You just gave it. :up:
More liberal censorship
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
For examples of left-wing bias in Wikipedia see http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
Facebook is the sum of its users who agree to its terms and conditions every time they use the site. There is zero censorship at work here. There is, however, a publicly traded company operating as its users implicitly agree to. If you don't like the shop, leave. I thought that's what Christian bakers were being lauded for.
:darwinsm:
Half the moron liberals can't agree with the other half. At least get your stories straight before you put them forward to be mocked. :up:
When corporations raise prices and cut their workers' jobs and wages, spoil the environment and duck regulations: that is freedom.
Privatization always results in higher prices and cutting corners. It is astonishing that people haven't realized this yet.
Oh, we're all for freedom. But freedom to do what ?
Nope. Companies are not free to harm the environment and ignore regulations.
You're inventing a straw man to beat up to avoid dealing with OP.
Privatization always results in lower prices and greater responsibility. It is astonishing that people haven't realized this yet.
Sounds like you're not for freedom. :think:
Then you haven't been paying attention. The economic concept of "free markets" is a myth.
I don't consider it a "straw man" argument to point out that ALL of us practice censorship. Asserting that it is only the province of a specific group or population is silly.
Accountability to the public interest should be the guiding light. Amd they will be found where competition and organizational mechanisms ensure that CEOs and managers do what we, the owners, want them to do.
In the past, whenever companies fail to take citizens or their shareholders into account, the government will have to step in.
That judgement is silly on the face of it.
That's what happens when you start ranting. People switch off.
Certainly, it doesn't exist. Of course, that is because liberals hate freedom.
Of course the straw man you presented was within the statement: "When corporations raise prices and cut their workers' jobs and wages, spoil the environment and duck regulations: that is freedom." Nothing to do with censorship.
Nope.
You want to own something? You build it. Otherwise, you're just a freeloader. Liberals love the idea of not having to work but still getting ownership.
Causing businesses to fail and others to fear starting out.
Given your words, it's perfectly accurate.
That's a good point. All of the people you lump together as "moron liberals" should, clearly, think alike and always agree. Why else would you lump them together? If they thought differently from each other, you might be forced to read what they say, and respond thoughtfully with actually arguments instead of just brushing it aside like so much dust.
So edit it. Add the balance you think is missing. Just do it from reliable sources.
Some of you guys really are bubble-dwellers.
Nope. When the obvious is pointed out, what we see from liberals is a cacophony of objections. What we don't see among the noise is a rational objection. They think enough noise makes the truth irrelevant. So, please: Put your heads together and decide whether there is a liberal agenda that generates censorship or not and approach the discussion in a rational manner. :up:
I'm not sure what you think "the obvious" is here. I largely agreed with Jefferson. I largely agree with Granite, too, when it comes down to it. Facebook has a right to control what content it publishes, but that control can fairly be called censorship, just as the moderation of this very forum is. It's just a fairly legitimate form of censorship. I see it as a problem that large companies control so much of the thought-space in social media platforms, despite the fact that it isn't the government doing the censoring. I would quibble with Granite's classification of the move as "not censorship", as the word doesn't necessarily imply government action. The solution seems to me to be some more distributed system than what currently exists, so that no one party is in the position of choosing to allow content or not.
If you violate house rules you don't get to cry foul, so, I can't honestly see how a case for "censorship" can be made here. That's like calling a bartender a teetotaler after he cuts you off.
It's like calling the bartender a hypocrite when he promises all you can drink and then cuts you off.
The house rules are a form of censorship. That doesn't make them illegitimate, but the term does apply.
I simply disagree. A coffee shop encouraging folks not to use foul language isn't "censoring," in my book. Nor is a library when it shushes a loud mouth. When someone comes in and takes a book off the shelf and prevents others from reading it? Yeah, different story.
How would YOU post a comment about the growing oligarchy and plutocracy of the corporate mindset (which presents a tone of censorship)without "ranting"?
Are you sure that's just one more of your judgments, which flies in the face of Jesus telling us not to judge?
How would you write a comment that took Jesus's preaching seriously when he said we cannot both worship God and mammon?
Yes, and conservatives hate freedom. What a superficial and ignorant notion.
It is only the authoritarian, obedience-based people and nations who have to censor, burn books and tamp down diversity and difference. That is corporate morality, the domination systems and the powers and principalities of our world.
Did the corporations build the highways they use? Or the police and fire protection they enjoy? Or how about the legal system that underwrites their contracts?
Freeloaders, eh?
How soon we forget the structural socialism of justice and peace the Jews built into their culture: care of the widows, the immigrants, the stranger and the orphan. Leaving a portion of each harvest for the destitute and the homeless. Overturning the debt obligation every so often. Mandating that all land would revert back to its original owners. Realizing that God's mercy knows no limits.
Like the neoliberal economists, you don't understand human nature at all. Humans are constantly "starting out" every day.
It's true. You cannot be a conspiracy nut without ranting. :chuckle:
More evidence that you have no idea what the Bible teaches.
As luck would have it, I'm a fundamentalist, not a conservative. And liberals do indeed hate liberty. Sounds ridiculous, but it's true.
:yawn:
Yes, via exorbitant taxation. Corporations get taxed on top of the taxes its executives get taxed. Governments tax everything that moves and a lot of things that don't.
What this creates is mega-corporations willing to buy into a government's game of taxation and coercion, while the little guy is locked out. Remember, it is the liberal agenda that holds sway, not the fundamentalist's notion of "necessary functions" of government. Your system has brought about everything you are ranting about, and your solution is to make the source of the problems a bigger influence.
We offer freedom from the burden of the myriad of regulations you would enforce. We offer liberty. You should consider it. :up:
Yep. Your words, remember?
What are you on about now? You want to install the governing system of the ancient Hebrews?
:darwinsm:
You're officially the stupidest poster on this site. :first:
American history teaches us that our citizens have a deep strain of anti-corporate DNA in our genes.
In 1773 in Boston Harbor, a group of colonists made a non-violent protest against the East India Tea Company, the closest thing to a global corporation at the time. The company was selling tea at a reduced price which was interfering with the colonists' own tea shops. Being small businessmen, they couldn't make a living any longer because of the "free market" practices.
No regulations. Uh, right. Imagine the sports that would result.
Imagine the deaths from botulism in corporate canned goods.
Think about the pollution of our water by companies who could care less about God, but care more about mammon.
The overwhelming majority of Jesus's teachings was about poverty.
I have seen over and over and over again at just how much Jesus actually disturbs you folks. When Meshak posted examples of Jesus's teachings about the rich and the poor, posters came down like a plague of locusts. And they made fun of her hat!
When I point out that Jesus never considered himself divine, the passages and verses I offer for proof are never really considered and seem not to register with folks at all.
Very curious.
And being a fundamentalist, I am trained to spot the ubiquitous logical fallacy that undergirds every argument from a liberal. The thing with a logical fallacy — the straw man fallacy, in this case — is that it renders everything else you say useless.
Fundamentalists do not uphold "no regulations." And if you had read what I wrote, you would not have assumed that I did.
Now you have to start over. Try better this time. :up:
Remember, it is your liberal agenda that has created the world we live in.