Well, that may be true about more controversial issues, but I doubt they'd have trouble believing their parent if they merely claimed that a fictional piece of entertainment was fictional.
Why is that? Because I don't think that exaggerating the number of people who would change merely because of said fictional entertainment is very large, and therefore I don't think it's justified to ban the entertainment for kids? I just think that education is a far better solution than outright banning.
being a functional member of a family is more important than viewing the fictional entertainment.
A "functional member of the family"? Anyway, as I said, I really doubt that the number of people who would change merely by viewing a fictional piece of entertainment is large at all. I also can't see any reason that someone would become angry, frustrated, or snappish by watching those shows.
A family cell is not a democratic environment, it is an autocratic one and it should stay that way.
That's anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't matter to me. Are slight changes in behavior noteworthy? Education should suffice. Even if it doesn't, I don't believe that it's a reason to stop the children from viewing the fictional entertainment.
They're concerned with the varying percentage of kids whose parents won't take the time / know better to talk to them and give context, etc. Ideally, sure, all the world's parents would have a bit of guidance and insight for each of the things their kids see/hear/experience, but we know that's not the case.
I see. However, the number of children who would get such a message from a fictional piece of entertainment are few in number, I think. That number can be thinned even further if they have responsible parents. What you're likely left with is a few children who do get this message, but they are so few in number that they are likely not worth worrying about (well, in the sense that games should be censored or banned for children, anyway).
We should accept the fact that many, many families lack parental guidance, and the results should be studied and understood.
I believe that only a few of them would get that message. But even if they did, instead of having parents ban the games for the child, why don't they teach them otherwise and then let them play them?
Similarly it isn't the fault of the person eventually served at a restaurant that the restaurant speculatively bought the ingredients for their food.
No, it isn't.
You have interacted with them – you've taken a copy of something they produced using that time and effort.
You didn't "take" a copy of anything. You copied it. But, really, where did you interact with them? As far as I know, file sharers typically sit in front of their computers and download the data. Where do they interact with the author in such a scenario? They didn't force the author to do anything. No further time or effort is required from them to copy this data.
The "potential profit" argument appears to make more sense than that.
People who pirate the software, instead of paying, only encourage the developers to underestimate the potential value of their work, and therefore, less development will occur.
Is that the fault of the file sharers, who do not even interact with the authors in any way, shape, or form (and therefore do not deprive them of time, resources, or existing physical property), or the fault of a society which runs on scarcity, even if artificial? If something requires labor, and there is no limit to the amount of it that can be produced, and it's easy for everyone to do so once the original has been made, laws are typically enacted to create artificial scarcity for it. If that is not done, though the people easily reproducing the item do not take anything from anyone else, then someone else could, potentially, go out of business merely because they did not receive a potential gain. How do you own something that you never had in the first place?
"Stealing" what? The reason I think it's idiotic to use such terms in regards to 'piracy' is because taking away someone's exist physical property and copying data are two very different things. Copying data doesn't take away the author's time, resources, or existing property. It's called "copyright infringement."
No, it remains a conclusion, based on a premise, grounded in fact.
If you say so. But at this point, it doesn't look like you're not going to believe me, anyway.
But why make that assumption?
It's a suggested scenario. I said "if."
I don't get the consistent references to the whole "offended" thing. Is "either offended or not offended" the extent of your worldview?
I just don't understand why empathy is needed if no one is offended or hurt (which, technically, would be their own fault anyway) by a fictional piece of entertainment. I really don't see another reason why empathy would be needed according to some people. It might technically remind people of the disaster, but being saddened in such a situation is rather useless and is completely up to them.
Well, I doubt they'd assume that no one would find them funny, but weren't you just saying to be careful with the absolutes?
The last sentence was in the form of a question. It implied that I believe it probably didn't happen.
No, that is a scenario that the article suggests.
You previously spoke of treading carefully around me. This seems to be exactly what I myself need to do. That was also a mistake.
