Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

@hawkeye10,

Yes, at this point I am generally not responding to you in the Rape thead, but I have responded to you quite often in that thread. You mainly repeat yourself, so there is little point in continuing to respond.

You have said quite clearly that you want the rape laws abolished because they interfere with your right to unrestricted sexual gratification.

I believe we do need rape laws and I wish to the see the current laws enforced.

If you can't understand why we need rape laws, and your focus is only on your own need to obtain sexual gratification, I don't think there is much left to continue to discuss with you.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

I think that there are quite a few people who don't really have all that firm a grasp on freedom of expression.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Quote:

untoward opinions?

untoward reminds me of froward, then i laughoutlood

0 Replies

@Arella Mae,

Arella, It isn't just other people that it is hurting. Have you considered that you might also be doing yourself a bit of harm by obsessing so relentlessly on the subject? You've been doing so for more than four months in that topic alone. Take a look at your profile page and just quickly scroll through the first 25 pages of your most recent posts. It covers the last 30 days or so. I think you too will be a bit taken back at how often you've posted on that topic each day and how infrequently you've posted on anything else.

Surely, you'd have more fun posting about your cats, photos of JJ and writing about all his hilarious antics rather than wallowing in all the emotional memories and contention built up in that thread. Give yourself a break.

1 Reply

@Lash,

This is all too bad, as I thought the (that) thread question as interesting, myself.
Devolution soon ruled.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Devolution soon ruled.

once the answer was clearly yes we had to move on...but it was evolution. No apologizes, we don't have anything to feel guilty about in the exploration of the subject of sex law.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Butrflynet wrote:

Arella, It isn't just other people that it is hurting. Have you considered that you might also be doing yourself a bit of harm by obsessing so relentlessly on the subject? You've been doing so for more than four months in that topic alone. Take a look at your profile page and just quickly scroll through the first 25 pages of your most recent posts. It covers the last 30 days or so. I think you too will be a bit taken back at how often you've posted on that topic each day and how infrequently you've posted on anything else.

Surely, you'd have more fun posting about your cats, photos of JJ and writing about all his hilarious antics rather than wallowing in all the emotional memories and contention built up in that thread. Give yourself a break.

Yes!

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

No apologizes, we don't have anything to feel guilty about in the exploration of the subject of sex law.

Except the "exploration of the subject of sex law" really wasn't the topic of that thread, and you admitted you were hijacking the topic, you even boasted about doing that. And, your "exploration" has largely been confined to ranting about existing rape laws and advocating to have them abolished, because you don't want the government interfering with your "sexual freedom".

It's not just that your opinions were unpopular, they were also not germane to the topic of the thread.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Can I just draw your attention to BBB's post to Arella?

I think it's one of the most sensible posts made re all this shemozzle.

I truly do know how difficult it is to walk away from the stuff that hawk and bill post....but I also think sometimes you just have to say no more.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Can I just draw your attention to BBB's post to Arella?

I think it's one of the most sensible posts made re all this shemozzle.

I truly do know how difficult it is to walk away from the stuff that hawk and bill post....
but I also think sometimes you just have to say no more.

Its a question of personal judgment, dlowan;
even of your mood of the moment, whether u choose to join or shun.

David

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Do you mean Butrflynet's post to Arella Mae? I am not a rape survivor so the topic may be less emotionally arousing for me than it is for Arella Mae.

I have no problem ignoring Hawkeye and BillRM. I've generally only responded to them when it allowed me to make a point about the topic that I wanted to make. They both repeat themselves so much, and so often, they've become more boring than provocative.

I don't think I've ever discussed the topic of rape before, so the thread has simply been an interesting learning experience for me. I've actually learned a good deal during the course of that thread.

2 Replies

@firefly,

oh, fair enough....I had gained the idea that you had been upset by the thread, and I thought you were being pulled into it all again here.

Forget what I said!!

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Except the "exploration of the subject of sex law" really wasn't the topic of that thread,

was not the intended topic by the originator of the thread you mean. However, he/she who says the first word does not have the right to control the conversation, at least not yet, and I hope forever. Such authority over others speech is detrimental to democracy.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Except the "exploration of the subject of sex law" really wasn't the topic of that thread,

hawkeye10 wrote:

was not the intended topic by the originator of the thread you mean. However, he/she who says the first word does not have the right to control the conversation, at least not yet, and I hope forever. Such authority over others speech is detrimental to democracy.

non-sequitur: has nothing to do with democracy,
which is concerned with majority votes

Your anarchism surprizes me, Hawkeye. U r a strange socialist.
(Other socialists r worse.)

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

non-sequitur: has nothing to do with democracy,
which is concerned with majority votes

no doubt my 1970's Rockford Il Education was defective, back when they were teaching that democracy is built upon a foundation of equal rights and equal voice with-in a collective where consensus is reached and majority rules while being considerate of minority rights.

We were taught that the one who got there first and staked his claim is no more powerful than everyone else, that we tried that way when we let whom ever owned the land boss everyone else around, and it did not work out so great. I dont see much difference between the old way of letting whom ever claimed the land first getting to control everyone who ever after was on it, and Roberts plan to let whom ever gets to a subject first getting to control whom ever wants to talk about it, or fireflys assertion that since she started the thread she gets to rule on who is on subject and who is not. She posted the first message, but she has no more right to decide what goes on in the thread or who is on point and who is not then I do.....or you do.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Democracy does not for a moment mean or imply that there will be equal rights, an equal voice or any consideration for minority rights. So, yes, your education was definitely defective. It shows just about every time you post.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Have you attempted to fix Wiki?

Quote:

Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[4] equality and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.[5] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Letting who ever has the post time to burn at A2k and thus has the ability to start the most threads control how the rest of us post seems to me to be lacking in the "equal access to power" department.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Wikipedia's expanded definitions of any word are of little interest to me, and i also have no interest in editing their entries. The standard definition of democracy does not include the concepts to which you have referred, and that standard is sufficient for me. Of course, that in no way implies that i'm opposed to those concepts--simply that they are not automatically part of the definition of democracy.

First, this is a privately owned site, so there it is ludicrous to suggest that this site partakes of or is in any way obliged to practice democracy. Second, those who start the most threads have no control over how anyone posts, and certainly not simply because they start the most threads. You have incontrovertible evidence of who those people are? I thought not. You're just pulling your usual stunt of attempting to portray yourself as some kind of heroic fighter for truth, justice and the American way. Silly superman.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

First, this is a privately owned site, so there it is ludicrous to suggest that this site partakes of or is in any way obliged to practice democracy.

That's what I was thinking. I've been a member of various message boards and always believe that the person who pays the bills and/or does all the work should get to make up the rules.

4 Replies

@MonaLeeza,

Quote:

That's what I was thinking. I've been a member of various message boards and always believe that the person who pays the bills and/or does all the work should get to make up the rules.

Does Bill O pay the bills on this website?

0 Replies

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know