Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | Next > | Last >
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
    #26653063 - 05/06/20 02:23 PM (4 years, 13 days ago)

Still no logical response like I offered both of you?  Just more troll accusations and refusal to address my latest points?

I realize you're clearly both convinced that censorship increases freedom of speech, and I even follow that logic.  I also follow the math in ShroomerInTheRye's example.

What neither of you will address is that it also decreases freedom of speech for those who were censored (and needs to be subtracted from ShroomerInTheRye's math).  I'd like to hear your thoughts about that, but it seems you both have gone into "I win, I won't answer difficult questions" mode.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Guy1980]
    #26653067 - 05/06/20 02:25 PM (4 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

Guy1980 said:
Quote:

ShroomerInTheRye said:
You’ve got to be trolling at this point.




This is why I never replied.  I started replying, but then I thought better of it.



More confirmation to my last point.

Quote:

Guy1980 said:
I'm off to paint a giant dick on my ex's house.



I guess you ignored where I agreed you don't get free speech on private property (because that helps my argument).


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 22 minutes, 5 seconds
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Guy1980]
    #26653066 - 05/06/20 02:25 PM (4 years, 13 days ago)

He could use one of those Healights to treat his butthurt.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26653068 - 05/06/20 02:26 PM (4 years, 13 days ago)

Ooh, more ad hominems instead of logic.  At least you're all consistent.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGuy1980
Registered: 09/11/12
Posts: 723
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26653083 - 05/06/20 02:36 PM (4 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Guy1980 said:
He/she doesn't have freedom of speech here, so there's nothing to give up.



My point exactly.  So let's ban him as an experiment for a month (since both of you claim he won't lose anything) and find out whether he loses free speech or not.




I never claimed he won't lose anything, I claimed he won't lose freedom of speech.  Which he won't, he'll lose the right to speech on a private site.  Which you agree with.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMagicMush123
moon person
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,263
Loc: Chinada Flag
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26653092 - 05/06/20 02:46 PM (4 years, 13 days ago)

Imagine it like this; Mark Zuckerberg owns ,runs and is the face of Facebook. He created his website so whatever people post on his website, Mark Zuckerberg is saying that to whoever is reading it on the other side. Whether you like it or not everything posted on his site is considered his speech to whoever ends up reading it. If mark Zuckerberg doesn't agree with the speech posted on his site he removes it because he doesn't want to say it. If you take away marks voice and force him to say everything on his website, stuff that he personally doesn't want to say, that would be forced speech, and he now no longer has free speech. You're forcing him to speak things he doesn't want to say or believes in.
Why do you want mark to be forced to say things he want to say or believes in?
Is it marks fault his platform became a website that people around world decide to go to?
At what point do think mark should lose the freedom to decide what he wants or doesnt want to say through his website?

The owner of a magazine can decide to print or not print articles that are presented to him . Should a magazine company boss be forced to print any articles presented to him? That would be ridiculous right?  If you agree that a magazine should be able to choose ita content, why shouldn't a website?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomerInTheRye
Clit Commander
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/12/12
Posts: 13,038
Loc: Themyscira Flag
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26653158 - 05/06/20 03:24 PM (4 years, 13 days ago)

He's got free speech confused with fascism.


--------------------
:nyan: <-- Clicky Clicky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: ShroomerInTheRye] * 3
    #26653176 - 05/06/20 03:33 PM (4 years, 13 days ago)

Nah, he just really believes in his heart of heart that companies like youtube, Instagram, etc. should have a duty to be neutral relayers of information.  Because of this, he's willing to ignore the concept of "forced speech" or at least minimize it to some small evil when there really is no greater evil in the context of speech. 

He's arguing an "ends justify the means" way of getting large corporations to serve the public in a way he feels is beneficial while completely ignoring the underlying principles that make such an act completely antithetical to the very notion of a free society.  If he were ordered to copy and hand out flyers for Biden at his own expense, he would suddenly see that as an egregious violation of his first amendment rights.  He wouldn't place any value whatsoever on Biden's free speech under those circumstances.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 36 minutes, 19 seconds
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #26653518 - 05/06/20 06:32 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

There’s an easy way to solve it: nationalize Facebook.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKwyjibo
Stranger

Registered: 07/31/18
Posts: 1,276
Loc: California Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 3 minutes
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26653563 - 05/06/20 06:47 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kwyjibo said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
So you'll volunteer for the experiment?



Quote:

Enlil said:
You've got to be trolling at this point



:shrug:



I'll take that as a "No thanks, I don't want to give up my freedom of speech here".  :shrug:



I already understand the points being made here, banning me isn't going to change that. Maybe you should volunteer to be banned to help you understand things a little better.:shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #26653607 - 05/06/20 07:03 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
There’s an easy way to solve it: nationalize Facebook.



Just fund a national social media service.  There's no need to take one that's already privately owned.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
    #26653647 - 05/06/20 07:12 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

ShroomerInTheRye said:
He's got free speech confused with fascism.



Nah, he just really believes in his heart of heart that companies like youtube, Instagram, etc. should have a duty to be neutral relayers of information.  Because of this, he's willing to ignore the concept of "forced speech" or at least minimize it to some small evil when there really is no greater evil in the context of speech.



