| Blogs > Pandain |
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
My only qualm with your statement is the accessible part since this is supposedly a university piece therefore by definition I would assume the reader is well read and has a good vernacular. I think the OP needs to clarify what we're meant to be critiquing. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
| ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:25 Ovid wrote: Zealously but the films still become distributed and therefore subject to censorship. Then I don't believe they should be censored either. There are video tapes of famous executions available, and while I find both executions and especially snuff films morally wrong, I don't think they should be censored. The fact that other people can watch such material is, for me, a very minor issue compared to the fact that someone was actually killed, for whatever reason. Like, obviously snuff films shouldn't exist. Their very existence is wrong. But it's not the recording itself that disgusts me, it's the fact that an act of lethal violence was committed that does. The distribution of snuff films is a minor issue to me. The fact that they can exist at all, that people actually murder someone and think to videotape it, that's a serious issue. Whether or not we can watch the material is insignificant in comparison. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:02 Aesop wrote: I should have said "formulaic" probably  .But anyway, in my mind learning to write is less about incorporating all the fancy words you learned, but more about maintaining a certain simplicity of speech while expressing complex concepts. I think some of the points in this article could be phrased more directly and thus made more accessible and precise at the same time. When you are in lower level classes with a writing component the writing is often as much about demonstrating that you can write in a flowery manner as it that you can make a logical argument. Actually in a lot of classes the argument, as long as it isn't completely batshit, won't be marked against as long as the author defends it in a semi-valid manner. Blame the grading system, I guess. Banning books seems stupid to me. I would have thought that most people at this point would realize that their own views are not necessarily the only valid views possible. Every time that you change your mind on something serves as evidence of this. I mean, the fact that we almost never concede intellectual defeat when in a direct argument indicates that consciously we do not like to recognize that our world-view is flawed, but if you think back to what you believed 10, 5, even one year ago as compared to now you surely would have to admit that your views have changed. Banning books is just a way for people to eliminate opposition and halt change because they don't like it. For example, in many countries any sort of neo-Nazi ideology is highly censored. While many facets of the Nazi movement were quite destructive I think that in the future, when the Nazi taint over certain subjects has sufficiently faded away, we will again see the rise of certain subjects that now are considered taboo, specifically in some aspects of genetics. However, by banning books you destroy knowledge now without regard for the validity and usefulness of that knowledge for the future, mostly because of muh feelins. Additionally, books that teach violence as an answer to life’s problems should be discouraged in democratic countries. It is a person's own decision to either accept or reject the contents of a book as a valid argument, not yours. Why are you so insistent on deciding things for other people? Also I think that violence does have some pretty valid arguments, even in democratic societies. Obviously it is not the best default solution but there are some scenarios where I think violence could be justified, even beyond immediate self-defense. Everything has a time and a place and by simply banning opposing opinions all you accomplish is a sort of false victory over something that you dislike. Most arguments have some merit in them. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored. There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Note that any debate on this issue involves weighing an objectively better world against the right to learn and the right to know. As you can tell from my post, in my opinion the right to learn and the right to know should be sacrificed if their demise means a better future for our kind. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:21 Ovid wrote: My inner pedant is appeased. Slightly. My only qualm with your statement is the accessible part since this is supposedly a university piece therefore by definition I would assume the reader is well read and has a good vernacular. I think the OP needs to clarify what we're meant to be critiquing. Good writing is a matter of writing clearly. Good english prose doesn't look like clumsily translated Greek or German. Good writing avoids painful cliches... mangled quotes are the second worst form of this error (referencing dictionary definitions is the worst). That said, it's not bad for a school piece (I wasn't clear on whether it was high school or university). It deals with a tricky problem, and it takes a brave stand. It's almost certainly incorrect, but still a praiseworthy effort for a school paper. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:40 Ovid wrote: But if something is morally wrong then should it not be censored. If it's immoral by the extremes it is then why do people need access to it? What loss is there if it's not available? The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored. There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated. People don't need access to it, but people don't need access to a lot of things that are still taken for granted, things that'd make the public flip if they were banned. The loss from something being removed is restricted freedom, and I don't like the idea of letting the government tell me what I can and cannot watch (provided I harm no one). If the government is allowed to say "Hey, you're not allowed to watch this", then there is a risk - however small, that they'll also decide that "Hey, you actually can't watch this either". Do I want to watch snuff films? No, most certainly not. But the freedom to do so should I desire to is something I value highly. As a side note, most films claimed to be snuff films are actually proven to be fake eventually. It's hard to know if what is being shown in a video is actually real or not, sometimes. Should we censor based on whether or not we think the material is authentic? There are films - fake, openly declared to be fictive, that look more real than a lot of (supposedly) snuff films on the internet. Should the ones claimed to be real be censored, or the ones that look real? Both? | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:40 Ovid wrote: But if something is morally wrong then should it not be censored. If it's immoral by the extremes it is then why do people need access to it? What loss is there if it's not available? The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored. There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated. Perhaps we disagree on what morality is? I am of the opinion that morality does not exist and is a poisonous term. I do not think that there is some moral law set somewhere in this universe that is static and to which we should hold all people accountable. I don't want to get into the semantics of the definition of morality, but to me simply calling something "immoral by the extremes" is not specific enough to ban something from public knowledge and preservation. Morality varies from person to person and culture to culture and I find it naive to think that the one that you subscribe to just so happens to be the only right one. If politics should not be censored then what should be censored? Pornographic novels? Instructions on how to build an atomic bomb? It was my understanding that any discussion of book banning had to do with the dissemination of ideas related to politics or technical prowess. On December 03 2013 07:43 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Banning books is okay when the government can be trusted to censor appropriately. Which, at this rate, is going to be never. Knowledge is amazing, terrifying power, and the wrong kind of knowledge may be good to censor, in that if it is censored the world will be a better place. + Show Spoiler + Note that any debate on this issue involves weighing an objectively better world against the right to learn and the right to know. As you can tell from my post, in my opinion the right to learn and the right to know should be sacrificed if their demise means a better future for our kind. What are the criteria for making the world a better place? With such a broad goal, literally anything could fall under that category. In my opinion the world would be a better place if people were not so eager to dismiss opinions which challenge their own... | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:58 Chocolate wrote: Perhaps we disagree on what morality is? I am of the opinion that morality does not exist and is a poisonous term. You need to read this book, it's pretty fun ! | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:58 Chocolate wrote: What are the criteria for making the world a better place? With such a broad goal, literally anything could fall under that category. In my opinion the world would be a better place if people were not so eager to dismiss opinions which challenge their own... I believe the world is a better place when: 1: The overall amount of happiness in the world has increased 2: We are moving closer to a perfect society, which is defined as a society where we as a race have finished learning and every human is mentally and physically powerful enough to ensure the stable existence of a post-scarcity utopian society built on the foundations of perfect fairness and absence of unnecessary suffering. 2 is a necessary criteria because the purpose of a person's life from an objective standpoint (rather than, say, a Christian standpoint) is to ensure that the world would have been a worse place without them in it. None of us will ever live to see the perfect world we all dream of. We will all die before we know what it will be like, or even if it will be there at all. All we can do is sacrifice as much as we can to make this unreachable dream possible for some distant generation of humans. The perfect society, the end stage of an intelligent species, is built on the bones of every previous generation of that species, whose comparatively boring, brief and painful life made possible the sublime existence of our final generation. Every preceding generation died before they could truly enjoy the fruits of their labors, and though death will be abolished in our perfect society, we will never be able to bring back from oblivion the countless trillions of dead who truly deserve the utopia they were responsible for, those who lived and died imperfect. The more we sacrifice to fulfill 2, the sooner utopia will come, and thus less people will live and die building utopia without ever experiencing it. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:54 Zealously wrote: People don't need access to it, but people don't need access to a lot of things that are still taken for granted, things that'd make the public flip if they were banned. The loss from something being removed is restricted freedom, and I don't like the idea of letting the government tell me what I can and cannot watch (provided I harm no one). If the government is allowed to say "Hey, you're not allowed to watch this", then there is a risk - however small, that they'll also decide that "Hey, you actually can't watch this either". Do I want to watch snuff films? No, most certainly not. But the freedom to do so should I desire to is something I value highly. As a side note, most films claimed to be snuff films are actually proven to be fake eventually. It's hard to know if what is being shown in a video is actually real or not, sometimes. Should we censor based on whether or not we think the material is authentic? There are films - fake, openly declared to be fictive, that look more real than a lot of (supposedly) snuff films on the internet. Should the ones claimed to be real be censored, or the ones that look real? Both? Your rhetoric is good but would implicate you in having watched a snuff film for your statement to have validity. Because I'm tired I will respectfully bow out of this discussion leaving the OP with the thought that if his blog has garnered this much attention from the cynical blog community something has been done right. Whether that's down to his writing or the subject matter is for you to decide. I will give a more informative response tomorrow assuming this blog is still afloat. