Posted on 02/15/2020 1:23:28 PM PST by Sam Gamgee
I will admit I like to go to Christian Post and some news sites via Facebook and I connect to friends and family there. I have to question their claim in Community of Standards.
"The goal of our Community Standards has always been to create a place for expression and give people a voice. This has not and will not change. Building community and bringing the world closer together depends on people’s ability to share diverse views, experiences, ideas and information. "
What a joke. Every time I discuss sodomy I end up suspended. I know the obvious response is to not discuss sodomy. But it that really what Facebook has gone to? First time I used the term tranny and got a 3 day ban. This time I said sodomites are notorious child molesters. Within a minute I got a 7 day ban. Can you not discuss sodomy on a Christian group?
The other thing is facebook encourages narcs. How petty and thin skinned do you have to be to go running to facebook to fight your battles for you? Makes me now get angry at my kids when they narc on each other.
They have a whole section that do not tolerate death threats and will sometimes call the police. THAT I know to be a bald face lie. A former muslim runs a group on facebook and he forwards his death threats to Facebook and they laughingly tell him they don't violate standards.
Zucker is such a lying sack of shite.
Should society be forced to accept LGBTQ ? Should society be forced to accept LGBTQ?
By no means although they are, as meaning punishing any who express opposition or lack of affirmation to homosexual relations (no simply to those who I.D. as homosexual), thus resulting in economic sanctions against them, and or character assassination. Resulting in homophobic persons and companies affirming homosexual relations out of fear of homosexual persecution.
Yet unlike race, color, ethnicity, height, etc., which do not equate to immoral behavior, homosexual relations is an issue of morality. If being of a certain religion meant affirming a practice that results in over 90% of new HIV cases among men 13–24 and over 80% overall [1] [2] among men (after almost 40 years[3] of trying to tame it), and or increasing cost to taxpayers to treat or prevent it,[4] [5] then it would hardly find protection, let along promotion.
God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) - and only condemned homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.
Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47
Footnotes
(/p>This was is still standing, which is somewhat surprising, though the original wording that I responded to was about "gay rights," not love:
How would you explain to your 5 year old son what gay love is ?
Originally Answered: How do I explain gay rights to my 5-year-old now that she has asked?
You could explain that it is partly kind of like some people who love certain kinds of vehicles that direct the gas nozzle to the exhaust pipe, despite the common negative health and shared financial costs of actually connecting the two*.
And that any and all those who disapprove it are to be automatically denigrated as motorphobic, and punished if they refuse to sell them gas for that express purpose, regardless of their actual motives.
For perspective you could ask him what the reaction should be if a consensual religious practice was the cause of HIV transmission in upon to 90% of cases among men 13 to 24, and in great numbers of cases was a cost shared by taxpayers for treatment or prevention, while those who were the cause of this transmission were among a group that constituted less than 5% of the total US population.
*Sodomy is the mode of transmission in over 80% of HIV cases, with the cost of treatment or prevention being shared by taxpayers.[1]
Yes, this sounds unkind, but the reality is.
God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified - and only condemned homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.
Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47
By the grace of God.
Ping
How about a ban forever.
Yeah. I know. But I got the boot.
If "private" owned companies that control huge amounts of public communications are forced to allow uncensored speech. Then you would have to accept Democrat Underground disruptors swamping FreeRepublic with their filth. All things are relative and you're damned by degrees.
Facebook : Zuckerberg :: Lifelog : CIA :: Shaping Society : Elite :: Control : God Complex
I don't consider p@rn to be "speech". I completely disagree with that Supreme Court decision declaring that it is. The intent of the first amendment was to protect the ability of people to criticize their government, it was not conceived to be used for something like p@rn.
But if we have to keep it in order to protect actual "speech", I can live with it. I've seen some discussion of the idea of using p@rn sites to carry gun videos or other videos banned by Youtube.
There are two aspects to this.
1. Is this idea actually constitutional?
2. Is the private censorship effect a real threat to the Republic even if it isn't addressed in the Constitution?
I think the answer to both questions is "yes." Clearly you think the answer to both questions is "no."
One of us needs to be convinced of what is actually true here.
"I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it."
Abraham Lincoln.
Invariably someone brings up "Free Republic."
Free Republic is a club. It is also not a significant carrier of public speech. It is a private club that isn't open to the public, and it very likely has less than 1 million users.
Also, you need to understand where this existing status quo is going to go if it is allowed to remain as it is. It's going to slowly move the entire nation into totalitarian socialism.
Allowing Google, Facebook, Twitter and other people to control public speech is an existential threat to the nation. If we let these existing conditions continue, we will lose our country.
That was the point of the law.
We may not like it but there it is.
Is this a bought law? Because it sounds like that is exactly what it is. It is a corrupt product of a corrupt swamp system where billionaires can operate around public interests to achieve their own goals.
It sucks to be the ‘butt’ of a joke. ‘Poking’ around where you shouldn’t I guess. No sense ‘plugging’ a hole that can’t be filled. Here today; gone Gamorrah. No brown nosing allowed.
So no discussion of sodomy? Then we can’t discuss what the DNC did to Sanders in the 2016 primaries.....darn.
I know I’m shadow-banned although they make me think I’m doing okay.
If it was bought it was bought by Prodigy.
Without this law FR wouldn't exist.
How would you quantify and limit the "significant carrier of public speech?" Just claiming a group is a club or is too small does not seem to be a practical exemption to an effort to stop censorship on social media platforms.
The Supreme Court used a very broad brush to end segregation. Enforcing Free Speech rights on fb and twtr seems like another dangerous slope for us with the chance of equal time provisions and the like. As in, be careful what you wish for.
Well duh. You missed it by one. Male, Female, and crazy.
Do you get a kick out of discussing sodomy?
Heard that Twitter is bad. Facebook actually says that immigrant status can be something that is protected from hate speech
Fair point
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.