...about how they're not geting richer! Give me a break. Piracy has been rampant for as long as I can remember! How many of us copied CD onto tape from our friends when we were younger? How much Microsoft software do people have that they have not paid for? How many people have 2 VCR's? I am not saying that all this excuses piracy, but the fact remains that the recording, movie, and software industries have made HUGE amounts of money in spite of all this. So don't tell me they need protection. History does not bear this out. It is distressing to me that our government (at least, it claims to be ours)feels that it is more important to protect the ability of a relative few to make crazy cash than to protect the freedom and options of it's citizens. We need protection from them, not the other way around. As far as music sales being down, correlation sdo not prove cause and effect. Thus endeth the rant.
"What would you do if you came across a particular idea that was dangerous to your personal concept of society. Would you fight it?"
Of course I would! But I would not censor it. I would argue my point of view, or take up arms if my life were threatened. If I am against something, I should have a good reason for it, right? Shouldn't my arguement stand on it's merits? If it does, then why do I have to prevent the dissemination of an opposing view? If I were against censorship, should I keep people from knowing of it's existence? Or should I tell them explicitly about it and then tell then why I think it's wrong? The only reason to censor something is to keep people from finding out that you are bullsh****ing them. The truth can be threatening, but only to those invested in deceit. And yes, I do think one can be taught to think critically, but one cannot learn what one does not want to.
"If a person spews extreme rhetoric, not many will listen thereby limiting the effect that rhetoric will have.
Tell that to the Jews after WWI."
Nazi Germany is a great example of what I'm talking about. There was a situation where what most people thought was ok ended up being quite detrimental to a whole group of people (maybe they didn't think it was all ok, but they did buy into it at some level). Many people DO suffer from the herd mentality. That is why individual freedom of expression is so important. You are correct to say that we are products of our environment and school and life lessons. That is why we must be free to learn these lessons. Not just have the answers given to us (which is what censorship tries to do), but to figure out for ourselves what is good or bad for us. A friend of mine once said, "I want the freedom to make a mistake". Hear hear! I also agree with you that this is not the best forum for this discussion. We are probably not far off in our outlook, and you seem to be an intelligent poster.
Cheers!
"Just because YOU don't think a particular thing is porn, doesn't mean that the group as a whole does not think it is." -- And just because the group as a whole thinks it is does not make it so either. Right now in the United States, the group as a whole might say that being homosexual is a sin against nature and therefore should be purged from society. And much personal pain has come from that view. By your logic, it seems that gay people should defer to the majority. It is a fallacy to belive that the more people think a particular thing the more that idea becomes correct. I will defend a Klansmen's right to express his views, even though I don't agree with him. Child pornography should be stopped not because the images are distasteful (I'm sure the consumers of it would disagree), but because one must harm a child to produce it. The idea that outlawing the product will stop it's production is laughable. You can't legislate demand. You are correct in saying that we must make concessions to live together. But what concessions are made should be up to the individual. Actually, it is a self policing system. If someone makes no concessions to anyone, that person will not have many, if any friends. If a person spews extreme rhetoric, not many will listen thereby limiting the effect that rhetoric will have. Basically, I am an adult and I don't need anyone telling me what ideas or images or whatever are harmful to me. I can make that decision for myself. we must stop seeing ourselves as separate from "society". I am society. And so are you.
"Censorship arises out of what I will say is a postive desire to protect our collective consiousness."
-- Censorship arises out of a fearful desire to suppress ideas or information that the censor finds threatening. It may be disguised or portrayed as a concern for the public good, but it is really an effort to mold the world to fit a particular, and rather personal, view.
"Let us face the facts that some information, in the minds uncritical people, is dangerous. "
-- Actually, it's not the information that is dangerous. It is the uncritical mind that contains it that can be dangerous. So rather than trying to evoke a critical mind in a person through discussion or whatever, a censor chooses to try to keep the information away from the person. Simply, if you teach a person to think critically and reasonably, you don't need to worry about what information they have.
