 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...10  Previous Next
|
|
Reputation Feedback (don't read if you are in a hurry!) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:
Quote:
To me censorship implies free speach.
?????????
Can someone please help me with this?
I'm German and up to now always thought censorship implies the DENIAL of free speach?
Could I have been so horribly wrong? What Mark is saying is that on a forum such as this, there is no such thing as a right to free speech. The owner of the forum has the right to censor this forum in any way, shape or form that he wishes. Freedom of speech does not extend to this type of media (at least not in the U.S.). Since the forum is not subject to the right to free speech, then anything that we do here cannot be considered censorship, especially since we the users are not in any way preventing people from saying anything they wish nor do we have the ability to remove anything that a user has said. Therefore, as users we have absolutely no power of censorship. Ken and Gerri, on the other hand, do have that power, and the right to exercise it as the owners of the site. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:
Quote:
To me censorship implies free speach.
?????????
Can someone please help me with this?
I'm German and up to now always thought censorship implies the DENIAL of free speach?
Could I have been so horribly wrong? Hmm. I think think something got mixed up in the translation.  I'm trying to say that if someone says we're censoring other users, that's the same as saying we are restricting their right to free speach. But we don't have a right to free speach here. This is a privately owned site. We must follow the rules they've layed out. Since we don't really have free speach here, we're not really censoring anyone. Maybe that's just confusing the matter.  This new system is just like our contribution system. There we vote yes if a contribution follows the contribution rules. If it doesn't we vote no. With the reputation we may vote yes if someone follows the posting rules for the forum. If they break those rules, we vote no. But it has nothing to do with cersorship. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. | | | | Last edited: by Mark Harrison |
| | Registered: March 23, 2007 |  Posts: 317 |
| | Posted: | | | | 'Free speech' is one of many, many phrases that is used to mean something different to what it says. Lots of phrases that use the word 'free' or 'freedom' are like this.
Take 'free country'. A truly free country is lawless, and anyone has the right to do anything they want. Although truly free countries do not exist, some countries operate with great freedom. They are often in a state of perpetual civil war with widespread cruelty and exploitation. Generally speaking, the less freedom a country has, the more free it population feels. I feel free to walk down the street because there are restrictions on everyone's freedom that prevent them from beating me up and taking my belongings.
Free speech isn't as easy to demonstrate, but suffice it to say that I'm glad that someone who throws abuse at me in the street can expect to get into trouble if caught. I'm also glad that people can turn on their TV at mid-day and not run the risk of exposing their children to a barrage of hate and swearing.
It's a difficult balancing act, but I think that most people would be willing to surrender their 'freedoms' to feel more 'free'.
Stuart.
P.S. This isn't a forum with true free speech - I'm not sure I've every seen one. | | | This is a sig... ... ... yay...
Don't understand? Maybe DVDProfilerWiki.org does! | | | | Last edited: by DariusKyrak |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Maybe it was a mistake to throw "free speach" into this.  But it really is like our contribution system. We have rules that say how data must be contributed. When you contribute a profile, we vote on it. And the criteria we're supposed to use for voting is if it follows the contribution rules or not. The reputation system is really very similar. There are rules you must follow when you post in these forums. The reputation system allows us to vote on how well you're following the behaviior rules laid out by the site's owners. It's not about censorship. It's about following the rules. In this case, the rules of behavior. Now just forget the free speach thing before this WAY off track.  | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
| | Registered: March 23, 2007 | | Posts: 317 |
| | Posted: | | | | Free speech, censorship - they're just different way of expressing what someone can and can't say. But I do agree with a lot of what's being said.
This isn't a free speech environment, and I think that's good.
There's no right to free speech, and it could therefore be said that censorship doesn't really apply.
There is a good parallel between contribution standards and forum posting standards.
Quality is quality, dross is dross.
People can be easily offended... but it' also fairly easy to avoid causing offense.
Users can abuse voting privileges as easily as users can be nasty to each other.
The new system can be used to suppress some users, but may also encourage others.
There are bad points, there are good points. I, for one, am convinced that the good far outweighs the bad.
Stuart | | | This is a sig... ... ... yay...
Don't understand? Maybe DVDProfilerWiki.org does! |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mark Harrison: Quote:
Hmm. I think think something got mixed up in the translation.
I'm trying to say that if someone says we're censoring other users, that's the same as saying we are restricting their right to free speach. But we don't have a right to free speach here. This is a privately owned site. We must follow the rules they've layed out. Since we don't really have free speach here, we're not really censoring anyone. Maybe that's just confusing the matter.
This new system is just like our contribution system. There we vote yes if a contribution follows the contribution rules. If it doesn't we vote no.
With the reputation we may vote yes if someone follows the posting rules for the forum. If they break those rules, we vote no.
