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: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I had no idea how fun it is to watch Beez get his fur all ruffled up...

I gotta do this more often.





posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
If your not getting the answers you want, it's because the question does not really provide a fair comparison. You should have come up with a better question with a more appropriate analogy.

You do actually believe in some restrictions on free speech or I imagine you would do your online political and social debates elsewhere on the net.

There isn't free speech on ATS, yet I assume you come here to debate politics and other issues here, rather than other places where you could say whatever you wanted without risk of being banned. You have chosen to debate controversial issues in a place that one could consider one of the more politically correct sites with regards to its T&C. So I can only assume this suggests you appreciate a certain level of restriction on freedom of speech when it comes to your online discussions? Would ATS be better without its T&C?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Regarding the Duck Dynasty situation...

IF it is true that A&E representatives/lawyers were present during the GQ interview, and therefore fully aware of what was being said, as it was being said, then signed off on it,

And this termination is solely because of GLADD and its typical bullying M.O.,
then I am betting A&E is about to get served, big time.
Breach of contract is some serious scheisse.

If GLADD wants people to respect and tolerate the rights of LGBT, then they should lead by example.
GLADD PROFITS by BULLYING people into silence. (using threats of violence via the government-lawsuits and/or imprisonment)
They are the worst kind of hypocrites and a terrible "representation" of LGBT peeps



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


GREAT QUESTION AND ISSUE, BEEZER.

I haven't followed the DUCK DYNASTY business closely. Of course, I support the DD folks and their perspectives wholesale.

In terms of ATS, the first 3-5 of my 8 years on ATS, I suffered repeated, forceful and sometimes, seemingly highly placed efforts to get me banned--seemingly strictly because I was a Pentecostal Christian writing from that perspective.

The last several years, such routine and full-court press efforts have diminished dramatically to an occasional slight tweak. YEA FOR THAT.

IF the Duck Dynasty thing has brought such attitudes to the fore on ATS, again, that's horrific. For ATS to go down the road of GLOBALIST POLITICAL CORRECTNESS would have to be the more dreadful ocean full of irony I've ever heard of.

The corporate blurb advertises that the owners are AGNOSTIC on a list of thing--ideologies purportedly included. Perhaps this is a good test of that supposedly foundational ATS value.

It is obvious to anyone who has studied globalism for the 4+ decades I have, THAT the globalists use "wonderful SOUNDING" issues, groups, interest groups, factions, etc. to DIVIDE AND CONQUER

TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER ALL who do not fit their globalist satanic world government goals. Worse, they are more or less equally merciless about whatever groups, interest groups, orientations etc. that they are using to batter whatever other interest groups and orientations.

They are quite happy to use Muslims to shred Christians and vice versa.

They are quite happy to use women to shred men.

They are quite happy to use gays to shred straights and vice versa.

They are quite happy to use conservatives and uninformed liberals to
shred each other.

They are quite happy to use blacks and whites to shred each other.

They don't really care that much who they use to shred others. They want massive population reduction so anyone killing anyone else is virtually a wonderful happening to them.


In terms of Duck Dynasty, Robinson? . . . he spoke quite measuredly, I thought.

Folks can rage that
--there is no right vs wrong
--there is no absolute truth
--there is no righteousness
etc. etc. etc. as loudly and long as they wish.

They fail to realize that owning such a value, perspective, orientation--automatically opens them up to someone taking their values seriously and choosing to fire off a shotgun up their rear as soon as feed them. NOTHING is justifiably sacred or right or wrong when that stupid nihilistic value is propagandized or owned as the least bit valid.

Yet from THE VERY ONES who MOST insist that:

"THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG--ONLY WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG FOR YOU AT THE MOMENT."

Those very ones are QUICKEST AND MOST SHRILL to scream, rant and try to exterminate all who disagree with them.

Go figure.

What rank hypocrisy.

Worse, they never seem to have 0.00000000000000000000001% insight into the reality of their hypocrisy.

They seem quite smug in how THEY ARE right and others are wrong EVEN THOUGH in their world, they insist that there is NO RIGHT VS WRONG possible.

What clueless, undiscerning, grossly hypocritical idiots.

Yet they seem to get orgasms screaming about hypocritical EXTRINSIC, SO CALLED "Christians."
Sheesh.

So, to answer the OP question--OF COURSE IT'S NOT RIGHT.

OF COURSE IT'S WRONG.

However, there's still plenty of such tendencies and efforts evident hereon--it's just thankfully MUCH MORE MUTED now vs in the early years.

Thx for the thread.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by daskakik
 


Let me make it easy for you.

