depricated wrote:Ya, I agree Infidel. I think censorship is acceptable insofar as it prevents direct harm and incitement - such as shouting for a mob to hang someone or shouting fire in a theater. I don't think censorship is acceptable as a method of enforcing moral views,
Xewleer wrote:Censorship is born out of the power of the morality, and under it is the masses. We (America) used to be Christians. Until the last 50 years, 75% of America at least SAID they were some kind of Christian. (What arguments do you have against it?). Thusly, if the morals say: No sex on tv, no cursin' and keep the violence down, and the masses AGREE with them? Well, what's wrong with it?
Maybe the masses have moved on, now, in this brave new world. FREE SPEECH! They chant! They want EVERYTHING! and they want it now... and those who had appeased the masses now find themselves behind the times... poor, pitiable old people, their world has departed... they don't understand it anymore? What happened to the moral of the masses? NO! It hasn't changed! They are merely more immoral! So we will show them what it means to be moral! Is that what they think? Maybe.. maybe...
Xewleer wrote:Now now... Lets step back.
Even if I accept your attempt to backtrack, you still need to prove your statement made earlier. But no, the reason you assumed we were talking about American censorship is because you're thinking is too ethnocentric.I assumed we were talking about American censorship in my first few paragraphs. I'm touched though. My ignorance is most appalling.
We've got an evolving culture. I
Morality changes. Do you understand now?
Now back to censoring. He feared that if the masses were lied to, they would be more easy to boss around. He was right, but! he needed the media to help. Well, they didn't want that! So he showed them muscle, locked a few in jail, killed a few publicly, and said to the rest: "Stay in line!" Well, the rest is history. Tom Clancy joked, in 'Hunt for the Red October' that everyone knows that the weekend is the Soviet workers paradise. Do you understand? He censored the media for power and prestige.
Xewleer wrote:Should what I said be censored?
Xewleer wrote:I wasn't really referring to anything you said. I portrayed a horrendous amount of misinformation (heck, even I know some of the stuff that I said is wrong). So should I be censored for it? This is a one word answer.
What's the famous quote? "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it," if I recall? I'll hold to that. I certainly don't agree with your views but I don't think they should be censored.Xewleer wrote:I wasn't really referring to anything you said. I portrayed a horrendous amount of misinformation (heck, even I know some of the stuff that I said is wrong). So should I be censored for it? This is a one word answer.
Xewleer wrote:I would like to see all books on gay sex burned/never written. Why do we need it?
In case this was directed at me, I'm just going to point out what I was referencing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32K0nq0u0f0balder wrote:You may have to register to post here, but you're effectively anonymous and free of even the basic repercussions involved in saying something offensive to someone else. Maybe you feel free to toss around the word "fag" in a way that you wouldn't do on, say, a crowded subway. There isn't really any more repercussion on the subway than here, just a possible dirty look or at most, being engaged directly in conversation with the person you offended and having to look them in the eye and say it. But saying it in public meatspace requires you to take ownership of the remark.
Users browsing this forum: GWvsJohn and 1 guest