Censorship

Discussion in 'Support & Feedback' started by ojduffelworth, Jan 31, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Banzai

    Banzai One-time Mod, but on the road to recovery Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,834
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Probably a good idea Peerie. I wasn't accusing anyone of overstepping the line, for the record. I was just noting that the conversation was heading that way, and it might be preferable if it didn't :)
     
  2. evelon

    evelon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    England
    As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any. I don't care about anybody's sexual inclinations. I care about them as people, but then when I know something about them, I like or dislike them as people, not homosexuals.

    Character-wise, ability-wise, there is no difference. But to say the difference is as superficial as the colour of someone's skin is wrong. If you meet a coloured person for the first time, you instantly know he's coloured. If you then take a dislike to him because of his colour you're making an instant judgment on that alone.

    To say that homosexuality is as superficial as the colour of someone's skin is not quite right.

    Unless he, or she, is wearing a badge, you very often wouldn't know, unless they told you.

    I can't make it any clearer, if you can't see the difference, I don't know what would convince you.
     
  3. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    So if you admit that there is no difference, no reason to not fully accept a homosexual as you would a straight person, I'm not sure what your point is. The only point I can make out from what you're saying is that homosexuality is just wrong, even though they are no different to any other people.
     
  4. Islander

    Islander Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sweden
    Actually, some homosexual people emphasise that homosexuality is about a lot more than whom you have sex with. It affects your self image, your social life, your opportunities to have children, and so on.
     
  5. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    With "some" being the operative word in that sentence. My point was that, like heterosexual people, gay people are not all carbon copies of each other. There are qualities beyond their sexuality. I mean, I'm gay, and that influences a lot of how I choose to live, but that stuff is a choice, it's optional and up to me; being gay isn't.
     
  6. evelon

    evelon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    England

    I would defend your rights. But if someone stongly believes that homosexuality is wrong, then that is their right too. And for someone who's believed that for most of their life, it is difficult, if not impossible to change their view. A view which, imo, they are just as entitled to.
     
  7. evelon

    evelon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    England




    You need to re-read the posts. I have never said that homosexuality is wrong. I have said that it's wrong to insist that all people must hold the same view.

    Not accepting homosexuals, solely because of their sexual orientation, is down to, usually, deep seated beliefs. And what I'm defending is the right of people who do consider it wrong, to hold onto their beliefs. In exactly the same way that I would defend your rights to think and feel as you do.

    And it's a bit silly to say that there are no differences between homosexuals and hetrosexuals. Alright it's only the sex bit that's different - but that's what people, who do object, are objecting to.

    In every other aspect, there is no difference. And to me, a person is a person, whatever their choices be.
     
  8. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    This is a little naive and totally untrue, as I've already said. Discrimination against minorities is rarely, if ever, down to an actual quality or action of the group, but simply an abitrary rejection of things that are different. As a society, we've advanced (or at least I'd hoped we had) to a point where we can agree that arbitrary discrimination is immoral.

    But this discussion is leading away from the original topic, which was censorship and freedom of speech. So yes, these people can continue to believe, as they do, that homosexuality is immoral, and I will continue to tell them that they are wrong, and we'll all be frustrated yet happy because we live in a society where such an exchange is possible.
     
  9. evelon

    evelon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    England

    You are saying that homosexuals and hetrosexuals are not different from one another. I agreed with that, except in the area where they absolutely are - that of sexuality. It may be simple, but it is also fact.

    You live your life, make your choices, follow you career, no matter if your sexuality sometimes leads you on certain paths. Just like everyone else.

    But, not everyone seems to enjoy the same kind of freedom to say what they want without condemnation. At one time people who advocated homosexuality as acceptable were frowned on, prosecuted sometimes.
    Now the wheel has turned. People who's beliefs won't allow them to accept it, are frowned upon as bigots in a 'moral society'.

    All I'm saying is - equality for all views. And that does encompass the arguments about cencorship.
     
  10. Islander

    Islander Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sweden
    Evelon, you could say that you advocate the right of being wrong.
     
