Debate Island censors speech and edits contributions to the site, why?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Solution

Leave DebateIsland.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@JulesKorngold ;  Why should I leave the demons present alone?

jack

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

I have left this debate forum before due the censorship (with great joy to the attending atheists and communists on the site

Hello Rickey:

Two things. 

Number 1:  I'm a believer in the First Amendment, absolutely.  Therefore, I don't believe there are bad words - just hypocritical people.  Nonetheless, if you wanna get your words published, you gotta obey the rules..  Yeah, I know..  I don't like it either.

Still, I can't believe anybody thinks the word de*monic should be censored..

Number 2:  I'm one of the radical atheists on this site, and I don't want you to leave..  How can I prove you wrong, if you're not here? 

excon 

PS>  By the way, doesn't your side ban books??   If you want freedom for thee, you gotta give freedom to me.

PPS>  Ok, that was three things.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

The good thing is it's ai. I've realized changing a phrase or substituting words that get the same points across usually works. Also right before you post copy what you're going to say with your mouse. Sometimes going in and out of the site resets the ai and allows you post what you want to say. Lastly, use the copy icon when responding to someone instead of cut and pasting. The ai seems to like that better.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Thank you, much appreciated....

Putin

JulesKorngold said:

Leave DebateIsland.

I like that, it solves the problem once and for all. We could call it, the final solution? what do you think? I personally like the final solution, I think it's a great idea.

John_C_87

@jack

Number 1:  I'm a believer in the First Amendment, absolutely.

First Amendment

------------->    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof <-------------   ; or   -------------->     abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; <--------------   or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Jack, you really need to highlight what part gives you free speech. The first part of the self-evident truth is that Congress cannot make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof a religion without cost. This is to confirm the Declaration of Independence which states it is the act of men, and now women. What part takes away or limits the way we take and write when describing grievance is where I pointed out and highlighted. We cannot shorten a word to change the meaning. The 1st Amendment protects the exercise of a religion that is held without cost.

i'm not saying there are no United States Constitutional Rights written in the ratifide Sections inside the American Constitution for we the people speack, write, and other forms of expression of filed grivance 

     

John_C_87

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Contributes is a word that is commonly abridged by many people at liberty. This means they are self-governing. It should also be noted that the Declaration of Independence describes all forms of Government derived by the people. So, the 1st and 2nd Amendment are written for the people as is all the Bill of Rights.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@John_C_87 ; Okay....

Barnardot

@RickeyHoltsclaw well I bet that the Word Rickey is on the AI hot list of obseen words that alert the site so pretty soon any troll puppets with name will be kicked out.

just_sayin

jack said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

I have left this debate forum before due the censorship (with great joy to the attending atheists and communists on the site

Hello Rickey:

Two things. 

Number 1:  I'm a believer in the First Amendment, absolutely.  Therefore, I don't believe there are bad words - just hypocritical people.  Nonetheless, if you wanna get your words published, you gotta obey the rules..  Yeah, I know..  I don't like it either.

Still, I can't believe anybody thinks the word de*monic should be censored..

Number 2:  I'm one of the radical atheists on this site, and I don't want you to leave..  How can I prove you wrong, if you're not here? 

excon 

PS>  By the way, doesn't your side ban books??   If you want freedom for thee, you gotta give freedom to me.

PPS>  Ok, that was three things.

Oh @Jack

It never ceases to amaze me how leftists have such selective memories.  It was not long ago that leftstists banned 4 Dr Suess books for content they deemed insensitive.  Leftists sought to ban books such as Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird because of its use of the N word.  Last year leftists tried to ban books by Kirk Cameron and even tried to not allow him to read his children's book at public libraries.  Books by conservative authors like Ben Shapiro have been banned by leftist outlets and universities.  

Parents who don't want sexually explicit books in public grade schools are not evil like leftists are, Jack.  The most commonly sought to ban book, Gender Queer, has images of underage characters performing blow jobs and having anal sex.  Further, there is an image of a naked adult male holding the 'manhood' of a naked underage boy who is not yet a man.  What message is that sending do you think?

Now Jack, it seems to me that you are more than a little hypocritical on this issue.

jack

Oh @Jack

.. there is an image of a naked adult male holding the 'manhood' of a naked underage boy who is not yet a man.  What message is that sending do you think?

Hello just:

The message it sends, is that we're a FREE country. 

I dunno how you missed it, but I am a First Amendment absolutist.  Whether banned by the right or the left, information, by itself, is NOT harmful.  In fact, I support teaching EVERYTHING to EVERYBODY.  That way we don't have to dole out education..

I'm sticking with that.

excon

PS>  You may recall that I take the same approach to health care.  We ought to cover EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING.  That way, we don't have to dole it out. 

Simple stuff, really..

