ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
1:50 "muslims killed us on 911"
retards like town would react like the retards whoopi and joy behar
town said:
actually, it shows that "all" doesn't mean "all"
YouTube censorship
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
1:50 "muslims killed us on 911"
retards like town would react like the retards whoopi and joy behar
actually, it shows that "all" doesn't mean "all"
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
worth noting, yorzhik, that town has a staggering large amount of emotional investment in always being right
Yor believes or believed that Islam had to produce a couple of specific outcomes. He noted them and I rebutted them. He then confused liberals with people who don't believe in absolutes. I rebutted him. He then advanced an equally unqualified assertion about Methodists and I rebutted him.
Yor spoke to the rule, and the rule was not, was demonstrably contrary, empirically contrary to his understanding.
Now be a good little fellow and show everyone the only reason you pretend to care. So you can do this:
There you go.
Worth noting, I can note any number of instances, some of them recent, where I easily admitted to getting a thing wrong. Sod/koban/doser?
When censorship is mentioned, without context, it is assumed bad. So it would be wise, when bringing it into a conversation, to be talking about the bad type.So how should we define it?
As always bad? That would be difficult to justify.
As subjective? As I did.
I think the government would be justified in censorship in some circumstances. Although given that governments are full of politicians, it's difficult to imagine one doing so without lying.
Otherwise, using a different name like "vulgarity" (when talking about government censorship) or "allowed" (when talking about employer censorship) would be wise until it is established in a conversation otherwise.
OK.
I think I agree. Let the consumer beware.
That's it. We need to recognize that the ability to control is ownership.
How so? If a government stops just some speech (only that critical to the gov't), that would still be censorship. Why not the same for private censorship via fraud?
Because saying "in general" explicitly acknowledges exceptions, while "all" requires qualification in this context.
But if you want to say that "all" is the same as "in general", then fine.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:first:
great progress
not to be too picky, but most people just say "for example"
Yeah, good point.
I think I've not made myself clear. To be censorship, the item would have to be removed entirely from the public sphere.
Imagine if the government were to just demonetize videos critical of it. That would not be censorship, would it?
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
Again, and I don't know what's complicated about this, when you say "Methodists" or "Muslims" and make blanket claims you are establishing your impression of the rule. As in Muslims must convert or kill those outside of their faith, liberals don't hold absolutes, etc. None of those generalized rules survived examination, empirically.
It's really not progress. Sometimes I use "by way of example" and sometimes (more often) the shortened "by way of" in which "example" is implied for most readers who are second language learners of English.
Your harping on the point is peculiar given your demonstrated indifference to grammar in your own posting, but that's life for you.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
two constructions which one will virtually never hear in common conversation, except among the pretentious practicing affectation
Last edited:
Well, you'd be the expert in common. Aim higher.
Nah, that's just how people like you describe people with a better education., except among the pretentious practicing affectation
I haven't said any of that, but you are right I'm establishing a general rule (you did mean "general rule" when you said "rule", no?).
Right, if The Donald doesn't like my tweets and tweeted his displeasure, that wouldn't be censorship. But that's not what YouTube is doing, and that's not what the Euro gov't is doing with the social sites, either. With as many vids as YouTube has, if they make it so even the best keywords don't find certain vids that is the same as taking the vid down. And it's the same with demonitizing because paid-product will be different than non-paid-product so it is stopping the production of paid-product. Of course, they remove vids and channels outright as well.I think I've not made myself clear. To be censorship, the item would have to be removed entirely from the public sphere.
Imagine if the government were to just demonetize videos critical of it. That would not be censorship, would it?
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Nah, that's just how people like you describe people with a better education.
over the forty years i've been involved in post-secondary education, I've had as teachers scores of PhD's, in science, in tech, in humanities
i've never heard any of them mangle the english language like you do :chuckle:
but i do thank you - observing you has been an education in itself, well worth the price of admission :chuckle:
Last edited:
Let's see.
Last edited:
I wrote: Again, and I don't know what's complicated about this, when you say "Methodists" or "Muslims" and make blanket claims you are establishing your impression of the rule. As in Muslims must convert or kill those outside of their faith, liberals don't hold absolutes, etc. None of those generalized rules survived examination, empirically.
In speaking to Islam, early on you hit the note you refined later.
Your answer to that?
On liberals and with my rebuttal:
Your "in general" is understood to be: "involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole; involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group; not confined by specialization or careful limitation; belonging to the common nature of a group...applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved." Merriam-Webster
In speaking to Islam, early on you hit the note you refined later.
There's your rule. The sane, the ones who don't desire to kill or convert/enslave you are the minority, which is how you justify "protecting" our country from them. In response I noted that your reading of Islam, while consistent with ISIS, is rebutted by the actual majority of Islam which is doing most of the fighting and dying and doesn't share your or their estimation of what constitutes orthodoxy.
Your answer to that?
On liberals and with my rebuttal:
A rule is, absent qualification, by its nature a statement of the more encompassing truth about a thing.
Your "in general" is understood to be: "involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole; involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group; not confined by specialization or careful limitation; belonging to the common nature of a group...applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved." Merriam-Webster
It was a grammatically malformed, run-on sentence with one feeble point. Attempting to subdivide something that simple (either) would have been cruel.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
as you quoted it, sure
not as i wrote it
:think:
maybe that's part of your problem - whatever tech you're using makes those you're responding to look weird
and maybe it transforms your output from something that appears normal to you into something that is most definitely not
:think:
Well, in the interests of fairness let's try that again.
And that was just to get his bachelor's. :drum:
And that on the survey sections alone.
lain:Leaving off the subjective "mangle," thanks!
Well, he has learned how not to be banned for stalking. So that's something right there.
lain: You're right. It was better in parts.
Last edited:
I disagree. The creator can still share the link and it is still accessible. There is a fundamental difference between manipulating their system to make content harder to find and removing it entirely.