of our time.

reply to post by buster2010


This is true, however the INTERPRETATION of said rules feels very much like a death sentence, in these cases does it not ??

Everyone knows something is wrong with the T+C, yet since no OTHER T+C's are ALLOWED anywhere, this is the extent to freedom??

Ponder this statement.

"There is no choice in freedom".

Crackavelli


Here's my multi word response. Yes, he has the right to speak without the government interfering on this right. Yes GLAAD had the right to be offended and complain. Yes A&E had the right to ban him as ATS would have that same right...for whatever reason, be it you convincing them to ban me or for me violating T&C. They're both private companies. If some ignorant backwoods neanderthal wants to use an outdated book written by equally ignorant people to justify hate and hate speech then he's just going to have to live with the fact that not everyone is as bigoted as him and there is going to be public backlash at times. I know if I was at work or somewhere representing my work and I used hate speech to attack a whole group of people then I would be fired as well.

Clearly demonstrated is the very touchy and myopic nature of some that are offended. The spoiled brats. We don't see fornicators getting up in arms. Or drunks. Oh but dare not mention its name! If you do the hate pours out like a volcano. "Ignorant backwoods Neanderthal"!

Many haven't caught it but Phil has made comments to the effect that He feels his life may be in danger here. Well be sure at this rate the day will come soon for public opposes of certain ideas. Like a head on a platter.

The illusion of freedom of speech is best manifested in, proved by the very existence of the National "Security" STATE, Black Budget, Black Ops etc. (to use the United States example). Rule by secrecy is anti-democratic and absolutist-totalitarian by definition, and such rule has all the REAL power in government-politics. Anyone who doesn't see that is hypocritical and/or ignorant of reality. If freedom of speech really existed, we would be a MUCH more honest, open and humble society that would be almost certainly scientifically-spiritually more advanced than we are now (or to understate it), and religions probably wouldn't exist, at least to where they have anything even vaguely resembling the level of power and influence they have now. Overall, people would finally be, for the first time, more concerned with objective reality, FACTS, than with mere beliefs. What a concept. Oh well, one can hope, at least.

beezzer

daskakik

beezzer
So your answer is no.

Free speech is not an option. Okay.

It isn't just my answer, it is the truth.

In private matters you can sign away your right to free speech.

edit on 22-12-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

You're changing the goal posts and adding caveats of your own.

If you don't agree with the idea of freedom of speech, that is your right.

I will defend speech even if I don't agree with the message.

Hi Beezzer,

I know you are purely pushing your ideology, but aren't you missing the point? I've never heard of the actor involved in this, nor the show he is in, but he demonstrated free speech, as did the magazine that printed the interview. As a (presumably in America) relatively high profile individual associated with a tv show, which in turn is associated with a production company, that company has every right to terminate that persons contract (assuming such a clause is within the contract) if they believe the persons actions or words could have a negative effect on them.

As has often been said on ATS, free speech is fine as long as you understand the potential consequences.

reply to post by beezzer


When I was growing up, the big maxim was "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words (or names) will never hurt me..."

I've pretty much lived by that all my life, and don't really let people get to me if they have something negative to say, but Political Correctness has made sure that a difference of opinion is the equivelent of having your bones broken by stones, all in the name of not "offending" anyone.

Who the hell ever gauranteed anyone the "right" to be able to go through life and not be offended by others?
Idiots, that's who, who think they can browbeat everyone's mind into at least "acting" like they're PC, even if deep down inside, they aren't.

If there are REAL racists and REAL homophobes and REAL communists and REAL nazis here, wouldn't it be better if they were all allowed to post/speak their feelings, so as to know who/what mindset you're really dealing with?

Instead, all of the above have now been "conditioned" to speak/act one way in public, while acting much differently in the privacy of their minds. The privacy of their mind is where the real person is. Why do people want others to disguise who they really are?

If someone comes on here and uses the "N" word, isn't it good to know where they're coming from right away?

The PC police can supress "speech" all they want, but all it does is teach people not to speak their minds, regardless of what their true thoughts are. So the thoughts stay hidden and build, while the PC speech is all you get from everyone, homoginizing everyone into the same speech patterns of correctness, regardless of whatever true darkness may lie deep within them, that they'd otherwise expose to everyone else, themselves, with no prodding from anyone else, many thus revealing who they truly are, right away, without any pretenses or games needed to flesh out their core beliefs.

Wouldn't that be better? If there are people who worship the Duck guys, but are homosexual, isn't it better for you to know the truth so you can make the decision as to whether or not you want to keep being a fan? Do you fear fans of the Duck guys will go on a homosexual bashing spree or something? Is Phil to suppress his speech in order to not create some imagined fear in the minds of a small % of the human population?

Sticks and Stones...people. If someone says something mean to you, say something back, or just walk away, but stop acting like a difference of opinion is a matter of life and death, and broken bones, EVERY TIME someone says something you disagree with or take "offense" too.

Just stop being offended by everything everyone says! Problem solved! If I don't know you personally, I really don't care what you think of me! Sorry, that's just how I am. Try it sometime! It's easy!

Phil lives in the swamp. Of course he's not going to be PC. Why should he have to be? I doubt he spends lots of time watching the PC police in the MSM or anywhere else, or getting manners lessons from the snobbish elite upper crust. He's just a guy that is making a ton of money offhis own hard work and an idea someone had, and he speaks his mind, based on whatever beliefs he has, for whatever reasons. What a crime!

Why does anyone HAVE to think like EVERYONE else? Why?

I'm unconventional. I hardly ever "do what everyone else does" just because. If there was ever a popular movie that got a ton of hype, I gaurantee you, I never saw it. I hate going with the crowd. I hate doing what everyone "expects" me to do, whether it was living my life the way I chose to live it, or doing all the things I was "expected" to do by society and everyone else around me.

Why the hell should anyone have to bend to anyone else's will if they are keeping to themselves and not hurting anyone else? Because some people are "offended" by something? Not something done to them, but something SAID to/about them, as if that something said to/about them was so terrible that it broke their bones?

This goes to the busybody, Mrs. Kravitz type too, who can't keep her nose out of the business of the two quiet guys living together next to her. They shouldn't have to bend to her will either, just to be clear.

reply to post by beezzer


I may not like what the KKK has to say but I respect their right to say it. On that same note I respect the right of MSNBC not to cover a KKK rally etc..

Should their be no coverage of KKK rallies. I don't think so, we should have a balance in any situation.

People should be free to watch what they like and not live in fear of speaking their minds or doing what they like.

I think Astro Smurf said it best: "My next test was to smurf a pole, which was supposed to be a greased pole, except that some Smurf forgot to grease it."

My Little Pony or Thundercats it just does not matter. We all love the Smurfs even if you don't care to hear about smurfing pole.

What the world needs is some freedom. Freedom for Gay persons and freedom for Christians too. None is better than the other and each deserves the same freedom and liberties etc.. etc.. etc...

reply to post by Gozer

Gozer
Just stop being offended by everything everyone says!
...
Why does anyone HAVE to think like EVERYONE else? Why?

I find these two statements interesting... You're telling everyone how to feel (don't be offended) and then asking why everyone has to feel the same way... Take your own advice and realize that not everyone feels like you do. If someone is offended, that's their right.

Look, I'm all for not being offended. RARELY do I get offended. It's not worth it and I don't give that much credence to others' opinions. But I have the compassion or empathy to realize that not everyone feels like I do. So, if someone is offended, they own that and it's really none of my business what they want to do about it.

It is all about the money,
www.foxnews.com...

They will run a marathon.

They are hypocrites.

The End

reply to post by buster2010



Was going to search out some of the posts you're asking for links to. And want to respond more substantively to the religion of science and religion of atheism issues.

Still up to enough stuff re my dad's graduation from this life I'm not getting to either chore very fast.

I will just note that I have documented on other threads the absolute fact of the religion of Scientism and the religion of atheism.

Both exhibit ALL the major factors that make a religion a religion. Denial of facts doesn't change the facts.

All that you are demonstrating on such scores is that the mind-control propaganda, mass group think efforts of the oligarchy have been increasingly successful over the last 60 years.

Being a model Kool-Aid drinker is NOT proof of the superiority of science or of atheism as routes to truth or facts.

Denial of facts does not change the facts.

However, rant on . . . you are a great poster boy for such rants.

