Those people who do not dissent the fallacy of Israeli dominance for fear of being called anti-Semitic are afraid to honor free speech due to their political correctness, which is a form of self tyranny.
This only leads to a totalitarian state, and loss of all our rights and freedoms.
For I love free speech more than I do Israel. If this is the reason why GooglePlus has warned me to tone it down, then they are suppressing free speech too. In doing so, they give in to the evil of totalitarianism in the name of political correctness.
This is an evil they swore not to do, but compromised their vow to "do no evil" all because of the false flag event called 911, all because they were afraid of the CIA sending them anthrax in the mail.
Thus is it a greater evil to let Israel idolizers to use anti-semitism name-calling to put the politically correct chill of dissent.
In the name of free speech I object to this political correctness embedded in GooglePlus.
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
20140526
If a Murder-Suicide Serial Killing is Domestic Terrorism, Then So is Child Abuse (Satire)
It's ironic that President Obama used the term "domestic terrorist" to describe the murder-suicide serial killer that killed women his age because he was a virgin. Yet he has never called a single pedophile a "terrorist" but may have used other code words like "monster".
IDK if a pedophile terrorizes children for years, that's a form of terrorism that is worse than what the deceased Rodger did to seven female victims. The harm is partially perpetrated by society when justice takes its time to gather evidence rather than acting to prevent it.
I know of children so scarred for life that they need strong medication to remain sedated and relatively harmless to self and others.
However, pedophilia is not always restricted to religionists but also occurs when a person with power and control over children puts his need to control others supposedly in his protection at risk. Thus, child soldiers may be considered possible victims of pedophiles. The child wives in primitive communities might also be victims.
Thankfully not everyone is on a power trip and clear heads do detect and give evidence against pedophiles.
Nobody has the right to abuse in any shape or form children. This includes cybersex. It is not loving to expose children to adult-orient chatter.
Be wary.
Report inappropriate content online but ask for GooglePlus to monitor them before shutting them down to complete a list of associates who prey on children.
As well, enable logs on Hangouts and archive evidence for GooglePlus when a pedophile appears. The evidence will support your case not the perpetrator.
Even pedophilia must be considered a terrorist act too, if the Rodgers serial killings are considered by the President of the US to be a form of domestic terrorism.
If spying on private citizens is a form of State terrorism, then abusing children is an act of terrorism against the safety and security of children.
Apart from that, I urge caution since one person's obscenity is another person's erotica. Applying an arbitrary rule that criminalizes erotica puts consumers of erotica in conflict with on-line anti-obscenity "mobs" and does violate freedom of speech.
This is why the NSFW adult communities have it right when they maintain an invitation only policy towards prospective members and a zero-tolerance towards images depicting children. It cannot be assumed that everyone is 18 and over. Instead, everything should be monitored and reported.
Let us rid the Internet of the domestic terrorists who terrorize children, be they pedophiles, child abusers and their ilk, through legal means, even if it leads to more close monitoring by authorities including the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and your local police.
Only through secure monitoring are we truly free.
Reference:
2014 Isla Vista Killings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings
IDK if a pedophile terrorizes children for years, that's a form of terrorism that is worse than what the deceased Rodger did to seven female victims. The harm is partially perpetrated by society when justice takes its time to gather evidence rather than acting to prevent it.
I know of children so scarred for life that they need strong medication to remain sedated and relatively harmless to self and others.
However, pedophilia is not always restricted to religionists but also occurs when a person with power and control over children puts his need to control others supposedly in his protection at risk. Thus, child soldiers may be considered possible victims of pedophiles. The child wives in primitive communities might also be victims.
Thankfully not everyone is on a power trip and clear heads do detect and give evidence against pedophiles.
Nobody has the right to abuse in any shape or form children. This includes cybersex. It is not loving to expose children to adult-orient chatter.
Be wary.
Report inappropriate content online but ask for GooglePlus to monitor them before shutting them down to complete a list of associates who prey on children.
As well, enable logs on Hangouts and archive evidence for GooglePlus when a pedophile appears. The evidence will support your case not the perpetrator.
