Part 2 of my discussion with someone who supports censorship and gun control, because he is a Google+ censor!
So the fellow who shocked me yesterday by supporting censorship turns out to be a Google censor! Here is the next part of our exchange:
Thanks for the response, but I will pretty much agree to disagree with every remark you made.
For starters, you stated these kids speak don't speak out against violence. There's plenty of proof they are and have been all along. If you want to live in denial of it then go right ahead.
There is plenty of proof? And yet you didn't provide any, those kids have not said shit about violence or wanting to do anything about it, they have only called for counterproductive gun control. The proof is that they don't give a shit about violence because they cried about wearing name tags to prevent violence didn't they?
You also stated they're speaking out against basic civil rights. My question is, says who? They aren't calling for a ban of the 2nd amendment, they're calling for gun reform, a huge difference.
Well we do have Stevens out there openly calling to do away with the second amendment but the kids are quite clear about going after basic civil rights, every proposal they have made restricts people's basic liberty. How is a 19 year old single mother supposed to defend her kids without a gun?
In regards to censorship, contrary to your claims, not all censorship is the result of one trying to silence their critics. I moderate on Google+, and while we aren't concerned with a difference in opinion, we are concerned with people purposely lying to deceive the public, as well as harassing other users, and not without cause.
Oh I see so Google knows what is true and what is not and gets to be the arbiter of truth? What about when google lies? by "deceiving the public" you mean "disagreeing with Google". Google is in no position to decide what is true or not nor should they be.
For one, its easy to confuse ideas (opinions) with statements of events (news), but both are not the same thing, though are often showcased together. A statement of events is not an opinion. I'm sorry, I just don't find it reasonable to assume that social platforms should tolerate people purposely misleading the public with flat out lies.
But that is OK when Google or CNN or the government does that right? The solution to "flat out lies" like the ones Google likes to propagate is the truth, that is how free speech is the solution, not censorship.
You stated, "if you are right then why would you ever have to worry about silencing someone who was incorrect?"
The answer is very simple, misinformation often has the potential to lead to real-world violence, as was the case with the junk Pizza Gate story that ended with an an innocent pizzaria owner having his restaurant shot up while his employees and guests were inside.
LOL so you blame that slightly damaged wall on free speech? If only someone had been censored that guy would not have went nuts?
Or in the case of Sandy Hook, in which people started sending death threats to the victims families.
If only a censor was there!! How foolish to blame lack of censorship.
Speaking of spreading falsehoods, how many Washington post articles have you banned? Oh right the WaPo spreading fake news is fine, that's their job.
Or in the case of the Las Vegas tragedy, in which a politically motivated fake news story spun by the disreputable Gateway Pundit cited an innocent man as being the shooter. The Pundit blamed Geary Danley for the shooting, and we all know it was Stephen Paddock, not Danley that was behind it.
We all know that? How? Where is the official report?
The pundit trid to delete the story, but archive.org still has it: http://web.archive.org/web/20171002094504/http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooter-reportedly-democrat-liked-rachel-maddow-moveon-org-associated-anti-trump-army/
Danley started receiving death threats as a result of the Pundits story.
How is that the fault of anyone besides those making threats?
The lady who harassed the Sandy Hook victims families, along with the shooter of the pizzaria are both in prison now, and Alex Jones got sued and lost over the Sandy Hook story.
Yup, threats and liable are not protected speech.
The point here, misinformation is often used as a tool manipulate public thinking, and as I just showed you, it can seriously negative consequences if its allowed to persist.
Thank God for the ministry of truth, misinformation like this?
what's more dangerous than any random asshole being allowed to say any damned thing they want is google deciding which one they think is right and silencing the rest.
In regards to your statement about freedom of speech:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to threaten and harass others, the law affords no one such a right.
That's a straw man, I am sure I didn't say it did.
Freedom of Speech is also a right afforded to citizens in a public place, or their own home. Social platforms are not a public space, although people often assume that they are. They are private platforms, and people should pay more attention to the disclosure agreements when they signup for these platforms. There is no right to freedom of speech on YouTube for example, but no one bothers to read the fine print.
I am sure I never said anything contrary to that, sounds like another straw man. In the future though we are going to have to regulate ISPs and certain sites as public accommodations. It does not make sense that you cannot refuse to serve people at your diner but you can refuse to serve them on your website.
Google makes it very clear they have the right to terminate anyone's account at any time, and for any reason.
Who said different?
If people want freedom of speech on the web, then they create their own website, social platform, etc.
Gosh I wonder if that is why we are chatting here and not on google.
