Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
... LastLast
  1. #221
    I am Murloc! shadowmouse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Dongbei, PRC ... for now
    Posts
    5,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo
    The obligations are specifically listed in the law itself.
    Sigh, laymen.

    There is no "law" in the sense you seem to want it. There are various state and federal laws that may apply, and those are further modified by applicable case law, and even those are not a sure thing because that's what lawyers get paid for ... to take all those things into account, take into account the judge they are appearing in front of, take a read on the jury and take that into account, and after all of that to make the best possible case for their client.
    With COVID-19 making its impact on our lives, I have decided that I shall hang in there for my remaining days, skip some meals, try to get children to experiment with making henna patterns on their skin, and plant some trees. You know -- live, fast, dye young, and leave a pretty copse. I feel like I may not have that quite right.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by breslin View Post
    Given that our friends on the left wing have made it clear that White Nationalism and Right Wing extremism is on the rise, do you think companies like AT&T and Verizon should do more to combat them? Why should we allow a hateful bigot to operate a mobile phone or have access to the internet? It seems like curtailing access to these would combat this massive problem.
    Any of the terrible communist dictatorships, past or present, would welcome your mentality. Congrats, you're terrible.

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Youtube, facebook, Twitter ect all however feed into the vast yawning chasm of data collection of the NSA. The idea that these apps aren't themselves appendages of the security state is pretty much laughable. They are hardly "Private" enterprises anymore.

    Moreover, if they are making editorial decisions about content, they are not "Platforms" in a traditional sense, but publishers instead.
    I have seen this argument pop up from such a large number of rightwingers lately that I'm really curious which conservative pundit dropped it off at the pool.

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by bungeebungee View Post
    Sigh, laymen.

    There is no "law" in the sense you seem to want it. There are various state and federal laws that may apply, and those are further modified by applicable case law, and even those are not a sure thing because that's what lawyers get paid for ... to take all those things into account, take into account the judge they are appearing in front of, take a read on the jury and take that into account, and after all of that to make the best possible case for their client.
    I know how things work, I'm simply pointing out that the entire narrative is bullshit, and not based on reality.

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You are dodging, because you know your stance is absurd.
    How is my stance of "no censorship" absurd?

    The fact that you refuse to address it directly makes my point for me.
    I really have no idea what you are talking about tbh, I don't know what the "it" is.

    See, you keep saying what those sites want to do,m when you specifically are saying you want to force them to not do what they want.
    You can't argue for a company to impede on my freedom to say what I want under the grounds of I'm impeding on them to do what they want lol.

    It's not about guilt tripping you, it's about proving you to be a hypocrite, which I just did.
    If you say so, still don't see it. As far as my understanding goes I could only be a hypocrite if I told someone not to say something or not to transmit something but as far as I'm aware I'm not doing any of that.

    This is the definition I'm working under



    So, if I say that no one should be able to censor what someone says then as long as I don't censor what someone says I'm not a hypocrite. So if I go on a no censorship crusade I can rally for businesses (websites) to not have the right to remove anything all I want because I'm not preventing them from saying/transmitting anything.
    Last edited by Drusin; 2019-06-15 at 02:31 PM.
    My Collection
    - Bring back my damn zoom distance/MoP Portals - I read OP minimum, 1st page maximum-make wow alt friendly again -Please post constructively(topkek) -Kill myself

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    Probably everybody right of center is a hateful bigot! Can't ban 150 million people.
    I'd like to see it happen too, actually. Accelerationism is the answer to modern degeneracy. Awaken more people to the totalitarian leftists and end their dreams of destroying the West in short order.
    Working on my next ban.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Drusin View Post
    How is my stance of "no censorship" absurd?


    I really have no idea what you are talking about tbh, I don't know what the "it" is.


    You can't argue for a company to impede on my freedom to say what I want under the grounds of I'm impeding on them to do what they want lol.



    If you say so, still don't see it. As far as my understanding goes I could only be a hypocrite if I told someone not to say something or not to transmit something but as far as I'm aware I'm not doing any of that.

    This is the definition I'm working under



    So, if I say that no one should be able to censor what someone says then as long as I don't censor what someone says I'm not a hypocrite. So if I go on a no censorship crusade I can rally for businesses (websites) to not have the right to remove anything all I want because I'm not preventing them from saying/transmitting anything.
    You are saying that anyone should be able to come into your home, and say whatever they want, and you would be legally required to let them, and couldn't kick them out.

    After all, if you did kick them out, that would be censorship.

    Yes, that is an absurd stance to take.

    Your opposition to freedom is what makes you a hypocrite.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You are saying that anyone should be able to come into your home
    I'll assume you mean someone I invited over and not some meth head breaking in

    and say whatever they want, and you would be legally required to let them
    I would anyways, no law needed

    and couldn't kick them out.
    I don't need a reason to tell someone to get out of my home but I get what you're saying.

    After all, if you did kick them out, that would be censorship.
    It would, luckily I don't care what people say. If they say something super outlandish I might be entertained and invite them back again

    Yes, that is an absurd stance to take.
    Maybe in a world where you need reasons to kick people out of your home lol.

