Shatner Slams E.U. Censors Proposal to Ban Star Trek’s “To Boldly Go Where No MAN Has Gone Before "
- Thread starter Cpt. MAGA Man
- Start date
This pool got peed in pages ago.
I already said, but will repeat. I will answer your question when it is presented in its own topic, and when zero punishments for reasonably stated opinions are guaranteed.
If you can't handle those conditions, then you and your associates can go back to the Neutral Zone and congratulate each other about how you totally wrecked me in that censorship debate. I won't be there to disagree.
It's complicated.
This pool is a little too deep for my swimming level.
It's more of a mud pit. And I'm the pig your parents warned you not to mud wrestle with (because everyone gets dirty, and the pig enjoys it). Oink.
I’m afraid your non-answer to this very, very simple question is already answering it more than you seem to realize. “Should all people have a right to exist?” is not the clever four-dimensional chess gotcha question you seem to want to make it out to be. It’s laughably easy to answer and it’s sad that you think you need some “zero punishments” precondition to answer it.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, man. If you think this is what’s going here, that’s certainly a little paranoid.
And it's not the question I was initially asked.
I feel pretty confident in saying that most people would agree that these three are essentially asking for the very same thing:
There are some criminals I would debate that right on.
It's actually censured, not censored.
I don't think Michael spends all that much time in the Neutral Zone. So, I don't think that's fair.
Well said. I think that Timothy McVeigh pretty much forfeited his right to exist when he blew up that building.
I don't think we've ever been anything less than open about the fact that we have community standards here that should be adhered to by members posting here. As I said recently, members can be "punished" for violating those standards, up to and including loss of membership status. Case in point: displaying an image of a former leader of the KKK. As @Michael pointed out, that's not censorship. We're a private board, not the government. And you can technically say whatever you want, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of doing so.
Yes, we have a long history of not allowing discriminatory or bigoted speech. That has usually only been a problem for people who want to discriminate.
Rest assured, no one in the thread was publicly defending the Klan supporter.
Well, there's a goal-post shift. The subject there wasn't criminals, and it wasn't about the death penalty. It was broadly about minorities.
Conflating minorities with criminals is often an effective political strategy. More broadly, telling lies is an effective political strategy, even though telling lies a textbook example of something that pretty much everybody knows is wrong.
That's not to say that you personally are engaging in this behavior, but given the goal-post shift from minorities to criminals, and given the prevalence of this conflation in the real world, it's worth observing.
It was the question asked; I answered.
What you read in to it is not there since I made no connection between the two groups and only answered the last question asked, which was very broad.
I didn't read anything into it. I went out of my way to write the final paragraph you quoted to make it very clear I was not accusing you of anything.
Responding only to the most recent post is one way topic-drift occurs.
Need I remind you that as a person on the autism spectrum, I am a minority.
Didn't you already mention that upthread?
Perhaps you could explain how that's relevant to what I wrote.
Any more questions?
And I'm curious... you seem to be saying that I've been declaring that certain people don't have the right to exist. The only person I've said that about in this thread was a convicted mass murderer. So who do you think I don't think should exist?
Neither one of those were questions. They both ended in periods and were bona fide statements.
[edited to add: And simply quoting two statements without comment wouldn't qualify as an answer to a question, assuming doing so was meant as an answer to a question.]
If you're not going to own up to your own beliefs and tell us what you think, I don't see any reason to continue with this tangent.
If you believe self-censoring yourself is for the best, perhaps it is.
Last edited:
