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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   

beezzer


He voiced an opinion based on the bible.



Which doesn't automatically mean it would be protected speech even in the public arena.

For example, he could have said that someone should take it into their own hands to physically destroy New York and San Francisco the way Joshua razed the cities of the Canaanites.

That would be right on the edge of what is considered protected speech; probably over the line considering the current climate.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   

CranialSponge

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.


Wrong.

A&E had a rep at the interview.
A&E didn't do anything after the interview.
A&E took a phone call from GLAAD.
Phil got fired after the phone call.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Maus80

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)


Who says being banned from using a privately owned website is a punishment? More like a consequence, an effect.
edit on 22-12-2013 by maus80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes, if you call threats of violence and extortion "silly"



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by maus80
 


So you're changing the definition of punishment?

Talk about moving the goalposts.

lol



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   

beezzer

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.



yes...... ATS banned me, last year I called a republican a derogatory name, and I WAS BANNED FOR 5 DAYS.....it happens on both sides....saying that it's ONLY THE LIBERAL PC CROWD over and over and over is simply a bunch of crap......that's my OPINION
edit on 22-12-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

beezzer

CranialSponge

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.


Wrong.

A&E had a rep at the interview.
A&E didn't do anything after the interview.
A&E took a phone call from GLAAD.
Phil got fired after the phone call.


Right, because A&E thought it would blow over without anybody taking notice. And, no doubt, the rep probably thought it was hilarious what this guy was saying.

The minute they realized that people were taking notice (GLAAD phoning them), they quickly jumped into "operation CYA".
edit on 22-12-2013 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

ltinycdancerg
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes, if you call threats of violence and extortion "silly"


*sigh*

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

Why is it so hard to get a yes/no answer?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by boncho
 


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


Like asking a lobbyist for a yes or no answer innit?

"Does this cause cancer in infants?"

"Define 'infants'"



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



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

Why is it so hard to get a yes/no answer?


I think your just venting, but not really providing any ideological context.
Ideology, is a some what of a vague term ,that could convey some horrendous notions, that not only should be band, but prosecuted.
In these types of cases you should suggest to ATS to ban a member expressing such views.

Petty squabbles over pies in the sky should be not warrant a banning.

So to answer simply, as I remain in a supposition of states.
YES and NO


edit on 22-12-2013 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by maus80
 


So you're changing the definition of punishment?

Talk about moving the goalposts.

lol


No. Let me explain it in a way that a child would understand.

"You threw a rock at someone, so you can't have anymore rocks." = consequence, effect.
"You threw a rock at someone, so you can't have anymore ice cream." = punishment.

Here, I'll even give you two more:
"You threw a rock at someone, so I'm not giving you more of my rocks!" = consequence, effect.
"You threw a rock at someone, that's why they came over and hit you." = consequence, effect.
Yes, there really is a difference.
edit on 22-12-2013 by maus80 because: addition



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   

rom12345
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think your just venting, but not really providing any ideological context.
Ideology, is a some what of a vague term ,that could convey horrendous notions, that not only should be band, but prosecuted. In these types of cases you should suggest to ATS to ban a member expressing such views.

Petty squabbles over pies in the sky should be not warrant a banning.



ANSWER THE QUESTION THEN!!!

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



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   

beezzer

ltinycdancerg
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes, if you call threats of violence and extortion "silly"


*sigh*

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

Why is it so hard to get a yes/no answer?


yes,.....you have the answer from me....ATS banned me for the same thing, but it had to do with calling a republican a derogatory name...I got banned...ATS has the right to do it....is that simple enough for you to understand, or do you need me to use smaller words?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by maus80
 


You've already answered the question so you are free to comment, but you don't need to continue burying yourself in insulting posts.

(Just a suggestion)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

To answer simply, as I remain in a supposition of states.
YES and NO, depending on the context.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

jimmyx

beezzer

ltinycdancerg
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes, if you call threats of violence and extortion "silly"


*sigh*

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

Why is it so hard to get a yes/no answer?


yes,.....you have the answer from me....ATS banned me for the same thing, but it had to do with calling a republican a derogatory name...I got banned...ATS has the right to do it....is that simple enough for you to understand, or do you need me to use smaller words?


Wrong.

ATS banned you for using a derogatory name, not because of your ideology, or should I use smaller words to explain.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   

rom12345
reply to post by beezzer
 

To answer simply, as I remain in a supposition of states.
YES and NO, depending on the context.


Thank you, senator ___________________



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

beezzer

jimmyx

beezzer

ltinycdancerg
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes, if you call threats of violence and extortion "silly"


*sigh*

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

Why is it so hard to get a yes/no answer?


yes,.....you have the answer from me....ATS banned me for the same thing, but it had to do with calling a republican a derogatory name...I got banned...ATS has the right to do it....is that simple enough for you to understand, or do you need me to use smaller words?


Wrong.

ATS banned you for using a derogatory name, not because of your ideology, or should I use smaller words to explain.


no you're wrong......the words I used are perfectly acceptable on this site when used separately, I happened to put them together.... the MOD is the one that decided they were derogatory. the MOD by the way leaned right (I deduced that from reading his profile, and getting a feel for what side of the political spectrum he was on).....but, he being a MOD, has that right....and they WERE NOT CURSE WORDS.
edit on 22-12-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


DEFINE
"RIGHT"



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Ah haha, if my comments were what you consider to be insults, no wonder your passions seem so misdirected. Thanks for the insight into how to not have pointless conversations with strangers, I will shut up now.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join