When is Censorship Not Censorship?

internet-censorshipI’ve seen this going around the web a lot these past few weeks so I thought I’d take a moment to comment on it all because pretty much everyone has been getting it all completely wrong.  Now I don’t want to point fingers but it seems that a lot of people think that they have a right to speak using the forum of any company, or for that matter, individual on the Internet and nobody can tell them no.

They are mistaken.

The only group that cannot censor you is the government and even then it’s not an absolute right.  Try telling state secrets to our enemies, see how long it takes the government to “censor” you.  For anyone who thinks that’s a bad thing, you’re just wrong.

Otherwise though, while you are perfectly free to speak, you do not have a right to force others to provide a platform for your speech.  You can stand on a soap box on the street corner and speak your mind but you cannot force TV stations to carry your screed.  You cannot force newspapers to print your manifesto.  You have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to have your free speech heard, especially on someone else’s dime.

holding_breathYet that’s apparently what a lot of people want.  I don’t want to make this partisan, but I can’t think of a single recent post on this topic that didn’t come from the left and it seems they just don’t understand it and I want to be helpful.  See, when you log onto a service like Google or Facebook, you automatically agree to follow their acceptable use policy.  It’s not something you can opt out of.  It’s not something you can get around.  It’s their house, their rules.  If you don’t like their rules, don’t go there.  Find somewhere else more appropriate for your screed.  Don’t bitch about it, it does no good.  This becomes annoying when people whine endlessly that they ought to have the right to post anything they want to a site, just because it’s popular and has a broad reach and, more often than not, is absolutely free to use.  Waah!  They want to post things that everyone gets to see for free and if they can’t do it, they’re going to hold their breath until they turn blue!

Sorry, cry me a river.

Now if you really want to post your opinions to the Internet, go buy yourself a domain, find someone to host it that doesn’t have rules  against whatever you’ll be writing and then you’re free to post whatever you want to post until the cows come home, at least within reason.  There are some things you can’t post at all.  You can’t post kiddy porn.  You can’t post bomb-making instructions.  You can’t harass people or threaten people.  If that’s what you want to do, stick your head in a blender, you’re an idiot.  You simply cannot expect another company or individual to be required to host your dogma when they are paying the bills.  If you want that freedom, you pay the bills.  Then you can make the rules.

I really don’t get where people think the Internet is a democracy.  It’s not.  It never has been.  It never will be. Like everything else, it is a business. Deal with it.  Just like you can’t walk into Macy’s and start ranting at their customers about whatever topic impinges on your little mind, you can’t walk into the Google+ forums and start preaching about things that you’ve agreed, by your very presence there, not to do.  You have no Constitutional right to post to any forum anywhere online.  You just don’t.

So please get over it.

147 thoughts on “When is Censorship Not Censorship?”

        1. I know, but I remember him saying things like this:

          1 day ago @ Big Government – Occupy-Linked Hacker G… · 17 replies · -6 points
          "The revolution has begun and your kind will be finding their heads in baskets soon. I hope you still have that smile on your face when that time comes."

          1. I know I remember you saying things like this:
            Roger 170p • 9 hours ago

            Well, she might have shown hair and neck.
            In all fairness should a slut like that be allowed to live?

            Roger 168p • 49 minutes ago
            Attacking you for just about anything is the only decent thing to do.

            Roger 162p • 4 days ago
            My chuckle is that Iran is going to slip one through our admittedly very porous southern border and then detonate this in a US city…

            Roger 162p • 4 days ago
            I wouldn’t stalk you if you weren’t such a hack

          2. The partial quotes again?

            Is that the only trick you have left?

            How is your partial quotes I can explain match his full quote that he still hasn't retracted?

            And when you are less than honest about my comments verbally attacking your flawed position is a decent thing to do.

            And you just showed yourself to be a hack. My using designed features to set the record straight isn't the same as saying you should have your head chopped off.

            See, nothing is what you tried to pretend it was.
            That again explains why I can safely call you a hack.

