I know evil when I see it and crudeness of language when trying to give an emotional zing to a point doesn't register.
Not with me. Not if I don't want to involve you. This isn't a "must talk to Stripe" thread. It isn't even a Stripe thread.
lain: 
2 Timothy 2:16 KJV -
I think your support for this statement will not reveal a love for censorship on the right, but an occasional fling.
I thought the sedition act was a Woodrow Wilson thing, and it appears to be how history.com views it as well. "Along with the Espionage Act of the previous year, the Sedition Act was orchestrated largely by A. Mitchell Palmer, the United States attorney general under President Woodrow Wilson." In fact, I think the main congress person that opposed it on 1st amendment grounds was someone on the right.
Trump is not right wing, and what you speak of here isn't censorship.
But what if they are correct that some ideas are unpatriotic and unAmerican? Certainly they can say so? Even if it throws cold water on other people saying the same things? You seem to be projecting in a similar way that anyone who didn't support Obama was a racist.
I'll grant you this even though it isn't exactly censorship. Still, even with this it could be (although misguided and impotent the measure proposed) a legitimate concern. Certainly some measures should be enacted to protect a country's citizens from jihad.
But there is no rational reason to think this is from things Muslims say. You are overstating the opposition to speech by attaching it to a legitimate opposition to jihad.
Here's good support for your claim, except that doesn't show a love for censorship on its own. Besides this view being the strongest among moderates on the right, and not the hard right, it needs to be a part of a general trend which it isn't. Again, this kind of response is born from a concern with jihad and not from disagreements on ideas (unless you call Muhammad's command to kill you a mere disagreement of ideas).
This could be more good support for your statement if homos in a society were benign. They aren't. They are not only a symptom of decline, but they contribute to the decline of a society as well. A lot of people die because of the homo culture, therefore the act should be put back in the closet if it could be. But again, this isn't exactly censorship.
Like right wing librarians.
Again, being anti-immigration is not censorship. Censorship is when the left wing can delete accounts in FB because the accounts are right wing without an equal deletion for left wing accounts for the same violations. Yet, violations are ignored for left wing accounts while right wing accounts are deleted first and questions asked later. The reason for this is that the left wing *LOVES* censorship.
I don't believe I stated it as a party division, did I? Now tell me who and what people were targeted using that law.
When you tell people they can't use certain language that's censorship.
Who decides that? And it's still speech aimed at ending the conversation of ideas by attacking the messenger as unpatriotic.
They can say it and they've said it. I'm just noting what it is an attempt to accomplish (and that isn't discourse).
Now you're just making it up, because that's never a position you'd ever hear or ever have heard me approach, let alone take.
A table doesn't stand on one leg. An argument doesn't succeed on a single instance or illustration. I'll get a list of books from my wife, the librarian, who wrote a paper on the very thing. In the county seat, not far from where I write this, the religious right of the Baptist church entertained a group that was literally burning records and books and travelling the country to "raise awareness" of the dangerous nature of insidious things, like "Hotel California."
lain:When you start limiting religious freedom it's a censorship of ideas.
Which Muslims. As I point out from time to time, most of the people doing the fighting and dying to stop ISIS aren't white European Christians, they're other Muslims. Most of the people who suffer at the hands of ISIS are Muslims who don't buy into their extremist party line.
No, I'm noting how censorship of ideas creeps into the acceptable by means of irrationality (all Muslims are and so we must) and fear.
It's absolutely censorship. It's an attack on ideas expressed by people who hold them and hold them without impairing anyone else's rights. The rest is how you justify it.
I hope so, though you're not going to find as many of them.
It is if the objection is because of the ideas and differences the target groups bring with them.
Yes, I can see how that's much more serious.
lain: Before this latest the anger aimed at FB was from the LTBGQ...whatever the acronym of the moment is and claims of censorship on that front. So I don't know what the reality is...the video Tam put up had a fellow who couldn't understand why he was on the restricted list while he casually dropped an F bomb. Another unfortunate habit of the right is the idea that everyone on the left thinks alike. In fact, they largely don't, which is why my old joke about the Democratic party making a two party system superfluous since its inception has legs and why Obama had difficulty getting his party together when they had enough power to do what they wanted. The right is and for some time has been much more uniform in thought and better organized in practice. I believe the Tea Party has complicated that, but it's still more true than not.
I don't believe conservatives are, but the hard right is populated (as is the hard left) by far too many irrational and angry voices for me to feel easy about them. Too many people who are easy with demonization and intellectually unjustifiable broadsides.
See, that's a sure tell that I'm talking to someone with a bias that distorts the foundation of his thinking. That's just not a reasonable position to take. No, they aren't as bad as Hitler et al. It's a crazy thing to suggest without a serious wink.
I don't believe I stated it as a party division, did I? Now tell me who and what people were targeted using that law.
I'll wait.
When you tell people they can't use certain language that's censorship.
Who decides that? And it's still speech aimed at ending the conversation of ideas by attacking the messenger as unpatriotic.
You lost me with the second part of that. As to the first, they can say it and they've said it. I'm just noting what it is an attempt to accomplish (and that isn't discourse).
Now you're just making it up, because that's never a position you'd ever hear or ever have heard me approach, let alone take.
A table doesn't stand on one leg. An argument doesn't succeed on a single instance or illustration. I'll get a list of books from my wife, the librarian, who wrote a paper on the very thing. In the county seat, not far from where I write this, the religious right of the Baptist church entertained a group that was literally burning records and books and travelling the country to "raise awareness" of the dangerous nature of insidious things, like "Hotel California."
When you start limiting religious freedom it's a censorship of ideas.
He nailed you and you are left with these miserable arguments.
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Your logic was as absent as your formatting. Just give him an attaboy and don't pretend you're saying something that signifies.
lain:
| TRUTH # 1 Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. Absolutely true. Homosexuals comprise perhaps two percent of the population, yet according to the Journal of Sex Research, homosexual pedophiles are responsible for 33% of all child sex offenses. Homosexuals molest children at at least 10 times the rate of heterosexuals. TRUTH # 2 Same-sex parents harm children. Research indicates that children raised by homosexuals experiment with sexually aberrant behaviors at a higher rate than children raised by heterosexuals and at earlier ages, and do worse, according to a 1996 study by an Austrian sociologist, in nine of 13 academic and social categories compared to children raised by heterosexual married couples. A 2001 article in American Sociological Review reported that children raised by lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior and are "more sexually adventurous." TRUTH # 4 Homosexuals don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals. According to an extensive study of the homosexual community in Vancouver, B.C., active participation in the homosexual lifestyle will rob an individual of a significant portion of his life span. Say the researchers, "[L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men." In fact, they observe that participation in the homosexual lifestyle knocks life expectancy for a Canadian male back to what it was in 1871. The Centers for Disease Control reports that homosexuals are 50 to 60 times more likely to become infected with AIDS than other groups. AIDS, of course, is often a fatal disease and thus has a dramatic impact on life expectancy. We spend billions and billions of dollars trying to keep children from taking up cigarette smoking because it will shorten lifespans by six or seven years. If we're going to spend that kind of money, it's time we spend some of it to stop children from taking up homosexual behavior as a habit, and for the same reason: it will kill you. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/101126 |