Yes, but we'd be speaking about at least two if you're weren't so fixated, ones that include context and perspective.
The thing is, I don't really care about the other scenarios because they aren't what I disagree with. I'm going to mention the one that, if true, is what I disagree with.
No, you said you saw no reasons, which quite explicitly doesn't allow for them.
Yes, I previously saw no reasons. Then more were suggested.
It talks about "unsuitable" and "sensitive" material, not "offensive".
What do either of those even mean in this situation?
Disagreeing repeatedly with another's independent decision based on strict interpretations and pre-formed scenarios is the starting point to restrict individual freedom.
Restrict freedom? I already stated that people should be allowed to make the choice. I will try to explain why I disagree and try to make them believe otherwise, but that's it.
You start having to put "in my opinion" in front of everything, and you just can't catch everything.
You have a point.
The "aw shucks, I ain't perfect" philosophy is another of those catch-all approaches favoured by the fundamentalist.
No, I was agreeing with you.
Oh? How about this:
More mistakes, it seems. I questioned them in such a way previously because they were stated as facts. But I can see why you did that from your next point.
Second, my point was that you seem to be closer to the easily offended that you might care to think.
Perhaps it does seem that way. But when I think of "offended," I think of "hurt" or "upset," which are not things that I felt while replying. I felt nothing.
If you keep to your suggested format, where most people would tend to claim whatever makes them feel best about themselves, there's little chance it will make any difference.
It's hard to describe, but I rarely feel anything. This time was no exception.
Even fans of close-to-the-bone comedy are quite happy with the whole idea of "too soon", and how "suitable" timing is different for, say, family viewing vs. HBO special. I think that's a healthy culture.
I think that it's an illogical culture. It is counterproductive for them to feel saddened or upset. That's what I believe that people should be taught. They are the ones who make themselves that way, not anyone else. I speak of the scenario where people are offended, of course. It would be pointless to follow the idea of "too soon" if no one felt anything from watching the show (if they didn't feel anything, then they also didn't feel sad or upset at remembering the incident).
It's not unusual to see the "hey, we were talking about them, not me" argument, but it's a self-serving approach I'm happy to ignore.
Alright, but as I said, that in itself does not answer my original argument. It will merely end up being a waste of time.
You're confusing an "assumption" with a "conclusion". I made it clear I was referring to the fact that you were quick to disapprove, as per your actual statements. You can disagree that "easily offended" and "quick to disapprove" are similar things, if you like. It's a fairly straightforward process to explain the overlap if you insist on digging that hole.
I see. However, because you do not know my true feelings, it remains an assumption, does it not?
No, your disapproval. There's a significant difference between, "I wouldn't do that," and "I disapprove of others doing that".
A difference, yes, but it is all still an opinion. However, I do see what you're trying to say. Very well.
However, in the sense that having an open mind means that you shouldn't be quick to disapprove of others, then you could be said to have a closed mind. In the sense that I'm making an effort only to disapprove of one specific individual based on actual evidence, it could be said I'm trying to keep an open mind.
I do accept the fact that I may be 'wrong'.
you're disagreeing with people who say this isn't censorship at all.
I do, because as you said, it fits one of the definitions. As far as I know, it doesn't have to fit many to apply. The definitions are all fairly closely related, as well.
But, really, I didn't mean to use that word again. Let's just say that I disagree with the removal of the episodes and the reason behind it.
You're asking why anyone would need to show empathy in a scenario where tens of thousands of people have died?
Yes. What does this have to do with a piece of fictional entertainment? If no one is offended by it, then why is there a need for "empathy"?
Not true, of course - you've been reading my posts and therefore you've seen reasons to take off those episodes.
I've read your posts, but I don't agree with them, just as you don't agree with me.
TV schedulers therefore use their subjective judgement.
I see. That does make sense. I would disagree more if they were making the assumption that no one else thought that they were funny as well. But that probably didn't happen, did it?
Fixating on a scenario that you yourself introduced into the conversation.