Is it right to deny free speech based on ideology?


Yes it is right to deny free speech based on ideology. In America you cannot use your ideology to spread hate or racism.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

beezzer

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?


Well id say yes they do but remember your always going to look at context attacking a person is wrong. Inciting violence against a group is wrong. But if your just talking about your beliefs like saying something about a group and then discuss how you cant believe they could do that would be different or showing historical information where now in a politically correct environment we have today we would deem unacceptable is ok? So really its a judgement call based on not what was said but the context or meaning. I just love whatching you sometimes when someone dangles a carrot under your nose fur starts to fly.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


is that a serious statement?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
you people on the right do realize that there are many states in this country, where you can legally get fired from your job if you are gay? it's actually held up in state courts....you people on the right do realize that there are gays still being beat up, and sometimes killed because they are gay?....how about if we did that to all rednecks?..."hey, JB, did you know we have a redneck working here, and he is disrupting and bothering the rest of us while we work" ?... JB answers "well, if it is bothering my workers, I'll fire him"

and you people wonder why GLAAD is like that?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

buster2010

beezzer
reply to post by daskakik
 


Let me make it easy for you.

Is it right to deny free speech based on ideology?


Yes it is right to deny free speech based on ideology. In America you cannot use your ideology to spread hate or racism.


Wow thats a severe rule there my question is who gets to decide if you meant to spread hate or racism? what one person can think was racist may in fact not be. Often times political debates the charge of racism comes out however that can be perceived and not really there. So you have to look at intentions but i think thats going yo happen less and less in the future.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Not under any circumstances should someone be banned from ATS for expressing their opinion, as ATS is a place for political discussion - the only reason someone should ever be banned is if they violate the T.O.S. otherwise the banning is in a violation of the T.O.S. - and the T.O.S. should be available in the open for everyone to see - and the T.O.S. should be open to discussion in the "Board Business and Questions" forum.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   

dragonridr

Yes it is right to deny free speech based on ideology. In America you cannot use your ideology to spread hate or racism.


Wow - that post makes no logical sense whatsoever! The person's ideology happens to be against religion, so that involves hate. There is the core of the issue - America has officially gone off its rocker.

Look, here is something called noun replacement.

"Yes it is right to deny free speech based on ideology. In America you cannot use your ideology to spread Atheist beliefs or promiscuous behavior."

Look, to begin with, I don't like hate or racism - however, I have seen some vile posts by Atheists against religious people that they have a gigantic tendency to generalize. That is both hate and generalization.

The same freedom of speech that applies to people who are racist applies here. And the freedom of speech aboslutely needs to apply, because without the freedom to express thoughts in the open, they are absolutely going to get worse - racism is going to increase, and likely be driven underground.

We have already gone decades backwards in the past 4 years or so because of this polarization - I have seen worse racism in the past 4 years than I have seen in my entire lifetime.

Because people's thoughts are not going to change, but if they are not allowed to express them openly, they will become even more bitter, and possibly be driven underground or to certain states or companies with racism protection in place.

Not allowing open discussion of racism as a way to solve racism is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard and it will not work.
edit on 22amSun, 22 Dec 2013 06:34:59 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

ltinycdancerg
reply to post by buster2010
 


is that a serious statement?


What's not true about it?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

jimmyx
you people on the right do realize that there are many states in this country, where you can legally get fired from your job if you are gay? it's actually held up in state courts....you people on the right do realize that there are gays still being beat up, and sometimes killed because they are gay?....how about if we did that to all rednecks?..."hey, JB, did you know we have a redneck working here, and he is disrupting and bothering the rest of us while we work" ?... JB answers "well, if it is bothering my workers, I'll fire him"

and you people wonder why GLAAD is like that?


There is no state you can be fired because of sexual orientation there are federal laws. Now if the employer fires you for another reason and you claim its because your gay you will lose in court.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


What a grossly hypocritical assertion. You are one of the most hateful writers on ATS against my values and perspective. Sweet.

Worse, when you write, it doesn't some across as "merely" against my values and perspective, it comes across as personally hateful and hostile. Yet you dare to pontificate as though you are the sanctimonious righteous one in terms of "hate" and "racism!"

Not buying it. What a farce.

Yes, I'm somewhat more fiesty than usual. My Dad died yesterday and values and what's important in life is greatly more keenly highlighted in my life just now.

Who defines "hate?" Who defines racism?

The hateful genocidal globalists have obviously succeeded in getting their massive propagandized daffynitionary accepted as the standard defining reality--particularly about "Hate crimes."

