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
He voiced an opinion based on the bible.
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.
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)
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.
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.
ltinycdancerg
reply to post by beezzer
Yes, if you call threats of violence and extortion "silly"
beezzer
reply to post by boncho
I can't get a friggin' answer to save my life!!!!!
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?
beezzer
reply to post by maus80
So you're changing the definition of punishment?
Talk about moving the goalposts.
lol
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.
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?
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?
rom12345
reply to post by beezzer
To answer simply, as I remain in a supposition of states.
YES and NO, depending on the context.
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.