Even pedophilia must be considered a terrorist act too, if the Rodgers serial killings are considered by the President of the US to be a form of domestic terrorism.
If spying on private citizens is a form of State terrorism, then abusing children is an act of terrorism against the safety and security of children.
Apart from that, I urge caution since one person's obscenity is another person's erotica. Applying an arbitrary rule that criminalizes erotica puts consumers of erotica in conflict with on-line anti-obscenity "mobs" and does violate freedom of speech.
This is why the NSFW adult communities have it right when they maintain an invitation only policy towards prospective members and a zero-tolerance towards images depicting children. It cannot be assumed that everyone is 18 and over. Instead, everything should be monitored and reported.
Let us rid the Internet of the domestic terrorists who terrorize children, be they pedophiles, child abusers and their ilk, through legal means, even if it leads to more close monitoring by authorities including the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and your local police.
Only through secure monitoring are we truly free.
Reference:
2014 Isla Vista Killings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings
20131128
How the State Fails Us (satire)
How does the State fail us ?
It fails us when politicians who claim to be ensuring the safety of its citizens put them at risk of injury either from overcrowding in mental health facilities, over-medication of patients by family doctors, and overreacting to mostly harmless people who daily beat the stigma.
Take, for example, the State's handling of mental health.
Only effective forms of medication are covered by state health insurance i.e. Medicaid/Medicare.
Medications deemed old and inefficient are not covered, nor are the newest ones approved in another jurisdiction universally available.
The State does so to protect people from harm, since it knows what is best for the People.
Yet it does not go further to protect the mentally ill from stigma, citing "free speech" when Hollywood stereotypes the mentally ill as evil in the guise of violent psychotics, zombies or agents of the Devil.
Could it be that the stigma of mental illness is manufactured by society to motivate each of us to pro-actively develop mental health strategies through education and therapy.
Perhaps the State implies through its administration of Medicaid/Medicare that medication does the least harm while allowing local government to section/hospitalize mentally ill people who pose potential harm to themselves or others.
At the same time, it surely cannot protect the People from benign sociopaths who become politicians. Why can't the State protect the People from politicians? While the laws of the State are often written to remedy social problems such as mental illness, they also ensure that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer."
In this way, doing what's best for the People profits the State through the private sector. Hopefully it also helps us to promote the mental health of the People.
While ending the stigma of the mentally ill may not be profitable to the State, it still is a basic human right for the People.
Yet the free speech observed by Hollywood producers trades a few laughs gained by parodying the mentally ill for profit.
Even if the State fails us by helping the pharmaceutical corporations profit from increased psychiatric medication sales, that should provide adequate motivation to beat the stigma of mental illness daily.
If we want to end such stigma, then it is only worth watching a movie which casts mental illness in a negative light by discussing the stereotyping that casts the shadow stigma on the characters in it.
In that way, it is possible to educate family and friends about how stereotyping the mentally ill subtly promotes the stigma.
If we want to reduce the cost of lives lost due to over-medication, then prevention could save costs.
For not everyone wants to rush forward where the extremely nervous of people fear to tread.
Original post: June 25, 2010 1154H
Previous updated: March 15, 2013 2327H
Currently revised: November 28, 2013 0447H
It fails us when politicians who claim to be ensuring the safety of its citizens put them at risk of injury either from overcrowding in mental health facilities, over-medication of patients by family doctors, and overreacting to mostly harmless people who daily beat the stigma.
Take, for example, the State's handling of mental health.
Only effective forms of medication are covered by state health insurance i.e. Medicaid/Medicare.
Medications deemed old and inefficient are not covered, nor are the newest ones approved in another jurisdiction universally available.
The State does so to protect people from harm, since it knows what is best for the People.
Yet it does not go further to protect the mentally ill from stigma, citing "free speech" when Hollywood stereotypes the mentally ill as evil in the guise of violent psychotics, zombies or agents of the Devil.
Could it be that the stigma of mental illness is manufactured by society to motivate each of us to pro-actively develop mental health strategies through education and therapy.
