Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.

[Hughsie]

(31-12-2012 06:56 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  A strawman, now?

Nope, a stupid comment I called you out on. That was exactly what you were saying.

[earmuffs]

(31-12-2012 06:56 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  

(31-12-2012 06:55 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  No. You are making this out to be something it's not.
FZU should have been banned with the whole FZU/Anjele.
I agree mods shouldn't ban based on opinion, that's not what I am proposing.

He really shouldn't have been banned. He did nothing worthy of a ban.

Yes he should have. He threatened members.

[Misanthropik]

(31-12-2012 06:56 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  

(31-12-2012 06:55 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  If someone is continuously being harmed by the words of others, how do you justify allowing the antagonist to continue?

They have the power to stop the antagonist cold in their track by simply logging out.

And in doing so, they will be surrenduring their OWN freedom so that their antagonist may retain his. Despite the fact that mathematically and logically, the antagonist should have been booted from the group instead.

Completely nonsensical.

[Hughsie]

(31-12-2012 06:58 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yes he should have. He threatened members.

Not with physical violence.

[Misanthropik]

(31-12-2012 06:57 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  

(31-12-2012 06:56 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  A strawman, now?

Nope, a stupid comment I called you out on. That was exactly what you were saying.

It's not, actually. I've been saying that a person who continuously harms others with their speech should have that freedom taken from them. Go back and read my posts from the begining.

[Hughsie]

(31-12-2012 06:59 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  And in doing so, they will be surrenduring their OWN freedom so that their antagonist may retain his. Despite the fact that mathematically and logically, the antagonist should have been booted from the group instead.

Completely nonsensical.

Nope, they have exercised their freedom to leave.

Proposing that anyone who upsets anyone else should be booted to protect free-speech is what is nonsensical.

[Misanthropik]

(31-12-2012 06:59 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  

(31-12-2012 06:58 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yes he should have. He threatened members.

Not with physical violence.

LMAO

[Misanthropik]

(31-12-2012 07:00 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  

(31-12-2012 06:59 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  And in doing so, they will be surrenduring their OWN freedom so that their antagonist may retain his. Despite the fact that mathematically and logically, the antagonist should have been booted from the group instead.

Completely nonsensical.

Nope, they have exercised their freedom to leave.

Proposing that anyone who upsets anyone else should be booted to protect free-speech is what is nonsensical.

You're right, that's why I've not proposed that. Like, ever.

[Question]

I don't mean to jump in, I never really thought of TTA as a debating arena, but more like a family community where I can relax from my stressful encounters with the religious. (I know it doesn't relate 100% to the topic, but I know others feel this way about the forums as well.)

[Hughsie]

(31-12-2012 07:00 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  It's not, actually. I've been saying that a person who continuously harms others with their speech should have that freedom taken from them. Go back and read my posts from the begining.

You basically stated that people should have conditional free-speech (based on the condition that they don't say anything with negative consequences). If it's conditional then how exactly is it free?