PPS>  If we didn't have to dole out education, and we didn't have to dole out health care, maybe we could get on with fixing the world..  Just_sayin.

just_sayin

just_sayin said:

jack said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

I have left this debate forum before due the censorship (with great joy to the attending atheists and communists on the site

Hello Rickey:

Two things. 

Number 1:  I'm a believer in the First Amendment, absolutely.  Therefore, I don't believe there are bad words - just hypocritical people.  Nonetheless, if you wanna get your words published, you gotta obey the rules..  Yeah, I know..  I don't like it either.

Still, I can't believe anybody thinks the word de*monic should be censored..

Number 2:  I'm one of the radical atheists on this site, and I don't want you to leave..  How can I prove you wrong, if you're not here? 

excon 

PS>  By the way, doesn't your side ban books??   If you want freedom for thee, you gotta give freedom to me.

PPS>  Ok, that was three things.

Oh @Jack

It never ceases to amaze me how leftists have such selective memories.  It was not long ago that leftstists banned 4 Dr Suess books for content they deemed insensitive.  Leftists sought to ban books such as Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird because of its use of the N word.  Last year leftists tried to ban books by Kirk Cameron and even tried to not allow him to read his children's book at public libraries.  Books by conservative authors like Ben Shapiro have been banned by leftist outlets and universities.  

Parents who don't want sexually explicit books in public grade schools are not evil like leftists are, Jack.  The most commonly sought to ban book, Gender Queer, has images of underage characters performing blow jobs and having anal sex.  Further, there is an image of a naked adult male holding the 'manhood' of a naked underage boy who is not yet a man.  What message is that sending do you think?

Now Jack, it seems to me that you are more than a little hypocritical on this issue.

Jack, I wish I could give you a megaphone.  I love it when leftists aren't afraid to defend their anti-parent/pro-pedophile agenda. Now if the discussion is just about book banning, then most people would agree with you, but when people are told the sexually explicit content of books like Gender Queer and Lawn Boy, then 93 percent of people agree that the books should not be in public schools.  I wish I could post the images from the books and let people see for themselves the pro-pedophile images and messages you think should be available to minors.  Unfortunately, the AI is not allowing me to do so.  I suspect it is because of the descriptions of the images I referenced earlier.  It is only on this thread, as the image URL is working on other threads for me.  Ironic isn't it Jack.  That I'm being censored for trying to let people see what you think public school students should be exposed to.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;That I'm being censored for trying to let people see what you think public school students should be exposed to.  

Which is a bit rich coming from some one who habitually quotes from spam web sites and posts articles that have been doctored by AI sites that close down and re surface on another site. There’s no accounting for dishonesty is there?

jack

just_sayin said:

Jack, I wish I could give you a megaphone.  I love it when leftists aren't afraid to defend their anti-parent/pro-pedophile agenda.

Hello again, j:

What you call an agenda, I call freedom.  Yeah, it's messy..  Get over it..

excon

just_sayin

jack said:

just_sayin said:

Jack, I wish I could give you a megaphone.  I love it when leftists aren't afraid to defend their anti-parent/pro-pedophile agenda.

Hello again, j:

What you call an agenda, I call freedom.  Yeah, it's messy..  Get over it..

excon

Jack,  again, I think your side loses the debate if the images and descriptions that parents find objectionable are made known to people publicly - unfortunately news websites can't show the images because it violates their policy on child sexual exploitive images.  That alone should tell you something.  I get you have taken a libertarian position.  I tend to be very libertarian in my views.  But when I see images of naked men holding the 'manhood' of naked boys and the text of the book describes this in a positive light, I think that someone is pushing an agenda on children that is pro-pedophile.  I don't think that's appropriate. 

Now, if you finally published your book on the things you found in your prison wallet, I wouldn't personally read it, but as long as it is not targeted to children, I'd support your right to have it out there.  I hold that position, not because I would agree with the choices you've made about the things you've placed in your prison wallet, but because I want to have the right to have messages I support disseminated in the public domain too.  However, I think there should be screening of resources available to minors.  You would support people with a pro-pedophile agenda having access to minors in public schools and sharing sexually explicit images.  On that we disagree.

jack

just_sayin said:

You would support people with a pro-pedophile agenda having access to minors in public schools and sharing sexually explicit images.  On that we disagree.

Hello again, just:

Uhhh, no..  Words count..  In this great country of ours, you're FREE to depict pedophilia.  You're NOT free to DO pedophilia.   Again, DEPICT vs DO..  They ain't the same thing.   I dunno what's so hard to understand.

Lemme ask you this..  Your cohort, Bogan, thinks shoot 'em up movies should be banned because people who see them will be compelled to act them out.  Yeah, it's bonkers, I know.  But, do you believe that people who LEARN about pedophilia in a book, are compelled to rape a child??

Du*de.