I fixated on the one that the article suggested. The one that I do not agree with.
Relying on particular interpretations that ignore concepts such as context, evidence, perspective and empathy.
What? We're speaking about a possible scenario. There is indeed evidence that something similar has happened in the past because of the scenario I am focusing on. Because people were offended. And they most certainly were there. It's similar, but naturally, it's not entirely the same (this one isn't exactly temporary).
Assuming motives and allowing for no other.
I allowed for others. I suppose my mistake was that I didn't state everything clearly in my comments. Yes, other scenarios, such as the ones you listed, are possible. However, I am focusing on the one that the article partly suggests (that people might be offended).
Complaining about negative consequences that don't actually happen.
The "negative consequences" are that it could become more commonplace to remove content that presumably offends a vocal minorit
Your point about an ad hominem attack was a rebuttal to my comments, which directly implies that you do not think personal criticism is valid.
Not in general. If we want to be on-topic about this discussion, then yes, I believe that they are.
There's no assumptions about your character, status or feelings.
Proclaiming that I am offended as you did a few comments ago is indeed an assumption about my feelings. By all means, continue, but it won't do any good.
As for the useless bit, that's possibly the most ridiculous thing you could say in an online forum.
Why? Everything is likely equally useless. This, I believe, is useless to this particular discussion. You're free to think otherwise, of course. You wouldn't be wrong.
Denial does not an argument make.
Indeed. Be careful with the absolutes.
Maybe you'll even go away thinking about the fact that you're not actually able to justify your disapproval, in which case great.
Justify an opinion?
An open mind is a wonderful thing, and I'm happy to help.
I think so, too. Have I changed my mind about anything? No. Have you changed your mind about anything? Not that I see. Does that make a person "closed-minded"? Maybe. It really depends on who you are arguing with.
Probably you'll stick to waving around your own little book of rules of right and wrong, and keep disapproving of people that don't live up to your glorious standards.
I don't understand where you're getting this. It's just assumption after assumption. I don't even believe in absolute "rights" or "wrongs." Censorship is 'bad' only to me, and I'm disagreeing with people who say otherwise. Of course, that doesn't make them 'wrong'.
That would certainly be a negative consequence.
To you.
One problem, however, is that doesn't seem to have happened here - nowhere is it even implied that the easily offended have this ability. Another problem is that you need to explain how simply not enjoying jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster in the middle of a natural disaster claiming thousands of lives qualifies as "easily offended". It's really just a basic demonstration of human empathy.
If no one is offended, then why would someone need to show "human empathy"? As I already stated, the article does suggest that some people could be offended. I am speaking of such a scenario, if it happens. Furthermore, I don't think not finding a joke or two funny warrants taking off episodes. Again, an opinion. Offended or not, there is no reason that I see to take off these episodes. "Funny" is also subjective, after all.
Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume re-scheduling a few cartoon re-runs has no negative consequences.
It depends on your definition of "reasonable" and "negative."
Given the world has a lot of people confined to asylums, that kind of catch-all argument is as useless as hiding behind "subjective". How about instead just "others", we say "people who don't make things up to support their case"?
You asked to prove how something is important to other people. That is not an absolute, and that is the only thing that I replied to.
I've drawn out them out repeatedly and explicitly, but you keep ignoring them to focus on the specific thing that upsets your sensibilities.
As far as I know, I've answered most, if not all of your points.
As well as simply enjoying the debate, it's getting quite funny how you keep doubling down on fundamentalist logic.
Which is funny, because implying that you are beyond personal criticism is yet another tendency of the easily offended.
I didn't imply that, either. What I did imply, however, was that continually making comments about my character, status, or feelings is both a mere assumption and useless to this particular discussion. Is that not correct? I do not know where you are pulling these words that I did not speak from, as my statements did not even imply them, as far as I see. If they did, then it certainly wasn't intentional.
It would be interesting to me if you had a solid argument based on negative consequences, as compared to the insubstantial "I disapprove of people making decisions I disagree with" approach you're taking so far.