  11. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    Again, there is this presupposition that all people's morals are equal, which I can only find to be untrue, not to mention a truly dangerous idea. To paraphrase neuroscientist Sam Harris, the only respected opinions in the area of particle physics are those of qualified physicists. By the same token, not all people's moral opinions should carry equal weight, and by extension, not all moralities are inherently equal and 'just'. To say 'the wheel has turned' implies that it is just by chance that homosexuals, women, black people, etc, are now mostly tolerated by society, as though it could suddenly swing back tomorrow. This simply isn't the case. Our moral system has continued to evolve along with our societies; practices that were common (child brides, lynching, sexism) have been abolished because of the general acceptance that everyone, regardless of race, gender or sexuality, deserves to live the best life they possibly can. All moral changes that have occured in the past century have been towards this admirable goal. Should we allow people whose morals run contrary to this goal a free voice? Of course, absolutely. Should this voice be weighed as equal to the voice that runs toward the end-point of absolute tolerance? Of course not. We must accept that we can speak objectively about morality, that certain people are better equipped to make moral decisions than others, and that not all moralities are inherently equal. This doesn't mean that there is one perfectly moral condition--take the issue of abortion, for instance: those on either side of the argument believe that their position will produce a more moral society, and both versions are at the very least viable moral outcomes. However, there is no moral condition in which discrimination against minorities produces a better society than one which offers equality. This kind of thinking still allows for plenty of moral debate about a wide range of issues, but it admits that certain moral states are universally valuable--chiefly, freedom.
     
  12. jaywriting

    jaywriting New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    UK
    I believe we are all entitled to hold our own prejudices. We also have a responsibility as intelligent animals to re-evaluated those prejudices once in a while.

    When someone attempts to enter reasoned discourse, society should protect their right to be heard. To that extent I believe censorship is wrong.

    When someone is seeking to proselytise without some give and take, we have every right to shut them out. I censor the TV everytime I watch it because I don't feel the need to be told how happy I could be if only I bought X product.
     
  13. evelon

    evelon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    England
    Being wrong is a human condition which we all, at times, experience.

    So yes, to be human is sometimes to be wrong (in the eyes of others), so I do advocate the right to be be wrong.
     
  14. w176

    w176 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    Luleå, Sweden
    All topics should be allowed to be discussed, but it not a right to be allowed to do so at all times or places.

    For example:
    Lets say we have a club for stamp collectors going there to discuss stamps. I think they should have the right to define that during club meeting, you should talk mostly about stamps, and perhaps some small talk, not advocate any politics.


    But there should always be a space in our society where you should be allowed to discuss it. Someone personal blog perhaps.

    But. A big but here. All topics should be allowed to be discussed, but there are messengers and propaganda that shouldn't be allowed to be spread, for the protection of human rights and lives.

    Examples:
    -In Uganda last year they published a list of suspected homosexual and where they lived with the headline "HANG THEM" and since then people havebeen murdered and have had go into hiding.
    -A second horrible example could be Radio Rwandan and Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines before and during the Rwandan Genocide. Where 20% of the population was killed.


    We can all agree on assisting mass murder or genocide is wrong, but there is a big gray area. It not okay to encouraging mass murder, but is it okay to encourage discrimination? To say that you personally hate a group of people? That you dislike them etc?

    I think the limitations of freedom of speech needs to be constantly debated and discussed to in each time and place find as a good balance as possible between freedom and limitations.
     
  15. J_Jammer

    J_Jammer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    4
    You are telling them how to act.

    Do you think ending religion will solve problems around the world?


    Who is qualified to determine that?

    How is it not the case? Our as in what? Western? Because the world over child brides exist as do lynchings. As a matter of fact, lynchings happened recently in Haiti over the Cholera epidemic. It's not general. I don't know where people get this idea that something is general. What happens is people shame others into agreeing and that's not the same as agreeing. That's harboring and if one knows anything if you force too many to harbor, you're going to have a problem so, yes, tomorrow might have a HUGE revert of feelings of old. Don't shame people into agreeing. It's not only a bad idea, it never, ever, ever works.


    By whose standards?


    It is not "of course not" It's a bit bossy to suggest you know right for wrong better than someone else. What authority do you have to do that? Who gave it to you and where do you hide it?


    You just said that there is no perfectly moral condition and then proceed to say there is. Which is it?
     
  16. Mallory

    Mallory Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,267
    Likes Received:
    199
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    How about by not having anti-discrimination legislation? Hear me out on this. Protest groups and individuals do quite the adequete job letting corportations know what they think of them. If a store has people that are rude, or only sells products that everyone knows were made unhealthily, people don't shop there. Yes, I realize that most people don't care that much where they buy their stuff, but there's always the ralliers who stir up enough media attention that the business has a huge PR problem. If the hotel owners are perceived as bigots, the same thing will ensue. If Starbucks chooses to not hire anyone besides rich white males, you think the public isn't going to make any noise about it? This alone will do plenty of damage to Starbucks' reputation.

