Why do so many want to FORCE their view on people every single chance they get. Many of us just want to be left alone and are getting pissed at the loud mouths on every side.
15 Likes
^^ this one gets it ^^
2 Likes
If you donāt believe exactly what I believe it challenges my world view and thatās not acceptable.
3 Likes
gonna be a good one, been typing a whileā¦
We have the 1st Amendment in the united States of America. Iāll give you this is a private forum. Does that matter in maritime jurisdiction? Nope, they will still use whatever you say here against you. It is technically private but they will use it publicly. Itās one of those legalese things.
Itās for this reason that the police are able to respond to threats by the wayā¦if everything was āprivateā they could not interfere.
I hear you. I donāt ever try to force my views on people. I might challenge people as an opportunity to grow but I donāt want to push people away.
Let me ask you this; with what I have typed am I one of those loud mouths that you just want to ignore?
ah, i got it. you misunderstand the difference between public and private as it is used here. public means that the us govt has control over it, as in āpublic domainā, meaning it belongs to everyone in that sense. private means controlled by not the govt, or private individuals, corporations, etc., or this private forum. that is different than when you use them like āout in publicā or āin the privacy of my homeā, which very much means what you think it does. that is why privacy has been disputed with drone overflights in the backyard. some folks think they should be allowed to sunbathe nude without being filmed, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you step outside your home, regardless of how high the walls are. the faa, aka us govt, controls the airspace in the us, so there is no expectation of privacy from being viewed unless you erect a physical barrier. kind of takes away the benefit of sunbathing with a net or screen blocking you from view though.
edit: better example of public is public school.
3 Likes
Ah yeahā¦ unfortunately text does have the misfortunate ability to not transfer certain things. I understand where youāre coming from in terms of public vs private.
Pretty funny thatās another one of those āpolarizingā topics we could discuss; and probably the most important one of all.
1 Like
not really, as there is no anger or anyone flagging the post. it is not divisive, but explanatory in this case. of course some could stretch it and rightly so, technically, although the spirit of the rule has been upheld allowing the comment to stand. that is the argument i see about how some āpoliticalā things stand while others donāt. at least my perspective on it.
Even out in public. The GOVERNMENT canāt infringe on your speech, but everyone else can heckle, shun, ignore, etc. . . . or ya know kick ya out of places.
Youāre not āfree from consequenceā talking to some other person. Iām not talking physical (i dunno if someone might take it like that).
3 Likes
I think the issue at hand here is that the censorship that created this thread was not divisive, derogatory or otherwise polarizing. Information was posted to explain, but before anyone even had a chance to discuss the findings, the thread was shut down (censored).
Generally I would agree with you that most messages that donāt offend someone will stand, but this isnāt the case here. This is why this is a big issue for some of us. The topic never got to be discussed because it directly opposed the viewpoints of one or several moderators/admin.
Thereās no remedy except to leave.
3 Likes
I disagree. To me the initial off topic post was divisive along with replies from the OP and other users.
Thatās the thing though. If youāre talking āthe findingsā as in the content that was posted. . . well thatās divisive.
1 Like
You want the argument to pan out then see if it is? So itās based on whoās judgement of when itās enough? Because the first post was enough for me to yeet outta there.
3 Likes
I have tons of opinions to throw out. Honestly, there is no real thinking or research behind them.
But Iām vain, offensiveā¦ Maybe that qualifies me as a free speech exerciser. Who knows, maybe Iām champion material.
Fantastic! Can you explain to me how it was divisive? I donāt feel that way. Thereās only 3 or 4 posts in the thread that was shut down. What was so divisive about it??
We can discuss the āfindingsā as truth because theyāre not. Theyāre media made by someoneā¦ I donāt buy into chem trails because I havenāt seen enough proof. Would I be interested in discussing it? Yep I sure would. I donāt get that chance now unless I leave. This is the danger of censorship. I must leave in order to speak freely.
Well if this an argument then I will respectfully leave. Iām not here to argue Iām here to discuss. When is enough, enough? Who knowsā¦ thatās why we have forums so we can discuss things endlesslyā¦ 
3 Likes
115 people in like less than a full day agree with what they did.
1 Like
Iām not about to be divisive and argue what was attempted to be argued over there. Nice try though. A for effort.
1 Like
Thanks for that bit of info. So the minority was purged for not thinking like the majority. Got it.
Iām not trying to argue with you. ^^
1 Like
This was in reference to your idea that the discussion should have panned out about chemtrails.
1 Like
Thatās how society works. Again, only the government can infringe your freedom of speech.
You realize Iām not even talking about the subject of the post just that it was divisive right? Even if it was a post talking about how crazy people are that believe in chem trails.
3 Likes
