YouTube censorship

[Yorzhik]

No, but they took land by slaying enemies, man woman and child and without that opportunity.

So are you claiming that the Jews have a blanket command, like muslims do (by their holy books and example of Muhammad), to treat apostates and unbelievers in a sub-human way?

Either you or most of Islam doesn't understand something about Islam, because that's just not how it has worked under actual Islamic control outside of a sliver of rabid and largely rejected extremists. I'm going to bet against you on that.

That almost sounds reasonable, but then it really sounds like stepping over a point because it's not aligned with the picture you mean to paint. Again, Muslims are largely opposing the fanatics you seem determined to paint as the rule. But the opposition by Islam to them speaks against your efforts.

A point utterly undone by the absence of those efforts within any of the nations opposing ISIS.

What particularly do you find in the difference between Christian and Muslim that most offends you? With me its the inherent contempt and the inequality before the law. Contrary to your best efforts, I'm not defending or complimenting the Moors. I'm simply noting that when they were in control of a great number of Jews and Christians they didn't convert them or kill them. That as with most Muslims most places over most of history, your representation of what Islam has to be and how it has to behave is contradicted by the actual. That was my only point in using this example as a rebuttal.

You can keep saying that but it only makes you look silly. Nothing in what I wrote says that about the historical treatment.

Hyperbole to make your point is reasonable. To mischaracterize someone else's position is simply dishonest, past a point. If you find that rhetorically acceptable I can't stop you, but I'll be obliged to stop the conversation and point out that what you just said isn't an honest reflection of what I actually wrote. Seems a silly way to waste time you keep insisting you're short on, but that's people for you.

That would be an inaccurate stretch, but more than a great stone's throw from taking this:

"Islam once controlled a great deal of southern Europe and the Christians and Jews living there were not killed or converted."

And claiming I equated it with a "paradise". lain:

The first is a questionable exaggeration. The second is distorted to the point of bearing no rational relationship. That or you have a grotesque definition of what constitutes a paradise.

Neither statement is true, but it's part of the problem with ungrounded rhetoric. At some point it will lead you into a position at odds with any factual support.[/quote]
And you completely missed the point. The OP is about censorship. YouTube (and FB and Twitter) are biased against people on the right. It is because as those social sites think in their heart, so they are. This is played out more dramatically with muslims because they are raised to have in their hearts that apostates and unbelievers are to be treated poorly. Whether it be murder, enslavement, or merely inequity before the law doesn't matter. All include censorship. And all include death - although only one directly.

BTW, mention again how muslims fighting each other means that one side is good and the other is bad.

I'd say a man who only argues in generalities and will not grapple with the plain facts lacks faith in his principles in application.

But since I grapple with the plain facts, your response would be at best a non-response.

Glad to see you didn't indulge in the fallacy of trying to use a specific to counter a generality.

I wrote: I don't really. I'd say that every right winger is a conservative, but not every conservative is a right winger.

See, to my mind you just decided to write your own dictionary. That's not the popular usage, so while I'm sure you can define a thing until it fits you it's no way to communicate between parties.

• a : an adherent or advocate of political conservatismb capitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party
• 2a : one who adheres to traditional methods or viewsb : a cautious or discreet person

Now within the expression of conservative philosophy are a number of camps.

In expressing what is meant by the popular phrase Right Wing, Merriam sets out: "[FONT=&]the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies [/FONT][FONT=&]:[/FONT][FONT=&] the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right"[/FONT]

Or, conservative and Right Wing are largely interchangeable terms, though distinctions between moderate and right wing conservatives tend to be made relating to a hard line on application of their general principles.

Conservatives resist progressive changes, side typically with institutions and in the preservation of prevailing traditions. The social order of the day was founded in slavery. The Klan rapidly became the face of preserving as much of that defeated institution and the social order it fed. Progressive notions defeated slavery, abolishing the status quo that had been affirmed by the last word in Constitutional interpretation, the S. Ct.

Then the alternative offered by the opposing side, conservatives, would have to be demonstrably worse or we're right back to stupidity. Either way you have a problem. But mostly you have a problem because you say Democrats hate blacks and that is rationally unsupportable for the reasons given prior.

