pininsho Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 But isn't that the whole point? When does a thought become dangerous? A thought becomes dangerous when somebody isn't allowed to express it. Once the thought becomes an action (view) then it becomes within the domain of the public and you lose all rights to that thought. Not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to air offensive or controversial views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pininsho Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 That is a restriction on freedom of speech. In what way? Can you explain a little more please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 In what way? Can you explain a little more please? Because you're in effect gagging by refusing. It is your right but all the same you are gagging.(censoring) A thought becomes dangerous when somebody isn't allowed to express it. Not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to air offensive or controversial views? Would you mind if I had a chat with your 3 yr old on the merits of sex with a 50yr old? (Or would you censor me?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 A thought becomes dangerous when somebody isn't allowed to express it. A thought expressed can incite violence and cause harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pininsho Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 Because you're in effect gagging by refusing. It is your right but all the same you are gagging.(censoring) Censorship that I'm discussing is about preventing a person from having or giving an opinion as opposed to simply ignoring them which is what we do all the time, whether it's refusing junk mail, refusing to watch a party political broadcast or refusing to read a newspaper. Would you mind if I had a chat with your 3 yr old on the merits of sex with a 50yr old? (Or would you censor me?) No I wouldn't censor you. For a start the 3 year old wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand what you were talking about anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 Censorship that I'm discussing is about preventing a person from having or giving an opinion as opposed to simply ignoring them which is what we do all the time, whether it's refusing junk mail, refusing to watch a party political broadcast or refusing to read a newspaper. The mail preference service prevents marketing companies from expressing their opinion through your letter box. I can't see how subsribing to that service undermines democracy, or is in any sense problematic. No I wouldn't censor you. For a start the 3 year old wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand what you were talking about anyway. That makes you a very strange person and is rather worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pininsho Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 A thought expressed can incite violence and cause harm. Absolutely but that's absolutely no reason for censorship. It's important that people understand the idea of personal responsibility.....that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions, so that they can't be incited to cause physical harm to others simply because of what a third party has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 Censorship that I'm discussing is about preventing a person from having or giving an opinion as opposed to simply ignoring them which is what we do all the time, whether it's refusing junk mail, refusing to watch a party political broadcast or refusing to read a newspaper. Totally agree....but what you are saying is..."I'm self censoring by refusing the information" that's fine because it's within the confines of law. The law allows post (junk) to be posted but that law stops there and allows you to chose. The argument is at what point does the law intervene for the good of society and censor before it gets into the general public domain? No I wouldn't censor you. For a start the 3 year old wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand what you were talking about anyway. I asked you whether you would censor me not whether you would sensor me on the basis your child had the mental capacity or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pininsho Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 The mail preference service prevents marketing companies from expressing their opinion through your letter box. Absolutely.....which is an entirely different issue from bringing in legislation to close the marketing company down altogether which is the censorship I'm talking about. Simply ignoring somebody because you don't wish to read their bumph isn't the issue here. I can't see how subsribing to that service undermines democracy, or is in any sense problematic. Neither can I. That makes you a very strange person and is rather worrying. Not at all. It simply means I don't have a problem with sex, sexuality or sexual expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted May 4, 2010 Share Posted May 4, 2010 Absolutely but that's absolutely no reason for censorship. It's important that people understand the idea of personal responsibility.....that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions, so that they can't be incited to cause physical harm to others simply because of what a third party has said. I agree with this...we do have to take responsibility..then again we do have to collectively take responsibility for those less fortunate and vulnerable....it's not all me me me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.