Search results

Because the wishes of the 10% in question are that their right to free speech not be abridged without sufficient justification?

That's a (really) long side argument about the exploitative nature of capital relations. I'm happy to have it, but it'll totally shit all over this censorship debate and I really like that it's happening. Make a new thread for it in the shaw or wait later and ask me again. Today more than ever...

What difference does it make if it's "normal?"

Why should they be respected? You still haven't given a justification for the ethical supremacy of majority opinion. You haven't established that exposure to those things actually causes harm.

Nebulous allusions to evidence gathered about a hypothetical mass media system that we don't actually have aren't equivalent to actually providing that sort of evidence. I'm perfectly willing to go out on a limb and say you don't have any such evidence and that until you do, you haven't...

Optimal in this case is a matter of aesthetic preference. If you prefer freedom, for example, you'll choose communism.

What makes you think there needs to be officially designated guiders of morality at all?

Harm to others is precisely the justification I've pointed to before. It's a problematic one for you to invoke, because there's no way for you to actually demonstrate in the case of the interdiction you're advocating for.

Why should they give a fuck about what you want to hear? Because you have the political power to stop them from speaking? That's not an ethical justification. That's just might makes right. There's a difference between thinking they should do that and thinking they shouldn't be prevented...

Who am I to say that freedom is the default and that deviations from that require justification? Uh...someone whoisn'ta fascist sack of shit?

Iknoweveryone has the right to do as they want so long as it doesn't harm others (and there's a burden of proof there, since you're proposing to infringe on that right). It has nothing to do with functioning in society. It's a matter of basic moral principles. People are free until someone...

Because those "whims" are that the right of that 10% to say what they want not be infringed. Why? What about them being a minority means they should have to respect those wishes? According to you. Why should you be in charge? Because most people agree with you? Again, what about that...

No way, bro. These guys told me that's bad and the society I live in is completely dominated by their asinine viewpoint: Look at that hat. There's no arguing with that hat.

You can't defend your view of why we need censorship and these noises are the death rattle of your argument.

Because I think the absence of what you call moral anarchy is the imposition of wholly subjective values. Just because 90% of people don't want to hear it doesn't mean that the other 10% shouldn't be allowed to say it. That's an extremely dangerous precedent.

Also, there's a difference between promoting a type of speech and being against its censorship. You can not want NBC to do that while still thinking they should have the right to do so.

oughts* derp

That's actually a good question. It's not a good question for snuff or pedo films since those have an obvious victim.

Censorship is fine now because someday science might magically become able to turn is's into aughts. Got it.

According to YOU. And if projects which some people might consider worthy get turned down to meet someone else's (possibly asinine) notion of decency? What then? That's a loss everyone else has to eat in order to protect some totally subjective notion about what kinds of information are...

It's possible in fields with objective standards. Your standards for the media are YOURS.

1. What does "stronger morals" even mean? 2. How would you go about deciding this in such a way as to avoid abuse?

Or maybe he just recognizes the impossibility of devising a system of deciding who is not equipped to make such decisions that doesn't also produce injustice. That impossibility is well demonstrated by history.

You could try readingTHE FUCKING NEWS.

Why not?

THEN WHY ARE YOU WATCHING IT, RETARD?

I'm saying there's no evidence that a lack of censorship would have any negative effects. Right because clearly dipshit anodyne infotainment dumbdumb hour is a consequence of unregulated mass media (despite arising in a system of censored mass media) and not at all the product of an inbred...

lol I'm jaded because I recognize tv "news" for what it is. Got it. Maybe someday you'll take my advice and upgrade all the way to USA Today or something.

Uh gee maybe because the harms of unregulated medicine and food are obvious and richly detailed in our history whereas the harms of uncensored mass media are not?

Here's a thought: stop getting the fucking news from your television. Just turn that shit off completely. That's for lowest common denominator knuckle-draggers. Do some reading instead. Expand your mind a bit until you're capable of grasping why censorship is bad.

Insulting me isn't going to make your kids any smarter.

Your kids are going to end up just as retarded as you are.

I think we've discovered the source of the problem.

Racism would still be wrong even if people could choose to be white.

Then the question is whether "this makes me uncomfortable" is a good basis for the law. I don't think that it is for practical or ethical reasons.

If you can, but shouldn't have to what difference does it make?

Which part? The can or the should?

What if I said you should be able to get as far as you like? Without hypocrisy as a target, are you left with anything other than your aesthetic preferences as a basis for what the law ought to be?

The problem with "people are born gay" is that it doesn't matter because ethically people are allowed to choose do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others.

The choice to be gay. But as for "sexual materials" and all that, I think if you think parents are gonna be any kind of limiting factor on when kids get whatever information/smut/etc they're interested in, you're living in the past.