YouTube censorship

[Stripe]

If you look for a thing hard enough you're bound to see it.

And if you're determined not to see it, it doesn't exist.

The first clue that I'm not pushing an agenda should occur to you when you can't name it.

Alongside saying logic is all that is required to debunk something, this is another among the host of off-topic, nonsense statements you've made.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

And if you're determined not to see it, it doesn't exist.

I was talking about you in your quote. . . So that's funnier.

Alongside saying logic is all that is required to debunk something,

This is why the quote function is an absolute necessity for some of you.

this is another among the host of off-topic, nonsense statements you've made.

He said, continuing to concentrate on the off topic.

lain:

 

[Stripe]

He said, continuing to concentrate on the off topic.

On topic:

Swearing is not the issue, which you would have known had you engaged sensibly.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

On topic: Swearing is not the issue,

How is that on topic?

which you would have known had you engaged sensibly.

Didn't say the OP was about swearing. I noted the OP contained swearing. And here's where it gets funny. Sad sort of funny, but funny. You never said boo about that. Anyway, you are to sensible conversation what Rip Taylor was to understatement.

:think: Or is he still alive?

 

[Stripe]

How is that on topic?

Well, given that it is your bugbear, it's not.

Didn't say the OP was about swearing.

That's nice.

I noted the OP contained swearing.

How cute.

And here's where it gets funny. Sad sort of funny, but funny. You never said boo about that.

Therefore, something. :idunno:

You are to sensible conversation what Rip Taylor was to understatement.

Meanwhile, your assertion that swearing explains what we see has been laid to rest. Want to get on topic now? :up:

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, given that it is your bugbear, it's not.

Then you should stop arguing with yourself in public.

That's nice.

Even better, it's true. True and nice. That's...well, I suppose I just said exactly what it was.

How cute.

No, it was disturbing and disappointing, much like your characterization and priorities on the point.

Therefore, something. :idunno:

Therefore your obsession with my attention being given to the thing you want me concentrating on (while being seemingly less concerned about that as a rule for anyone else, including you) is more important than the thing (profanity) that precluded my following the offering (video) further and appeared to dismiss the complaint (unfair restriction) prima facie.

Meanwhile, your assertion that swearing explains what we see has been laid to rest.

So you said. I don't know that what you said is true, but I know that you said it and that you believe it to be. I know the fellow complaining and his example were both using language that justified their restriction. I gather that not everyone else using that sort of language is being similarly treated, though I haven't been shown anything that establishes a rule on the point, empirically.

Want to get on topic now? :up:

What do you see as the overriding topic, the fellow and others being put to the curb with justification? Some others not being put to the curb for the same offense? Some peculiar notion that fraud has been perpetrated?

 

[Stripe]

I haven't been shown anything.

Sure, you have.

You just refuse to engage.

What do you see as the overriding topic, the fellow and others being put to the curb with justification? Some others not being put to the curb for the same offense? Some peculiar notion that fraud has been perpetrated?

Reading. It's good for you. :up:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure, you have.

You just refuse to engage.



Reading. It's good for you. :up:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

Understanding is even better.

lain:

 

[Yorzhik]

The reason it did was because Mohammed and the koran advocated and advocate violence against people for no more reason than because they disagree with Mohammed/the koran.

Muslims are opposing Isis and your notion of the rule.

The rules are laid out by islam's sacred books and their chief example - both of which advocate violence.

I agree. It's obvious whenever religion has political power it's problematic, as those states tend to begin with a premise that all other faiths are dangerous and evil. You put that together with an army and bad things are going to happen.

Seriously? What bad things? Is this problematic?: Deut 20:16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

Then you insisted I narrow the consideration to the right. So your above, which might be reasonably construed as a suggestion that I have this one opinion about the zealots singularly among the right would be misleading, intended or not. I think recent university disturbances in Berkeley and around the country make that clear enough.

Censorship is loved by the left, and dallied with on the right.

I meet generality with particular examination.

At least you don't meet it with specifics. The problem is your particular examinations are irrelevant.

Neither argument nor counter in that, but a curious declaration or two...or one and a half?

Eh, being pressed for time I'm not able to edit. Do you agree that the Democrats of the time were leftists?

You literally can't prove any of that, only assume it. I've set out the particular problems with your belief on it, address them or not.

Take a look at the Methodists. They can only appoint a gay bishop if they behave with moral relativity.

 

[Town Heretic]

The rules are laid out by islam's sacred books and their chief example - both of which advocate violence.