    Your opposition to freedom is what makes you a hypocrite.
    Can't hide behind the freedom shield if you're trying to take others freedoms When you do that you make freedom eagle sad

    My Collection
    - Bring back my damn zoom distance/MoP Portals - I read OP minimum, 1st page maximum-make wow alt friendly again -Please post constructively(topkek) -Kill myself

  9. #229
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    TIL: Private businesses who "kick out" people for causing trouble are "publishers". That's some serious bottom-of-the-barrel shit right there.

  10. #230
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    TIL: Private businesses who "kick out" people for causing trouble are "publishers". That's some serious bottom-of-the-barrel shit right there.
    "If we just make up complete nonsense and never source any of it, there's gonna always be some people gullible enough to fall for it!"


  11. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You are saying that anyone should be able to come into your home, and say whatever they want, and you would be legally required to let them, and couldn't kick them out.

    After all, if you did kick them out, that would be censorship.

    Yes, that is an absurd stance to take.

    Your opposition to freedom is what makes you a hypocrite.
    This is a pretty funny argument coming from a guy that's vigorously in favor of open borders. Kicking someone out is evidently well within the rights of a corporation, but definitely not OK for a country. Any cognitive dissonance, or just a massive pile of "at least it's not the government"?

  12. #232
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    This is a pretty funny argument coming from a guy that's vigorously in favor of open borders. Kicking someone out is evidently well within the rights of a corporation, but definitely not OK for a country. Any cognitive dissonance, or just a massive pile of "at least it's not the government"?
    Are you seriously going to base an argument on a willful refusal to grasp the basic differences between the public and private spheres?


  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Are you seriously going to base an argument on a willful refusal to grasp the basic differences between the public and private spheres?
    When I'm talking to a guy that just abuts every argument with FREEDOM, yeah, I'm going to elide that difference. There's no actual principle at work here, just rationalization on how the desired conclusion was arrived at.

  14. #234
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    When I'm talking to a guy that just abuts every argument with FREEDOM, yeah, I'm going to elide that difference. There's no actual principle at work here, just rationalization on how the desired conclusion was arrived at.
    I mean, I'm not gonna defend Machismo's particular stance on things; we've butted heads in the past over stuff a fair bit.

    I'm just pointing out that the core of your last comment was rooted in "why do you apply different standards to public and private entities?", and that's a question with so many obvious answers that it's irksome to even ask.

    I can't recall if Machismo actually truly supports open borders or not; if he does, I wouldn't support that. But comparing that to letting private companies control access to their own services is rankly silly.


  15. #235
    I think so, yes.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I mean, I'm not gonna defend Machismo's particular stance on things; we've butted heads in the past over stuff a fair bit.

    I'm just pointing out that the core of your last comment was rooted in "why do you apply different standards to public and private entities?", and that's a question with so many obvious answers that it's irksome to even ask.

    I can't recall if Machismo actually truly supports open borders or not; if he does, I wouldn't support that. But comparing that to letting private companies control access to their own services is rankly silly.
    I think it's less "he believes in open borders" and more "he doesn't believe in borders."
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  17. #237
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    "If we just make up complete nonsense and never source any of it, there's gonna always be some people gullible enough to fall for it!"
    It's pretty commonplace, and from both sides. I just wonder sometimes who's more stupid, the people that come up with this shit or those who believe it.

  18. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by Drusin View Post
    I'll assume you mean someone I invited over and not some meth head breaking in


    I would anyways, no law needed


    I don't need a reason to tell someone to get out of my home but I get what you're saying.


    It would, luckily I don't care what people say. If they say something super outlandish I might be entertained and invite them back again


    Maybe in a world where you need reasons to kick people out of your home lol.


    Can't hide behind the freedom shield if you're trying to take others freedoms When you do that you make freedom eagle sad

    If you don't want everyone in, and want them to all say whatever you want, without any legal chance for you to stop them... then you are supporting censorship.

    Your hypocrisy is pitiful, and you just argued my point for me. And yes, I do realize that you have no idea that you are actually arguing against freedom.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    This is a pretty funny argument coming from a guy that's vigorously in favor of open borders. Kicking someone out is evidently well within the rights of a corporation, but definitely not OK for a country. Any cognitive dissonance, or just a massive pile of "at least it's not the government"?
    As I have said, I don't want borders to exist at all, as all property would be private property. There would be no borders, because people could let others onto their property, or not. It would be none of the government's business.

    Oh look at how consistent I am.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    As I have said, I don't want borders to exist at all, as all property would be private property. There would be no borders, because people could let others onto their property, or not. It would be none of the government's business.

    Oh look at how consistent I am.
    To be clear then, if a large group of citizens got together and declared that they were forming the Corporation of Texas rather than it being a state government, would you endorse that group's authority to enforce jurisdiction over who gets to live within the property of their corporation?

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    To be clear then, if a large group of citizens got together and declared that they were forming the Corporation of Texas rather than it being a state government, would you endorse that group's authority to enforce jurisdiction over who gets to live within the property of their corporation?
    Do they own all the land in Texas? If so, I don't give a shit what a private company wants to do, so long as they don't harm others. If they don't want to serve someone, fine.

    Of course, good luck getting 100% of the population of Texas on board with that.

    Or, to put it more simply, a company should be able to refuse service to whomever they like.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •