Censorship - CLOSED


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Censorship - CLOSED

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next
Author Message
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2226
Credit: 5,813,817
RAC: 765
Canada
Message 717408 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 15:35:37 UTC
Last modified: 23 Feb 2008, 15:36:21 UTC

The freedom to access information and exchange thoughts is fundimental to our social experiment in democracy.

An informed and educated population is critical to the well being and continuity of the democratic proccess.

Can citizens of a democracy be said to be educated if the width and depth of their knowledge has been predetermined by overseers with the power to over ride what they see, hear and say?

The American Library Association (ALA) has some serious concerns about the subject of censorship.

Here is a link to their site:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm

I believe we have are all aware of the format used in most every debate.
A speaker from either side of the topic is present to argue the pro or con side of an issue.
To keep the discussion focussed and on topic is a person, a referee if you will.
The purpose of the referee, as I've stated, is to keep the discussion on topic by remaining neutral throughout the dabate and only stepping in when necessary to steer the argument back on course.

No debate, whether a high school class or a presidential debate, can function without a referee.

Can a debate be said to be legitimate if one side has an open microphone and the referee taking up the topic while the other side stands before a microphone turned off by the referee?
No.
This is why we have developed over the years, a structure within which every debate must function.

To step outside this structure is to step into the realm of censorship.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of what we have come to believe in.
Only those who feel we have an 'excess of democracy', by which they mean too much power in the hands of the people, are opposed to the concept of real freedom of speech.
These are the people who would limit what we see, read and hear.
Censorship is all for our own good they would have us believe, when in reality, it is for their own good.

It is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to speak out when they experience censorship, not only when they agree with what is being censored but when they do not agree also.
Especially when they do not agree, as it is the freedom of the minority view to exist which protects the freedom of the majority.
If censorship is allowed to take hold, eventually everyone will find themselves on the other side.

Please take the time to read the link to the ALA site and consider what kind of community you want to be a part of, whether it be your country, province/state, city or small group.

Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7407
Credit: 78,283
RAC: 31
United States
Message 717428 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 16:57:40 UTC

Funny how you YOU post an ostensible diatribe against 'censorship' yet advocate the very same constantly against those that hold differing political views than you. Oh, I'm sorry! Did we confuse you with someone else? Did we only confuse you with the scary bunch of socialists and fascists that you continuously support openly?

Sure....speak out (while you can) against those that disagree with your heavy handed anti freedom agenda and property grabs you advocate.....until you've had enough of it, then shut them down.

Rich!


____________
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Profile Hev
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 1067
Credit: 268,899
RAC: 57
Canada
Message 717433 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 17:09:43 UTC - in response to Message 717428.

Funny how you YOU post an ostensible diatribe against 'censorship' yet advocate the very same constantly against those that hold differing political views than you. Oh, I'm sorry! Did we confuse you with someone else? Did we only confuse you with the scary bunch of socialists and fascists that you continuously support openly?

Sure....speak out (while you can) against those that disagree with your heavy handed anti freedom agenda and property grabs you advocate.....until you've had enough of it, then shut them down.

Rich!



Hello Robert aka Scary Capitalist. How are you these days? I know that you are still interested in our fledgling socialist party (founded by diehard marxists) so here is the latest updates.. Respect
____________

Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2226
Credit: 5,813,817
RAC: 765
Canada
Message 717437 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 17:17:12 UTC
Last modified: 23 Feb 2008, 17:21:56 UTC

Ahhh...the tired responses of the scary neo-con.
I have always spoken for the rights and power of the people.
I have always supported the democratic rights of the people.
I believe in an educated population taking more control over their political lives.
I would not supress even your right to spout off as you see fit.

I am anti-fascist in every respect and definition of the word.
I am pro-democracy.
I am pro socialist.
Combine the two and you will find the term social democracy.

I am pro union and pro working people.
I am anti-corporatist (see fascism)

I desire a world in which people, not corporations, control government.
I desire government responsive to the needs of people.

There are my beliefs.
Put your spin on that.

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 235,506
RAC: 0
United States
Message 717451 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 18:10:46 UTC - in response to Message 717437.
Last modified: 23 Feb 2008, 18:12:51 UTC

Ahhh...the tired responses of the scary neo-con.
I have always spoken for the rights and power of the people.
I have always supported the democratic rights of the people.
I believe in an educated population taking more control over their political lives.
I would not supress even your right to spout off as you see fit.

I am anti-fascist in every respect and definition of the word.
I am pro-democracy.
I am pro socialist.
Combine the two and you will find the term social democracy.

I am pro union and pro working people.
I am anti-corporatist (see fascism)

I desire a world in which people, not corporations, control government.
I desire government responsive to the needs of people.

There are my beliefs.
Put your spin on that.