          3. Is lying the only trick you have left? Those are whole wuotes not partial so you lied again.

            You did not saying anything about "verbally attacking me" and attacking for "just about anything" is a threat.

            You admitted you stalked me

          4. Calling them what they are isn't lying.
            And in a debate forum attacking a flawed position is a verbal attack.

            And using the designed features of this forum isn't the legal definition of stalking. You kept using the word and I humored you, it wasn't an admission of anything. You can try to say it was, but I'm sure thinking people will see it for what it was.

            And when you have flawed positions that leaves a lot of 'just about anything' to counter with common sense. You can try all these diversions, but if you can't take the heat, why are you here at this voluntary forum?

          5. MY postions are no where near flawed and those quotes are not partial, they are the entire quotes. You abuse the design features so you can justify stalking people. Where did you say anyting about a "verbal attack" When you said "just about anything" it means what it means.It was a threat designed to instill fear that you may attack me for anything like crossing the street

          6. Your positions are often flawed.
            For example you still defend this quote.

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO"

          7. Prove it, see 'burden of proof'.

            You took a rumor, offered no evidence of accuracy then advocated the most violent response possible. It's all so sharia friendly too.

          8. So you still defend a comment advocating for violence even when admitting it was mere rumor. You have nothing to base it on, and posting a comment about pagans/Christians really doesn't compare to the sharia style'd religion you ignore that is in the news today for 400 kidnapped school girls.

            That is hate, that is intolerance. Why do you ignore it?

          9. I don't ignore it and I have been waiting for something to be done about theose girls since they were kidnapped last month (it's old news but still needs to be told) and I hope the troops kill everyone of the kidnappers.

            It does compare if you read the link (which you didn't)

          10. I didn't see you showing they did that as a result of Christ and His teachings.

            So, you threw out a red herring and ignored the violence in the one religion in Nigeria committing worse human rights abuses.

          11. They certainly claim that what they do is in accordance with their belief in Christianity. In fact, there are plenty of cases that can be shown to have been performed specifically out of their Christian beliefs, including Hitler.

            Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

          12. No, you claim he was in spite of a total lack of evidence that he followed the teachings of Christ.

            You do that a lot, ignore evidence since you have an agenda for muslim friends positions and against Christianity.

          13. I don't really give a damn about the teachings of Christ, but if someone says they are performing an action because of their beliefs in Jesus, then as far as I'm concerned, I'll take their word for it. Muslims perform just as many evils in the name of their religions. Atheists, on the other hand, don't do evil because they are atheists. That's the difference.

          14. If you want to blame things on Christians then you should at least be informed enough to know what you're speaking about.

            I know you don't agree with the teachings of Christ, but to remain ignorant while blaming the things you're ignorant of, that' just not how I pictured your thought process.

          15. Then Christ doesn't matter in his life.

            And he's not a Christian in the true sense.

            He may use deceptive labels, but that's all they are.

          16. A Christian is a person that says they follow Jesus Christ just like Ante Pavelic said he did.

            You also pulled all my comments on LRC just like you did Wee's on Belfast. You lied about it, yet still call yourself a Christan.

          17. And which one of those was he following?

            And in case you haven't figured it out, you're not the only one pulling comments, I suspect a cranky old guy with well problems is pulling both of ours.

          18. My comments are only pulled when you come on line, and YOU pulled Wee's comments on Belfast all by yourself, then lied about it.



            A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity: a born-again Christian

          19. And you haven't shown that happened in either case. Stick to you marxist values, you at least understand them.

            I don't think they're worth having, but then to each their own.

            And you're not the only one that follows me so you can pounce on my comments.

            Having been around with my score tends me make me a target for every troll who thinks they can prove me wrong, then resorts to being an alinsky.

          20. Did you pull Wee's comments on Belfast and mine on LRC?

            You will never answer because you are a liar and an internet stalker.

            Your score? It is fake. You got it from your OCD affliction 150,000 comments.

