The reason for this post
You ask and Facebook does deliver. For those of you who are not familiar with my work. I am NekoTheLazyGamer and often do reviews of Horror films, Movies, tv episodes, videos and I think that’s about it for now. As it is in my trade, I intend to review this malicious post with the upmost ferocity, because this shit on Facebook cannot go on. That’s right, I mean the shit feast of miscommunication and disregard to the English language. Well, okay the attacks on people in regard to how they identity as a response to stimuli too I guess. But I can argue that this post is not something that anyone should stand for or support. I do note that the first paragraph pulls a common political propaganda stunt by use of name-calling in order to identify a group of people as hive mind and something to actively fight against. Although it might be the author’s stance to be active against homosexuality as a practice. (Note that the poster doesn’t even regard it as an orientation. How an individual defines sexuality is actually very important. Though this particular case might not need for it to be.) Likewise, the poster presumes that one’s sexuality would dictate their stance on whether or not discrimination is protected
under the first amendment. I will also get to how the author is clearly misusing the word “discriminate” in order to piece his argument by trying to establish it as possessing only one meaning. By the second paragraph, the author clearly does not realize that discrimination refers to how one TREATS an individual or thing in regards to the natural five senses. Then there’s his use of synonym without any regard to a synonym only means that a word can be used in context or to mean the same as another word. Something the author so boldly disregards as he proclaims discern and discriminate to have the same meaning; therefore discriminate could not possibly possess any other meaning. Simply because a word can be used to mean the same as another word does not meant that that word can only have that meaning. Think of what it mean to get in relation to receive. So if I were to tell someone to “get over it”, would it have the same meaning if I said to “receive over it”? No.
Likewise, the poster has totally disregarded the basis that treatment of other people is not solely on a verbal basis. Thereby what is not verbal would receive no such protection or right toward any protection from the first amendment. Likewise, his argument has justified harassment under the first amendment, hazing, and neglect. Hopefully these are not the words that the author intended to communicate if is so much as a Christian as claims to be. Now, I can attest to the fact that the author is right to say, the freedom of speech is not limited to what everyone wants to hear. However, there have been adjustments to the right in the interest of public safety such as why you cannot scream fire in a busy theater while no fire exists. Such adjustments are made in regards toward safety. Now, I would really like to dwell on the last sentence for the ABSOLUTE STUPITY that it is. “US is not like the illogical FB admins that whatever truth you say against homosexual behavior people get banned left and right but pornographic, Islamic attacks and violence toward Christians are okay.” Tell me, can you see what’s wrong with that sentence? No? Then get the fuck out if you think this sort of belligerent behavior is thereby acceptable under the following pretenses. For those of you who stay tuned despite possessing contrary confusions are welcome to hear the problem, and I thank those who realized it for restoring some of my faith in humanity. This whole Post is nothing more than a tantrum! He’s not upset because he’s told that he is refuted the right to say whatever he pleases. NO. The author is upset because admins who find their attitudes unacceptable or unproductive toward their Facebook group practice the right to banned them. To an extent, it’s that he’s upset that people reserve the right to exclude members for malicious attitudes. Just for a final spit to the face, the author even proclaims that those who feel the need to exercise personable rights to uphold exclusive groups thereby support Pornography (note that the author had misused the proper part of speech), Islamic terrorism and attacks on Christians. If more Christians acted the way this author demonstrated than I would think it hard to distinguish this individual’s sort from Christian persecutors that the author has noted himself. Is this the sort of behavior that Jesus died for? Savagery? Hatred hidden under a mask of false fellowship? You read that post and you tell me that any of what he said made a lick of sense. What does getting banned from one group having anything to do with persecution? For those of you who may seem lost in what exactly a closed group is and what it entails. It’s exactly that. Closed. People who often form groups do so as a means of support and to some extent crucial to pass experiences that depend on a bound of trust. Think of it this way. Say that in fellowship, Mass, or congregation there’s an Indian man who joins you but not for the worship. Rather than listen to the preacher, he disputes Hinduism. The context is obviously hypothetical, but the point is that intrusions on a group, which is found upon a set of similar interests or beliefs, that involves name-calling, accusations and/or attacks on your values under the predisposition that he/she clearly knows you for who you TRULY are would cause an overhaul of discomfort, fear and intimidation. You can say what you like, but a group of people will always have the right to ban you from a group, or dismiss you.
nekothelazygamer 