So have you turned your private property over to the government, or still just exercising your right to spew hypocrisy over the 'net?

No spin, just noting the difference between your words and your actions.
____________

Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2226
Credit: 5,813,817
RAC: 765
Canada
Message 717457 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 18:20:47 UTC

I am a human being and have rights.
Corporations are not human, therefore have no rights.
(in a perfect world)

Neo-cons love to spread fear of socialism with the alarm cry of private property won't be permitted.

You know it's a lie.

Many countries around the world are socially democratic and, for some strange reason, the people are happier with their lives and also own their own property.

What a concept.

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,097
RAC: 761
United States
Message 717477 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 19:52:44 UTC - in response to Message 717451.

Ahhh...the tired responses of the scary neo-con.
I have always spoken for the rights and power of the people.
I have always supported the democratic rights of the people.
I believe in an educated population taking more control over their political lives.
I would not supress even your right to spout off as you see fit.

I am anti-fascist in every respect and definition of the word.
I am pro-democracy.
I am pro socialist.
Combine the two and you will find the term social democracy.

I am pro union and pro working people.
I am anti-corporatist (see fascism)

I desire a world in which people, not corporations, control government.
I desire government responsive to the needs of people.

There are my beliefs.
Put your spin on that.


So have you turned your private property over to the government, or still just exercising your right to spew hypocrisy over the 'net?

No spin, just noting the difference between your words and your actions.


No spin? Conflating socialism with communism? Last time I checked socialists did not have issue with private ownership of proprerty, so why the charge of hypocrisy? Sounds a lot like spin to me and nothing to do with the subject at hand.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile champ
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 03
Posts: 3642
Credit: 1,489,147
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 717496 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 20:23:53 UTC - in response to Message 717485.




LOL
____________

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 235,506
RAC: 0
United States
Message 717527 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 21:44:39 UTC
Last modified: 23 Feb 2008, 21:49:48 UTC

Argue with Merriam-Webster all you want, but be sure to take note that I neither create nor define terms...I just use them properly.

Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,097
RAC: 761
United States
Message 717560 - Posted: 23 Feb 2008, 23:29:07 UTC - in response to Message 717527.

Argue with Merriam-Webster all you want, but be sure to take note that I neither create nor define terms...I just use them properly.

Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism, at least as far as private ownership of property is concerned. With regards to public ownership of the means of production, it is true that this remains in practise to some degree, though, from Robert's previous posts I would say it's unlikely he possesses anything that falls into this category. And again you decide to sidestep the thread's topic and shoot the messenger. If you agree with the message you do know you can say so without everybody assuming it means you agree with everything the messenger says?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2226
Credit: 5,813,817
RAC: 765
Canada
Message 717580 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 0:09:16 UTC

You beat me to it bobby.
I was going to ask if he inherited that dictionary from his great grandfather. LOL

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 717585 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 0:27:56 UTC - in response to Message 717580.
Last modified: 24 Feb 2008, 0:32:04 UTC

I was going to ask if he inherited that dictionary from his great grandfather.

Actually, Merriam-Webster is Newspeak not Oldspeak... ;)

(Welcome to Orwell's Oceana.)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2914
Credit: 6,750,651
RAC: 1,799
United States
Message 717625 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 2:20:57 UTC - in response to Message 717560.

Argue with Merriam-Webster all you want, but be sure to take note that I neither create nor define terms...I just use them properly.

Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism, at least as far as private ownership of property is concerned. With regards to public ownership of the means of production, it is true that this remains in practise to some degree, though, from Robert's previous posts I would say it's unlikely he possesses anything that falls into this category. And again you decide to sidestep the thread's topic and shoot the messenger. If you agree with the message you do know you can say so without everybody assuming it means you agree with everything the messenger says?

When you are wrong, the mature thing to do is just admit you are wrong. But to say that you are right when something as authoritative as the dictionary goes against you, then blame the dictionary, is simply ludicrous.

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 717636 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 2:56:08 UTC

This might be a slightly more accurate 'definition' of what socialism is all about:

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English:

Socialism:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.

To be fair, socialism isn't exactly something that can be summed up by a brief definition... ;)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,097
RAC: 761
United States
Message 717640 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 3:03:40 UTC - in response to Message 717625.
Last modified: 24 Feb 2008, 3:08:59 UTC

Argue with Merriam-Webster all you want, but be sure to take note that I neither create nor define terms...I just use them properly.

Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism, at least as far as private ownership of property is concerned. With regards to public ownership of the means of production, it is true that this remains in practise to some degree, though, from Robert's previous posts I would say it's unlikely he possesses anything that falls into this category. And again you decide to sidestep the thread's topic and shoot the messenger. If you agree with the message you do know you can say so without everybody assuming it means you agree with everything the messenger says?

