Censorship

[chrispminis]

Hmm, Im hoping to start a debate here, it will help with my English Speech and it was inspired by the conflict of those comics portraying Mohammad.

Do you think censorship should be practiced in Canada and to what degree?
How far does the freedom of speech, expression, opinion go?
Should it be unlimited?

Ill start with a pro censorship argument.

We don't want dangerous literature such as "How to make a Car Bomb for Dummies" since we don't want dummies with car bombs in Canada.

[md]

chrispminis wrote:

We don't want dangerous literature such as "How to make a Car Bomb for Dummies" since we don't want dummies with car bombs in Canada.

I disagree, dumbies with car bombs usually end up killing themselves. Sure they might take out a few other people too, but if you consider how many people there are, and how many of them are not quite up to the challenge of life, the chances of him taking out anyone important is small. Whereas the chances of him taking out himself only (and making hte gene pool a better place) are quite good.

Sure that may seem calous (and it might even be); but there is no way you are going to keep people who want to make bombs from making bombs. The knoledge is out there, people can find it. And you know what? Becuase you are telling people that they can't make bombs they are actually more likely to try just to smite you. So really in the end a few dumb people blowing themselves up because the info was easy to find is a small price to pay.

[Dan]

I think this debate was dune to death in the other topic but here are my views:

There allready is a level of censorship in canada, right now it is mostly if not all about hate speah. Since we blive in humman rights here in canada it means that we can not discrimate agisted peoleop based on race, relgion, disblity, sex (incuding homosexual and others), ect. This means equality before and under the law as well as procection when it comes to the work place and education. Ie. you can not fire some one based on the above and most acomidate there needs (for disbliyts) the same for education. Behond this it also extecents to censorship in that orgastions or peoleop can not promot hate agsited a gourp metioed above and that orgastions (esptaly public comapnys) can not say things that whould be predguised to there empolys/members in gorups above.

I think this is a good thing since if we say no censoreship at all it could lead to greater discrimation agisted peoleop to the point where humman rights are thrown out the door.

As for materals that could be dangores like how to make a bomb, i do not think they should be restrected but the atack of making them should be. This is difrencent then predugsital materals since it's statments do not hurt or effect any one.

In a perficked world unlimited free speach whould be great but this is hardly a perfick world and there are lots of peoleop that whould abuse and twist it. Witch is why we have hate laws and humman rights charters.

[bugzpodder]

actually there are some sort of a law against stuff like making bombs.

[chrispminis]

Why be allowed to learn how to make a bomb, but then not allowed to make one? People will be tempted to exercise their knowledge, and if they couldn't learn how to make bombs, they wouldnt make bombs. I think such literature is banned in Canada. And what about censorship of sexual ideas. Should such
sexual ideas be withheld from younger children? Many books are banned at schools because they contain sexual themes. Even stuff as innocent as N is for nudists in Naples (or something like that). To stuff thats less innocent, such as extremely explicit descriptions of hardcore sex. Where do we draw the line. And what about censorship of profanity? Are swear words really that bad?

@Cornflake : lol eugenist? I didn't mean that they were dummies, just making a point about a book which could teach a normal person how to make a bomb.

Dont forget this is about censorship, not bombs and dummies

[Martin]

I'm all for Bombs for Dummies, and at the same time I'm against people making bombs.

It's the idea. I don't like being told what I'm not allowed to know. Using the bomb example, making a bomb is already easy enough. Molotov cocktails for example can be made by anyone with no prior knowledge of the subject, and their construction is depicted in countless movies. Yet I've never seen an actual one be used.

EDIT: Censored? You have to be kidding me. CompSci's censor is rediculous.

[Dan]

Martin wrote:

EDIT: Censored? You have to be kidding me. CompSci's censor is rediculous.

Going to be fixed, or moded in v3 so the user can pick if the censor is on or it will just be allways off.

To chrispminis: by that logic learning any materal arts from should be banned, learning toxicogly shoudl be banned, FPS should be banned, and so on. As i side above i do not think we should ban the knogle but the atack.

