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: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   

beezzer
You're missing the point.

I'm asking ATS to ban you because I don't like you.


I'm trying to understand your point, honestly I am. I have no vested interest in "insulting" you or proving you wrong. If you asked ATS to ban me, because you didn't like me, and they did, I'd be ok with that. Their site, their rules. I've made it clear, they can ban me from using their site at any time, for any reason, and that is ok because it belongs to them. I would defend their right to control usage of what they own under almost all circumstances, it is a right I strongly believe in.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   

b14warrior

beezzer

b14warrior

beezzer

ltinycdancerg
I'm with George "When it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. Either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I believe we have unlimited rights. For instance, I feel I have the right to do anything I please, BUT, if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer deal than that?"





Wonderful answer and I agree with you completely.

Even with your naughty outfits!


But you knew about my comments and didn't act until someone complained.


Ah, see this is a question of what constitutes freedom as I 100% agree with this too.

However I see it as Robertson being free to say what he wants, and the TV network being free to remove his show due to his remarks.
Robertson is still free to do interviews and give his opinion.

If you take away the TV networks freedom to show what they choose to then that is no longer complete freedom.
I support the free rights of Neo-Nazis to voice their opinion and for Communists too.
I also support the free right of a TV network that is not owned or operated by the Government to choose what they do or don't show.


I agree. I've had no issue with A&E. I've called them cowards. Wusses. But it is their right to knuckle under and cancel a show that is in their perview.



Right, so essentially you are saying now that it doesn't infringe anybodies freedoms, just you think they made the wrong decision.

If I own a bar and you work in my bar, and you make comments that I don't like, in public, and I don't think my customers will like it and I worry it will damage my business, so I replace you, I am a coward. But we are both still free to air our opinions.


As long as an outsider didn't complain.
edit on 22-12-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   

beezzer

So I can force ATS to ban you or anyone based on a difference of ideology.



Going a bit beyond the scope of your OP:

YOU can't force ATS, A&E or probably anybody else to ban anything.

On the other hand the Hearst Corporation and Disney can ban all sorts of things from a large chunk of the media landscape or, more importantly, never allow opinions to air in the first place. So the "freedom of speech" issue as you're presenting it is to a great extent a charade. You have the right to go stand on a stool downtown and scream at the top of your lungs but under our current system you don't have the "right" to access the tightly controlled corporate media.
edit on 22-12-2013 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   

maus80

beezzer
You're missing the point.

I'm asking ATS to ban you because I don't like you.


I'm trying to understand your point, honestly I am. I have no vested interest in "insulting" you or proving you wrong. If you asked ATS to ban me, because you didn't like me, and they did, I'd be ok with that. Their site, their rules. I've made it clear, they can ban me from using their site at any time, for any reason, and that is ok because it belongs to them. I would defend their right to control usage of what they own under almost all circumstances, it is a right I strongly believe in.


So you'd be okay if I didn't agree with your ideology and had you punished.

Okay.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   

DelMarvel

beezzer

So I can force ATS to ban you or anyone based on a difference of ideology.



Going a bit beyond the scope of your OP:

YOU can't force ATS, A&E or probably anybody else to ban anything.

On the other hand the Hearst Corporation and Disney can ban all sorts of things from a large chunk of the media landscape or, more importantly, never allow opinions to air in the first place. So the "freedom of speech" issue as you're presenting it is to a great extent a charade. You have the right to go stand on a stool downtown and scream at the top of your lungs but under our current system you don't have the "right" to access to the tightly controlled corporate media.


My thread question. . . . .

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

Yes/No.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:23 AM
link   

beezzer

b14warrior

beezzer

b14warrior

beezzer

ltinycdancerg
I'm with George "When it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. Either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I believe we have unlimited rights. For instance, I feel I have the right to do anything I please, BUT, if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer deal than that?"





Wonderful answer and I agree with you completely.

Even with your naughty outfits!


But you knew about my comments and didn't act until someone complained.


Ah, see this is a question of what constitutes freedom as I 100% agree with this too.

However I see it as Robertson being free to say what he wants, and the TV network being free to remove his show due to his remarks.
Robertson is still free to do interviews and give his opinion.

If you take away the TV networks freedom to show what they choose to then that is no longer complete freedom.
I support the free rights of Neo-Nazis to voice their opinion and for Communists too.
I also support the free right of a TV network that is not owned or operated by the Government to choose what they do or don't show.


I agree. I've had no issue with A&E. I've called them cowards. Wusses. But it is their right to knuckle under and cancel a show that is in their perview.



Right, so essentially you are saying now that it doesn't infringe anybodies freedoms, just you think they made the wrong decision.

If I own a bar and you work in my bar, and you make comments that I don't like, in public, and I don't think my customers will like it and I worry it will damage my business, so I replace you, I am a coward. But we are both still free to air our opinions.


As long as an outsider didn't complain.
edit on 22-12-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



So as soon as somebody complains the TV network can't remove a program without infringing somebodies right to free speech?


edit on 22-12-2013 by b14warrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
ATS has banned about 80% of the people I disagree with, or usually square off against in the forums. In fact, it's actually made me appreciate the people I can't stand a little more. While I find them annoying, irritating, idiotic, halfwitted, etc… I find I also have respect for them (especially for not giving up against my diatribe).

That being said, answer is no.

The people I have seen banned were for blatant T&C violations, or for god knows what reason. In fact, the only time I alert threads is when it comes to me (sometimes preemptively) believing I found enough evidence to send something to the hoax bin, or if I posted a thread already posted, and on the odd occasion I think someone is abusing the forums. The stuff directed at me I barely pay attention to, and if not for the opposing views, the forum gets a little dry.
edit on 22-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I think where you made your mistake Beez is how you made a generalized thread title in an attempt to make a point, but then erred as soon as you took a non-generalized scenario to use as your case in point.