When you are wrong, the mature thing to do is just admit you are wrong. But to say that you are right when something as authoritative as the dictionary goes against you, then blame the dictionary, is simply ludicrous.


Umm, I neither said I was right or the dictionary was wrong, just that the dictionary definition may be outdated. My reason for saying this was that none of the post-WW2 Western European governments formed from parties that have called themselves Socialist have outlawed private property. So which is correct, modern practice or dictionary definition? BTW, if you want a longer discussion of Socialism than the three lines from Merriam-Webster, then wikipedia might be a place to look. And if we really want to split hairs I said "Last time I checked socialists did not have issue with private ownership of proprerty", and I've known a number, I said nothing about socialism.

Interestingly, dictionary.com has nothing about property in its collection of definitions of socialism, is that because the dictionaries it uses as sources are less authoritative than Merriam-Webster? For that matter neither does the Compact Oxford English Dictionary mention the removal of private property as characteristic of socialism. But you're right, I should have made these points in my original reply, rather than implying that Merriam-Webster may not be as up to date as it could be. Many thanks for shaming me into finding authoritative sources showing Merriam-Webster to be wrong.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2914
Credit: 6,750,651
RAC: 1,799
United States
Message 717647 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 3:08:59 UTC - in response to Message 717636.

This might be a slightly more accurate 'definition' of what socialism is all about:

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English:

Socialism:
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.

To be fair, socialism isn't exactly something that can be summed up by a brief definition... ;)

Then, to be fair, it should no more be dismissed as a definition by claiming it was from great-grandfather's dictionary. But this is not a poli-sci course, is it? If one claims that socialism is not this, then dismisses the definition that says it is indeed this, that is intellectual fraud at its worst.

I have to repeat: when you are wrong, the mature thing to do is just admit you are wrong.

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2914
Credit: 6,750,651
RAC: 1,799
United States
Message 717650 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 3:14:21 UTC - in response to Message 717640.


[snip]

I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism, at least as far as private ownership of property is concerned


Umm, I neither said I was right or the dictionary was wrong, just that the dictionary definition may be outdated.

Umm, yes, you did say that the dictionary was wrong when you said "Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism". So you once again fail to admit your error.

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,966,097
RAC: 761
United States
Message 717654 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 3:28:39 UTC - in response to Message 717650.
Last modified: 24 Feb 2008, 3:36:20 UTC


[snip]

I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism, at least as far as private ownership of property is concerned


Umm, I neither said I was right or the dictionary was wrong, just that the dictionary definition may be outdated.

Umm, yes, you did say that the dictionary was wrong when you said "I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism". So you once again fail to admit your error.


I think the alternative sources provide sufficient evidence for me to say that I made no error. Definitions of many things change over time, in a particular context Merriam-Webster's may well have been correct, I (and based on the evidence I gathered many others) do not believe it's definition to be accurate in a modern context.

If it helps us move off this, I'll happily admit that by Merriam-Webster's definition of socialism, Robert should give up his private property, but by many others it is not necessary for him to do so, in order to make the claim that he is a socialist, and leave it to Robert to decide which definition he should accept as authoritative. Good enough?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2914
Credit: 6,750,651
RAC: 1,799
United States
Message 717664 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 3:41:32 UTC - in response to Message 717654.


[snip]

I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism, at least as far as private ownership of property is concerned


Umm, I neither said I was right or the dictionary was wrong, just that the dictionary definition may be outdated.

Umm, yes, you did say that the dictionary was wrong when you said "Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism". So you once again fail to admit your error.


I think the alternative sources provide sufficient evidence for me to say say that I made no error. Definitions of many things change over time, in a particular context Merriam-Webster's may well have been correct, I (and based on the evidence I gathered many others) do not believe it's definition to be accurate in a modern context.

If it helps us move off this, I'll happily admit that by Merriam-Webster's definition of socialism, Robert should give up his private property, but by many others it is not necessary for him to do so, in order to make the claim that he is a socialist, and leave it to Robert to decide which definition he should accept as authoritative. Good enough?

Good enough for whom? Did you admit that you were wrong to dismiss a valid, dictionary definition that the English speaking world relies on, and which was the basis of BrainSmashR's argument? No, you waffled on about how "alternative sources provide sufficient evidence for me to say say that I made no error." When you say clearly that BrainSmashR was right, that his definition is accurate and his result follows from his premise, then you have admitted your error; not by saying, as you did, that there are other alternative sources.

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 717674 - Posted: 24 Feb 2008, 4:09:33 UTC

<--- Wonders why nobody has ever conceded to me when they were wrong... ;)

(Not that it's the least bit important to me. But even so...)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Censorship - CLOSED

Copyright © 2014 University of California