Facebook is applying the rules he agreed to when he signed up.
Really? are you THAT dense?
Well that answers my question.
More liberal censorship
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
:dunce:
Did you read what was posted? Maybe notice the part about "incites violence or prejudicial action"?
How is not returning a call discrimination?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
yep which was in a totally different post than i reponded to, with a totally different context (you backtracking)
it was in the post YOU QUOTED. :dunce:
And they need to amend them for politicians so the people know what kind of people are running for office. I want everyone to see what kind of scum Trump is.
You can't make a logical argument for not discriminating against a known member of the Klan.
What question?
The people need to be discerning in for whom they vote. And they need to discriminate against womanizers.
Liberals: "True. (Shhhh. Unless the womanizer is Bill Clinton)."
What do you think prejudicial action means? I gave 3 examples of it.
Attacking someone isnt violent?
Maybe you didn't read what i said.
being called "breeder" harms you?
As much as being called a faggot harms a homo.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Both terms are puerile.
Exactly my point. Mr Dante would tell you faggot is hate speech.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's deliberately derogatory and often has hate fueling it but 'breeders' is just as asinine I agree.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
He usually directs those accusations towards me (as well as asking if I beat my children after I molest them), and I don't even defend the LGBTQ movement like you do Art.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
He's a troll but given your latest to me I can't really blame anyone for wondering if you're in the closet yourself. It's one thing to have an obsessive blog on the topic of homosexuality but it's another to make out that straight folk are gay and continually do so. That's on you, nobody else.
Hate speech isn't illegal in the US- the Supreme Court has never even entertained a notion of making laws against it. And the reasoning is very simple- it's tyranny of the majority on the very level which the Founding Fathers meant to deter in the first place, which is why there is nothing more to interpret the article.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
He [ok doser] usually directs those accusations towards me (as well as asking if I beat my children after I molest them), and I don't even defend the LGBTQ movement like you do Art.
Let's just say that I get suspicious of a person's sexual interests when that person will not belittle the child molesting/indoctrinating homosexual movement, nor will he, when in at least a half of a dozen scenarios, tell sexually confused/gender confused youth that homosexuality is wrong and attempt to help them overcome their sexual and/or gender confusion.
Oh and Art, while ok doser has his problems, I wasn't talking about him in the above paragraph.
He [ok doser] usually directs those accusations towards me (as well as asking if I beat my children after I molest them), and I don't even defend the LGBTQ movement like you do Art.
Let's just say that I get suspicious of a person's sexual interests when that person will not belittle the child molesting/indoctrinating homosexual movement, nor will he, when in at least a half of a dozen scenarios, tell sexually confused/gender confused youth that homosexuality is wrong and attempt to help them overcome their sexual and/or gender confusion.
Oh and Art, while ok doser has his problems, I wasn't talking about him in the above paragraph.