CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23700
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:51 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
stratos wrote:
Quote:
Which is their right. It's a private business right? That's why the cake couldn't be made.


But the US Gov. stepped in and made them make the cake. Left the left cheered then.


Did they? I thought the homophobic bakers won their case.

Yes and no. They ruled the the state court was overly hostile to the baker, and sent it back down to be re-evaluated.

They never ruled on the specific case of whether or not the baker can refuse to make the cake. They're leaving it to the state to do it right it appears.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17544
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:26 am
 


So from what you are all saying is you are fine with Conservative view points being squashed, removed from sites and or censored. Not because they might be vile or hate filled but because they have a differing view point then yours. Even to go as far as trying to equate religious freedom vs freedom of speech. I have no big issue with this both are covered under the first amendment. Thing is the ruling you are taking about states that services must be offered in like kind to all individuals.

So if you allow one kind you must allow another. Sense the State supported that bakeries had the right NOT to put anti-gay wording on cakes bakeries thus must be allowed to NOT put on pro-gay wording on cakes.

In this case you are looking at allowing Left view points including vulgar and hate filled while excluding Concretive view points NOT just the vulgar and hate filled ones.


Last edited by stratos on Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23700
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:31 am
 


stratos wrote:
So from what you are all saying is you are fine with Conservative view points being squashed, removed from sites and or censored. Not because they might be vile or hate filled but because they have a differing view point then yours.

No. That's not what we're saying. We're saying that Google has the right to moderate it's content however it wants. As does twitter and facebook. Whether they want to delete conservative views or liberals is up to them.

I'd also like to point out that they aren't removing "conservative" viewpoints. They're removing hateful ones. If you're equating them... well that's on you.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17544
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:39 am
 


Tricks wrote:
stratos wrote:
So from what you are all saying is you are fine with Conservative view points being squashed, removed from sites and or censored. Not because they might be vile or hate filled but because they have a differing view point then yours.

No. That's not what we're saying. We're saying that Google has the right to moderate it's content however it wants. As does twitter and facebook. Whether they want to delete conservative views or liberals is up to them.

I'd also like to point out that they aren't removing "conservative" viewpoints. They're removing hateful ones. If you're equating them... well that's on you.


Yet I'm not the one who first stated they were hateful others did. I'm only pointing out that if you wish to delete just one sides point of view because you do not agree with it then 1) you are practicing censorship while clearly in the case of FB they claim not to be. 2) They supposedly only cut out hate speech ones but it's been shown that is not the case and on top of that 3) willingly left in Left leaning hateful speech.


I added in to the above "quote" while Trix was posting this one. No fault or cut out was done by either side.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23700
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:54 am
 


stratos wrote:
So if you allow one kind you must allow another. Sense the State supported that bakeries had the right NOT to put anti-gay wording on cakes bakeries thus must be allowed to NOT put on pro-gay wording on cakes.
One is hate and one isn't.
Quote:
In this case you are looking at allowing Left view points including vulgar and hate filled while excluding Concretive view points NOT just the vulgar and hate filled ones.

I'd be perfectly okay with hate filled content from the left being removed.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33035
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:55 am
 


stratos wrote:
I'm only pointing out that if you wish to delete just one sides point of view because you do not agree with it then 1) you are practicing censorship while clearly in the case of FB they claim not to be. 2) They supposedly only cut out hate speech ones but it's been shown that is not the case and on top of that 3) willingly left in Left leaning hateful speech.


And yet, it's people's rights to not have to support speech that they do not agree with.

I think you might be looking at this from that old saw of 'balance'. News, media, social media for some reason are supposed to be 'balanced'. That is a false assumption. They are supposed to tell the truth.

My old girlfriend who studied Journalism told me about a thought experiment they had. Let's say you are interviewing Hitler. (because it always comes down to Hitler) ;) Do you give him time to convince people of his side, providing balance? Or, do you say what is really going on and make him justify his actions?

So should social media be forced to be 'balanced', or should they tell the truth? In one of those scenarios, left/right is irrelevant.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23700
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:56 am
 


stratos wrote:
Yet I'm not the one who first stated they were hateful others did. I'm only pointing out that if you wish to delete just one sides point of view because you do not agree with it then 1) you are practicing censorship while clearly in the case of FB they claim not to be.

Never said that's what I want. I'm okay with hate speech from either side being removed from the platforms. What I said is google has the right to remove hateful content from their platform.

Quote:
2) They supposedly only cut out hate speech ones but it's been shown that is not the case and on top of that
Can you show me where?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17544
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:09 am
 


Quote:
Can you show me where?


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ing-topics

Not the article I was thinking of but very similar. I don't know about twitter and other social medias if they are doing the same practices but I keep hearing seeing social media not just FB.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33035
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:15 am
 


stratos wrote:
Quote:
Can you show me where?


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ing-topics

Not the article I was thinking of but very similar. I don't know about twitter and other social medias if they are doing the same practices but I keep hearing seeing social media not just FB.


Doesn't say it cut out hate speech, nor that it cuts out right-wing hate speech. Nudity. Shorter articles. Things it doesn't get paid for. But not right-wing.

And again, it's Facebooks' right to cut what it feels isn't profitable. It's my right to not go there.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7782
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:13 pm
 


Today the Trump administration has announced it is gutting the endangered species act.

They used different language, but that's what they said.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8754
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:21 pm
 


Fuck those animals. Had they been tougher, they wouldn't be endangered.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7782
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:32 pm
 


llama66 wrote:
Fuck those animals. Had they been tougher, they wouldn't be endangered.

First they came for the northern white rhino, and you said nothing.

Then the orca, you said nothing.

When they came for the llamas, there was no one left to speak up.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14016
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:53 pm
 


Quote:
U.S. Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act
A bald eagle, one of the Endangered Species Act’s success stories, near Castle Dale, Utah.

Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday announced that it would change the way the Endangered Species Act is applied, significantly weakening the nation’s bedrock conservation law credited with rescuing the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the American alligator from extinction.
The changes will make it harder to consider the effects of climate change on wildlife when deciding whether a given species warrants protection. They would most likely shrink critical habitats and, for the first time, would allow economic assessments to be conducted when making determinations.
The rules also make it easier to remove a species from the endangered species list and weaken protections for threatened species, a designation that means they are at risk of becoming endangered.

Overall, the new rules would very likely clear the way for new mining, oil and gas drilling, and development in areas where protected species live.


The right has been obsessed with turning their country into an uninhabitable toxic shithole for decades. Doug Ford’s doing the same thing up here, it’s a core part of conservatism, their polluting corporate masters demand it.

Image


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11685
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:52 pm
 


I saw this article earlier on the CBC site. I was going to upload it but since it's being discussed here...

Trump administration overhauls Endangered Species Act protections
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/us-g ... -1.5243971

Basically this article echoes what Beaver already posted


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33035
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:23 am
 


Drill baby drill!

Who gives a shit if it wipes out the only food source for people who live in the area?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 9123 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 586  587  588  589  590  591  592 ... 609  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: herbie and 11 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.