A Plea For Decency

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by SubTruth

 

Not to be picky or anything....but fascists typically don't tend towards the left end. Fascism tends to be very right leaning.

Having said that, any political mind can exert socio-economic pressure on the populace.

A simple way to look at a political spectrum is control...LAWS. At the far right is no laws or no control and that is ANARCHY. At the far left is complete control or more laws and that is Fascism.




The reality all forms of rule are Oligarchies from Fascism to Communism. That is why our founding fathers did not really want a true Democracy and went with a Republic ruled by law.




So Fascism is the far left. Hitler often talked about the early American progressive movement which was far to the left. People like to re-write history. I know the truth. Don't believe me study it for yourself.

Again, thanks for all of the above replies, your contributions are valued - even yours PrplHrt, whose comment I didn't get to read

Thanks in advance for any other members that may express their thoughts... and thanks RedBird for the link

To add some perspective/context, I'm Australian from a family with a military background, have no political leanings whatsoever and until recently held a CE&H category weapons licence.

Anyhow, this isn't about me nor is it about censorship... it is about an opportunity to demonstrate respect for lives tragically lost and those still grieving and in mourning.

reply to post by Perhaps


If anything it is about freedom.

Normal people have respect and feel emotion. Normal people care.

My father was red beret. I believe we all have a voice and we have a right to express our beliefs.

Happy new year.

Oh the irony, Oh the ignorance!

This site has forbidden talk on certain subjects for certain reasons in the past. Namely, this:

16e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities, specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking, promoting criminal hate, discussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material. Any Post mentioning or advocating personal use of illicit mind-altering drugs will result in immediate account termination.

i) Narcotics and illicit mind-altering substances: Due to abuse of the subject matter by some (promoting various aspects of personal use, and discussing actual personal use), no new topics on this subject are allowed in any form.

So saying ATS should be completely open to freedom of discussion of any subject is a mute opinion.

The subject matter in the "Weapons & Tactics" forum is far more destructive than the ones I reference above and should be seen as a priority for omission on this site.

But with so many U.S. members screaming "FREEDOM", it won't happen.

Nice try.

reply to post by Perhaps




Totally agree OP.


Sadly ATS picks and chooses what it deems to be illegal activity.


Discussing Murder, Violence and all manner of crimes is perfectly fine (even though they're illegal) but other subjects are not allowed.


People can discuss their killing machines and penis extensions until the cows come home...


FREEDOM!!! Boorah!!





Deny Ignorance indeed....

This thread is a perfect example of why I prefer to remain armed. As we can see here, there are many with notions that THEY know what is best for us to discuss. That the topics we wish to talk about are so threatening (as words) that they must be censored. For the children, of course.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
This thread is a perfect example of why I prefer to remain armed. As we can see here, there are many with notions that THEY know what is best for us to discuss. That the topics we wish to talk about are so threatening (as words) that they must be censored. For the children, of course.

And your post is the reason I would like to see a LOT of disarming happen. People grabbing hold of their guns because of someone on the internet wanting a private website to change a practice is SOMEHOW worth defending with the veiled threat of violence.

Seems perfectly legit.

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
This thread is a perfect example of why I prefer to remain armed. As we can see here, there are many with notions that THEY know what is best for us to discuss. That the topics we wish to talk about are so threatening (as words) that they must be censored. For the children, of course.

And your post is the reason I would like to see a LOT of disarming happen. People grabbing hold of their guns because of someone on the internet wanting a private website to change a practice is SOMEHOW worth defending with the veiled threat of violence.

Seems perfectly legit.

I didn't grab hold of a gun. Your use of exaggerated hyperbole is noted.

And it isn't because of "someone on the internet". Rather, it is (rightfully) a warning that I will only allow my rights to be eroded to a certain degree. No threat.

"Rights" are only yours so long as you retain them. I am willing to retain my rights.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I didn't grab hold of a gun. Your use of exaggerated hyperbole is noted.

And it isn't because of "someone on the internet". Rather, it is (rightfully) a warning that I will only allow my rights to be eroded to a certain degree. No threat.

"Rights" are only yours so long as you retain them. I am willing to retain my rights.

Hyperbole? Did you not spell it out cleanly?

This thread is a perfect example of why I prefer to remain armed.

No exaggeration. You want to keep yourself armed because of what is being talked about on a website. Armed to me implied carrying a gun. You want to remain ARMED. Carrying a gun. So, maybe you didn't grab for a gun, maybe you just clutched it a little tighter.. or at LEAST patted it on your lap, eh? (See, THAT was hyperbole.)

This thread isn't about eroding your rights, friend. This thread is about what can/cannot be discussed as a private forum.

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I didn't grab hold of a gun. Your use of exaggerated hyperbole is noted.

And it isn't because of "someone on the internet". Rather, it is (rightfully) a warning that I will only allow my rights to be eroded to a certain degree. No threat.

"Rights" are only yours so long as you retain them. I am willing to retain my rights.

Hyperbole? Did you not spell it out cleanly?

This thread is a perfect example of why I prefer to remain armed.

No exaggeration. You want to keep yourself armed because of what is being talked about on a website. Armed to me implied carrying a gun. You want to remain ARMED. Carrying a gun. So, maybe you didn't grab for a gun, maybe you just clutched it a little tighter.. or at LEAST patted it on your lap, eh? (See, THAT was hyperbole.)

