Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rubiks wrote:Child porn would harm the child and therefore would be violating the childs rights.

But who decides what the child's rights are? Certainly not the child. That doesn't fit your definition of 'freedom'.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Albatross wrote: My point was that some things have to be censored

I still would have to question why you think some things 'have' to be censored.

For the most part I am whole heartedly against censorship,and agree with you Rubiksnoob in so much as "if it offends you, turn it the feth off."
However,I also see the need to prevent sites that would exploit children.
Do I agree that "Big Brother" should control acess to information/entertainment,hell no.
Do I feel that those who run child porn sites should be skined alive,hell yes.

all that i am trying to say is that censoring something because the majority of people find it offensive or disagree with it is wrong.

Wrexasaur wrote:I dun see it Orkeo. No double post here.

Yeah, it went away when I refreshed. Weird.

As to the chair though, I suppose you can do all that in your mind right? If I happen to open you head, or you are kind enough to open it for me, could I too see all of this take place?

I can refuse to recognize a chair in my head, I suppose.

rubiksnoob wrote:You don't have to respect them. Just don't limit their freedoms, no matter how appalling they may seem to you.

As a side note, child porn seems to be being brought up a lot as an argument for censorship. Child porn would harm the child and therefore would be violating the childs rights. THAT'S why that is wrong and should be against the law. Not because it is appalling and offensive. Just because something is offensive is no reason to censor it.

How about in instances where there is a naturally limited resource in which things can be communicated? (Namely thinking about the airwaves.)

Albatross wrote:@Orkeo - Well, yes - a chair is a construct, as is the concept of 'a chair'. That's structuralism, babe.

Cool!

I'm no great philosopher, unfortunately. I'm just trying to avoid studying for my finals...

@Rubiks
Why?

Because it's boring. :(

FITZZ wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Albatross wrote: My point was that some things have to be censored

I still would have to question why you think some things 'have' to be censored.

For the most part I am whole heartedly against censorship,and agree with you Rubiksnoob in so much as "if it offends you, turn it the feth off."
However,I also see the need to prevent sites that would exploit children.
Do I agree that "Big Brother" should control acess to information/entertainment,hell no.
Do I feel that those who run child porn sites should be skined alive,hell yes.

I am in total agreement with you there.
While child porn is offensive, it is also harmful, and therefore should be banned.
On the other hand, if you find a website that has offensive, but perfectly legal materiel that is no reason to censor it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@albatross

cuz it's WRONG.

here's where we start getting into the whole right and wrong is relative thing.

also because it discourages alternate opinions that go against what the majority believes.
I just believe that that is wrong.

@Orkeo - You ninja'd me right proper! The 'why?' was aimed at Rubiks... I understand why you're avoiding studying - I'm doing the same thing! I'm no great philosopher either (really? no gak....) - I just find things like structuralism and semiotics/semiology interesting. We've had to cover stuff like that on my course. What are you studying mate?

Majoritus Tyranus.

That really isn't the problem here. I kind of feel like we are arguing if the boat actually floats, when it is clear that it does so in the first place. You don't need to check if it is raining, when you know it is freaking raining.

Censorship may not be the most appealing way to deal with such issues, but it does seem to be the most pragmatic one. Even if I agree, or disagree with it, the idea is sound, and makes sense on many levels. There are very specific things that just have no place in our societies. Whether or not the greeks and romans performed atrocious acts of abuse, makes absolutely no difference to how those same acts effect our societies, in our era.

@ albatross

because it discourages alternate opinions that go against what the majority believes.
I just believe that that is wrong.

rubiksnoob wrote:all that i am trying to say is that censoring something because the majority of people find it offensive or disagree with it is wrong.

And for the most part I agree,I don't want someone dictating what "subversive" literature I can read,offensive music I can listen to or horrible violent or filthy films I can watch,if I want to watch 2 or 3 or 20 consenting adults feth each other silly then,as an adult,I should damn well be able to.
However,when it comes to "child predators" I couldn't care less about their "rights".

Albatross wrote:@Orkeo - You ninja'd me right proper! The 'why?' was aimed at Rubiks... I understand why you're avoiding studying - I'm doing the same thing! I'm no great philosopher either (really? no gak....) - I just find things like structuralism and semiotics/semiology interesting. We've had to cover stuff like that on my course. What are you studying mate?

Right now? Speech 101.

And I've already given all my speeches, but I need to be able to recognize all the jargon for the final...

rubiksnoob wrote:On the other hand, if you find a website that has offensive, but perfectly legal materiel that is no reason to censor it.

I am not sure why that was so hard to get out of you...

because it discourages alternate opinions that go against what the majority believes.
I just believe that that is wrong.