Likewise, if there was no censorship on the web, then we'd be permitting thousands of spam posts full of junk ads, hate speech, harassment, and links to sites riddled with malware all over G+. Obviously we aren't going to tolerate that.
And you get to decide what constitutes hate speech right?
In regards to your statement regarding my being shot: "Why was I unable to shoot back?" So you're stating that people should have to carry a gun with them in order to walk to the store to buy ice cream?
No, it was not a statement at all, it was a question, why is it that you were unable to shoot back? You were unable to shoot back because you couldn't carry a gun legally if you wanted to because of gun control laws, without those laws you would be allowed to carry a gun, if the guy who shot you thought you had a gun would he have shot you? If all the good people in your neighborhood had guns would that guy even be alive to shoot you?
I'm sorry, but that's not only irrational, but unreasonable.
So your straw man was irrational and unreasonable?
Not everyone can afford a gun, and why should people have to live in fear just to walk to the store?
Maybe not everyone, but in America almost everyone can, you have a phone in your pocket that costs as much as a gun right now, don't you?
It seems like you are living in fear now, isn't that what is motivating you to want to disarm your law abiding countrymen? You reminded me of this old story:
A police officer stops an elderly lady for speeding, her asks for her driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. The little old lady gives him the information, along with a concealed pistol permit. Surprised, the officer asks her if she has a weapon on her presently. She tells him she has a .45 in her glovebox. The officer is impressed, and asks if she has any other firearms on her. The little old woman calmly lists the 9mm in her center console and the .38 special in her purse. Shocked, the officer asks her “What are you afraid of ma’am?” Without missing a beat, the woman calmly responds “Not a goddamn thing.”
You stated that anyone who cries about gun violence is out of touch with reality?
Yes, because by every measure it has been improving markedly for decades. Yet they believe that things are getting worse and/or worse than ever.
Tell that to the family's of all those dead kids in Florida.
So that is some sort of emotional appeal right? Why would my message be any different to them? Here is what I would ask them:
While you're at it please make the same statement to all the victims of the Las Vegas tragedy, as well as the Google employees who were shot at YouTube headquarters today.
ok, sorry stricken relatives but djdaniel2020 really wants to know
Apparently you don't visit St Louis MO much,
I'll cop to that, it's a shithole, why would anyone?
as gun related violence and murder are an almost daily occurrence here, and much of it does happen at the hands of legal gun owners.
There is loads of gun related violence and murder there, almost none of it perpetrated by legal gun owners. Why would you think that? You know who is shooting at each other, gang members, mostly under the age of 21 right? In other words they wouldn't be legal owners even if they didn't have criminal records because they are underage, right?
So let me get this right, you have drug gang members, who shoot at each other with illegal guns generally over illegal drugs or illegal drug turf, who make money selling illegal contraband that is smuggled in from other countries and you think more restrictions on legal guns is the solution? More restrictions on legal guns just gives the cartels and gangs a bigger black market in guns to profit from, you are just giving the cartels a new product to import and expanding the number of buyers.
If there were no restrictions on guns would there be any black market for them?
If you actually gave a shit about the people there you wouldn't waste one moment pushing gun control, you would spend every minute of advocacy calling for the end of the prohibition of drugs and be writing long rants to anyone calling for gun control or debating gun control instead of ending the prohibition of drugs that causes rampant slaughter in our inner cities.
In fact, the perpetrator of the Las Vegas tragedy legally purchased all of his guns. He had no real criminal history other than minor infractions that were non violent.
He also legally purchased a jet plane, he was a millionaire, Dianne Feinstein said "No law would have stopped the Las Vegas shooter" was she wrong? What if he crashed his jet plane into the crowd?
Also, Nikolas Cruz who shot all those students legally purchased his guns as well. So I'm not sure where your argument is going.
So doesn't that prove how foolish the background check system is? Let me get this right, you are from St Louis but you think if this kid could not have bought those guns legally he would not have been able to get a gun?
You are from St Louis but you don't know one person who could get you an illegal gun?
At this point its pretty obvious you're just denying the facts and preferring to believe what you like, rather than what's true and correct. Which is your choice to do so.
That sounds like projection again.
While I honestly thought your reply was very irrational, at least you were rational enough to carry on an argument while keeping your cool. Its obvious we have strong differences of opinion here, and that's fine too.
And for the record, no I wouldn't down vote your content over a simple disagreement, and I would agree people she be more respectful of others opinions than that. In fact, I up voted your content, despite my disagreement. I do respect that everyone should be entitled to their own opinion.