They don't really like blacks but yet use them ruthlessly and very hypocritically to further their aims.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   

darkbake

dragonridr

Yes it is right to deny free speech based on ideology. In America you cannot use your ideology to spread hate or racism.


Wow - that post makes no logical sense whatsoever! The person's ideology happens to be against religion, so that involves hate. There is the core of the issue - America has officially gone off its rocker.
edit on 22amSun, 22 Dec 2013 06:26:59 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


If a person is against religion it's because of hate? Nothing breeds hate more than religion.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

buster2010

beezzer
reply to post by daskakik
 


Let me make it easy for you.

Is it right to deny free speech based on ideology?


Yes it is right to deny free speech based on ideology. In America you cannot use your ideology to spread hate or racism.


I have to disagree with you there... you can use it here in America to do that very thing...but, don't be surprised if you suffer some type of blowback if you do....



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   

buster2010

darkbake

dragonridr

Yes it is right to deny free speech based on ideology. In America you cannot use your ideology to spread hate or racism.


Wow - that post makes no logical sense whatsoever! The person's ideology happens to be against religion, so that involves hate. There is the core of the issue - America has officially gone off its rocker.
edit on 22amSun, 22 Dec 2013 06:26:59 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


If a person is against religion it's because of hate? Nothing breeds hate more than religion.


I do agree with that statement, Buster - religion does tend to breed a lot of hate -

I guess my argument is more on the application side of things, there are gigantic zones in the U.S. that are dominated by religion, and I think that not allowing free speech will actually cause those zones to become more totalitarian in their religious views and racism - the most basic reason being the views aren't allowed to be spoken and countered, leaving them to simmer in the shadows.

I don't know what to recommend because Pandora's Box has already been opened. Racism is counter-productive, as is religion when applied in a negative nature (that is actually against God's will and the teachings of the current Pope), they are both counter-productive to society as a whole and to happiness and fulfillment.

The problem comes when people who are raised a certain way are suddenly fired from their jobs for views that they were raised having - that creates a lot of fear, a lot of people wonder what is allowed or not allowed,

And it has the potential to create a backlash of people getting fired or not allowed to speak out against religious views as well -

It is all quite a mess. This is why the statement "Free speech is allowing someone to speak even if you don't like what they are saying" is crucial.

Democrats and gays got to where they are today through freedom of speech, even when it was unpopular. If the new mantra is "Freedom of speech is not speaking if it offends someone else" then this has the potential to absolutely destroy our society and Democracy -

Not just for conservative religious zealots but for every single one of us. Every last one of us. Gays, in particular, are at a high risk for being prosecuted for freedom of speech. They have barely been able to speak openly about their issues yet -

the only other time in history where gays were accepted was in Ancient Greece - the historical precedence for gays having free speech is terrible. The same applies to feminists - both groups of people that I support.

It is my opinion that in a society where the predominant value regarding free speech is not to offend someone, that gays and feminists are the ones that are going to be affected the most -

Because the general idea of not offending someone is going to take root everywhere, and in conservative states, that is going to be a disaster. This is a disaster for gay rights and woman's rights.
edit on 22amSun, 22 Dec 2013 06:49:15 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

CranialSponge
I had no idea how fun it is to watch Beez get his fur all ruffled up...

I gotta do this more often.






You talking to him? You talking to him? That's what I thought.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   

dragonridr

jimmyx
you people on the right do realize that there are many states in this country, where you can legally get fired from your job if you are gay? it's actually held up in state courts....you people on the right do realize that there are gays still being beat up, and sometimes killed because they are gay?....how about if we did that to all rednecks?..."hey, JB, did you know we have a redneck working here, and he is disrupting and bothering the rest of us while we work" ?... JB answers "well, if it is bothering my workers, I'll fire him"

and you people wonder why GLAAD is like that?


There is no state you can be fired because of sexual orientation there are federal laws. Now if the employer fires you for another reason and you claim its because your gay you will lose in court.


well there is this
www.newsworks.org...
and this ruling by a federal appeals court
www.lifesitenews.com...
edit on 22-12-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You know this is kind of like a trick question here.

Do I believe in free speech, yes. Do I believe at some point that speech should be curtailed, yes. Can ANY of us say we know where that line is or 'who' would best be the one to hold that particular pencil, NO.

Therefore, if we don't trust anyone with that line drawing pencil then we have only one choice, to agree with no amount of curtailing anyone's speech...but there are repercussions to that.

Which repercussions would be worse is the question, I think curtailing anyone's freedom of speech would have the biggest rabbit hole. I am not willing to go down it.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join