"Negative consequences"? "Negative" is subjective. But, alright. I believe that a few people who are easily offended having the ability to have content taken away from others, temporarily or not, because they are offended by it, would count as a "negative consequence." It removes the choice from other people (and they had a choice to not consume the content in the first place).
my assumption that it is unimportant is reasonable.
"Reasonable" is subjective.
Where's the evidence for the opposing argument?
Evidence for opinions about what others think is important?
assume that being offended is the same thing as not being entertained
Sorry, but the article implies that some people could be offended. I am speaking of this scenario, and I thought it was obvious.
My fundamental point remains when you start by disapproving of the situation, and then choose to use a particular, strict definition of a pejorative to describe it.
I see. Then what word shall I use to describe it quickly? I guess I'll just say "they're removing a few episodes of The Simsons from their network temporarily because a few people found some of the jokes offensive." Is that much better?
That is most definitely a hallmark of the easily offended!
Actually, now you're just making assumptions. There could be a number of reasons that I wish for my desires to be fulfilled or that I post here. It would make me happy, it would anger me for them not to be, I just like commenting, I just like arguing, or another reason entirely. Really, this is just an ad hominem attack at this point.
It would explain why you use "censorship" to describe minor scheduling decisions, if you think it isn't something that should be challenged in any practical sense.
All you've actually done is attack my word usage, and seemingly nothing more. You try to downplay the situation and act as if, because you think it is unimportant, it is unimportant for everyone. I've already explained why I disagree. The fact that a few sensitive people could have a show removed, temporarily or not, because they are offended by it, makes me not even care to watch those channels if they're going to try to appease these people. I understand why: money. But I still don't agree with it. I presented a solution: these people can either just not watch it (which doesn't involve taking away a choice for someone else), or they can realize that it is fiction and that it is useless and counterproductive to be offended and alter their mindset.
Such as adhering to particular, strict interpretations of words, and then using them to disapprove of other people's decisions, even in matters as trivial as selecting cartoons. You really do seem to be in pretty much the same group.
You misinterpreted me. I do not disprove of it because a single definition of the word "censorship" fits this situation. I do not approve of it because I do not like the situation itself and what it represents. The ability of a few sensitive people to remove content for everyone simply because they find it offensive.
You clearly don't
You clearly misunderstood me greatly. While I do disapprove of their decision, I by no means said that they shouldn't be allowed to make it. I've also been criticizing the people who are so easily offended.
How? because they found their IP being shared from an IP address they take the IP address owner to court? That's called finding evidence of a crime and taking appropriate action. How is anyone 'assuming' guilt?
Is the owner of the IP not assumed guilty?
Well which is it? You say they should be innocent in the court case while rebutting that by saying they are innocent in the court case?
I already told you. In the minds of many, the person is already guilty, and they are ready to take action based on that assumption whether or not they have proof that it is true. Not all the time, but it happens.
And there are frivolous lawsuit penalties should they do that.
Really? I've heard of instances where big corporations were able to continually sue (and lose against) small businesses until they could not devote anymore time or money into the court cases. How is that possible, then?
Really? you don't agree with having civil courts and criminal courts? You don't agree that jail time should require a higher standard than just a parking ticket? just wow.
No. Everything should require the same standard of proof to minimize mistakes. In other words, proof beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the amount of proof needed for criminal courts, I believe).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that may be true about more controversial issues, but I doubt they'd have trouble believing their parent if they merely claimed that a fictional piece of entertainment was fictional.
Why is that? Because I don't think that exaggerating the number of people who would change merely because of said fictional entertainment is very large, and therefore I don't think it's justified to ban the entertainment for kids? I just think that education is a far better solution than outright banning.
being a functional member of a family is more important than viewing the fictional entertainment.
A "functional member of the family"? Anyway, as I said, I really doubt that the number of people who would change merely by viewing a fictional piece of entertainment is large at all. I also can't see any reason that someone would become angry, frustrated, or snappish by watching those shows.