As long as you don't feel like it is "hate speech" right? ;) I appreciate your composure as well. Here is a good article I didn't write from a leftist source about what works and what does not work in terms of gun control policy from a scientific standpoint:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-full-transcript/
Honestly we need to ban cars trucks knives forks shovels tractors fire airplanes running swimming diving police armies old people babies then all our problems would be solved. Of course there would be no humans and nothing but animals left.
What can we ban to keep all the animals, fish from killing and eating each other?
Honestly 9/11 we should have banned airplanes!
War ban armies.
To stop all people from killing we have to ban people they can even kill with hands cant they?
So if banning something is the solution to everything then we just need to ban everything!
Why not ban birth. I mean it eventually leads to death. If nobody was alive, nobody would be killed. Wealth equality was solved by making everyone wealth-less. So if some SJW claims we need to ban birth, I won't be surprised.
If people really wanted to end school shootings so they never happened again they would ban schools.
I guess the bad part is only a few of us understand the reality of what the objective here is.
Wouldn't it be nice to some how UN-program these folks and install a new operating system that doesn't blindly follow the crowd?
I have many family members that will not allow you to tell them the truth.
One recently told me when I was talking about vault 7
I asked what about you son and if he has children you grandchildren. The answer was even more shocking.
And then five minutes later told me the story of how the insurance company tried to screw them and they fought for a few hundred dollars and won.
Bottom line is they have become so consumed with/by themselves they don't give a shit about the future or what happens to anyone or anything. I am completely baffled how they can not care about others or themselves.
That's what people really are. They have no identity. If you want to know what's wrong with the world, don't look at elites. They are just milking the opportunity. The kind of people you talked to are the true evil of the world. I realized this few years ago as a teenager. You can wake up someone who is sleeping. You can't wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep. Tell them too much truth and the first thing they'd attack would be you.
Actually when I think about it, that's what happened to Jesus.
Wow! Just wow!
Thanks for the link to this @vimukthi
The assumption that people think like I do makes me go on publishing the truth but this is just wow!!!
Do it for the people who don't realize that most people think like this. If a person is already saying "I have lived a good life I don't care what the government is doing if they kill me tomorrow that will be fine with me." I don't see a salvation for that person.
Agreed 100% @vimukthi
If not for all do it for your people! People like this anger me beyond words!
there are a fair amount of people who don't love themselves and if you don't love yourself you can't love anyone else. I wish he went to that freakonomics link but of course he didn't, I can tell from his next reply.
Amen!
That's why I vote for myself ;)
The next part is here
a shocking number of people are killed with hands and feet
It is astonishing to me that everyone seems to think that we can change the dynamic of our world. Those special snowflakes, I love them so much they are so soft and fuzzy. They believe that there is a new paradigm coming. And there is, but it is just a new twist on the same old paradigm.
The bottom line is this" You are the prey or you are the Predator!' There are no other options! You can not opt out unless you die.
With the ability to protect ourselves from those predators we can reduce the number of us that are eaten. If we remove our ability to fight back the number of us that are eaten will greatly increase. That applies to every living thing in our world. From Microbes to Man!
The old lady story was quite a giggle.
Most people believe their view is apparent, obvious.
And they insist that everyone else has that view.
It is obvious that without guns, there would be no school shootings.
But, that is just a cover for them not wanting to believe in people that would do harm.
I know people that, if their goal was destruction of a school, ALL the children and teachers would be dead. And it would be so much easier to do. And the likelihood of them getting caught would be minuscule.
Further, a gun would be impediment in achieving their goal.
And still, they never bring up the most killing weapon of all, the machete.
It appears that the censors are firmly in the camp that believes a fairy tale. That guns are the culprit. And they believe this because they haven't had any experience with a gun, so the gun is the mystical object (of DEATH).
There is no amount of logic that will ever get to them when they do not believe in violence by people, but do believe in violence by gun.
Exactly, mostly what keeps us safe is that most of the time people do their jobs and super crazy homicidal maniacs are not walking free and there are not that many such people to begin with. then sometimes people call the police and FBI on someone over 45 times and nothing is done and then they blame guns being legal for law abiding people when he goes on a spree in a gun free zone where people cannot carry guns. He does claim to have been shot before yet he wouldn't answer my question about whether the person who shot him was allowed guns.
This post has received a 1.69 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @funbobby51.
Curated for #informationwar (by @truthforce)
Relevance: Google Censorship
You just planted 0.49 tree(s)!
Thanks to @funbobby51
We have planted already 3633.02 trees
out of 1,000,000
Let's save and restore Abongphen Highland Forest
in Cameroonian village Kedjom-Keku!
Plant trees with @treeplanter and get paid for it!
My Steem Power = 18644.01
Thanks a lot!
@martin.mikes coordinator of @kedjom-keku