Ok then, define a person that advocates to do what is right, politically, according to the bible and not to conserve what we have. To resist not only the leftist's proposals, but the conservative approaches as well. A person that advocates what is right according to the bible because absolutes exist and the bible is the best place to find absolutes that can direct our politics. A person that follows the general principle found in the bible; Ecc 10:2 "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

You see, being on the right or left predates current usage by quite a bit. And since conservative and right wing were so close in what they advocated some decades ago, dictionaries and common usage frequently put them together. They are already behind the times. They should stick with God's definition above.

"Right winger" would be the most accurate political name, but let's see if you can come up with something better.

Rather, as with most men of his age, he was by our lights a racist.

No, there was a reasonable minority that was not racist even by our lights. FDR may have been in the majority, but there was at least a minority, and he knew about them and why they weren't racist, that he could have sided with. But he was a leftist, and so he sided with the racists.

To ascribe racism to an intellectual foundation is a serious mistake. Racism isn't founded in reason or philosophy, though it can be upended by both.

I never ascribed racism to reason and philosophy. I ascribed it as a symptom of being a leftist. In general, leftists do not believe in absolutes. That means that morality can be relative; and if a moral relativist doesn't like people for whatever reason, moral relativists are justified in their own minds in dehumanizing them.

Let's revisit a less sanitized version, what you actually wrote that I responded to strongly:

...since leftist love murdering babies before they are born, they will love censorship, too.

Rather, to embrace it is to embrace bias over rationality. From an unproven premise comes, without much surprise attaching, an errant conclusion. The fundamental error on the part of the majority of the left isn't founded in the love of killing babies. It's founded in the wrong headed belief that a woman's right to control of her reproduction and self is an absolute, where the rights and being of the unborn is at best tangential until such time as it can be said to exist independently of her. That's why even most of those who favor a woman's choice will balk at extending those rights until the moment of birth. Were the killing of infants the desire and root another reaction would be in evidence.

If that were true they'd have determined if a baby was human or not before it was born.

 

[Town Heretic]

So are you claiming that the Jews have a blanket command, like muslims do (by their holy books and example of Muhammad), to treat apostates and unbelievers in a sub-human way?

Two answers. The first is, again, I believe you have a grasp of Islamic mandate and context on par with the extremists that most of Islam condemns and is fighting to contain and eradicate, because it's as much a threat to their faith as it is to any other. Secondly, I'm noting that violence and religion have a history, almost without exception. In my lifetime Christians have done a bit of ethnic cleansing and it hasn't been that long since Catholics and Protestants were killing one another across the pond.

And you completely missed the point.

Which? You stepped over a lot of specific rebuttal in a large block quote to make this statement.

The OP is about censorship. YouTube (and FB and Twitter) are biased against people on the right. It is because as those social sites think in their heart, so they are. This is played out more dramatically with muslims because they are raised to have in their hearts that apostates and unbelievers are to be treated poorly. Whether it be murder, enslavement, or merely inequity before the law doesn't matter. All include censorship. And all include death - although only one directly.

Okay then, no as I answered on each of the points you raised there I haven't missed anything. I addressed the bias claim prior. I take your "treated poorly" as a sign of progress given your initial statement was they must be converted or killed. I've already noted that historically Christians and Jews were treated better by the conquering Muslims than Jews and Muslims tended to be treated in that same period, though they were second class citizens to be sure.

And nearly everyone believes in censorship with the arguments being over what sort and how much.

BTW, mention again how muslims fighting each other means that one side is good and the other is bad.

Now that was you missing the point. I noted that one indicator that your view of Islam and its edicts is off center was that fact. Then you gave me the throwaway, "It only shows that muslims have an easier time getting to apostates than unbelievers."

I responded that it was a point utterly undone by the absence of those efforts within any of the nations opposing ISIS.

But since I grapple with the plain facts, your response would be at best a non-response.

You can say that, but you left any number of rebuttals in fact to praise generality. My response is to note the habit of people who rest there, one you illustrate in that large block even as you deny it rhetorically.

Glad to see you didn't indulge in the fallacy of trying to use a specific to counter a generality.

You can use an anecdote to illustrate a rule, but you can't establish a rule by anecdote. Its remarkable how many people don't understand that. Less remarkable, common and lamentable, the resulting confusion of arguments founded on sand.

Ok then, define a person that advocates to do what is right, politically, according to the bible and not to conserve what we have. To resist not only the leftist's proposals, but the conservative approaches as well. A person that advocates what is right according to the bible because absolutes exist and the bible is the best place to find absolutes that can direct our politics. A person that follows the general principle found in the bible; Ecc 10:2 "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

That's an orange. We were talking about apples. Conservative and liberal aren't religious views.