          21. None. Now answer my question. Oh, that's right you won't. You are a pathological liar.

          22. The obvious reply would be "Since you aren't going to tell the truth…"

            But if you know my style, I don't pull my own comments. Who do you think was busy?

          23. Again…did you pull my comments on LRC?

            You say a lot of things, but you don't say the right thing.

          24. See folks. He pulled my comments.And now goew around bitching about his own be9ngpullee. He is a girl.

          25. See folks, he just says what ever he wants and doesn't even pretend his comments were actual debate or discussion.

          26. Eww. Nobody here is going to pull yours. This is not that kind of site – I'm sure you can find some that are.

          27. Yes. He is a liar, and a stalker. You missed it the other day, but I was having a conversation with PoofShesGone. The comments are deleted, but she mentioned that she had email notifications of Roger complaining about her comments.

            That pretty much verifys that Rog was the one pulling the comments.

            Poor Rog.
            All fraud.
            All liar.
            All the time.

            Then he squeals and says someone else is doing it. The boy is a mental case.

          28. Still making things up?
            In case you don't remember your'e the one that bragged about my comments being 'gone'

            And for those with doubt, they can read the profile name.

          29. imagine that, being offended by comments like this one?

            29 minutes ago @ Antiwar.com Original A… – The Drug War Expands t… · 1 reply · +1 points
            I don't live near any mountains. Imagine how better off the world would be if you stuck a 454 Super Red Hawk in your mouth and pulled the trigger. You can borrow mine

          30. Had a preacher tell me once I should go in the woods and kill myself.

            I reconginized his right to speech and laughed in his face. Sure in the hell didn't file a law suit against him

          31. That is a horrible story, assuming you didn't just make it up.

            And he should have acted in accordance with his calling, if he had one.

            If he didn't, then he had no business being in his position.

          32. He is still a preacher. But I would never file a law suit against free speech like you

          33. Somehow your story doesn't have that ring of truth to it.

            Even if he is a preacher that doesn't mean he's a Christian.

          34. If the story is true, and I don't think it is, at least not as you tell it…

            Then he is failing to follow the James 3:1 warnings.

            What aren't you telling about the situation?

            And there is another aspect of this you need to be reminded of.

            If he let you down, then it's on him, Not his religion.

            Unless you can show where his religion demanded he say that.

            That's why a lot of people are 'spiritual' but reject formal religion due to people not living up to their callings.

            But that doesn't change it was the person, not the religion that deserves the responsibility for it.

          35. Of course.
            He is a cyber-terrorist.

            Political correctness is intellectual terrorism.

            Rogere excels at it.

          36. There\’s no evidence that there is a \”relationship\”. In order for there to be a relationship, there have to be two partners. Prove that God exists or you are, as usual, full of shit.

          37. Essentially true. It avoids the No True Scotsman fallacy if we simply accept that everyone who claims to be a Christian is, for all intents and purposes, a Christian.

          38. Agreed. He did say this:

            Roger 173p · 2 minutes ago

            Then provide proof for your points.
            It is simple, you're making assumptions without proof based on your feelings, then projecting that on other people who don't agree with your conclusions.

            Kind of ironic because that is what he does

          39. No, you provided links with claims, not evidence. When we pointed out that your links were flawed, you ignored us. Come on, stop being an ass.

          40. You claimed they were flawed, but didn't have sources or links to provide evidence they were flawed, just assertions.

          41. Nope.
            A relations takes two, the other side is laid out in the teachings of Christ and writings for His church, that's the other half. I don't have to prove God exists, just that the other side of the relationship is laid out.

          42. You miss a lot of things.

            Go back to your debate site.
            And the troll patrol may have done a lot of research on me, but that doesn't mean any of it is accurate. Challenger?

          43. By all means post the contact information for your \”attorney\” so we can. I suspect this is like that amazingly beautiful girlfriend that nobody ever sees.

          44. Alinsky and wee already posted it, and alinsky even used the photo from both the attorney and the judge where the case was filed as his profile pics.