This thread isn't about eroding your rights, friend. This thread is about what can/cannot be discussed as a private forum.

edit on 29-12-2012 by DoYouEvenLift because: (no reason given)

I get the feeling you are purposefully mismanaging comprehension to fuel an argument.

Let me spell it out cleanly for you this time, just so we can future proof any desire you may have to further mismanage comprehension:

This thread is an EXAMPLE of a reason. It is not THE example, it is not A reason, nor is it THE reason. It is AN example.

I keep arms either at home, or in my truck. I carry large amounts of cash and feel better having protection while I am making bank runs (daily) for the business.

This thread is about eroding rights. 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable that discussion on various gun models would be stifled because of a shooting. In the last 50 years, our rights have been eroded to a point where people think it is a logical next step that, because someone may or may not be offended about a discussion, that the discussion should be removed.

In the part of the world I live in, we are far away from cities. Our culture is nothing even remotely close to the larger cities, Europe, or Australia. When you are dealing with a multicultural environment like various websites something to consider is that if you start limiting what people can do in the name of protecting the cultural sensitivities of one group, you end up stifling the cultural sensitivities of another group. In short, your desire to curtail certain aspects of forum speech to address your own cultural sensitivities is, itself, offensive to my own cultural sensitivities.

Perhaps, then, the best bet is to ask folks to grow thicker skin, use some common sense, and try to understand the cultures that you so obviously don't.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I get the feeling you are purposefully mismanaging comprehension to fuel an argument.

Let me spell it out cleanly for you this time, just so we can future proof any desire you may have to further mismanage comprehension:

This thread is an EXAMPLE of a reason. It is not THE example, it is not A reason, nor is it THE reason. It is AN example.

I keep arms either at home, or in my truck. I carry large amounts of cash and feel better having protection while I am making bank runs (daily) for the business.

This thread is about eroding rights.

This thread is about ending discussion on a privately owned website. What rights are being eroded?

The First Amendment is squarely on the side of the website being able to dictate what it allows to be published under it's banner. Even if what they are discussing is changing the Constitution, which they aren't. This is what this boils down to, an issue of First Amendment rights.

50 years ago it would have been unthinkable that discussion on various gun models would be stifled because of a shooting. In the last 50 years, our rights have been eroded to a point where people think it is a logical next step that, because someone may or may not be offended about a discussion, that the discussion should be removed.

Not to get into the logic of the claim that this happened because of a single shooting, but this type of thing DID happen before. Come on, man. Gun control discussions were HUGE in the 60s. It is actually when modern gun control got its first big push. People protested not only private ownership of guns, but also the military's use of guns on public land against the citizenry.

In the part of the world I live in, we are far away from cities. Our culture is nothing even remotely close to the larger cities, Europe, or Australia. When you are dealing with a multicultural environment like various websites something to consider is that if you start limiting what people can do in the name of protecting the cultural sensitivities of one group, you end up stifling the cultural sensitivities of another group. In short, your desire to curtail certain aspects of forum speech to address your own cultural sensitivities is, itself, offensive to my own cultural sensitivities.

Actually, what one has to consider is that by becoming part of an online community, you are creating a new culture, a culture specific to this website. If you are offended, threatened, or resistant to the way your online community is behaving, the rational response is discourse, not making veiled threats about people exercising THEIR rights (First Amendment) making you feel threatened enough to exercise YOUR rights (Second Amendment).

You don't even see that you are stifling the First Amendment by telling other people what they should or shouldn't censor on a private forum.

Perhaps, then, the best bet is to ask folks to grow thicker skin, use some common sense, and try to understand the cultures that you so obviously don't.

With all due respect, sir, this is talk about limiting chat on a forum. We are not talking about coming to your house and arresting you for liking guns. See the very subtle difference?

Aside from that, who do you think you are to tell me that I have no idea about your culture? Do you know me? Do you know my background? Do you know that I have fired more guns than at LEAST 98% of the world? Do you know that I have both lived in and traveled extensively through Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Baja California?

No, you don't. You didn't care, you still don't. Because it doesn't matter. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that I don't agree with you because I don't understand you. That isn't the case. I understand you perfectly. You are just incorrect.

reply to post by DoYouEvenLift


The thread may have been intended as such. But my comments were made regarding the flow of conversation.

In short, the goal posts move frequently. Don't count on them too much.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift

 

In short, the goal posts move frequently. Don't count on them too much.

As you have made me all too aware, friend.

Originally posted by Perhaps


Anyhow, this isn't about me nor is it about censorship... it is about an opportunity to demonstrate respect for lives tragically lost and those still grieving and in mourning.

edit on 28-12-2012 by Perhaps because: doh

The way to respect the lives lost and those still grieving is to find out exactly what happened. This case reeks of conspiracy with the multiple disconnects in the official story, sloppy law enforcement, and the attempt to censor those seeking answers from discussing what they have found that might disturb some sensibilities.

" God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please - you can never have both. " ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

reply to post by DoYouEvenLift


I would also point out that the belief that I am incorrect, simply because I disagree with you, might be indicative of a person who would want to re-evaluate either that belief, or the way it is communicated.

I will be incorrect, though. I am used to it.

ETA: also, to point out, I am not telling anyone what they can put on a private forum. Only telling the members that I disagree with them trying to change the policies of this forum, in this instance.