You see, being on the right or left predates current usage by quite a bit. And since conservative and right wing were so close in what they advocated some decades ago, dictionaries and common usage frequently put them together. They are already behind the times. They should stick with God's definition above.

Words mean what they mean until and unless a tipping point is reached that alters it. In the meantime, communication being mostly about clarity and agreement, following our own inclinations instead of authority on the point runs counter to the point of language to no substantive end.

"Right winger" would be the most accurate political name, but let's see if you can come up with something better.

I'll just use the words and meanings we have until a compelling reason to do something else is put in play that overwhelms the inherent disadvantages I've noted, both here and in speaking about the same topic with Stripe.

No, there was a reasonable minority that was not racist even by our lights. FDR may have been in the majority, but there was at least a minority, and he knew about them and why they weren't racist, that he could have sided with. But he was a leftist, and so he sided with the racists.

Here's where you logic breaks down into an assumption that eats itself. If only a minority weren't racist by our lights (and by our lights that would be one heck of a small minority) then it means the overwhelming majority of people were racist. And by your advance they would also have to be leftists, since you have (if without sustaining it) laid the charge that liberalism and racism were of one body. By that understanding conservatives should have both been and remained an ineffectual part of the culture, dominated by the majority that preserved institutionalized racism for generations after the Civil War. Yet Republican presidents controlled the White House more than half the time in the last century. Something is awry.

I never ascribed racism to reason and philosophy. I ascribed it as a symptom of being a leftist.

Liberalism is a philosophical approach, applied to the social, political, and economic life of mankind.

In general, leftists do not believe in absolutes. That means that morality can be relative; and if a moral relativist doesn't like people for whatever reason, moral relativists are justified in their own minds in dehumanizing them.

According to Pew's Religion in America study, 52% of liberals identify as Christian, with another 10% identify as identifying with another religion. So a lot of liberals actually do believe in absolutes, though they may differ with you about a few and the application of many. 45% of liberals are absolutely certain about the existence of God and 24% are fairly certain.

If that were true they'd have determined if a baby was human or not before it was born.

That doesn't follow, though my reasoning does and you should take a swing at it.

 

[Stripe]

We were talking about apples.

Nope. You're insisting that we exclude our worldview from the conversation. We've clearly established what we mean.

Learn to deal with it instead of trying to define the discussion out of existence.

Words mean what they mean.

Conserve means to conserve.
Right means right.

I'll just use the words and meanings we have.

Which would be fine, if you were willing to allow other ideas. Which you are not. You just demand that your definitions must only mean what you demand they mean while ignoring the discussion.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. You're insisting that we exclude our worldview from the conversation. We've clearly established what we mean.

Learn to deal with it instead of trying to define the discussion out of existence.

Conserve means to conserve.
Right means right.

Which would be fine, if you were willing to allow other ideas. Which you are not. You just demand that your definitions must only mean what you demand they mean while ignoring the discussion.

Nope. I'm using the dictionary. I've been pretty clear about the inherent problems of straying from that.

I'll wait on Yor for the rest when he has time.

 

[Yorzhik]

Two answers. The first is, again, I believe you have a grasp of Islamic mandate and context on par with the extremists that most of Islam condemns and is fighting to contain and eradicate, because it's as much a threat to their faith as it is to any other.

Which? You stepped over a lot of specific rebuttal in a large block quote to make this statement.

Okay then, no as I answered on each of the points you raised there I haven't missed anything. I addressed the bias claim prior. I take your "treated poorly" as a sign of progress given your initial statement was they must be converted or killed. I've already noted that historically Christians and Jews were treated better by the conquering Muslims than Jews and Muslims tended to be treated in that same period, though they were second class citizens to be sure.

And nearly everyone believes in censorship with the arguments being over what sort and how much.

Now that was you missing the point. I noted that one indicator that your view of Islam and its edicts is off center was that fact. Then you gave me the throwaway, "It only shows that muslims have an easier time getting to apostates than unbelievers."

I responded that it was a point utterly undone by the absence of those efforts within any of the nations opposing ISIS.

You only wish it so. The muslims that have been fighting and conquering for more than 1300 years would beg to differ. There are very few muslims that advocate changing the religeon from its violent extremist ways.