    And about the equal pay laws, are you looking at what a male/female of the same job make per HOUR? Because statistically, I'm pretty sure women still are more likely to take more time off because of kids, etc. Not to be sexist, but I'm just being statistically objective. I know plenty of women who put in more hours than the men (in the same area) and they get promoted faster and earn more.

    Now, in the stamp club example we're currently discussing (w176), I agree with that, but keep in mind that the case of the stamp club is a voluntary meeting. If you don't talk about stamps, the stamp club will exclude you so they can talk about stamps uninterrupted. It's not a case of the government coming to fine the person, or setting legislation that says you have to talk about stamps at the stamp club or else face a day in jail. :)
     
  17. evelon

    evelon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    England
    Quote=arron89;721090]Again, there is this presupposition that all people's morals are equal, which I can only find to be untrue, not to mention a truly dangerous idea.

    True. The jails would be empty if not for low morality.

    not all people's moral opinions should carry equal weight, and by extension, not all moralities are inherently equal and 'just'.

    Again, true. You obviously wouldn't give the same credence to the opinion or morality of a rapist as you would to the average working guy.

    To say 'the wheel has turned' implies that it is just by chance that homosexuals, women, black people, etc, are now mostly tolerated by society, as though it could suddenly swing back tomorrow.

    O.K. I should have said 'the wheel has been turned,

    This simply isn't the case. Our moral system has continued to evolve along with our societies; practices that were common (child brides, lynching, sexism) have been abolished because of the general acceptance that everyone, regardless of race, gender or sexuality, deserves to live the best life they possibly can.

    Again, I agree. People have worked hard to right the many wrongs that have been done over the years to various sectors of society. And of course, everyone deserves to live the best life they can.



    All moral changes that have occured in the past century have been towards this admirable goal. Should we allow people whose morals run contrary to this goal a free voice? Of course, absolutely. Should this voice be weighed as equal to the voice that runs toward the end-point of absolute tolerance? Of course not.

    Now here, I have to disagree - a little bit.

    Firstly, is absolute tolerance achievable - and if it is - is it wise. Is there nothing that you would find intolerant?

    And the voice that speaks against what you advocate - absolute tolerance - could that not be, in some instances, the voice of reason?


    We must accept that we can speak objectively about morality, that certain people are better equipped to make moral decisions than others, and that not all moralities are inherently equal.

    That's contentious. Are you talking about those, obviously morally barren people, or people who just think differently than you do.
    Are you meaning morally better equipped, or educationaly more able?


    This doesn't mean that there is one perfectly moral condition--take the issue of abortion, for instance: those on either side of the argument believe that their position will produce a more moral society, and both versions are at the very least viable moral outcomes.

    Agreed. But this is an emotive issue that people feel strongly about. I sympathise with both sides, in some aspects at least. I can understand that some people will never be able to accept abortion. And I respect their right not to. I wouldn't respect their right to intrude upon someone else's rights by protesting out clinics etc. But I don't respect the pro-abortionists who decry and disrespect the opinions of those who don't agree with them.

    However, there is no moral condition in which discrimination against minorities produces a better society than one which offers equality.

    Up to a point. But, assuming that someone, who can't tolerate homosexuals because of their beliefs, is less able to make a moral judgment than somebody who can, is in itself discriminatory.

    If minorities are to have equal rights - and they should - they should also accept, like most of us, that there are going to be times when people won't accept them.
    And people who don't adhere to society's line, shouldn't be vilified to the extent that they sometimes are.

    This kind of thinking still allows for plenty of moral debate about a wide range of issues, but it admits that certain moral states are universally valuable--chiefly, freedom.

    Very true. I don't care what you argue for, or how forcibly you argue for it,
    everyone should have the right to an opinion and the freedom to live their lives according to their beliefs.
     
  18. J_Jammer

    J_Jammer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    4
    Not all beliefs can live side by side.

    Let's take a KKK member and a Black Panther member. Can they coexist in the same city without every coming to blows via words or physically? If they cannot, then they cannot live in the same place according to their beliefs.

    The idea that everyone can have their own beliefs and live happily ever after cannot work and has never worked all throughout history.
     
  19. evelon

    evelon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    England


    Yeah, that true. But I assume that most people taking part in a debate such as this would assume that that would be taken as read.

    It's not possible to list each and every occassion when an argument doesn't work, but groups like KKK are pretty much despised by everyone. there has to be an assumption, I think, that it is the average person I was talking about. Reasonable people.