In terms of Beezer's OP

. . . the religion of atheism as the KEEPER OF THE TRUEST TRUTHS

and/or

. . . the religion of scientism as the KEEPER OF THE TRUEST TRUTHS

has long had the POLITICAL MAJORITY CLOUT ON ATS. That's been so from the beginning. It used to be EXTREMELY HEAVY-HANDED ABOUT IT and very successfully so.

Thankfully, the owners increasingly backed up their philosophy of being agnostic and hands off on such scores as long as posts were within the T&C.

Such that now, it is highly unlikely--but in my view NOT impossible--for a religion of scientism acolyte, high priest or bishop hereon to achieve a banning through great cleverness and relentlessness. It's just highly unlikely now, thankfully.

And, yes, it would be WRONG for such to occur. It would be ethically wrong. It would be hypocritical compared to the foundational policies and values of the owners hereon. And it would be absurd in terms of the vaunted "objectivity" and "egalitarian," "free speech" purported values of even the religion of scientism acolytes hereon.

A few points, some I've stated before.

Phil Robertson's opinion on homosexuality is only protected free speech in the Commons. What that means is that his speech is only protected from the government taking action against him. I think Beezzer recognizes this by now as he recognizes that A&E has the right to act to protect their image (genuine or not) of being advocates for the LGBT community. Speaking of being self proclaimed advocates of the LGBT community... A&E opened themselves up to criticism by said community by declaring themselves such.

It's fairly clear that Beezzers real problem is with GLAAD. He somehow thinks that GLAAD are being bullies here when simply they are calling A&E out on not backing up their claim that A&E are "champions" of the LGBT community. In fact I suspect Beezzers real motive in all of this is to advocate the shutting up of GLAAD. I never see any kind of outrage when conservative pro-family (anti-gay) groups attack shows like Modern Family etc or complain to FOX that they aren't anti-gay enough.

ETA: To answer the OP's question. The analogy doesn't fit the situation so you will not get the answer you seek. You as a member of a private forum have the right to click report on anything you wish, even if it doesn't violate TCs and the owners, admin and staff have the right to let the member stay or ban them as they see fit.

reply to post by Kali74




Exactly, Beezer and those like him are all for free speech, unless it's something that they want silenced, and then they don't bother speaking up for it.

All you hear all the time "I would absolutely defend *insert minority group* if they came under fire" and then remain silent when it happens, or worse, actually join in the bashing of said group.

Many like to play the "I'm just all about rights man, I don't take sides" card but It's completely transparent and utter nonsense.

I'd prefer honesty, not the sly, manipulative BS we get.

Oh well.


ETA:

It's Xmas.... So festive cheer should be the order of the day/s

Merry Christmas everyone, or Happy Holidays.... or whatever.

reply to post by buster2010


BTW,

IF you fail to see the RELIGIOUS fervor with which you attack OTHER RELIGIONS (except for your own),

THEN you might consider consulting the anesthesiologist for your INSIGHT module. He may have the IV drip on too high a setting.

Similarly,

IF you fail to see the facts of the existence of YOUR OWN RELIGION . . . the comatose INSIGHT module may also be at fault on that score.

reply to post by Logarock


I don't hate him, I'm not offended by him, I'm not calling him a neanderthal just because he's against homosexuals.

"You gotta marry these girls when they're 15 or 16, they'll pick up your ducks." - Phil Robertson, 2009

I'm saying he's a neanderthal because he has a caveman's way of thinking. He bases his morals and thinking on what a bunch of ignorant savages wrote in a book thousands of years ago. A book that ok's hatred of outsiders, pedophilia, incest, slavery, murder, etc. etc. He's the remnants of a bygone era, the shackles that we as a species will escape from on our journey up the evolutionary ladder.

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Gozer

 

Gozer
Just stop being offended by everything everyone says!
...
Why does anyone HAVE to think like EVERYONE else? Why?

I find these two statements interesting... You're telling everyone how to feel (don't be offended) and then asking why everyone has to feel the same way... Take your own advice and realize that not everyone feels like you do. If someone is offended, that's their right.

Look, I'm all for not being offended. RARELY do I get offended. It's not worth it and I don't give that much credence to others' opinions. But I have the compassion or empathy to realize that not everyone feels like I do. So, if someone is offended, they own that and it's really none of my business what they want to do about it.