          45. Good, for the person who says this, they have no business finding out anything about my personal life.

            7 hours ago @ Big Government – Occupy-Linked Hacker G… · 0 replies · 0 points
            Not chop, chop, just one single blade coming down fast.

            Your head will still be alive while it is in the basket, but you could never really be anymore brain dead than you are now..

          46. Like Im not worried about all the money you are dishing out on court orders.

          47. There you have it Rogere. The owner of the website just called you out, and asked you to post your Lawyer Information.

          48. It is and you are abusing the justice system to try and get a payday and eliminate free speech for the people you stalk and harass

          49. Every site you and the posse target does smell. Wish you would call them all back and go away so adults can have a disucussion

          50. Roger, Silly little man, you have no lawyer. For you to even entertain a law suit just shows exactly how delusional you really are. For over four years you have done nothing with your miserable life other than stalk, and harass others on Intense debate. You are nothing more than a joke to most, and one to be pitied by others. You are nothing more than a sad little TROLL. All any judge would need is to see your comment history. Case Closed!

          51. Hell. Narrow it down from there. Just go back and print off his Mothers Day Marathon, and the Judge will say Case dismissed…..

          52. You haven't said things like this.

            Keep talking Rog, I'm asking wee where you live. Lincoln? I want to tie you up into small knots and make your appendages perform feats that your false god never intended.

          53. They do? What teaching of Christ exactly are they following?

            And I do get frustrated with people 'telling me' I'm wrong without offering anything to back it up.

  1. "I don’t want to make this partisan, but I can’t think of a single recent post on this topic that didn’t come from the left…"

    I am in complete agreement with you main thesis here. (WOW, how odd is that). But it is a contradiction for you to claim that you don't want to make this partisan, and then do exactly that. It may be that there are many people on the left who are doing what you allege here. But how are we to judge the truth of your claim if you don't actually provide any evidence? How about some actual examples of text (with the source cited) of where you have read individuals engaging in this conduct. And how do we know that your statement isn't skewed by a sampling bias?

    I know it sounds like I am beating a dead horse horse. Or that I am sounding like a scratched record. Choose your metaphor. But the simple truth is that you are in the horrible habit of making claims without providing the evidence to support the claim. So I shall continue to beat this dead horse, and play the scratched record until you stop engaging in this practice.

  2. "There are some things you can’t post at all. You can’t post kiddy porn. You can’t post bomb-making instructions. You can’t harass people or threaten people. If that’s what you want to do, stick your head in a blender, you’re an idiot."

    I, and I am sure others here, appreciate the information about what can't be posted on the internet. But it is curious that you should provide this information about a post criticizing people for asserting that they should be able to post their screed on any blog or internet site they want. My curiosity stems from the fact that you did not say that any of these people were demanding to post the kind of stuff to which the above passage refers. So I ask, are you implying that they were? And if you weren't then including this particular passage in this commentary sure smells like a red herring, you know, one of those logical fallacy kind of things that critical thinkers aren't suppose to use.

    1. The point, in context, is that there are things you can't do, even if you want to, under the guise of free speech. There is no such thing as free speech without limit. In fact, there's no right enumerated in the founding documents, or anywhere else, that is without limit. It's unfortunate that there are people out there who think that they can do what they want, without limitation, and nobody can stop them. They need to be reminded that there are limitations to everything.

      1. " It's unfortunate that there are people out there who think that they can do what they want, without limitation, and nobody can stop them. They need to be reminded that there are limitations to everything."

        Now you are the thought police? People can think anything they want and you haven't any right to prevent them from doing so. Furthermore, while I agree with you that no one is required to comply with another's demand that they provide them a platform from which to speak, the person is nonetheless free to make the demand. This is protected free speech. You may remind them that there are limitations, but those limitations do not include the speech you are criticizing in this post. Any one is free to demand that they be allowed to post whatever they want on any site. I am not saying that the person to whom they are making this demand must allow them to do so. You are equally free to criticize them for making this demand. Both are speech protected under the principal of free speech. I would have thought that this would be obvious to you.