    But there again, one man's reason is another man's bigotory.
     
  20. J_Jammer

    J_Jammer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    4
    My point was that there's no real way to be tolerant. People fake it so much they've convinced themselves they are. They are nor more tolerant than who they state is intolerant. That's because when they're not agreed with they call the other person intolerant or racist or homophobic or any other term that labels them so poorly they hope that it shuts them down. On forums the great name is troll.

    If someone cannot discuss on an online forum then they are the problem with the world that doesn't discuss and just yells and calls names.

    If you cannot discuss on one of the easiest forms of communication, then how can you be so civil offline?

    I just don't like placating phrases or in general statements. They ignore the reality of where we live. People forget the planet earth is more than just that suburban home they post from or that cushy job they have that allows them free time to post. They forget about those that don't get to have such luxuries. The world sucks.

    To further that point Egypt points to how beliefs cannot coexist if they are not well liked.
     
  21. evelon

    evelon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    England

    I agree with most of what you say. the problem, as I see it now, is that those who profess to be most tolerant towards the minority groups, are highly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.

    It is becoming increasingly difficult to hold a point of view opposite to what society - and who is this society? - deems currently acceptable.

    And yes - the world sucks. We spend more time protecting some tiny aspect of our own freedom (freedom which gives us the right to consume what we want, waste what we want, indulge in whatever we want) and we conveniently ignore those who have no freedom, no food, no water.

    Mankind is selfish.
     
  22. J_Jammer

    J_Jammer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    4
    That is why I laugh when people state they love dogs. Dogs are so loyal and humans are not as loyal as a dog. Barely anyone can be...that's why many people don't like cats. No one likes what is similar to them. Because opposites attract...so cats are so similar to humans that is why humans don't like them as much as dogs. Cats are independent and could almost careless about what's going on if it doesn't have much to do with them. Of course that's the perception of cats...

    Humans are not loyal like dogs they are more self involved like cats. Proven true over and over again via those videos that are cropping up of people who fight on a bus or on the street or in a subway station and passersby or those not involved watch and do not intervene. Very cat like. A dog would help the one that is being attacked. A human...sits and videos with a phone.

    I, personally, like both dogs and cats.

    But your comment reminded me of that idea. :p
     
  23. Peerie Pict

    Peerie Pict Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    722
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Scotland
    I'm obviously completely anathema to your world view. I'm not going to respond to this as it's quite frankly too upsetting. Good luck with that. Yup.

    This thread is dominated by the "I'm fine with discrimination because it doesn't affect me" camp. I tend not to have meaningful exchanges on real issues with this mindset. It's quite laughable really. Not even the most right wing evangelical public figure in the UK would argue that anti-discrimination law is unnecessary. That's how far we've come in this country and for that I am really grateful.
     
  24. Mallory

    Mallory Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,267
    Likes Received:
    199
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    I am not "right-wing" nor do I believe that discrimination isn't an issue. Personally, the "right-versus-left" mindset really irritates me; wanting a hands-off free market economy and wanting civil liberties are not inversely related.

    No one should be prohibited from living in a certain area, starting his/her own business, running for office, etc based on race. Of course that would be horrible. All I'm saying is that when it comes to a business serving customers, if the business is discriminatory, the natural consequences of public backlash, boycotts etc will solve the problem on its own.

    Think about it. If someone walks into a Starbucks store and tried to buy a coffee but is prohibited to because of race, how do you think the surrounding customers, media etc is going to handle that?
     
  25. evelon

    evelon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    England

    Who are you including in the I'm fine with discrimination.......' bit?

    Who has ever said that discrimination is ok?

    Most of us have, at some time, suffered discrimination of one type or another, I am a woman - job discrimination
    I'm not so young any more - age discrimination
    My son is wheelchair bound - and if you think I haven't seen him discriminated against because he's disabled - think again.
    I have teenage grandsons - discriminated against because they happen to be teenagers, threatened with ear piercing contraptions if they gather outside a supermaket talking. Not allowed to walk down certain streets without a parent because they might - just might - cause trouble.
    Condemned out of hand because they are teenage boys.

    Don't tell me about discrimination and assume you are the only one that suffers. You may be a minority, but there are many more who don'g winge and expect society to fall over themselves to accommodate you.

    You think we don't know what we're talking about because we don't agree with you - how discriminatory is that!

    You need to stop taking things so literally and accept that life can't be all you want it to be. Sometimes people won't like you - so what!
     
    1 person likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice