YouTube Is Censoring Atheism
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 06 Apr 17 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
Just like a cake shop refusing to sell gay cakes. All cakes are gay cakes.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Part Time James 06 Apr 17 4.44pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
I don't quite understand why you make that simile. What you describe has been judged to be unlawful. At least it has in this country. Because why should one commercial company be operating within the laws when they choose how and to who to sell their products, but not another?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Part Time James 06 Apr 17 4.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
All cakes are gay cakes. Is this one of your fancy pants educated analogies? Because all religious people are technically atheists because they deny the existence of the vast majority of gods? Very clever.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Apr 17 4.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
I don't quite understand why posters are getting so worked up. Last time I looked, YouTube was a commercial company therefore it has every right to decide to whom it "sells" its products and services, within all applicable laws. Use of YouTube isn't a human right. Would-be posters upset with YouTube can always find another file-sharing website, just as people living in the Home Counties can always find another football team to support (i.e. Moan Utd). That's how the free market works. Not really, the Free Market worked for Youtube because Google bought it.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 06 Apr 17 4.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Its just s**t we do, say and try to think in order to create some kind of meaning and understand existence, even if its utterly futile, it is our existence. This is why science is so important, it keeps us grounded in that stark absurdity that our existence is a truly phenomenally series of increasingly improbable accidents. Any 'god' is dwarfed by that in terms of awesomeness, when you work out just how improbable your existence actually is on a macro to cosmic scale. Precisely. Surely the idea that the complexity of evolution can exist seemingly from the random organisation of matter is as wondrous as you can get. And it follows that any superior being or beings that might exist are a result of that rather than it's creator. The whole question is rather academic anyway given that we are prisoner of that reality and our capacity to understand it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 06 Apr 17 4.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
Because why should one commercial company be operating within the laws when they choose how and to who to sell their products, but not another? So you are saying that every USA company is legally obliged to trade with any potential customer? Are you a new expert in US law? Have you ever been refused service in a pub, or refused permission to a club? Did you feel compelled to call in m'learned freinds to defend your right to trade?
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 06 Apr 17 4.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
So you are saying that every USA company is legally obliged to trade with any potential customer? Are you a new expert in US law? Have you ever been refused service in a pub, or refused permission to a club? Did you feel compelled to call in m'learned freinds to defend your right to trade? Wow sorry mate. Untwist your knickers for a second, I don't really care that much. Calm down.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 06 Apr 17 4.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Not really, the Free Market worked for Youtube because Google bought it. Sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. I said that's how the free market works, then you said "not really", then gave an example of how the free market works. Please understand I'm not having a dig; I just don't quite understand your point.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 06 Apr 17 4.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
Wow sorry mate. Untwist your knickers for a second, I don't really care that much. Calm down. No need to apologise. I wasn't offended. (Well maybe now slightly offended at the implication that I wear knickers...but I know you were being ironic about that).
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
NKEagle  Pyongyang 06 Apr 17 4.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
Just like a cake shop refusing to sell gay cakes. What would make a cake "gay"?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Apr 17 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
Sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. I said that's how the free market works, then you said "not really", then gave an example of how the free market works. Please understand I'm not having a dig; I just don't quite understand your point. Google is a massive company, there is nothing free market about Youtube success, its all about who has the most money. Notably Paypal's success created the investment capital that created Youtube, and even allowed it to financially bully other companies such as utube and dominate the market, at which point it was bought up my an even bigger fish. Nothing is free, in capitalism, its about money. The Free Market is really about allowing powerful entities free reign.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 06 Apr 17 4.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
No need to apologise. I wasn't offended. (Well maybe now slightly offended at the implication that I wear knickers...but I know you were being ironic about that). That's not offensive, the fabric feels lush against the buttocks.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.