[md]

chrispminis wrote:

Why be allowed to learn how to make a bomb, but then not allowed to make one? People will be tempted to exercise their knowledge, and if they couldn't learn how to make bombs, they wouldnt make bombs. I think such literature is banned in Canada. And what about censorship of sexual ideas. Should such
sexual ideas be withheld from younger children? Many books are banned at schools because they contain sexual themes. Even stuff as innocent as N is for nudists in Naples (or something like that). To stuff thats less innocent, such as extremely explicit descriptions of hardcore sex. Where do we draw the line. And what about censorship of profanity? Are swear words really that bad?

Currently in Canada information on bomb making is not censored, or if it is it's so poorly done it doesn't matter. With the internet really nothing is censored unless you live in certain countries anyways; the information is available. But let's use another example then bomb making; let's take sex and sexuality. I do not know what the current state is when it comes to trying to censor books about sex in school, but I think it's reasonable to assume they do try to keep sex out of school until at least high school (even then, I doubt there is much available).

Now, the usual argument for keping books about sex out of schools is that teaching kids about sex encourages them to have sex. And of course having sex is evil (it's the devil!). This isn't nessessarily true; many studies have shown that kids exposed to more information about sex and it's risks and consequences are less likely to have sex, but it's the reason given. Now, ignoring all the studies and things you may know now let's think about this from a kids perspective. See there is this thing called "sex". But you aren't allowed to talk about it with grownups. You're friends talk about it though and adults do it, and it's apparently a cool thing to do. Does that not make you curious and want to say... do it? Certainly there is some age stuff involved too; and until a certain point kids just don't care. But at 13 or 14 (and hte age of consent in Canada is 14 btw) not having information other then that it is forbidden is a prime reason for having sex. Stick it to the man (proverbially)!

Obviously there are limits to this as in everything; you don't want to be teaching 14 year olds about BSDM. However keeping things like "N is for Nudist" (theoretical example) which are mostly tame from students is like saying "Sex is the forbidden fruit. Do not have it". Look what happens in the bible.

Swearing is exactly the same. If you tell someone, especially a kid, that they are not allowed to know or do something they will do their best to do it. Just to show that they are not under your control. A much better strategy is to let them learn about whatever they want, but then tell them what you think and why; and what others think and why. Why is the key here. Give people points of view and the reasosn behind then and let them make their own choices and you'll find that they are much more likely to do the right thing.

If you've seen the Matrix you'll understand. People like being able to choose. They will fight to be able to choose. So let them choose and get on with life.

chrispminis wrote:

@Cornflake : lol eugenist? I didn't mean that they were dummies, just making a point about a book which could teach a normal person how to make a bomb.

Dont forget this is about censorship, not bombs and dummies

I'm not a eugenist persay... I'm not for killing dumb people. Mostly because even dumb people can have smart children. No, I'm more of a darwinist. Dumb people are dumb. If they kill themselves or otherwise prevent their genes from being passed on then that is natural selection. I'm of the opinion that child-proof containers and saftey labels are evil. Oh, and bring back bee-bee guns for kids... It's amazing how well those work.

[Justin_]

Cornflake wrote:

I disagree, dumbies with car bombs usually end up killing themselves. Sure they might take out a few other people too, but if you consider how many people there are, and how many of them are not quite up to the challenge of life, the chances of him taking out anyone important is small. Whereas the chances of him taking out himself only (and making hte gene pool a better place) are quite good.

LOL! So by important people do you mean yourself? And about the gene pool thing, are you suggesting stupid people have stupid genes that get passed on? So basically are you suggesting Hitler's doctrine is true?

[md]

WAY off topic but I gotta defend myself...

Justin_ wrote:

Cornflake wrote:

I disagree, dumbies with car bombs usually end up killing themselves. Sure they might take out a few other people too, but if you consider how many people there are, and how many of them are not quite up to the challenge of life, the chances of him taking out anyone important is small. Whereas the chances of him taking out himself only (and making hte gene pool a better place) are quite good.