Again, there's a conflict between your apparent understanding of Islam's dictates and how it must function and Islam's understanding outside of a murderous fringe that is being largely opposed by Islam.

Seriously?

Yes.

What bad things?

The things I've noted more than once prior. See, this is the problem with large block quoting. Or, see: the 30 Years War, etc.

Censorship is loved by the left, and dallied with on the right.

That's closer to the truth, I believe. I'd say, as I did long ago, that extremists tend to love to quiet the opposition to their Truth, one way or another, left or right.

At least you don't meet it with specifics. The problem is your particular examinations are irrelevant.

I don't believe you got a single thing right in that, but I'm not going to go into detail on the why and how so the next fellow can howl at the volume. I'll meet as met instead.

Eh, being pressed for time I'm not able to edit. Do you agree that the Democrats of the time were leftists?

Sorry, I'll have to look back. Of what time and in what way? I mean, you've had progressive notions sweep through the Republican party in times past (see: slavery) and there have been sea changes on the point, as when the conservative, line holding Dixie Democrats abandoned the party to flock to the Republican banner.

Take a look at the Methodists. They can only appoint a gay bishop if they behave with moral relativity.

This is from the Methodist Book of Discipline, 2016:

¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. View full statement.

¶ 341.6: Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

There's division in the American church (and even that looks to remove her as the highest court within the Methodist Church has held the elevation of a gay female bishop is contrary to church law) but not from the larger governing body, which is international.

 

[Stripe]

Again, there's a conflict between your apparent understanding of Islam's dictates and how it must function and Islam's understanding outside of a murderous fringe that is being largely opposed by Islam.


Yes.


The things I've noted more than once prior. See, this is the problem with large block quoting. Or, see: the 30 Years War, etc.


That's closer to the truth, I believe. I'd say, as I did long ago, that extremists tend to love to quiet the opposition to their Truth, one way or another, left or right.


I don't believe you got a single thing right in that, but I'm not going to go into detail on the why and how so the next fellow can howl at the volume. I'll meet as met instead.


Sorry, I'll have to look back. Of what time and in what way? I mean, you've had progressive notions sweep through the Republican party in times past (see: slavery) and there have been sea changes on the point, as when the conservative, line holding Dixie Democrats abandoned the party to flock to the Republican banner.


This is from the Methodist Book of Discipline, 2016:

¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. View full statement.

¶ 341.6: Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

There's division in the American church (and even that looks to remove her as the highest court within the Methodist Church has held the elevation of a gay female bishop is contrary to church law) but not from the larger governing body, which is international.

So that's it then. You're just going to make numerous false statements and run away when called on them.

The swearing was a non-issue. Had you engaged sensibly you would have learned this.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

So that's it then. You're just going to make numerous false statements

Never happened.

and run away

Also never happened.

when called on them.

Are you being ironic?

The swearing was a non-issue.

It was an issue for me and it was sufficient to have him bounced.

Had you sensibly engaged...

Look, I gave you a chance with my direct question on what you specifically saw as the principle thrust to talk about:

...Want to get on topic now?

What do you see as the overriding topic, the fellow and others being put to the curb with justification? Some others not being put to the curb for the same offense? Some peculiar notion that fraud has been perpetrated?

And you chose to play games, again.

Reading. It's good for you.

You have no complaint either.

 

[Stripe]

Never happened.


Also never happened.


Are you being ironic?


It was an issue for me and it was sufficient to have him bounced.


Look, I gave you a chance with my direct question on what you specifically saw as the principle thrust to talk about:



And you chose to play games, again.


You have no complaint either.

Numerous falsehoods.

Refusing to concede ground won't help you.

No. 1 is the fact that swearing is a non-issue when it comes to the topic; unless you think the topic is you.

If you're interested in finding out what you've missed, it's easy to find. :up:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Yorzhik]

Censorship is loved by the left, and dallied with on the right.

That's closer to the truth, I believe.

And the neat thing about the right is that its foundational principles is what brings it back away from censorship. Unfortunately, the left's foundational principles is what drives them to censor in the first place.

I mean, you've had progressive notions sweep through the Republican party in times past (see: slavery)

This is why it does no good to talk in terms of conserving or changing. It is much more important to talk in terms of right and wrong.

Take a look at the Methodists. They can only appoint a gay bishop if they behave with moral relativity.

This is from the Methodist Book of Discipline, 2016:

¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. View full statement.