Look..  While I don't consume pedophile material myself, in a FREE country, I support a persons right to CONSUME it if he so chooses..  Fact is, in a FREE country, people are gonna do things I don't like.  I got over it. 

excon

RickeyHoltsclaw

jack said:

just_sayin said:

You would support people with a pro-pedophile agenda having access to minors in public schools and sharing sexually explicit images.  On that we disagree.

Hello again, just:

Uhhh, no..  Words count..  In this great country of ours, you're FREE to depict pedophilia.  You're NOT free to DO pedophilia.   Again, DEPICT vs DO..  They ain't the same thing.   I dunno what's so hard to understand.

Lemme ask you this..  Your cohort, Bogan, thinks shoot 'em up movies should be banned because people who see them will be compelled to act them out.  Yeah, it's bonkers, I know.  But, do you believe that people who LEARN about pedophilia in a book, are compelled to rape a child??

Du*de.

Look..  While I don't consume pedophile material myself, in a FREE country, I support a persons right to CONSUME it if he so chooses..  Fact is, in a FREE country, people are gonna do things I don't like.  I got over it. 

excon

"Freedom" is NOT the absence of all moral restraint. A "free" Nation cannot be sustained unless sustainable mores, norms, values, are honored and practiced among the majority. Pedophilia is the root of the demonic, it is NOT a sustainable behavior and directly attacks the safety of our children and the sustainability of the family unit. The mind that consumes pedophilia oriented material is morally and ethically sick and should be separated from the whole as a dangerous and unsustainable entity. Accepting this immoral behavior under the auspices of "freedom" corrupts a people and their standing before our Creator who takes a special offense to those who abuse the most innocent.

1 Jesus said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 2It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.…  Luke 17:1

jack

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Accepting this immoral behavior under the auspices of "freedom" corrupts a people and their standing before our Creator who takes a special offense to those who abuse the most innocent.

Hello again, Rickey:

Reading about pedophilia in a book, does not require the reader to abuse a child.. 

excon

RickeyHoltsclaw

jack said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Accepting this immoral behavior under the auspices of "freedom" corrupts a people and their standing before our Creator who takes a special offense to those who abuse the most innocent.

Hello again, Rickey:

Reading about pedophilia in a book, does not require the reader to abuse a child.. 

excon

I have attempted twice to respond but AI will not permit it...I am censored.

John_C_87

@jack

While I don't consume pedophile material myself, in a FREE country, I support a persons right to CONSUME it if he so chooses..

So, the principle you are trying to hold without cost to the people as a United State is a liberty of choice. Then the very 1st thing you say as a witness however is the choice does not have a United State with you. America is free due to the separation from British law, we have criminal law and we have United States Constitutional Right which can be held equal to criminal law.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@John_C_87 ; @jack ; Please remember that "freedom" is NOT the absence of all moral restraint nor does "freedom" give one the "right" to attack or disregard sustainable norms, mores, values, essential to the sustainability of America's Constitutional Republic; therefore, internalizing pedophilia material for the purposes of aberrant consumption is prima fascia WRONG and immoral conduct as said consumption possesses the very real potential of inciting physiological behaviors that endanger our most innocent. It is wise and prudent on the part of Governmental overseers to monitor and label suspicious those who consume such material.  

just_sayin

jack said:

just_sayin said:

You would support people with a pro-pedophile agenda having access to minors in public schools and sharing sexually explicit images.  On that we disagree.

Hello again, just:

Uhhh, no..  Words count..  In this great country of ours, you're FREE to depict pedophilia.  You're NOT free to DO pedophilia.   Again, DEPICT vs DO..  They ain't the same thing.   I dunno what's so hard to understand.

Lemme ask you this..  Your cohort, Bogan, thinks shoot 'em up movies should be banned because people who see them will be compelled to act them out.  Yeah, it's bonkers, I know.  But, do you believe that people who LEARN about pedophilia in a book, are compelled to rape a child??

Du*de.

Look..  While I don't consume pedophile material myself, in a FREE country, I support a persons right to CONSUME it if he so chooses..  Fact is, in a FREE country, people are gonna do things I don't like.  I got over it. 

excon

Jack, now if you want to depict the things that get put in your prison wallet for adults - then let that be between you and God.  But if you think its OK to depict putting things in minor's prison wallets or showing them what you put in minor's prison wallets, then that isn't OK.  Kids do not have agency for this.  Further, depicting this for minors is not only inappropriate but harmful to them.  If they see pedophilia as good or even just benign, then they will be more susceptible to it.  I am confident that you believe the pedophilia that you think is OK is good and holy pedophilia, but it just isn't.  

Bogie, isn't an enemy of mine, but I'm not sure he would not appreciate being called my cohort.  We agree on some things, and disagree on others.  Like I'm sure I agree some with you, but not on pedophilia, and disagree on other things.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@RickeyHoltsclaw ; DebateIsland is apparently PC and very controversial subjects such as LGBTQ is censored by AI.