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.
beezzer
You're missing the point.
I'm asking ATS to ban you because I don't like you.
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.
beezzer
So I can force ATS to ban you or anyone based on a difference of ideology.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Going a bit beyond the scope of your OP:
YOU can't force ATS, A&E or probably anybody else to ban anything.
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.
beezzer
My thread question. . . . .
If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?
Yes/No.
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?
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.
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.
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.