My bad Juan, Im fucked.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018, 11:17 PM juan <juan....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 13:07:15 +1100 > Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:09:54PM -0300, Juan wrote: > > > On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:57:40 -0400 > > > grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > What are your suggestions as to recourse? > > > > > > No point in talking to people who do not listen. LIKE YOU. > > > > > > So when you let me know that you actually read and thought > > > abpit what I wrote to you, I might continue. > > > > I think grarpamp reactively missed your apropos rhetoric "Your > > recourse against scum like metzger or any other censor > > is...what...use a FREE channel?" - perhaps since you emboldened the > > word "FREE" and so he missed that you were NOT doing reverse > > psychology and simply pointing out the obvious irony that now he's > > using a free (uncensored) comms channel. > > Yes, maybe he missed that point. It's actually a rather > 'technical' and factual issue. > > We know there's censorship in metzger's list because that > information can be freely communicated here. But if we follow > the 'logic' of 'private' censorship, and all media are > controlled by the alleged 'owners' then we would never know > about censorship or about being in the matrix... > > Likewise, arguments with censors are meaningless since the > censors can control what their opponents say. > > > > > > Which is in fact the solution, and yes, which grarpamp seems to be > > missing - The Ministry's programming is so powerful, that even > > "logical" thinkers like grarpamp miss the obvious (I'm guessing he > > still wants censorship, does not want the responsibility of being a > > censor himself, so wants someone else to do the censoring, but wants > > them to censor in just the way he wants the censoring to be so > > censored - namely, that he personally does not get censored). > > > If you listen to fake libertarians they love to rant about how > there's only 'property rights' and hence no free speech. > > It's a sophism that's convenient for lazy people. If you own > your house, then people in your house can only say what you > want to hear. LOLWUT. Oh yes, because "your house, your rules" > again, lolwut. > > It's just conservative garbage, but people have been > brainwashed into believing it's a 'sound argument'. When in > reality, it is technically a non-sequitur. > > From "house ownership" it doesn't follow "you have the right to > dictate what people in your house say" > > Just like, if someone is standing in your lawn and tresspasing, > it doesn't follow that you have the right to execute him in > 'self defense'. etc. > > > > > > > > Yes, it is hilarious. > > > > Grarpamp could start a brissdowner fork, with his royal self the > > censor to show how censorship should REALLY be done - He only needs a > > great title to give authority to His Royal Self so the plebes bow > > low, massa, very low! > > > > How about > > > > Grarpamp, Royal Hilarion of Sublime Censorship > > > >