Perhaps the State implies through its administration of Medicaid/Medicare that medication does the least harm while allowing local government to section/hospitalize mentally ill people who pose potential harm to themselves or others.
At the same time, it surely cannot protect the People from benign sociopaths who become politicians. Why can't the State protect the People from politicians? While the laws of the State are often written to remedy social problems such as mental illness, they also ensure that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer."
In this way, doing what's best for the People profits the State through the private sector. Hopefully it also helps us to promote the mental health of the People.
While ending the stigma of the mentally ill may not be profitable to the State, it still is a basic human right for the People.
Yet the free speech observed by Hollywood producers trades a few laughs gained by parodying the mentally ill for profit.
Even if the State fails us by helping the pharmaceutical corporations profit from increased psychiatric medication sales, that should provide adequate motivation to beat the stigma of mental illness daily.
If we want to end such stigma, then it is only worth watching a movie which casts mental illness in a negative light by discussing the stereotyping that casts the shadow stigma on the characters in it.
In that way, it is possible to educate family and friends about how stereotyping the mentally ill subtly promotes the stigma.
If we want to reduce the cost of lives lost due to over-medication, then prevention could save costs.
For not everyone wants to rush forward where the extremely nervous of people fear to tread.
Original post: June 25, 2010 1154H
Previous updated: March 15, 2013 2327H
Currently revised: November 28, 2013 0447H
20130105
Free speech Isn't Mind Control
1) Each and every person has the right to be free of the control of others, even while online
2) Each of us makes decisions online to either submit to the control of another person, even if it is actually a corporate monolith that is perceived as cold and threatening to the liberty of the People.
3) If this makes you anxious, then please note the following:
3a) You decided to feel anxious in response to what you read.
3b) While it cannot be helped that my words seem able to manipulate your feelings, this is because of the power of communication.
3c) I actually have no power to manipulate your feelings.
3d) The proof of 3c is simple: You decided to feel a certain way based on what you read, however, you are under no obligation to feel that way FOREVER.
3e) Wait a few minutes more and decide of you wish to continue feeling anxious.
4) As long as you continue to feel based on what you read, you are actually under the influence of YOUR DECISION to feel that way. Even though I may have influenced your decision, I cannot influence your decision NOT to feel that way. That decision is solely up to you.
5) Therefore, while I may influence your initial decision to feel a certain way, I have no control over you controlling your mind, without your compliance.
5a) As a result of this conclusion, my right to free speech does not significantly influence your decision to feel a certain way.
6) However, if you feel that I have controlled your feelings, then I have a way to solve that.
6a) LOG OFF YOUR COMPUTER.
6B) GET OUTSIDE
4) HAVE A NICE DAY!
2) Each of us makes decisions online to either submit to the control of another person, even if it is actually a corporate monolith that is perceived as cold and threatening to the liberty of the People.
3) If this makes you anxious, then please note the following:
3a) You decided to feel anxious in response to what you read.
3b) While it cannot be helped that my words seem able to manipulate your feelings, this is because of the power of communication.
3c) I actually have no power to manipulate your feelings.
3d) The proof of 3c is simple: You decided to feel a certain way based on what you read, however, you are under no obligation to feel that way FOREVER.
3e) Wait a few minutes more and decide of you wish to continue feeling anxious.
4) As long as you continue to feel based on what you read, you are actually under the influence of YOUR DECISION to feel that way. Even though I may have influenced your decision, I cannot influence your decision NOT to feel that way. That decision is solely up to you.
5) Therefore, while I may influence your initial decision to feel a certain way, I have no control over you controlling your mind, without your compliance.
5a) As a result of this conclusion, my right to free speech does not significantly influence your decision to feel a certain way.
6) However, if you feel that I have controlled your feelings, then I have a way to solve that.
6a) LOG OFF YOUR COMPUTER.
6B) GET OUTSIDE
4) HAVE A NICE DAY!
20130102
Children Ought to be Seen and Heard
In my opinion, to punish a child for talking back to a parent is unjustifiable, as by talking back, a child demonstrates two things: that s/he is an individual covered by the human rights proclamation in defense of free speech and that s/he is communicating.