I am very sure that albatross is simply misunderstanding what you are saying. When you talk about things that are clearly within free speech grounds, then there is no clear reason to take actions against it, aside political motivations.

FITZZ wrote:And for the most part I agree,I don't want someone dictating what "subversive" literature I can read,offensive music I can listen to or horrible violent or filthy films I can watch,if I want to watch 2 or 3 or 20 consenting adults feth each other silly then,as an adult,I should damn well be able to.
However,when it comes to "child predators" I couldn't care less about their "rights".

There is a massive difference between those two situations at the core though. No one wants to be told that they can't read 1984, and after lunch time, they need to report for re-education.

if you find a website that has offensive, but perfectly legal materiel that is no reason to censor it.

Censorship makes offensive material illegal. And so the merry-go-round goes round....
I think your best position on this would be something along the lines of:'I don't always agree with things being censored'.


Everything is relative.

Albatross wrote:Everything is relative.

How relative though? Looking around the world, many nations have similar sets of morals and coinciding laws, even if there are various interpretations; the core is still there. I feel that a lot of this stuff pertaining to 'rights' and what not, is actually very primitive and instinctual overall.

FITZZ wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:all that i am trying to say is that censoring something because the majority of people find it offensive or disagree with it is wrong.

And for the most part I agree,I don't want someone dictating what "subversive" literature I can read,offensive music I can listen to or horrible violent or filthy films I can watch,if I want to watch 2 or 3 or 20 consenting adults feth each other silly then,as an adult,I should damn well be able to.
However,when it comes to "child predators" I couldn't care less about their "rights".

I would consider the right to freedom of speech's relation to child pornography as being similar to free trade's relation to stolen goods.

If you never had a right to have it in the first place you don't have any right to distribute it.

Wait, rubiksnoob, the OP isn't outlawing anything that's just offensive. It's outlawing things that are classed as 'criminal'. So yeah, Child Porn would probably be banned, as would Terrorist support groups, but legal Porn probably wouldn't.

Rubiks wrote:because it discourages alternate opinions that go against what the majority believes.
I just believe that that is wrong.

That's your opinion - I don't see anyone discouraging you from it. I understand what you're saying perfectly - I just think you're being a little absolutist. There are always shades of grey - everything is a 'slippery slope'. No-one is saying we should curtail free speech - but a society where absolutely ANYTHING goes would just be anarchy. Whilst that might sound fun, the reality is it would be anything but.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

How relative though? Looking around the world, many nations have similar sets of morals and coinciding laws, even if there are various interpretations; the core is still there.

Is it, though? The modern concept of 'Human Rights' is well, modern. Culture evolves, and the concept of 'right' has evolved alongside and within it. For example, we see women's rights as universal - but in fact that is not the case and has not always been the case in our respective countries. What would you consider our core 'rights'?

They're like little china! England isn't the only V for Vendetta hellscape out there!

Funny. Coming from you.

LOL@ShumaGorath


Oh, you...

Wrexasaur wrote:How relative though? Looking around the world, many nations have similar sets of morals and coinciding laws, even if there are various interpretations; the core is still there. I feel that a lot of this stuff pertaining to 'rights' and what not, is actually very primitive and instinctual overall.

But what we think of as fundamental rights now have not been supported for much of history. Rights represent cultural values, and cultural values have been very diverse.

Well, I don't know many cultures throughout history that have openly supported Child Porn or Bestiality.

In these past few centuries, modernization has brought a certain amount of end to that diversity; not to say much does not still exist. If we could take the basic ideas from the most prominent cultures (which are diverse in themselves) and compare them, they would not actually be all that different.

Do not kill others (with realistic expectations of course, war and stuff...), try not to harm others, and protect kids. Pretty basic stuff that many people have agreed upon for a very long time.

Wrexasaur wrote:In these past few centuries, modernization has brought a certain amount of end to that diversity; not to say much does not still exist. If we could take the basic ideas from the most prominent cultures (which are diverse in themselves) and compare them, they would not actually be all that different.

Do not kill others (with realistic expectations of course, war and stuff...), try not to harm others, and protect kids. Pretty basic stuff that many people have agreed upon for a very long time.

Kinda like what I said, albiet in a much more linguistic and understandable way.

And I managed to respond in a flat 12 seconds...



BANG!!!

Wanna fight about it?

*BANG*
Say Wuht-?

*Slump*

So fast the smoke didn't even come out of the gun my last picture... and my index finger shot you before I even drew my guns... THAT fast... that fast.

Damn...that's fast... XP

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, I don't know many cultures throughout history that have openly supported Child Porn or Bestiality.

But they existed. Both bestiality and sex with children was an accepted part of society at different times in ancient Greece.

Seriously, if you narrow rights down to things that all societies have accepted you end up with 'don't kill other people in our society unless they really pissed you off'.