A family cell is not a democratic environment, it is an autocratic one and it should stay that way.
For issues as small as this, why?
That's anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't matter to me. Are slight changes in behavior noteworthy? Education should suffice. Even if it doesn't, I don't believe that it's a reason to stop the children from viewing the fictional entertainment.
They're concerned with the varying percentage of kids whose parents won't take the time / know better to talk to them and give context, etc. Ideally, sure, all the world's parents would have a bit of guidance and insight for each of the things their kids see/hear/experience, but we know that's not the case.
I see. However, the number of children who would get such a message from a fictional piece of entertainment are few in number, I think. That number can be thinned even further if they have responsible parents. What you're likely left with is a few children who do get this message, but they are so few in number that they are likely not worth worrying about (well, in the sense that games should be censored or banned for children, anyway).
We should accept the fact that many, many families lack parental guidance, and the results should be studied and understood.
Then those families shouldn't have children.
I believe that only a few of them would get that message. But even if they did, instead of having parents ban the games for the child, why don't they teach them otherwise and then let them play them?
How can you "own" a potential gain?
Lame excuse #1 and lame excuse #2.
Lame according to you? They weren't meant to be "excuses," anyway, but general statements.
You misinterpreted me, I think. I said nothing of legality, morality, or anything of the like.
Similarly it isn't the fault of the person eventually served at a restaurant that the restaurant speculatively bought the ingredients for their food.
No, it isn't.
You have interacted with them – you've taken a copy of something they produced using that time and effort.
You didn't "take" a copy of anything. You copied it. But, really, where did you interact with them? As far as I know, file sharers typically sit in front of their computers and download the data. Where do they interact with the author in such a scenario? They didn't force the author to do anything. No further time or effort is required from them to copy this data.
The "potential profit" argument appears to make more sense than that.
People who pirate the software, instead of paying, only encourage the developers to underestimate the potential value of their work, and therefore, less development will occur.
Is that the fault of the file sharers, who do not even interact with the authors in any way, shape, or form (and therefore do not deprive them of time, resources, or existing physical property), or the fault of a society which runs on scarcity, even if artificial? If something requires labor, and there is no limit to the amount of it that can be produced, and it's easy for everyone to do so once the original has been made, laws are typically enacted to create artificial scarcity for it. If that is not done, though the people easily reproducing the item do not take anything from anyone else, then someone else could, potentially, go out of business merely because they did not receive a potential gain. How do you own something that you never had in the first place?
The creator invested time and effort in producing the item.
This isn't the fault of the file sharer.
If they sell one item and you pirate it, you have deprived them of half their time and effort
What? How do you deprive someone of time and effort without ever interacting with them in the least?
but not paying for your copy is stealing.
"Stealing" what? The reason I think it's idiotic to use such terms in regards to 'piracy' is because taking away someone's exist physical property and copying data are two very different things. Copying data doesn't take away the author's time, resources, or existing property. It's called "copyright infringement."
No, it remains a conclusion, based on a premise, grounded in fact.
If you say so. But at this point, it doesn't look like you're not going to believe me, anyway.
But why make that assumption?
It's a suggested scenario. I said "if."
I don't get the consistent references to the whole "offended" thing. Is "either offended or not offended" the extent of your worldview?
I just don't understand why empathy is needed if no one is offended or hurt (which, technically, would be their own fault anyway) by a fictional piece of entertainment. I really don't see another reason why empathy would be needed according to some people. It might technically remind people of the disaster, but being saddened in such a situation is rather useless and is completely up to them.
Well, I doubt they'd assume that no one would find them funny, but weren't you just saying to be careful with the absolutes?
The last sentence was in the form of a question. It implied that I believe it probably didn't happen.
No, that is a scenario that the article suggests.
You previously spoke of treading carefully around me. This seems to be exactly what I myself need to do. That was also a mistake.
Yes, but we'd be speaking about at least two if you're weren't so fixated, ones that include context and perspective.