The point is that it seems that most people say they are "offended" by someone who doesn't think the way everyone else expects them to think, as if the independence of thought of the "offender" is "offensive" in and of itself, since it doesn't comply with PC societal norms.

I have compassion and empathy too, but not for things that are sticks and stones...

"He SAID this!"

"Yeah? What did he DO to you?"

"He said something I disagreed with, that I found OFFENSIVE! I'm going to break his empire!"

"I can empathize with that..."

Nope. Not me. I understand the 'right' of anyone to be offended, but my empathy for them ends when they try to damage someone financially for excercising his free speech rights. That's called spite/hate, and is not worthy of empathy. It is also trying to suppress thoughts. I have no empathy for that, for speaking is merely conveying one's thoughts, and I don't have compassion for anyone who can't accept that their are billions of us in the world, all unique, with our own thoughts, under no obligation to go through life making sure we don't offend YOU because we don't think exactly like you.

Don't get me wrong either! Be offended as much as you want! Just understand that when people claim "offense" for everything, after awhile, they get tuned out. That's what's happening now, thanks to all the BS "empathy and compassion" that's been thrown around for the last 20 years, in the name of not offending anyone. The more people who claim to be offended about something, the less impact all these "I'm offended!" claims have, and that's a good thing.

I'm trying to read between the lines in this thread. And am wondering if this is concerning something very odd, for had posts removed and have been sitting feeling violated physically and in danger danger, very upset, but....there are other threads on people refraining from voicing different opinions as if doing so is an attack on someone, well that isn't what the thread said exactly but it is what I took away from the thread. So I didn't post on it. And have no intention of watering down my thoughts to accommodate NWO or repression of freedom and catering to a minority backwards view.

I'm not sure but is this what is being discussed here?

reply to post by Unity_99


This is the point in the thread where instead of the topic, the OP is now being discussed.

As the OP (smiles) I've pretty much said what I had to say. Anything further would be just me repeating myself.

So I'm watching the "tolerant" crowd fling insults.

reply to post by beezzer


Who is flinging insults?
If I'm wrong say so.

Censorship of delivery of belief or opinion, ie cussing a person out or condemning another with rudeness OR using really worn out abusive skeptical tools of putting down and belittling the one sharing experiences, ufology, etc, is one kind of protocol or good manners and rules that should be in place.

WHat I experienced was a offensive removal of my views. In other words, only the official view was considered non violation. I felt raped and it was evil. That is unbelievable! Will not tolerate a police state like that.

I kinda look the same way at this that I do at the Paula Deen scandal. Or Kramer's rant in that night club back in the day. Discrimination is discrimination, across the board. He didn't just say he disagreed with it, I think one would have a harder time pressing any sort of issues with that. It's when you make personal attacks against a legal subgroup, and in this case compare it with bestiality... Free speech only, as mentioned, protects you from government intervention. However, I can't yell the F word on prime time tv, so I think it's obvious that there are pretty harsh limits to what free speech can actually protect. And is the F word physically damaging? Was Janet Jackson's tit? No, it was offensive, and there were government fines and sanctions involved.

Personally, if you ask me, none of that is ok. However, on the basis of "it offends me" I don't recall the FCC stepping in to fine him. Which, honestly? Good. As for getting fired? Well, that's the other side of this.

I can walk up and call you a racist epithet, or some other derogatory word. That's my right. You could then punch me in the mouth. That's yours. Nobody has a right to offend people, there's repercussions for everything you do. He had to know this would generate scandal, and probably did so *intentionally* for ratings. He was probably right, too, if his show existed on its own. However, there's the threat of not just glaad. People opposed to this and wanting action, EVEN IF THEY DON'T WATCH HIS SHOW, can affect the network on the whole. As well, advertisers might not want to touch his show, or even work with that network, if they didn't take some steps to punish him. This isn't to mention that A&E is partially owned by Disney and ABC, who have their own interests in keeping a squeaky clean image.

This, to me, is a pretty clear cut example of a dumb redneck trying a publicity stunt without an eye for the bigger picture. Mind you, I'm not arguing if it was *right* for them to fire him. More saying that he should have seen the writing on the wall, before he shot his mouth off.

Ironically, tomorrow they're doing a duck dynasty marathon. Because a&e is *sure* gonna profit from this scandal.