You must have missed where I said:

"I get that the host has freedom to delete content" and

"I agree that private entities have a right to delete whatever content they like" and

"the shroomery has a right to censor content" and

"I agree with you that you should be able to censor whatever speech you like on your own site" and

"People don't have a right to say what they want on every site"


Where I disagreed was where you said "private censorship is actually increasing freedom of speech".



Quote:

Enlil said:
He's arguing an "ends justify the means" way of getting large corporations to serve the public in a way he feels is beneficial while completely ignoring the underlying principles that make such an act completely antithetical to the very notion of a free society.



You must have missed where I said:

"Sure, it increases freedom for the private entity" and

"that's freedom for the shroomery" and

"allowing censorship increases the shroomery's freedom" and

"freedom does increase for the shroomery" and

"the shroomery's freedom increases"


Where I disagreed was where you said "private censorship is actually increasing freedom of speech".


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: MagicMush123] * 1
    #26653652 - 05/06/20 07:13 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

MagicMush123 said:
Whether you like it or not everything posted on Mark Zuckerberg's site is considered his speech to whoever ends up reading it.



If true, then I see your argument.  You're the first to put it that way.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26653669 - 05/06/20 07:16 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

I've said that at least a half a dozen times.  I've made it clear that when a site republishes your content, that is the site's speech.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
    #26653721 - 05/06/20 07:36 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

Not quite.  You said:


"when you make a post, you get to use your right to free speech" and

"when you post, you use your freedom" and

"When you post, that is YOU exercising your rights"


MagicMush123 basically said it was never your speech to begin with, it was Zuckerberg's.  In which case there's not a subtraction of free speech when Zuckerberg takes it down.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemeltdowner
Total Noob
Male


Registered: 09/06/17
Posts: 1,457
Loc: New York City
Last seen: 10 months, 17 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
    #26653732 - 05/06/20 07:45 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
I've said that at least a half a dozen times.  I've made it clear that when a site republishes your content, that is the site's speech.




This is absolute nonsense.  That's like saying my computer owns my free speech because all my typing goes through it.

Edit: Nm Enlil must be trolling.


--------------------
I'm a Lightweight.  I like to eat like two caps at a time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26653734 - 05/06/20 07:47 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

I also said:

Quote:

Enlil said:
If anyone wants to read your post, the Shroomery copies that post off of the hard drive and sends it to that person.  That's Shroomery's speech as well as yours. 




Quote:


Every time your post is sent to someone, Shroomery actively has to republish it.  That is speech. 




Quote:

(speaking of people distributing flyers written by Tony Alamo) The people doing that were using their first amendment right to free speech to distribute content written by Tony Alamo. 

That's no different from what this site does with your posts.  It distributes those posts as an expression of its right to free speech.




Quote:

Enlil said:
So, do you or do you not agree that Shroomery distributing your posts is an exercise of Shroomery's right to free speech?




Quote:

Enlil said:
I disagree, but look at it this way. your post, and 100 people read it,  shroomery just used its freedom of speech 100 times.




And many other things that made it clear that republishing your content is the site's speech.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Enlil]
    #26653746 - 05/06/20 07:52 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

Right, but you consistently ignored that removing my speach takes away from MY ability to speak freely.  I believe MagicMush is saying it was never mine to begin with (I don't know if that's true or not, but IF true, then I wouldn't be losing my ability to speak freely).


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26653754 - 05/06/20 07:55 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

It doesn't anymore than Pelosi ripping trumps speech took away his ability to speak freely. All I can delete is a copy of your post.  You still posted it.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomerInTheRye
Clit Commander
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 01/12/12
Posts: 13,038
Loc: Themyscira Flag
Re: The second amendment is not compatible with the Democratic party. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26653756 - 05/06/20 07:56 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

It doesn't though because the right of free speech is not afforded to you by a website.  It is afforded to you by the government.  You can't lose what you didn't have in the first place.


--------------------
:nyan: <-- Clicky Clicky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | Next > | Last >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Advice for the Democratic party Phred 2,315 15 11/08/04 06:00 AM
by Mushmonkey
* Just an email about the Democratic party Dont Read! Anonymous 612 2 04/22/03 02:35 PM
by hongomon
* Sen John Kerry statement=Fall of the democratic party
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 3,671 47 04/06/03 06:46 PM
by Anonymous
* Is the Democrat party dead?
( 1 2 all )
thieverycorp 2,524 39 11/07/06 11:45 PM
by Ravus
* An experiment for the Democratic party
( 1 2 all )
rommstein2001 2,120 30 11/08/03 01:57 PM
by Evolving
* A List of the Many Political Parties lonestar2004 1,211 0 08/25/05 01:57 PM
by lonestar2004
* How can anyone vote for a Democrat? luvdemshrooms 2,098 9 07/16/02 02:49 PM
by I_Fart_Blue
* Why Democrats are tagged as the party without values
( 1 2 all )
Great_Satan 2,170 23 12/18/04 10:41 PM
by Annapurna1

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
19,969 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.