The thing is, I don't really care about the other scenarios because they aren't what I disagree with. I'm going to mention the one that, if true, is what I disagree with.
No, you said you saw no reasons, which quite explicitly doesn't allow for them.
Yes, I previously saw no reasons. Then more were suggested.
It talks about "unsuitable" and "sensitive" material, not "offensive".
What do either of those even mean in this situation?
Disagreeing repeatedly with another's independent decision based on strict interpretations and pre-formed scenarios is the starting point to restrict individual freedom.
Restrict freedom? I already stated that people should be allowed to make the choice. I will try to explain why I disagree and try to make them believe otherwise, but that's it.
You start having to put "in my opinion" in front of everything, and you just can't catch everything.
You have a point.
The "aw shucks, I ain't perfect" philosophy is another of those catch-all approaches favoured by the fundamentalist.
No, I was agreeing with you.
Oh? How about this:
More mistakes, it seems. I questioned them in such a way previously because they were stated as facts. But I can see why you did that from your next point.
Second, my point was that you seem to be closer to the easily offended that you might care to think.
Perhaps it does seem that way. But when I think of "offended," I think of "hurt" or "upset," which are not things that I felt while replying. I felt nothing.
If you keep to your suggested format, where most people would tend to claim whatever makes them feel best about themselves, there's little chance it will make any difference.
It's hard to describe, but I rarely feel anything. This time was no exception.
Even fans of close-to-the-bone comedy are quite happy with the whole idea of "too soon", and how "suitable" timing is different for, say, family viewing vs. HBO special. I think that's a healthy culture.
I think that it's an illogical culture. It is counterproductive for them to feel saddened or upset. That's what I believe that people should be taught. They are the ones who make themselves that way, not anyone else. I speak of the scenario where people are offended, of course. It would be pointless to follow the idea of "too soon" if no one felt anything from watching the show (if they didn't feel anything, then they also didn't feel sad or upset at remembering the incident).
Let's just say that I disagree with the removal of the episodes and the reason behind it.
Should be: "Let's just say that I disagree with the removal of the episodes if they were removed merely because some people were offended."
It's not unusual to see the "hey, we were talking about them, not me" argument, but it's a self-serving approach I'm happy to ignore.
Alright, but as I said, that in itself does not answer my original argument. It will merely end up being a waste of time.
You're confusing an "assumption" with a "conclusion". I made it clear I was referring to the fact that you were quick to disapprove, as per your actual statements. You can disagree that "easily offended" and "quick to disapprove" are similar things, if you like. It's a fairly straightforward process to explain the overlap if you insist on digging that hole.
I see. However, because you do not know my true feelings, it remains an assumption, does it not?
No, your disapproval. There's a significant difference between, "I wouldn't do that," and "I disapprove of others doing that".
A difference, yes, but it is all still an opinion. However, I do see what you're trying to say. Very well.
However, in the sense that having an open mind means that you shouldn't be quick to disapprove of others, then you could be said to have a closed mind. In the sense that I'm making an effort only to disapprove of one specific individual based on actual evidence, it could be said I'm trying to keep an open mind.
I do accept the fact that I may be 'wrong'.
you're disagreeing with people who say this isn't censorship at all.
I do, because as you said, it fits one of the definitions. As far as I know, it doesn't have to fit many to apply. The definitions are all fairly closely related, as well.
But, really, I didn't mean to use that word again. Let's just say that I disagree with the removal of the episodes and the reason behind it.
You're asking why anyone would need to show empathy in a scenario where tens of thousands of people have died?
Yes. What does this have to do with a piece of fictional entertainment? If no one is offended by it, then why is there a need for "empathy"?
Not true, of course - you've been reading my posts and therefore you've seen reasons to take off those episodes.
I've read your posts, but I don't agree with them, just as you don't agree with me.
TV schedulers therefore use their subjective judgement.
I see. That does make sense. I would disagree more if they were making the assumption that no one else thought that they were funny as well. But that probably didn't happen, did it?