¶ 341.6: Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

There's division in the American church (and even that looks to remove her as the highest court within the Methodist Church has held the elevation of a gay female bishop is contrary to church law) but not from the larger governing body, which is international.

Yes, this brilliantly illustrates my point.

 

[Town Heretic]

And the neat thing about the right is that its foundational principles is what brings it back away from censorship. Unfortunately, the left's foundational principles is what drives them to censor in the first place.

Which particular principles on the left do you believe manage that?

This is why it does no good to talk in terms of conserving or changing. It is much more important to talk in terms of right and wrong.

Where I'd say it illustrates the danger of generality and the value of talking specifics.

Yes, this brilliantly illustrates my point.

How? Methodist orthodoxy, however it may be disputed by some, remains as noted.

Numerous falsehoods.

You'll never name one. But this sort of "respect" is like you.

Refusing to concede ground won't help you.

I think your thinking I need help is charming.

No. 1 is the fact that swearing is a non-issue when it comes to the topic; unless you think the topic is you.

Answered on this point. Maybe you should take your own advice and pay more attention to what you read.

If you're interested in finding out what you've missed, it's easy to find.

I was curious about what you saw as the principle thing you purported to desire my grappling with. If it mattered to you it would have been easy enough to demonstrate. I think I could read a newspaper through you at this point.

:think: And at least that would be informative.

 

[Stripe]

Methodist orthodoxy, however it may be disputed by some, remains as noted.

Are you insane? This has nothing to do with the conversation you were having.

And that conversation has nothing to do with the topic.

You'll never name one.

Oh. My. Goodness.

You can't be this dense.

How about you tell us what I called your No. 1 falsehood. :up:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Stripe]

I was curious about what you saw as the principle thing you purported to desire my grappling with.

You want to talk "principles"?

This should be top of your agenda: Take your head out of your backside and learn to have a conversation. :thumb:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Are you insane? This has nothing to do with the conversation you were having.

And that conversation has nothing to do with the topic.

Let's just agree it has nothing to do with you and leave it at that. :thumb:

How about you tell us what I called your No. 1 falsehood.

I'm not really paying that close attention to you at this point, but I caught you making the general charge (three times now) without particulars. In any event you're up to your eyes in it. And by it I don't mean truthiness. :nono:

You want to talk "principles"?

Well, I wanted to hear what Yor had in mind in supporting his notion. In your quote I asked for the principle (main) thing you wanted me to be grappling with. I'd noted three potentials in the one before, when you also didn't get around to doing that. lain:

Now write something that clues everyone in on what all this is about, why you continually level a complaint at me you could as easily and repeatedly level at others (or yourself) but don't and why when asked to name the thing you wanted in particular you played games instead.

See if you can encapsulate the spirit of that methodological approach of yours.

This should be top of your agenda: Take your head out of your backside and learn to have a conversation. :thumb:

See, I knew you had it in you.

 

[Stripe]

Let's just agree it has nothing to do with you and leave it at that.

Well, no.

I'm actually interested in the topic of OP, while you are determined to talk about anything but.

Your main tactic is to just disagree with everything, creating as many rabbit trails as possible.

You're nothing but a troll.

I'm not really paying that close attention to you at this point.

See?

I caught you making the general charge without particulars.

Apart from where I stated your No. 1 falsehood right after making the charge.

You're up to your eyes in it. And by it, I don't mean truthiness. :nono:

Principle (main).

Time to crack out that dictionary. :up:

Now write something that clues everyone in on what all this is about, why you continually level a complaint at me you could as easily and repeatedly level at others (or yourself) but don't and why when asked to name the thing you wanted in particular you played games instead.

You're too stupid to talk to any more. :wave2:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

You're nothing but a troll.

How many posts have you made to me so far, fifty?

Apart from where I stated your No. 1 falsehood right after making the charge.

Must have missed that one.

Wait this?

No. 1 is the fact that swearing is a non-issue when it comes to the topic; unless you think the topic is you

So essentially anything you don't agree with is a falsehood in your Stripe's New Non-Americana Frequently Abridged Standard dictionary? oly:

I answered that swearing was an issue for me and why. Nothing false in it.

You're up to your eyes in it. And by it, I don't mean truthiness.

Still with the parrot bit. That bit is deceased.

Time to crack out that dictionary.

Hm? Ah, principal. Mea culpa.

You're too stupid to talk to any more. :wave2:

I can only hope. The respect just sings around here.