Google censors TheologyOnLine!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Zakath
Resident Atheist
No it was something he asked you. That funny little mark at the end of his sentence is called a "question mark" since it signifies a question.
Sheesh! Speaking of unable to see...
You refused my challenge to diagnose my status by asking your deity directly, perhaps you'll do that for good ole Flipper.
This sounds more like the "gospel according to Jay Barlett".
How about chapter and verse for this supposed citation...
Ya know... you atheists are a tad frustrating.Originally posted by Zakath
Knight,
It's a free country. Use one of the other web search engines.
You might always try an economic boycott of "Google" and see how effective that would be...
It isn't like I posted this thread because I felt my rights were being violated or I was going to start a "boycott Google" campaign.
TheologyOnLione is a forum. And on forums people discuss things. All kinds of things!
This topic is one of those "things".
You may or may not find this topic interesting.
If you don't find it interesting don't participate on this thread.
Google has every right to deny my dollar yet I have every right to point out their hypocritical judgment and mock them.
How do YOU think?
PureX
Well-known member
I don't agree with any form of censorship. People are perfectly capable of accepting or rejecting information as they see fit, they do not need me or anyone else telling them what they can or can't know about. But I do find it ironic that some Christians would get in such a huff about being censored when Christians themselves are notorious for trying to censor everyone else.
Are you sure about that?
Lets test that statement....
Should those who wish to sell pictures of young girls being raped be censored or not?
You continue...
Again, who is in a "huff"?
I simply started this thread to discuss what I feel to be an interesting topic. I am not in a "huff" nor do I seek retribution against Google or anything else.
Gee, isn’t it odd that those who would normally be in an uproar over censorship change their tune when it concerns a conservative Christian forum. It’s true that Christians would like to censor content that exploits women and children, that violates laws of public decency, or that encourages or condones illegal or harmful behavior. But we are not for censoring the “lawful” expression of individuality or creativity. As Goose pointed out:
“Maybe someone should tell them about all the EVIL things that you can find on Google. I did a search for a children's book and I found porn pics, even with the content moderator on.”
“Maybe someone should tell them about all the EVIL things that you can find on Google. I did a search for a children's book and I found porn pics, even with the content moderator on.”
Sweet avatar Becky!
Flipper
New member
Knight wrote:
Well, I don't recall Google advocating one way or another before this came out. So Google don't accept ads from homophobic organizations. That's news to me, but I don't see the hypocrisy.
Now, if they dropped you from their search engine, that would be hypocritical.
Well, I don't recall Google advocating one way or another before this came out. So Google don't accept ads from homophobic organizations. That's news to me, but I don't see the hypocrisy.
Now, if they dropped you from their search engine, that would be hypocritical.
Flipper
New member
Becky:
Perhaps you missed the part when I said that I would find another search engine if Google dropped TOL from their listings altogether.
Yes, I hold free speech in the highest regard. I also hold the rights of private ownership in high regard also. In this case, one is not trumping the other, so I see no reason to get particularly upset.
Actually, I'm mildly amused. Many of you chaps seem to be at your self-righteously indignant happiest when postulating a censor-happy Christian society (a few honorable exceptions, perhaps Jefferson) but you don't seem to like it when your own message is slightly obstructed. I respectfully suggest that if I tried to take out a banner ad on TOL that stated "Why not go Gay today?" or "Reject the teaching of the Nazarene", I expect that this turkey would not fly.
Pardon me while I play a mournful gangsta rap on the world's smallest violin for TOL's hard encounter on the rocks of private enterprise and personal taste.
Perhaps you missed the part when I said that I would find another search engine if Google dropped TOL from their listings altogether.
Yes, I hold free speech in the highest regard. I also hold the rights of private ownership in high regard also. In this case, one is not trumping the other, so I see no reason to get particularly upset.
Actually, I'm mildly amused. Many of you chaps seem to be at your self-righteously indignant happiest when postulating a censor-happy Christian society (a few honorable exceptions, perhaps Jefferson) but you don't seem to like it when your own message is slightly obstructed. I respectfully suggest that if I tried to take out a banner ad on TOL that stated "Why not go Gay today?" or "Reject the teaching of the Nazarene", I expect that this turkey would not fly.
Pardon me while I play a mournful gangsta rap on the world's smallest violin for TOL's hard encounter on the rocks of private enterprise and personal taste.
PureX
Well-known member
Such photos would be evidence of a crime, and would require the consent of the victim AND the rapist before they could be distributed. As it is doubtful that the police, the victim and the rapist would all give their coinsent, the photos could not be distributed legally. One could however stage the event, pay the "actors" and sell those photos if they wished.
If you will read my post a little more closely, ("But I do find it ironic that SOME Christians would get in such a huff about being censored when Christians themselves are notorious for trying to censor everyone else.") you will see that I did not accuse you or anyone in particular of anything. I made a gross generalization. That you chose to apply my general statement to yourself is something for you to work out within yourself.
Relax. You weren't being attacked.
So you do support some censorship?
You DO support censoring criminal behavior? Correct?
You continue...
You have a strange way of communicating. I never insinuated that I thought I was being "attacked".
PureX
Well-known member
Material that "violates laws of public decency" don't need to be censered as they would already be illegal.
Material that "exploits women and children" is likewise illegal, except in the cases where the "exploitation" is in the eye of the beholder. Christians, however, seem always to be convinced their their OWN eyes are the only ones that are allowed to determine what is or isn't "exploitation". Thankfully, the law doesn't always knuckle under to their bullying.
As for the statement about how Christians are "not for censoring the “lawful” expression of individuality or creativity" I have to giggle to myself. As an artist, I have seen how the Christian right loves to support individual expressions that don't promote or agree with their own agendas. Even you have to see the foolishness of THAT statement!
So you DO in fact support censorship.
And your original statement....
Can be thrown out or revised.