Fixating on a scenario that you yourself introduced into the conversation.
I fixated on the one that the article suggested. The one that I do not agree with.
Relying on particular interpretations that ignore concepts such as context, evidence, perspective and empathy.
What? We're speaking about a possible scenario. There is indeed evidence that something similar has happened in the past because of the scenario I am focusing on. Because people were offended. And they most certainly were there. It's similar, but naturally, it's not entirely the same (this one isn't exactly temporary).
Assuming motives and allowing for no other.
I allowed for others. I suppose my mistake was that I didn't state everything clearly in my comments. Yes, other scenarios, such as the ones you listed, are possible. However, I am focusing on the one that the article partly suggests (that people might be offended).
Complaining about negative consequences that don't actually happen.
The "negative consequences" are that it could become more commonplace to remove content that presumably offends a vocal minorit
Did anyone else find Bart's comment about her only hope of another movie roll being as a new Death Star to be offensive?
Why would I think a piece of fictional entertainment is offensive?
Biased like nearly every source of human-written information in existence. The citations help with that a great deal, though.
Your point about an ad hominem attack was a rebuttal to my comments, which directly implies that you do not think personal criticism is valid.
Not in general. If we want to be on-topic about this discussion, then yes, I believe that they are.
There's no assumptions about your character, status or feelings.
Proclaiming that I am offended as you did a few comments ago is indeed an assumption about my feelings. By all means, continue, but it won't do any good.
As for the useless bit, that's possibly the most ridiculous thing you could say in an online forum.
Why? Everything is likely equally useless. This, I believe, is useless to this particular discussion. You're free to think otherwise, of course. You wouldn't be wrong.
Denial does not an argument make.
Indeed. Be careful with the absolutes.
Maybe you'll even go away thinking about the fact that you're not actually able to justify your disapproval, in which case great.
Justify an opinion?
An open mind is a wonderful thing, and I'm happy to help.
I think so, too. Have I changed my mind about anything? No. Have you changed your mind about anything? Not that I see. Does that make a person "closed-minded"? Maybe. It really depends on who you are arguing with.
Probably you'll stick to waving around your own little book of rules of right and wrong, and keep disapproving of people that don't live up to your glorious standards.
I don't understand where you're getting this. It's just assumption after assumption. I don't even believe in absolute "rights" or "wrongs." Censorship is 'bad' only to me, and I'm disagreeing with people who say otherwise. Of course, that doesn't make them 'wrong'.
That would certainly be a negative consequence.
To you.
One problem, however, is that doesn't seem to have happened here - nowhere is it even implied that the easily offended have this ability. Another problem is that you need to explain how simply not enjoying jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster in the middle of a natural disaster claiming thousands of lives qualifies as "easily offended". It's really just a basic demonstration of human empathy.
If no one is offended, then why would someone need to show "human empathy"? As I already stated, the article does suggest that some people could be offended. I am speaking of such a scenario, if it happens. Furthermore, I don't think not finding a joke or two funny warrants taking off episodes. Again, an opinion. Offended or not, there is no reason that I see to take off these episodes. "Funny" is also subjective, after all.
Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume re-scheduling a few cartoon re-runs has no negative consequences.
It depends on your definition of "reasonable" and "negative."
Given the world has a lot of people confined to asylums, that kind of catch-all argument is as useless as hiding behind "subjective". How about instead just "others", we say "people who don't make things up to support their case"?
You asked to prove how something is important to other people. That is not an absolute, and that is the only thing that I replied to.
I've drawn out them out repeatedly and explicitly, but you keep ignoring them to focus on the specific thing that upsets your sensibilities.
As far as I know, I've answered most, if not all of your points.
As well as simply enjoying the debate, it's getting quite funny how you keep doubling down on fundamentalist logic.
Such as?
I meant that logical fallacies are something that I see commonly. They are often used by normal people in everyday situations.
Which is funny, because implying that you are beyond personal criticism is yet another tendency of the easily offended.