LOL! So by important people do you mean yourself? And about the gene pool thing, are you suggesting stupid people have stupid genes that get passed on? So basically are you suggesting Hitler's doctrine is true?

Of course I am important! Other people who I know I would also include under hte title of "important", beyond that it is really a judgement call. People who think that what I am saying is the same as what hitler said are not important, as they are wrong. Being wrong isn't nessessarily bad but when it's over something that should be known, and which is so easy to look up I really doesn't help your case.

I'm not going to say that there is a "stupid" gene, because that just seems well stupid. But I would argue that someone who looks down the barrel of a gun and pulls the trigger so that they can watch the bullet come out are probably going to have less successful genes then someone who doesn't. I know it's a concept that many people find hard to take in, but humans are no different then other animals; the weak die and the strong don't. In our modern world unfortunately the week are helped along significantly, and so natural selection doesn't get a chance to work. We are causing ourselves to stagnate (evolutionly).

The obious problem with my theory is that it involves finding people wiht weak genes. I however don't beleive such people need to be actively sought out. I figure that the best way to tell is someone would have died doing something dumb is to let them do whatever they want. They die, then they were an unfortunate side effect of evolution. People who make bombs and blow themselves up are arguably not the kind of people you want reproducing. It's natural selection at work.

Hitler did something completely different. He actively sought out specific groups whom he deemed to be inferior and killed them. His basis for inferiority was really a personal choice too, and he killed a good many people who would have contributed positively to society. Really you could argue he did the opposite of what I am sugesting because the people he did not kill (himself and his cronies) are the people who I would argue were the most deserving to be killed.

See the important part of what I believe is that it requires no intervention except the realization that when someone blows themself up making a bomb it is not tragic; it's simply evolution at work.

[Justin_]

And how would you feel if a dummy who read: "car bombs for dummies", which he happily read during his wait at his doctors office, because a magazine called: "Everything you need to know about explosives" was published and sitting on a table in front of him, killed the woman you loved along with your little children?

Unless you don't have feelings for other human beings, it is safe to say your argument is ignorant to your own needs. Why take the chance? Why not ensure that you and your loved ones are safe by not allowing people to do whatever they want.

Anyway, I don't believe in taking chances. God help this world if something happens to the woman I love because of people's ignorance.

[md]

Justin_ wrote:

And how would you feel if a dummy who read: "car bombs for dummies", which he happily read during his wait at his doctors office, because a magazine called: "Everything you need to know about explosives" was published and sitting on a table in front of him, killed the woman you loved along with your little children?

Unless you don't have feelings for other human beings, it is safe to say your argument is ignorant to your own needs. Why take the chance? Why not ensure that you and your loved ones are safe by not allowing people to do whatever they want.

You seem to totally be missing key issues here. Try reading and thinking and responding to what I am saying instead of twisting and turning it into soemthing else.

To counter your "argument" about my not caring... lets see... people who want to make bombs will do so. You can't keep people from doing things they genuinely want to do, they will find a way. If you try to keep information from someone and tell them they aren't allowed to do something people are more likely (significantly) to actually go out and try just to show that you are wrong. So censoring is really just an encouragement for people to do what you don't want them to do.

So if I don't censor them I am not encouraging them and thus I may not be hindering the small percent of hte population that would be making bombs anyways, but I'm not encouraging others to do so. Whoa! I'm like, making things safer for the people I love! Shocking!

I feel I must also point out that just because information isn't censored does not mean that everyone will write books about it and those books will be everywhere. To say it does is just scare mongering.

Justin_ wrote:

Anyway, I don't believe in taking chances. God help this world if something happens to the woman I love because of people's ignorance.

Good for you. That's neither here nor there in this conversation and I'm pretty sure most people would say the same thing. Do try and stay on topic.

[Justin_]

Well I noticed that you're always right Cornflake, but the fact is I disagree with you and moreover I find much of your argument is flawed due to its inherent absolutist point of view.