The islamic mandate is clearly one of violence against those that disagree with them. It is stated directly in the koran, and it was demonstrated directly by Mohammed. If there are muslims that don't agree with the violent mandate then they are weak muslims at best.

Secondly, I'm noting that violence and religion have a history, almost without exception. In my lifetime Christians have done a bit of ethnic cleansing and it hasn't been that long since Catholics and Protestants were killing one another across the pond.

The difference being that the bible and Jesus tell and show us that violence against unbelievers for the crime of not believing are wrong.

You can say that, but you left any number of rebuttals in fact to praise generality. My response is to note the habit of people who rest there, one you illustrate in that large block even as you deny it rhetorically.

I only stated that when someone cites an exception to a generality, it doesn't mean the generality is wrong.

I'll just use the words and meanings we have until a compelling reason to do something else is put in play that overwhelms the inherent disadvantages I've noted, both here and in speaking about the same topic with Stripe.

I'm right wing. I call myself that for sound reasons already stated. The definition of which goes back far before the political labels that are used in modern times.

What I can do is understand that when a libertarian calls himself a liberal, after he has explained what it is (like I have explained what right wing is to you), I'm not only gracious enough, but smart enough, to use his definition of himself and know where the foundation comes from for the things he believes.

It's what normal people do in a conversation. Show a little grace so we can understand each other.

Failing that, find a more accurate political label for people like me that we can agree on.

Here's where you logic breaks down into an assumption that eats itself. If only a minority weren't racist by our lights (and by our lights that would be one heck of a small minority) then it means the overwhelming majority of people were racist.

Cite? Are you sure it wasn't a simple majority?

And by your advance they would also have to be leftists, since you have (if without sustaining it) laid the charge that liberalism and racism were of one body.

Not at all. Racism is simply a tendency for leftists.

It works thusly: leftists don't believe in absolutes, therefore, what is right for them is justified by their own feelings. If they don't like people with different skin color, they are justified because that is how they feel.

By that understanding conservatives should have both been and remained an ineffectual part of the culture, dominated by the majority that preserved institutionalized racism for generations after the Civil War. Yet Republican presidents controlled the White House more than half the time in the last century. Something is awry.

Your understanding and logic, as outlined above, is awry.

Liberalism is a philosophical approach, applied to the social, political, and economic life of mankind.

According to Pew's Religion in America study, 52% of liberals identify as Christian, with another 10% identify as identifying with another religion. So a lot of liberals actually do believe in absolutes, though they may differ with you about a few and the application of many. 45% of liberals are absolutely certain about the existence of God and 24% are fairly certain.

That's because most people don't understand philosophy or logic. If you look at their behavior, you know what they really think. And the behavior of the vast majority of leftists says they only believe in absolutes when it suits them.

If that were true they'd have determined if a baby was human or not before it was born.

That doesn't follow, though my reasoning does and you should take a swing at it.

It does follow. If they cared about rights, then they would have determined when a human begins.

 

[Stripe]

I'm using the dictionary.

And ignoring the conversation.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

And ignoring the conversation.

I haven't ignored a thing Yor's said. I don't even avoid his points by block. But if we predicate conversation on words that shift in meaning from user to user none of us will make any sense, instead of half.

 

[Stripe]

I haven't ignored a thing Yor's said.

Of course I didn't say anything like that.

You're ignoring the conversation.

OP is about something.

You've made this thread about anything but.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

You only wish it so.

No, there isn't a Muslim country being run by the model you suggested as the rule outside of ISIS to say nothing of establishing your vision as the rule. Is there violence against minority populations? In the hot spots there has been. The Christian community in Egypt, by way of example. But again, it so self apparently isn't the orthodoxy of Islam to "kill or convert" that you should be charged to produce proof instead of claim on the point. I've given you ample counter.

The muslims that have been fighting and conquering for more than 1300 years would beg to differ. There are very few muslims that advocate changing the religeon from its violent extremist ways.

You and I live in one of the most violent societies going and war like to boot. When we didn't have an enemy to pursue we fought one another. We're a study in war and for most of it have been a Christian nation. I noted Europe's problem with religion and violence literally in the name of...so, that's mostly men being men.

The islamic mandate is clearly one of violence against those that disagree with them.It is stated directly in the koran, and it was demonstrated directly by Mohammed. If there are muslims that don't agree with the violent mandate then they are weak muslims at best.

Either you're right or the majority of Islam is...either way, weak or more informed a win is a win on the peaceful front.