Duck dude did not express a generalized ideology, he crossed a line that delved into hate speech. Which takes it to a whole other dimension.

Which of course then, no longer qualified his particular scenario as a good analogy to use in your OP for the generalized point you were trying to make.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
It took six pages to get an honest answer.

*sweats*
*wipes brow*



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   

CranialSponge
I think where you made your mistake Beez is how you made a generalized thread title in an attempt to make a point, but then erred as soon as you took a non-generalized scenario to use as your case in point.

Duck dude did not express a generalized ideology, he crossed a line that delved into hate speech. Which takes it to a whole other dimension.

Which of course then, no longer qualified his particular scenario as a good analogy to use in your OP for the generalized point you were trying to make.


No.

He voiced an opinion based on the bible.

He voiced a personal belief. Which is rampant on this site.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel


Going a bit beyond the scope of your OP:

YOU can't force ATS, A&E or probably anybody else to ban anything.

 


ex. I'm friends with DTOM (
inside joke cause DTOM moderates me the most I think
), so, I have words with someone in the forum and I send DTOM a request, "Please ban member xyz, they offended me"

DTOM: It's not against T&C though…

ME: Pretty, pretty please?

Banned.

That's what Beezer is asking. Would you accept a member being banned simply because someone else didn't like hearing what they said not because there was a T&C violation.

(Disclaimer: This example is just a reflection of the ducks discussion, I do not know of anything like this happening on the forum.)
edit on 22-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   
If you could force ATS to ban some one, based on ideological differences, would you ?
What would be the basis of your ability to force ATS's hand ?
context is key here if you wan't a straight answer.
edit on 22-12-2013 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   

beezzer

maus80

beezzer
You're missing the point.

I'm asking ATS to ban you because I don't like you.


I'm trying to understand your point, honestly I am. I have no vested interest in "insulting" you or proving you wrong. If you asked ATS to ban me, because you didn't like me, and they did, I'd be ok with that. Their site, their rules. I've made it clear, they can ban me from using their site at any time, for any reason, and that is ok because it belongs to them. I would defend their right to control usage of what they own under almost all circumstances, it is a right I strongly believe in.


So you'd be okay if I didn't agree with your ideology and had you punished.

Okay.


Who says being banned from using a privately owned website is a punishment? More like a consequence, an effect. I don't want you to slap me, so I'm not going to let you. Therefor I guess banning you from slapping me is a punishment?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Me and my naughty outfits and ATS-appointed tinfoil crown answered your question on page 1 my good sir!



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   

beezzer
My thread question. . . . .

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

Yes/No.


But you CAN'T force ATS to ban me so it's a somewhat silly question.

ATS has the right and responsibility to manage its content however they see fit. This has been pointed out a number of times.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

maus80

beezzer

maus80

beezzer
You're missing the point.

I'm asking ATS to ban you because I don't like you.


I'm trying to understand your point, honestly I am. I have no vested interest in "insulting" you or proving you wrong. If you asked ATS to ban me, because you didn't like me, and they did, I'd be ok with that. Their site, their rules. I've made it clear, they can ban me from using their site at any time, for any reason, and that is ok because it belongs to them. I would defend their right to control usage of what they own under almost all circumstances, it is a right I strongly believe in.





I don't understand what you're saying beyond the fact that you think it's okay to ban someone based on ideological differences.
Who says being banned from using a privately owned website is a punishment? More like a consequence, an effect. I don't want you to slap me, so I'm not going to let you. Therefor I guess banning you from slapping me is a punishment?


So you'd be okay if I didn't agree with your ideology and had you punished.

Okay.
edit on 22-12-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   

DelMarvel

beezzer
My thread question. . . . .

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

Yes/No.


But you CAN'T force ATS to ban me so it's a somewhat silly question.

ATS has the right and responsibility to manage its content however they see fit. This has been pointed out a number of times.


For clarity, if ATS did it, under the request of another member, or the membership at large, would it be justified? For even more clarity, would you agree with it?

Talk about semantics.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   

DelMarvel

beezzer
My thread question. . . . .

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

Yes/No.


But you CAN'T force ATS to ban me so it's a somewhat silly question.

ATS has the right and responsibility to manage its content however they see fit. This has been pointed out a number of times.


So GLAAD was silly in pressuring A&E to fire Phil?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I can't get a friggin' answer to save my life!!!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   

beezzer

CranialSponge
I think where you made your mistake Beez is how you made a generalized thread title in an attempt to make a point, but then erred as soon as you took a non-generalized scenario to use as your case in point.

Duck dude did not express a generalized ideology, he crossed a line that delved into hate speech. Which takes it to a whole other dimension.

Which of course then, no longer qualified his particular scenario as a good analogy to use in your OP for the generalized point you were trying to make.


No.

He voiced an opinion based on the bible.

He voiced a personal belief. Which is rampant on this site.



No.

Duck boy voiced an opinion that created a T&C violation in A&E's rule books (talking in ATS speak now).

Therefore, A&E carries the right to ban said member under the agreement that duck boy signed on to.

A&E's ideologies are all based around micro-managing public relations for the betterment of the bottom line. GLAAD didn't "get anyone banned"... what GLAAD did succeed in doing though is bringing it to A&E's attention that if they didn't do something about it, their viewing public were going to go up in arms about it, thus killing A&E's public relations and hence, their bottom line.

You just can't compare ATS (not a massively corporate public venue) with A&E (a massively corporate public venue).

It's an illogical comparison.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join