As we all know I never argued that censorship is immoral because the censored person doesn't like it.It seems the gist of the argument is that censorship is immoral because the person being censored doesn't like it. If that's not the argument...
Then there is a point in asking that question. I'm testing your support of censorship to see if it is consistent and therefore just. If you feel that censorship is acceptable for others, then to be just it must be acceptable for you too....being made then there's no point in asking a question like:
If anything you've said or any image you've published was censored, then would that censoring be moral or immoral?
Yes, the way people think is changing.I'm sure murderers don't think murder should be illegal. We've got politicians who lose elections who then believe that elections shouldn't count. So, I guess we are in a world where there's increasing precedent for this kind of thinking.
adjective
adjective: moral
1.
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
"the moral dimensions of medical intervention"
2.
holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
"he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person"
adjective
adjective: immoral
not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
"an immoral and unwinnable war"
As we all know I never argued that censorship is immoral because the censored person doesn't like it.It seems the gist of the argument is that censorship is immoral because the person being censored doesn't like it. If that's not the argument...
Then there is a point in asking that question. I'm testing your support of censorship to see if it is consistent and therefore just. If you feel that censorship is acceptable for others, then to be just it must be acceptable for you too....being made then there's no point in asking a question like:
If anything you've said or any image you've published was censored, then would that censoring be moral or immoral?
i understand your position. I just disagree.Yes, the way people think is changing.I'm sure murderers don't think murder should be illegal. We've got politicians who lose elections who then believe that elections shouldn't count. So, I guess we are in a world where there's increasing precedent for this kind of thinking.
Anyway, your position on censorship is unjust and hence immoral because some people are privileged over others. That's one of the main reasons I oppose censorship.
I would assume so. The stance seems to be *all* censorship is immoral. The act of censoring material would be more harmful than the impact of the material itself.Here’s an example of free speech: some companies hawk a product on the airwaves that they have known for decades to cause lung and throat cancer, emphysema, birth defects, tooth decay, eye disorders, and many other debilitating conditions that have led to the deaths of vast numbers of people. Moreover, the companies knew about these problems from their own internal scientific studies long before public health officials became aware of them. Is it “immoral” to censor these companies by preventing them from airing their ads on radio and TV?
Who is "we"?We have no rights at all.
You dodged my question regarding the morality of censorship being inflicted on you. I took that as your implying that no, you can never approve of your being censored. Censorship is only for the other guy.I have not stated that I should be personally held to a separate standard of censorship than anyone else.
What do you disagree with? That there are bullies with an agenda who cannot tolerate dissent?i understand your position. I just disagree.Anyway, your position on censorship is unjust and hence immoral because some people are privileged over others. That's one of the main reasons I oppose censorship.
That doesn't have anything to do with censorship. But allow me to say (pun intended) that I've had people in my home who have said things I strongly disagree with and who have criticized me. I didn't kick them out because they have their own opinions, and I'm not a neanderthal who can't disprove what they say.Here’s another question for unknown soldier — a backlog is forming.
Someone invites you as a guest into their home. You immediately begin trashing him, his friends, the furniture, the decor. He politely asks you STFU or leave. Has he behaved “immorally” toward you?
You dodged my question regarding the morality of censorship being inflicted on you. I took that as your implying that no, you can never approve of your being censored. Censorship is only for the other guy.I have not stated that I should be personally held to a separate standard of censorship than anyone else.
I disagree that *all* censorship is immoral.What do you disagree with? That there are bullies with an agenda who cannot tolerate dissent?i understand your position. I just disagree.Anyway, your position on censorship is unjust and hence immoral because some people are privileged over others. That's one of the main reasons I oppose censorship.
You dodged my question regarding the morality of censorship being inflicted on you. I took that as your implying that no, you can never approve of your being censored. Censorship is only for the other guy.I have not stated that I should be personally held to a separate standard of censorship than anyone else.
What do you disagree with? That there are bullies with an agenda who cannot tolerate dissent?i understand your position. I just disagree.Anyway, your position on censorship is unjust and hence immoral because some people are privileged over others. That's one of the main reasons I oppose censorship.
Why not? You would be censoring someone’s freeze peach.That doesn't have anything to do with censorship.Here’s another question for unknown soldier — a backlog is forming.
Someone invites you as a guest into their home. You immediately begin trashing him, his friends, the furniture, the decor. He politely asks you STFU or leave. Has he behaved “immorally” toward you?
I’ll presume to speak for him in saying of course that’s not what he disagrees with. Can you possiblly be serious? Read what he wroite.
You didn't ask that specific question here. You asked what I formatted in bold. You've moved the goalposts.You're not paying attention. I answered two such questions in my post #3:It’s funny how you demand a yes/no answer from others witout being inclined to provide one yourself.
No, actually, per your normal slippery posting style, you did not asnwer the specific question, “should child pornography be censord?”
You should post a direct quotation. I will defend what I've said but not what you say I've said.Later, howeer, you seemed to agree that it should not be — your apparent claim is that it is more ”immoral” to censor child ponography, than it is to create it in the first place — an astoundingly sociopathic stance, imo.
Sheesh--if I tease another member saying he's like a kid with a toy train, then I get nailed. But when I'm called a "sociopath" it goes on without correction. Whatever happened to all that "free thought" I read about on some "infidels" website?No wonder I'm being targeted--I keep smashing everybody's arguments to smithereens!
A persecution complex combined with a wildly overinflated estimation of one’s own abilities is always attractive in a. message-board discusant, and sure to win friends and influence people.
Censorship creates an underground that will not go away. Better openly above ground and widely vilified.
You didn't ask that specific question here. You asked what I formatted in bold. You've moved the goalposts.You're not paying attention. I answered two such questions in my post #3:It’s funny how you demand a yes/no answer from others witout being inclined to provide one yourself.
No, actually, per your normal slippery posting style, you did not asnwer the specific question, “should child pornography be censord?”
Anyway, although I already answered your newly posted question, my answer is NO--child pornography should not be censored.
You should post a direct quotation. I will defend what I've said but not what you say I've said.Later, howeer, you seemed to agree that it should not be — your apparent claim is that it is more ”immoral” to censor child ponography, than it is to create it in the first place — an astoundingly sociopathic stance, imo.
Sheesh--if I tease another member saying he's like a kid with a toy train, then I get nailed. But when I'm called a "sociopath" it goes on without correction.No wonder I'm being targeted--I keep smashing everybody's arguments to smithereens!
A persecution complex combined with a wildly overinflated estimation of one’s own abilities is always attractive in a. message-board discusant, and sure to win friends and influence people.