There is so much grey in this world that must be embraced, this issue is just one example. You say that censorship does the opposite of what it intends to do, but you're wrong, in most cases censorship does a lot to prevent people from following the wrong paths in life. Of course your entitled to believe otherwise.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority should not rule. And since I've never mentioned that I am very much like you in a lot of ways perhaps I'll do so now: I think most people are morons. I think democracy is flawed because the majority of people are morons and thus the decision of the majority will be a moronic one; hence Canada. I think that censorship is one of the many things which need to be done in this country in order to protect the good and decent people which inhabit it. If the fools want to go kill eachother I do not have a problem with this, it is as you said natural that the fools die. However, with the institution of munitions it has become undeniably artificial to believe that the intelligent or the strong supercede the weak and the dumb. Any fool can grab a weapon and kill a stronger, smarter person. Thus is the need to place many censorships on the population which in my oppinion is virtually infested with fools.

In a world of smart people there would be no need for censorship of any kind. So there, I said it. And by saying it I've proved myself to be just as egotistical and sophomoric as my Cornflake counterpart. But these are nevertheless my contentions.

[rizzix]

You know there are smart people that are pretty darn foolish. What you need here is wisdom, not necessarily intelligence.

[Boo-chan]

The problem with censorship is that someone has to decide what knowledge should be forbidden, but then they can't know that knowledge because its forbidden. So you basically end up having to decide which people should be allowed to posess the knowledge and which ones shouldn't. Censoring bomb making instructionals is rather difficult to understand... anybody with a car can easily kill as many people as the average bomb does, but no one is suggesting that we ban cars.

Justin_ wrote:

You say that censorship does the opposite of what it intends to do, but you're wrong, in most cases censorship does a lot to prevent people from following the wrong paths in life.

This is possible but that is a bit of a value judgement. Censoring democracy probably lowers the number of people who try to bring it about in authoritarian countries, but is democracy necessary the wrong path. You seem to be only supporting "good" censorship... but deciding whether censorship is good or not is a rather anthropomorphic process.

Justin_ wrote:

I think democracy is flawed because the majority of people are morons and thus the decision of the majority will be a moronic one; hence Canada. I think that censorship is one of the many things which need to be done in this country in order to protect the good and decent people which inhabit it.

"The true judge of the intelligence of a person is how much he agrees with you." but just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're wrong. I agree that the majority of people are morons, but the people I consider morons would probably be tangential to the ones that you would choose. I'm rather confused why you only want to protect the "good and decent people"... this seems to imply that you don't care what happens to the rest of the people. If that is the case then deciding who the "good and decent people" are could be rather difficult.

However, I fundamentally disagree with the idea of protecting people from themselves. I think the threat of bombs is rather overplayed. So what if a couple hundred people get blown up every year, the only real effect is that it lessens the problem of overpopulation. But taking steps such as censorship to prevent the bombings is what motivates people to do such things, other than the psychological benefits that is. Censorship will do much more harm to the country as a whole than random bombings could hope to.

Justin_ wrote:

Unless you don't have feelings for other human beings, it is safe to say your argument is ignorant to your own needs. Why take the chance? Why not ensure that you and your loved ones are safe by not allowing people to do whatever they want.

This seems to be a logical argument but I don't think you have thought this through all the way. It is far more likely that your loved ones will be killed in a car accident then by a bomb, at least if you live in Canada. So your argument would imply that we shouldn't allow people to drive. Your merely rewording the ancient argument that "if it saves just one life its worth it". Which does have a bit of a point if you value life more than anything else, but for those of us who think that there are things far more important than life itself your argument doesn't make any sense.

Maybe the best way to consider the problem with censorship is to first list the things you think should be censored. Then think of someone who disagrees with you politically/religiously and list the things they would want to censor. I'm pretty sure that there will be a few differences between the two lists. The important point is that their reasons for wanting to censor the things they listed is just as valid to them as your reasons to censor the things you listed are to you.