"It's better to teach a man to fish than to shoot him in the leg"
Slashdot Mirror
...about how they're not geting richer! Give me a break. Piracy has been rampant for as long as I can remember! How many of us copied CD onto tape from our friends when we were younger? How much Microsoft software do people have that they have not paid for? How many people have 2 VCR's? I am not saying that all this excuses piracy, but the fact remains that the recording, movie, and software industries have made HUGE amounts of money in spite of all this. So don't tell me they need protection. History does not bear this out. It is distressing to me that our government (at least, it claims to be ours)feels that it is more important to protect the ability of a relative few to make crazy cash than to protect the freedom and options of it's citizens. We need protection from them, not the other way around. As far as music sales being down, correlation sdo not prove cause and effect. Thus endeth the rant.
"What would you do if you came across a particular idea that was dangerous to your personal concept of society. Would you fight it?" Of course I would! But I would not censor it. I would argue my point of view, or take up arms if my life were threatened. If I am against something, I should have a good reason for it, right? Shouldn't my arguement stand on it's merits? If it does, then why do I have to prevent the dissemination of an opposing view? If I were against censorship, should I keep people from knowing of it's existence? Or should I tell them explicitly about it and then tell then why I think it's wrong? The only reason to censor something is to keep people from finding out that you are bullsh****ing them. The truth can be threatening, but only to those invested in deceit. And yes, I do think one can be taught to think critically, but one cannot learn what one does not want to.
Because I want to make my own mistakes, I also want as much info as possible available to me. even if most of it is crap.
"If a person spews extreme rhetoric, not many will listen thereby limiting the effect that rhetoric will have. Tell that to the Jews after WWI." Nazi Germany is a great example of what I'm talking about. There was a situation where what most people thought was ok ended up being quite detrimental to a whole group of people (maybe they didn't think it was all ok, but they did buy into it at some level). Many people DO suffer from the herd mentality. That is why individual freedom of expression is so important. You are correct to say that we are products of our environment and school and life lessons. That is why we must be free to learn these lessons. Not just have the answers given to us (which is what censorship tries to do), but to figure out for ourselves what is good or bad for us. A friend of mine once said, "I want the freedom to make a mistake". Hear hear! I also agree with you that this is not the best forum for this discussion. We are probably not far off in our outlook, and you seem to be an intelligent poster. Cheers!
"Just because YOU don't think a particular thing is porn, doesn't mean that the group as a whole does not think it is." -- And just because the group as a whole thinks it is does not make it so either. Right now in the United States, the group as a whole might say that being homosexual is a sin against nature and therefore should be purged from society. And much personal pain has come from that view. By your logic, it seems that gay people should defer to the majority. It is a fallacy to belive that the more people think a particular thing the more that idea becomes correct. I will defend a Klansmen's right to express his views, even though I don't agree with him. Child pornography should be stopped not because the images are distasteful (I'm sure the consumers of it would disagree), but because one must harm a child to produce it. The idea that outlawing the product will stop it's production is laughable. You can't legislate demand. You are correct in saying that we must make concessions to live together. But what concessions are made should be up to the individual. Actually, it is a self policing system. If someone makes no concessions to anyone, that person will not have many, if any friends. If a person spews extreme rhetoric, not many will listen thereby limiting the effect that rhetoric will have. Basically, I am an adult and I don't need anyone telling me what ideas or images or whatever are harmful to me. I can make that decision for myself. we must stop seeing ourselves as separate from "society". I am society. And so are you.
"Censorship arises out of what I will say is a postive desire to protect our collective consiousness." -- Censorship arises out of a fearful desire to suppress ideas or information that the censor finds threatening. It may be disguised or portrayed as a concern for the public good, but it is really an effort to mold the world to fit a particular, and rather personal, view. "Let us face the facts that some information, in the minds uncritical people, is dangerous. " -- Actually, it's not the information that is dangerous. It is the uncritical mind that contains it that can be dangerous. So rather than trying to evoke a critical mind in a person through discussion or whatever, a censor chooses to try to keep the information away from the person. Simply, if you teach a person to think critically and reasonably, you don't need to worry about what information they have. "It's better to teach a man to fish than to shoot him in the leg"