I didn't imply that, either. What I did imply, however, was that continually making comments about my character, status, or feelings is both a mere assumption and useless to this particular discussion. Is that not correct? I do not know where you are pulling these words that I did not speak from, as my statements did not even imply them, as far as I see. If they did, then it certainly wasn't intentional.
It would be interesting to me if you had a solid argument based on negative consequences, as compared to the insubstantial "I disapprove of people making decisions I disagree with" approach you're taking so far.
"Negative consequences"? "Negative" is subjective. But, alright. I believe that a few people who are easily offended having the ability to have content taken away from others, temporarily or not, because they are offended by it, would count as a "negative consequence." It removes the choice from other people (and they had a choice to not consume the content in the first place).
my assumption that it is unimportant is reasonable.
"Reasonable" is subjective.
Where's the evidence for the opposing argument?
Evidence for opinions about what others think is important?
assume that being offended is the same thing as not being entertained
Sorry, but the article implies that some people could be offended. I am speaking of this scenario, and I thought it was obvious.
That would be the type of black-and-white thinking one could expect from aspergers.
Really? I'd expect it from the average member of society.
My fundamental point remains when you start by disapproving of the situation, and then choose to use a particular, strict definition of a pejorative to describe it.
I see. Then what word shall I use to describe it quickly? I guess I'll just say "they're removing a few episodes of The Simsons from their network temporarily because a few people found some of the jokes offensive." Is that much better?
That is most definitely a hallmark of the easily offended!
Actually, now you're just making assumptions. There could be a number of reasons that I wish for my desires to be fulfilled or that I post here. It would make me happy, it would anger me for them not to be, I just like commenting, I just like arguing, or another reason entirely. Really, this is just an ad hominem attack at this point.
It would explain why you use "censorship" to describe minor scheduling decisions, if you think it isn't something that should be challenged in any practical sense.
All you've actually done is attack my word usage, and seemingly nothing more. You try to downplay the situation and act as if, because you think it is unimportant, it is unimportant for everyone. I've already explained why I disagree. The fact that a few sensitive people could have a show removed, temporarily or not, because they are offended by it, makes me not even care to watch those channels if they're going to try to appease these people. I understand why: money. But I still don't agree with it. I presented a solution: these people can either just not watch it (which doesn't involve taking away a choice for someone else), or they can realize that it is fiction and that it is useless and counterproductive to be offended and alter their mindset.
That would be for the best. It would do them no good to get angry or sad in the first place.
Such as adhering to particular, strict interpretations of words, and then using them to disapprove of other people's decisions, even in matters as trivial as selecting cartoons. You really do seem to be in pretty much the same group.
You misinterpreted me. I do not disprove of it because a single definition of the word "censorship" fits this situation. I do not approve of it because I do not like the situation itself and what it represents. The ability of a few sensitive people to remove content for everyone simply because they find it offensive.
You clearly don't
You clearly misunderstood me greatly. While I do disapprove of their decision, I by no means said that they shouldn't be allowed to make it. I've also been criticizing the people who are so easily offended.
How? because they found their IP being shared from an IP address they take the IP address owner to court? That's called finding evidence of a crime and taking appropriate action. How is anyone 'assuming' guilt?
Is the owner of the IP not assumed guilty?
Well which is it? You say they should be innocent in the court case while rebutting that by saying they are innocent in the court case?
I already told you. In the minds of many, the person is already guilty, and they are ready to take action based on that assumption whether or not they have proof that it is true. Not all the time, but it happens.
And there are frivolous lawsuit penalties should they do that.
Really? I've heard of instances where big corporations were able to continually sue (and lose against) small businesses until they could not devote anymore time or money into the court cases. How is that possible, then?
Really? you don't agree with having civil courts and criminal courts? You don't agree that jail time should require a higher standard than just a parking ticket? just wow.
No. Everything should require the same standard of proof to minimize mistakes. In other words, proof beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the amount of proof needed for criminal courts, I believe).