The difference being that the bible and Jesus tell and show us that violence against unbelievers for the crime of not believing are wrong.

What particular verse are you speaking to on that? I know that contrary religious views didn't fare well in the OT.

I only stated that when someone cites an exception to a generality, it doesn't mean the generality is wrong.

No, you said another thing which is why you got a different response. Again, I've not only never supported the notion of rebutting a rule by exception (unless the claim is for an absolute) I've routinely lectured some here on the errant nature of foisting anecdotes as anything other than illustration of an established rule. That said, you first have to establish the rule.

I'm right wing. I call myself that for sound reasons already stated. The definition of which goes back far before the political labels that are used in modern times.

Have I ever said you weren't right wing? Not in the least. And if you want to enhance that functioning definition with other particulars, to further clarify on a point of importance to the argument or simply you I'm all for it.

What I can do is understand that when a libertarian calls himself a liberal, after he has explained what it is (like I have explained what right wing is to you), I'm not only gracious enough, but smart enough, to use his definition of himself and know where the foundation comes from for the things he believes.

I'd say you've mistaken error for generosity and made whatever conversation follows an invitation to confusion for others, and without reason, supra. So if JoeTom wants to tell me he hates black people but he's not a racist because racists do something about it and he only has a quiet opinion, however valuable that is to him I reject it, find it intellectually bankrupt and I'm not about to agree to proceed under the pretense. So he can be a racist who also believes in live and let live, or whatever qualification he want's to add to his position in relation to the actual meaning and that's fine. What he can't do is usurp clear meaning for some subjective desire. And I won't help him or permit it within the confines of my discourse.

It's what normal people do in a conversation. Show a little grace so we can understand each other.

I've been more than a little gracious with you, Yor, routinely giving you a full consideration and answer you as routinely deny me and I haven't done much more than note it in passing. So stop complementing yourself as though it will move me. Call yourself gracious and intelligent for what I call peculiar and unproductive capitulation and get on with the thing that matters and that is undeniably supportive of a larger invitation to consideration by others.

Failing that, find a more accurate political label for people like me that we can agree on.

Here's how it can go. You consider yourself a right winger? If so, understand what the usage entails to most people and qualify as you need to, the way some liberals will say, "I'm liberal in general philosophy, but I oppose abortion and socialism, so I have other facets to me that I'll speak to and it won't be as a representative of that mindset." Or, better yet, talk to the issues alone, define yourself by considered position. I've met very few people who could be encompassed by one definition, even those who wanted to be.

Cite? Are you sure it wasn't a simple majority?

It was a simple time. But more seriously given the history and struggle that followed, we can be pretty sure that a dominant majority of Americans were fairly racist for most of our history. That means by your way of looking at it most of American would have been liberal for most of its history. And I don't know anyone else (and no historian) who would support that idea.

Not at all. Racism is simply a tendency for leftists.

That's a declaration. I've given you the problem with it. You've given me a bumper sticker. That's neither gracious, productive, nor smart.

It works thusly: leftists don't believe in absolutes,

Already rebutted. It will come up in a moment again.

Your understanding and logic, as outlined above, is awry.

Then prove it. Break it down. If the majority were liberals conservatism should have had a very small say and an equally demure presence within the body politic. That's not the case and it goes back to my previous rebuttal and my above on the point.

That's because most people don't understand philosophy or logic.

Neither of which is necessary to believe in God in general or Christ in particular.

If you look at their behavior, you know what they really think.

No, that's trying to set a rule by anecdote since we can't really follow them about for even a day.

And the behavior of the vast majority of leftists says they only believe in absolutes when it suits them.

That's your bias speaking for them because you don't like what they say. It's you altering the meaning of words at the other end. Neither gracious or demonstrably true. Back to what they set out, the thing that upsets another of your applecarts, this attempt to right it notwithstanding, as I noted a good while ago, there's a substantial number of people in the Democratic party who oppose abortion, just as there are a not inconsiderable number in the Republican ranks who support a woman's right to decide the matter. People are complicated. Trying to dismiss that and simplify the distinction between your partisanship and the other fellow's may feel good, but it's not going to stand much objective scrutiny.

It does follow. If they cared about rights, then they would have determined when a human begins.

You repeat your error and ignore my rebuttal.

 

[ok doser]

... by way of example.

:noway:


:thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

Of course I didn't say anything like that.

You said I was ignoring the conversation. That's like that. I answered that I'm not ignoring the one I'm actually intending to have, with Yor.