        Finally for those people "who think they can do what they want, without limitation, and nobody can stop them," exactly how would you stop them? Should the government make the speech you are criticizing here punishable by law?

        1. People can think what they like, but when it comes to speech, putting their thoughts out there for others to hear, they have no right necessarily to do so, especially when using other people's privately owned servers or soap boxes. They can ask for the ability, they can also be told no and if they are told no, that's not stifling their free speech, they can still go stand on a street corner and spout all the gibberish they want. People have a right to speak. They do not have a right to pick someone else's private property as their stage for that free speech.

          1. Well, I am relieved to hear that you don't support any efforts at devising ways to implement thought control or organizing a thought-police unit. But you are wrong when you say that people have no right to put "their thoughts out there for others to hear." They have every right to do so. They have every right to demand that they be allowed to do so. They have every right to even make the patently false claim that others have an obligation to provide them with a platform from which to make these thoughts known. What they don't have is a right to force others to provide this platform through force or threats or acts of violence. I challenge you to point to a single decision by the U.S. Supreme Court or any other federal court that says the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits a person from making any of the remarks that you criticized in your original post.

            "They can ask for the ability, they can also be told no and if they are told no, that's not stifling their free speech, they can still go stand on a street corner and spout all the gibberish they want.

            Here again, we are in agreement. But then I never claimed anything to the contrary of this remark. I never said anything that implied I thought otherwise. And if you think I did then you are not reading my comments very thoroughly.

            "People have a right to speak. They do not have a right to pick someone else's private property as their stage for that free speech."

            For a third time, we agree. But again, I never said they had a right to "someone else's private property as their stage for free speech." What I said is they have a right to say they have such a right. Of course they are wrong. But the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit individuals from uttering false (unless we are talking about libel or slander), silly, stupid, ignorant, or uninformed statements. You of all people ought to know this.

          2. Alright, they don't have a realistic right to demand to do so, any more than someone has a legitimate right to yell fire in a crowded theater or pass state secrets to an enemy nation. You might even argue that people are free to do these things, so long as they are willing to suffer the consequences of their action and I will agree with you. If you want to be held accountable for treason, pass all the state secrets to the enemy you want, just don't come back later and complain that you're going to spend the rest of your life in prison. But none of that has anything to do with the original point of the post, which was not that they had the right to ask for permission to use private property to make their statements, but that they had a right to do it regardless of what the owners of that property said on the matter. They want to be able to stand on your lawn and make their speeches, regardless of your permission, and have no negative consequences for their actions, just because your lawn happens to be strategically placed. They think that their right to free speech overrides your property rights and most of all, allows them do take any action in the name of free speech without suffering any consequences for doing so.

            That's just not how it works. Even you ought to know that.

          3. "Alright, they don't have a realistic right to demand to do so, any more than someone has a legitimate right to yell fire in a crowded theater or pass state secrets to an enemy nation."

            Bullshit. You can be prosecuted and punished for the latter two. You can't be prosecuted or punished for the first. If I demand that you provide me space on your blog and I insist that I have a right to do so, you'll be laughed at by any prosecutor or police officer for trying to get me arrested or prosecuted for doing so. If, however, I do any one of the other two you can bet that I will be arrested and prosecuted.

            You simply don't understand how free speech works. On the contrary I could demand of a property owner that they permit me to use their property from which to speak. I could further insist that I have a right to make this demand and that they are obligated to comply. I would of course be wrong about the latter. And of course the property owner has every right to deny my request and tell me to take a fucking leap in a deep pool. But what he could not do, so long as I don't actually trespass on his property, is call the police and expect that I will be arrested, prosecuted and convicted for making the claim that he has to comply with my demand. And should he manage to convince the police to arrest me and the prosecutor to prosecute me for making this claim, there isn't a court in the land who wouldn't laugh the prosecutor right out of the courtroom.