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On December 03 2013 08:31 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I believe the world is a better place when: 1: The overall amount of happiness in the world has increased 2: We are moving closer to a perfect society, which is defined as a society where we as a race have finished learning and every human is mentally and physically powerful enough to ensure the stable existence of a post-scarcity utopian society built on the foundations of perfect fairness and absence of unnecessary suffering. 2 is a necessary criteria because the purpose of a person's life from an objective standpoint (rather than, say, a Christian standpoint) is to ensure that the world would have been a worse place without them in it. None of us will ever live to see the perfect world we all dream of. We will all die before we know what it will be like, or even if it will be there at all. All we can do is sacrifice as much as we can to make this unreachable dream possible for some distant generation of humans. The perfect society, the end stage of an intelligent species, is built on the bones of every previous generation of that species, whose comparatively boring, brief and painful life made possible the sublime existence of our final generation. Every preceding generation died before they could truly enjoy the fruits of their labors, and though death will be abolished in our perfect society, we will never be able to bring back from oblivion the countless trillions of dead who truly deserve the utopia they were responsible for, those who lived and died imperfect. The more we sacrifice to fulfill 2, the sooner utopia will come, and thus less people will live and die building utopia without ever experiencing it. 1. is again quite nebulous and unspecific. You cannot quantify happiness and for all we know some people's happiness may be predicated on the misery of others. For example, what if the greatest overall happiness existed under the criteria that part of the population exists subservient under another part? What if Bob's happiness only comes from destroying and demeaning Joe? I think there is also a short story written about this very subject, in which there exists a perfect town for literally every single inhabitant except one, which is doomed to an eternally miserable existence. It's called "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas." I'd argue that such a situation perhaps maximizes happiness without being just (in my opinion, anyway). 2. No, I disagree. There is no specific, objective purpose of any person's life. Nobody has any obligation to better the world. I'd also argue that your dream is indeed unreachable, wishful thinking. You are essentially replacing a religious heaven with a technological one. There is no guarantee that such a dream is possible, that a utopia can exist. Also, nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be born and help you build this future. Count me out. Just because you subscribe to this specific creed does not mean that the rest of the world must, and therein lies the problem with censorship: every person will be seeking to only let their voice be heard. Your rhetoric is good but would implicate you in having watched a snuff film for your statement to have validity. Oh no, alert the presses! | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
No need to hide behind cynicism and humour to deflect a strong point in regard to his statement. Now I really am tired | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On December 03 2013 08:45 Chocolate wrote: 1. is again quite nebulous and unspecific. You cannot quantify happiness and for all we know some people's happiness may be predicated on the misery of others. For example, what if the greatest overall happiness existed under the criteria that part of the population exists subservient under another part? What if Bob's happiness only comes from destroying and demeaning Joe? I think there is also a short story written about this very subject, in which there exists a perfect town for literally every single inhabitant except one, which is doomed to an eternally miserable existence. It's called "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas." I'd argue that such a situation perhaps maximizes happiness without being just (in my opinion, anyway). 2. No, I disagree. There is no specific, objective purpose of any person's life. Nobody has any obligation to better the world. I'd also argue that your dream is indeed unreachable, wishful thinking. You are essentially replacing a religious heaven with a technological one. There is no guarantee that such a dream is possible, that a utopia can exist. Also, nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be born and help you build this future. Count me out. Just because you subscribe to this specific creed does not mean that the rest of the world must, and therein lies the problem with censorship: every person will be seeking to only let their voice be heard. Oh no, alert the presses! You seem to be overly technical. I shouldn't need to write my statements with the technical precision of a legal document or scientific paper to stand up to scrutiny in more casual conversation like this. Yes, I believe in justice and equality, so no slavery. No, I don't think killing somebody, which unintentionally saves a dozen lives down the line, makes you a hero. In regards to 2, though, that is basically just an arbitrary end-goal for the progression of society and thus, alongside 1, a rubric by which your worth to the world can be judged. Either you help society progress, thus making people in the future happier, or you make people happier. edit: Meh, don't have time in my life for the massive debate that wall of text was sure to spark. That last bit about the problem with censorship is a fair point, though. Let's assume that the government can be trusted to censor us in order to improve the world, rather than to abuse censorship for power. Censorship is at its heart a method of control. Whatever the censor's definition of improving the world is, whether or not the censor is right or wrong about any given issue he is arbitrating, whether or not the is correct in that his actions will improve the world; he will always be acting according to what he thinks is right. Thus, we face the twin problems of whether or not the censor can be trusted to control society better than society can control itself (by censoring the more objective stuff like lies about climate change) and how we should censor subjective issues (i.e. abortion). An intelligent but unseen censor could probably do great good with the objective issue censorship, if we could trust him with that kind of power. In the modern world, though, we can't trust anybody with that kind of power. The status quo is a better alternative. edit: Oh, you're one of those guys who believe there is no such thing as "objectively true". No offense, but there's absolutely no point debating with you then. I'll be bowing out of the thread anyways, though. Important things to do. | ||