When a parent rewards a child for being silent in the face of verbal abuse, that is mental cruelty and in essence, a form of child neglect, as the parent is neglecting the child's right to communicate freely.
This is the anatomy of rebellion in that child's teens.
Yet sadly, because a minor is in the custody of their caregivers, the rights of children are ignored, to their detriment.
Is it any wonder the things teenagers are doing today away from parents outrageous (gangs, murder, bullying)?
I say the seeds of rebellion and the child straying into the realm of decadent hedonism is tied to how the parent treats that child.
When you give them the opportunity to choice anything but hanging out with the wrong crowd, parents are not depriving children of having a life.
Rather, you are validating their right to be heard and seen.
If I had parents like that, then I'd want to share that story with the world.
Children ought to be seen and heard by their parents, not on the TV being busted for "mischief".
When a parent rewards a child for being silent in the face of verbal abuse, that is mental cruelty and in essence, a form of child neglect, as the parent is neglecting the child's right to communicate freely.
This is the anatomy of rebellion in that child's teens.
Yet sadly, because a minor is in the custody of their caregivers, the rights of children are ignored, to their detriment.
Is it any wonder the things teenagers are doing today away from parents outrageous (gangs, murder, bullying)?
I say the seeds of rebellion and the child straying into the realm of decadent hedonism is tied to how the parent treats that child.
When you give them the opportunity to choice anything but hanging out with the wrong crowd, parents are not depriving children of having a life.
Rather, you are validating their right to be heard and seen.
If I had parents like that, then I'd want to share that story with the world.
Children ought to be seen and heard by their parents, not on the TV being busted for "mischief".
20121230
Debunking Doomsday Hoaxes
http://www.universetoday.com/98979/the-truth-about-2012-killer-solar-flares-are-a-physical-impossibility/
The next time the conspiracy theorists mention the solar flare doomsday scenario, post this URL with the following rebuttal:
"I call your doomsday prediction a hoax by referring you to the experts' facts contained in this web link..
If it is refuted by any variation of 'the government coverup' fallacy, then you will confirm that your website is designed to fool naïve people.
If, on the other hand, you admit that you are perpetuating a hoax, then it makes sense to include this link on your website, because your free speech rights not only allows you the privilege to perpetuate a hoax but also obliges you to moderate its potential fear-mongering with what the experts say."
How to spot a hoax web site:
Webpages use images which are of low quality.
Content on web pages on the website paint a picture of a no-win doomsday scenario but lacks any information from at least one reliable source that proves said scenario. A reliable source depends on the context. If it is the "killer solar flare" scenario then there should be a link to a NASA website. If it is the "Mayan doomsday" scenario, see below
Fear-mongering is the intent of the content if you feel anxious after reading it. To counteract this fear, Google "killer solar flare hoax". If it's the Mayan doomsday hoax, Google "Mayan doomsday hoax".
The next time the conspiracy theorists mention the solar flare doomsday scenario, post this URL with the following rebuttal:
"I call your doomsday prediction a hoax by referring you to the experts' facts contained in this web link..
If it is refuted by any variation of 'the government coverup' fallacy, then you will confirm that your website is designed to fool naïve people.
If, on the other hand, you admit that you are perpetuating a hoax, then it makes sense to include this link on your website, because your free speech rights not only allows you the privilege to perpetuate a hoax but also obliges you to moderate its potential fear-mongering with what the experts say."
How to spot a hoax web site:
Webpages use images which are of low quality.
Content on web pages on the website paint a picture of a no-win doomsday scenario but lacks any information from at least one reliable source that proves said scenario. A reliable source depends on the context. If it is the "killer solar flare" scenario then there should be a link to a NASA website. If it is the "Mayan doomsday" scenario, see below
Fear-mongering is the intent of the content if you feel anxious after reading it. To counteract this fear, Google "killer solar flare hoax". If it's the Mayan doomsday hoax, Google "Mayan doomsday hoax".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)