            "They want to be able to stand on your lawn and make their speeches, regardless of your permission, and have no negative consequences for their actions, just because your lawn happens to be strategically placed."

            They can demand to do so. But so long as they don't actually step onto the property without the property owner's permission, there isn't a damn thing you can do to them concerning their vocalizing their demand.

            I never said they could take any action in the name of free speech. And if you think I did then you are not reading my comments carefully. Of course they don't have the right to do whatever they want. For example, as I already said, they can not actually step onto the property without the owner's permission and expect there will be no consequences. But that does not mean, as stupid as it would be, that they are prohibited by the First Amendment from saying they have the right to do so. Stepping onto the property would be an act, punishable by law. Saying they have the right to step onto the property is protected speech.

            "That's just not how it works. Even you ought to know that."

            I do know that that is not how it works. Reason you don't know that I know is because you have a reading comprehension problem. In addition, you are apparently not a very nuanced thinker.

      2. "In fact, there's no right enumerated in the founding documents, or anywhere else, that is without limit."

        On this point we are agreed. I am wondering, however, why you thought it necessary to point this out to me? Did you think I thought otherwise? Did I write something that led you to believe I was unaware of this?

        While this is without question a valid point, I fail to see how it has any bearing on the particular speech you were criticizing. There is no limitation on people making stupid remarks, including saying things that are false (unless we are talking about libel or slander). There are no limitations on persons making silly and ridiculous demands.

        1. Because there are a lot of people out there who don't seem to know that. There are people out there who are certain that their right to free speech is unlimited, they can say anything they want, anywhere they want and suffer no punishment for it. There are people out there who are certain that their right to own a firearm is unlimited and they can possess anything they can carry or drag behind their car, with no limitation whatsoever. I even saw a guy once argue that his right to free association meant he didn't have to pay attention to things like restraining orders. Now yes, these are stupid claims but they are real claims that stupid people make and unfortunately, it has to be pointed out how asinine these ideas actually are for the people who hold them.

  3. "Like everything else, it is a business."

    This is a technical point, but given your tendency to misuse language it is one that must be corrected. There are many businesses doing business on the internet. But the internet itself is not a business. No person, group or persons, or business interest or entity actually owns the internet and makes a profit from that ownership. The internet is a free technology.

    "The Internet is at once a world-wide broadcasting capability, a mechanism for information dissemination, and a medium for collaboration and interaction between individuals and their computers without regard for geographic location. The Internet represents one of the most successful examples of the benefits of sustained investment and commitment to research and development of information infrastructure. Beginning with the early research in packet switching, the government, industry and academia have been partners in evolving and deploying this exciting new technology…. The Internet today is a widespread information infrastructure, the initial prototype of what is often called the National (or Global or Galactic) Information Infrastructure." (Source: http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-inte

    It is a an infrastructure, not unlike our transportation infrastructure, that while not owned by any profit-making entity, is provided to profit-makig entities to conduct their business and make their profits.

    1. Actually, the Internet is a business, it is made up of servers and cables that must be paid for and they are paid for through sales. If it wasn't for the business nature of the modern Internet, it wouldn't exist because there would be no way to fund it. Virtually everyone on the Internet pays for access, which is a business. Almost every independent web site out there is paid for by it's owner. That's a business. The overwhelming majority of sites that generate the most traffic operate through sales or donations. That's a business. Very little happens online without some exchange of money.

  4. "The point, in context, is that there are things you can't do, even if you want to, under the guise of free speech."

    Then the comment in the context of the commentary was a red herring. None of the speech you were criticizing falls under the categories of unprotected speech.

    1. Which doesn't stop people from pretending that it does. In fact, if you actually read the article, you'd see that's exactly what I was saying. Censorship only applies when the government tries to do it, it does not apply when individuals or businesses do it.

