Facebook Censors Peaceful Saint Augustine Quote As ‘Hate Speech’

[Molly Pitcher]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/49546...aign=position7

[ruthless terrier]

censoring is one thing which is very destructive. but it seems to me that companies like Facebook are denying that a huge part of our history even exists. sadly there are many that will go along with this.

[Calypso Jones]

Unable to excuse themselves.......

[Calypso Jones]

they are ready to accuse others.

[Molly Pitcher]

Facebook Briefly Issues New Policy Allowing Death Threats Against Paul Joseph Watson

https://teapartypac.org/facebook-bri...m_medium=email

[IvanLeFou]

"Unable to excuse themselves, they are ready to accuse others."

Maybe Facebook took it as a personal attack...

[Monk-Eye]

" Censorship By Clowns Intentionally Made Clueless Of Valid Political Science Principles "


* Simple Rules With Complicated Conclusions *

Actions or speech that do not violate non violence principles should be allowed .

At issue with non violence principles is that political science has been inept to not define violence as illegitimate aggression and it does not define the meaning of illegitimate aggression or elaborate on an entitlement to self defence against it .

The elements of illegitimate aggression and self defence are included in non aggression principles which is syntactically a corrupt application of terminology as not all aggression is illegitimate .


* Conspiracy Conundrum Of Language Avoiding Aggression And Self Defence *

Nonviolence - Wikipedia
The term "nonviolence" is often linked with or used as a synonym for peace, and despite being frequently equated with passivity and pacifism, this is rejected by nonviolent advocates and activists.^[11] Nonviolence refers specifically to the absence of violence and is always the choice to do no harm or the least harm, and passivity is the choice to do nothing.


* Language Stupidity Describing Pacifism While Rejecting It *

Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia
The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle, or non-initiation of force, is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, aggression is defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual or their property.^[1] In contrast to pacifism, it does not forbid forceful defense.



* Bantering The Obvious *

Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ?

[Monk-Eye]

" Political Correct Is An Oxymoron "

* When In Doubt Check It Out *

https://www.dailywire.com/news/49546...aign=position7

I found this difficult to believe , so i submitted a topic suggestion to Snopes.com | The definitive fact-checking site and reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation. .

Although the constitution only specifies what the government may not do with respect to freedom of speech , such that private despots are free to run roughshod over individual liberties in the name of private property , it sure seems that if the president cannot block twitter users from responding to his twitter account , then an idiot like sucker burg , his communist agent spouse , and his moron drones , cannot block comments which are far from illegitimate aggression .
The quote Facebook deemed so offensive is as follows:

Let us never assume that if we live good lives we will be without sin; our lives should be praised only when we continue to beg for pardon. But men are hopeless creatures, and the less they concentrate on their own sins, the more interested they become in the sins of others. They seek to criticize, not to correct. Unable to excuse themselves, they are ready to accuse others.

[DLLS]

Facebooks rules clearly state, "Christianity bad, Islam good"

Okay perhaps not but it would not surprise me if, like some on the extreme left, facebook wants to eliminate Christianity from the "public square."

[Molly Pitcher]

" Political Correct Is An Oxymoron "

* When In Doubt Check It Out *

I found this difficult to believe , so i submitted a topic suggestion to Snopes.com | The definitive fact-checking site and reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation. .

Although the constitution only specifies what the government may not do with respect to freedom of speech , such that private despots are free to run roughshod over individual liberties in the name of private property , it sure seems that if the president cannot block twitter users from responding to his twitter account , then an idiot like sucker burg , his communist agent spouse , and his moron drones , cannot block comments which are far from illegitimate aggression .
The quote Facebook deemed so offensive is as follows:

Let us never assume that if we live good lives we will be without sin; our lives should be praised only when we continue to beg for pardon. But men are hopeless creatures, and the less they concentrate on their own sins, the more interested they become in the sins of others. They seek to criticize, not to correct. Unable to excuse themselves, they are ready to accuse others.

If you're still "fact-checking" via Snopes.............my ears are closed.