|
sanddbox_sc2
United States173 Posts
A quick look at www.anarchistcookbook.com shows that when you teach people how to commit crimes, they quickly become more infatuated with the possibility of violence The introduction was cheesy and had no relevance to the original Hamlet quote. You consistently make ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims like this one: Teaching someone how to commit an illegal act is like placing a gun in the hands of a person who simply has to load it The Anarchist Textbook not only taught people to commit violent acts, but inspired them to talk about it with others. With the knowledge they receive, people become able to more realistically commit crimes which they could have only thought of beforehand. Crimes have therefore become more likely with the advent of these instructional exposés. [citation needed] Violence is sometimes necessary in non-democratic countries because people are systematically abused and unable to influence change through any non-violent means But this *never* happens in democracies, right guys? Social media sites and internet forums exist for the purposes of communication. Today’s generation encompasses people who are able to influence their contemporaries in methods previously unthinkable. In the Information Age, any opinion you have can be discussed. Last time I checked, you don't get legislation passed by having a top submission on /r/politics. Finally, these kinds of novels cannot be protected on the grounds of literary expression. Works of art lose their protection status when they teach people to commit illegal acts. Grounds for this can be found in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the shield of freedom of speech was cast aside when it incited imminent lawless action. Here you've committed the cardinal sin of conflating legality with morality. "It's bad to smoke weed because it's illegal!" This is extremely simplistic thinking. While the nature of their words can be consistently debated, certain books should be prohibited when they teach people how to commit violent crimes such as rape and murder Who needs to be taught how to commit rape or murder? I mean sure, you can learn how to improve your chances of getting away with it, but no sane person needs a book on how to rape somebody. Sorry for being harsh, but I think it's important you understand why your argument is extremely weak, especially if you're going to be arguing for something as dangerous as censorship. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
I understand your views on self-worth, but I disagree. I maintain that I still have no obligation to society. You seem to be taking a kind of existentialist approach to life in which case you should remember that just because you pick some specific goal or person to follow doesn't mean that it is the best or the only right one. You want to live on forever through your contribution to civilization but that simply does not appeal to me (and many others), sorry. In any case I'm glad that you understand where I'm coming from regarding censorship. But still, remember that the status quo is still not a state of 100% freedom of information. | ||
|
sanddbox_sc2
United States173 Posts
| ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On December 03 2013 11:01 Chocolate wrote: I am overly technical because I thought that your statements were too vague. Yes, the vast majority of people will claim to want to benefit the world or just make everybody happy. 1. Likewise, it is not revolutionary to state that we should try to maximize happiness; Bentham and Mills (among others) beat you to that idea. It is very easy to say empty hopes like "let's make a utopia" and "we should make everybody happy" but they are just that: empty, unless there is some sort of actual means coupled with that end. Also, it's actually quite problematic to advocate taking rights away from people (the right to have access to the works of others) simply to fill some vague, indeterminate hopes. I understand your views on self-worth, but I disagree. I maintain that I still have no obligation to society. 2. You seem to be taking a kind of existentialist approach to life in which case you should remember that just because you pick some specific goal or person to follow doesn't mean that it is the best or the only right one. You want to live on forever through your contribution to civilization but that simply does not appeal to me (and many others), sorry. 3. In any case I'm glad that you understand where I'm coming from regarding censorship. But still, remember that the status quo is still not a state of 100% freedom of information. 1. Never claimed to be original. The annoying thing about psychology and philosophy in the modern day is that every time you figure something out, you soon learn somebody else has already done it before your mommy's mommy was born. 2. I have a bad habit of using "objective" in a way that wasn't intended. When I say "from an objective viewpoint" or something similar, I usually mean "from a viewpoint where you discard everything that is subjective, irrational or based on emotions of any kind, leaving only the facts as you know them". From a completely emotionless, unbiased perspective, your actions and thus your life had no real objective meaning beyond short-term self-gratification if the world would not have been a worse place without you. Not saying we can't be happy about all those little illogical joys we get out of our lives, though, like unnecessarily risking your life in a sky dive or taking part in an unwinnable debate on the internet. We are people, after all, not robots. 3. Only the uneducated and the foolish would think otherwise, and I like to think I'm neither. Information flows faster and easier than ever before, but there's still censorship. I was saying that the status quo in areas like the U.S. is preferable to formal censorship a la China because we can't trust the men in power to not abuse the hell out of that. 4. Dammit I couldn't help myself. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Also ugh, I hate your opener. Dirty dirty dirty, Shakespeare doesn't belong. | ||
| ||
|
|
Fire Grow Cup
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
PiG Sty Festival
Replay Cast
Code For Giants Cup
SOOP
ShoWTimE vs Clem
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