  5. This reminds me of the debating site I frequent.

    Recently they had a rule change, which in effect only makes it easier for the moderators to do the job they are doing anyway. However, a bunch of people left the site saying it was unfair. Its ridiculous as most of them would never have got banned anyway they just don't want to admit they made a mistake in their initial interpretation of the "new" rules.
    My recent post Idiots of the week – Boko Haram

        1. Oh shit, I have been on there. I have to use a different name so a certain someone does not harass me there, it's a great site IMO

        2. I've been there before, was never all that impressed with it though but maybe it's improved since I last checked it out. Virtually all debate sites, especially in their religious sections, are filled with fanatics who wouldn't know how to debate rationally if their lives depended on it.

          1. The problem is, I don't want to deal with the religious idiots, I want everyone to be held to the same high standard, yet that's not something that works with religion. They make absurd, unsupported, irrational claims and think that's debate. It's not. It's pathetic.

    1. That reminds me of a debate site which has it specifically in the rules that everyone has to provide evidence for their claims but the religious started to whine saying all they had was faith so the moderators "reinterpreted" the rules so that the religious didn't have to meet the standards and all debate went to shit. I've recently gone back to see if anything has changed and mostly, it's the same old watered down nonsense, nobody can argue against the theists because the theists don't actually have to argue, they can just assert.

        1. That\’s the problem, they apply to everyone whether they like it or not. That\’s why theists fail so badly, they don\’t even understand the rules of the game.

          1. I understand, and wait for the atheists to play by the same rules. Proof for every assertion.
            Even things as widely accepted as the Big Bang.

            That's why I repeatedly asked for definitions and standards for things like historical figures.

          2. Come on, stop being so dense. We do present evidence. You present nothing. We might not present as much evidence as you claim you want and that's something to have a discussion about, but we present a hell of a lot more than you do. You come up with no objective evidence for your beliefs at all.

            Be sure to let us know when you perform at least as well as we do. I think we'll all fall over in shock.

          3. No, you claim to present evidence.
            You have asserted and those examples I just listed are great representations of times you don't 'have proof, so you just say it's accepted.

            You want me to prove God, and I provided real evidence of intelligent design and that the big bang could not have happened as explained (the retrograde rotation of planets and moons) and you once more assert that an accepted explanation exists, but that still wasn't presenting evidence to the level you demand of me.

            You want to debate, fine. But only on a level playing field. You play by the same rules you demand from me, or just admit you can't.

          4. You did nothing of the sort. You presented things that you CLAIM were design, you didn't demonstrate that they actually were and most importantly, you simply ASSERTED that God was responsible without being able to draw a direct causal link between the events and God. All of your arguments hinge on an assumption that God is real. I don't accept that assumption. Let me know when you can PROVE with OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that God is real. Until then, you've failed miserably.

          5. Cephus, I sense your are getting fed-up, frustrated.

            You put a lot of effort into this blog, a lot of hard work. I respect that. It might have been nice a few weeks ago, to start getting all of this new blog traffic, but I see your enthusiasm is waning. It will become a chore, dealing with the clinically unsound and insane.

            You will end up feeling like a baby-sitter…………

          6. Oh, I don't care, I hardly have time to spend reading all the comments and Roger is just laughable as we all know. He's said his bit, he's been defeated soundly and he keeps saying the same thing over and over and over again. It isn't that I'm not enthusiastic, more like bored with his absurdity. He's welcome to keep making a fool of himself if he wants though. No harm no foul from my perspective.

          7. Let us know when you meet ANY standards of evidence. Any at all. You're just desperately trying to avoid demonstrating anything. We can demonstrate nature. Prove the supernatural. Do something besides act like an idiot.

          8. I did with archeological sites showing Jesus was a actual historical figure.

            You conveniently were too busy to notice them.

          9. I asserted it was the appearance of intelligent design.

            And you have not shown any evidence or proof of other sources for the retrograde rotation.

  6. 1 hour ago @ Bitch Spot – When is Censorship Not… · 2 replies · -2 points
    Again did you pull mine?

Leave a Reply to Cephus Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)