You're ignoring the conversation. OP is about something.

Censorship in one particular. I spoke to that and beyond it. Yor wanted an even larger conversation and I've obliged.

You've made this thread about anything but.

Have I been posting like GM? One after the other or has every one of my posts been a response past my initial? A response to people you don't begin to pester with this complaint. So you can stop pretending that the OP you didn't pen is your cause or motivation here. It won't sell, rationally.

And in any event, the OP remains a stain on the joint, as a live link you've yet to protest remains with bit of profanity that should have had its owner put on the bench or (my preference) been removed once it was noted.

So we see what is and what isn't important to some. You, by way of...

 

[ok doser]

You, by way of...

:doh:


:nono:

 

[Town Heretic]

:doh:

:nono:

Nothing wrong with that, informally. I'd grade you, but if that was the point I wouldn't have much of one...and who needs another you around here?

 

[Stripe]

Have I been posting like GM?

No, you've been responding like you.

OP is about something. Try getting on track. :up:

You can stop pretending that the OP you didn't pen is your cause or motivation here.

Uh. OK. :idunno:

So we see what is and what isn't important to some. You, by way of...

And in any event, the OP remains a stain on the joint, as a live link you've yet to protest remains with bit of profanity that should have had its owner put on the bench or (my preference) been removed once it was noted.

Anything but the conversation.





Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

No, you've been responding like you.

Sure.

OP is about something. Try getting on track. :up:

It's beginning to look like your only reason for being here is following me post to post and saying that, while (of course) ignoring the other and sponsoring half of the equation, interestingly enough...I'm kidding. It isn't interesting. 50 posts and almost everyone to or about me. Which means, by your complaint, you've spent nearly every one of your posts not discussing the topic.

No wonder you're giving Yor a break.

 

[Stripe]

It's beginning to look like your only reason for being here is following me post to post and saying that, while (of course) ignoring the other and sponsoring half of the equation, interestingly enough...I'm kidding. It isn't interesting. 50 posts and almost everyone to or about me. Which means, by your complaint, you've spent nearly every one of your posts not discussing the topic. No wonder you're giving Yor a break.

Again with the spam?

It's not the public square. YouTube is a private company that has the right to deny a platform as it sees fit.

The problem is the alleged fraud.

Did you miss the legal aspect of the video? It was the main point.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[ok doser]

Did you miss the legal aspect of the video? It was the main point.

i suspect he hasn't fully viewed it, having been overcome by the vapours at the exposure to foul language

 

[Stripe]

i suspect he hasn't fully viewed it, having been overcome by the vapours at the exposure to foul language

The language was bleeped out.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Again with the spam?

That you don't see the irony in that is either very funny, or indicative of a problem you should be struggling with. Most of your posts have willingly gone off the point you only seem interested in making in relation to me.

As to the point you mistakenly believe was left on the vine:

I'd say censorship is usually the wrong way to go. I believe that better ideas will always trump their competition. Absent profanity or pornography, the public square is lessened by actions that diminish the public's access to competing ideas.

Now you mentioned a particular point, fraud, but never embellished and I'd made it clear that I wasn't descending any further into a video that shouldn't be here to find additional points and whatever additional inappropriate language awaited. If you wanted something more particular you could and should have offered the thing you alluded to without going further.

And here's you behaving hypocritically in relation to your steady complaint:

:rotfl:

That one never gets old.

Also, it's a great tool to teach five-year-olds not to do exceedingly dangerous things like pretend to be a girl.

As to further movement of the conversation:

I'm not so sure this is the case. Do you have an example of censorship on the right? They tend to be golden rule types, and ownership trumps non-owner opinion types, so their ability to censor tends to be weak.

Without any complaint from you, as with your silence in relation to any other off direct topic comment except when made by me. Given that and your own conduct I won't pretend that this is about thread integrity. Neither should you.

 

[Stripe]

You mentioned a particular point, fraud, but never embellished.

That's the whole point of the video. :duh:

I'd made it clear that I wasn't descending any further.

Which rules you out of the conversation.

A video that shouldn't be here to find.

The video is passable.

If you wanted something more particular you could and should have offered the thing you alluded to without going further.

OP. :up:

And here's you behaving hypocritically in relation to your steady complaint to further movement of the conversation. Given that and your own conduct I won't pretend that you have anything worthwhile to contribute. Neither should you.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app