But it has nothing to do with cersorship. Ahh, OK! Now it makes sense to me. Thank you | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,203 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mark Harrison: Quote:
Parhaps I'm alone in my thinking here, but I'm tired of seeing the word censorship thrown about. To me censorship implies free speach. And we most certainly have NO right to free speach here. This is a privately owned forum. It's up to Ken/Gerri to decide what is allowed and what isn't. And it's up to us to follow the rules or go away. This system is just enforcing their rules. There is no censorship because we don't have the right to say anything we want here. You are not alone. It is nice to finally see another person who understands this issue. Edit: after reading more of the post, I see that several people understand this issue. Kudos to you all.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Never said i didn't understand the issue, Unicus, and as usual you missed the point of the whole discussion if you really believe it was about censorship per se. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Never said i didn't understand the issue, Unicus, and as usual you missed the point of the whole discussion if you really believe it was about censorship per se.
Skip It is quite possible that someone might interpret this comment as an implication that censorship was at least part of the issue: Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I will not EVER engage in ANY form of censorship nor will I be a party to it, thank you very much. It is far too easy to abuse.
Skip | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DariusKyrak: Quote:
Rifter, I don't agree with you there. Political correctness CAN be used as a weapon, but just because it can be doesn't mean it always is. The way I see it, if an argument needs to call someone a name or requires grossly exaggerated comparisons (say, comparing a snub to being like Hitler), then that argument is probably worthless. If the argument could stand up on it's own, it would. I'd rather see a REAL argument based on facts and logic. Sadly, cases where I've seen the PC card played in this forum are usually where the un-PC comment was made in place of a real argument, or to try and bolster a weak argument.
A time I would agree with you is when someone says, for example, that black people in England need more support in schools, but people shouted the comment down as being racist. Well, the stats say that black people are generally under-performing in English schools and that you will see a significant increase in results in this groups of students if the reasons can be diagnosed and managed through additional support. It's not saying that black people are thick, or that no black person is ever successful - these assertions would clearly be untrue. In fact, preventing this kind of work using the pc card is more likely to intensify racial problems than help resolve them.
Making a politically correct argument is a good way of showing that you HAVE an argument - making a politically incorrect argument is often an expression of one's own emotion or a means of trying to manipulate other peoples emotions to artificially increase the significance of a point.
Stuart I think we are using to different definitions of political correctness. PC is an attitude as much as a tool of subverting someone's will. It is a term that originated here in the US and it is used to indicate that pressure to do things a certain way (the way the powers that be want it done) or to say a certain thing regardless of what you know to be true and proper is being used. Take affirmative action for example. According to the doctrine of affirmative action, members of minority groups receive prefential treatment over the majority if both are equal otherwise. The politically correct version of affirmative action is that minorities always get preference over the majority even if they don't qualify. Then, when they have problems because they are trying to do a job they don't qualify for, one doesn't dare point out that it was affirmative action that put them in that position to start with. Political Correctness is wrong, no matter what it is dealing with, or where one encounters it. It is an insidious tool used by those whose only goal is to achieve their own ends at the expense of everybody else. There is no good politically correct argument, because in order for it to work, somebody else has to lose something in the bargain. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mark Harrison: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
I am saying very clearly that it is all too easy to offend nearly ANYBODY.
I would agree with that. Especially given our multi-national membership and the fact that not all of our users speak English as a native language.
With that said, I'd would also say that it's extremely easy to offend NO ONE. Most users here have no problem carrying on an intelligent discussion without ever upsetting other members. It's all in how you present yourself and speak to others. If someone finds they are offending others on a regular basis, I'd say they should re-examine their communication skills.
Quote:
I will not EVER engage in ANY form of censorship nor will I be a party to it, thank you very much.
Parhaps I'm alone in my thinking here, but I'm tired of seeing the word censorship thrown about. To me censorship implies free speach. And we most certainly have NO right to free speach here. This is a privately owned forum. It's up to Ken/Gerri to decide what is allowed and what isn't. And it's up to us to follow the rules or go away. This system is just enforcing their rules. There is no censorship because we don't have the right to say anything we want here. You are absolutely correct. Our "free speech" rights in someone else's house (or forum as the case may be) extend only so far as the master of that house allows. But, that said, censorship is still censorship, regardless of venue. We should all be reminded, however, that "free speech" as it is defined in the US Constitution, refers to POLITICAL speech, not speech in general. Our ability to publically state our political opinions even though those might be in total opposition to the rest of society and the government, is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. But even there, you are still prohibited from slandering/libeling someone in spoken or written form. Because a lot of people don't get that, the 1st Amendment is one of most abused in the Bill of Rights. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
The point should be whether or not the post in question MAKES a legitimate point, and if it does so then whether or not someone is offended is immaterial.
"Making a point" while belittling , name-calling, slamming or otherwise being rude to others on this forum will earn a negative vote from me regardless of "your point".
No one said that a negative mark makes the post in question illegitimate. Then you don't understand the point I'm making. I said nothing about attacking anyone. I am referring to the fact that even when you make a point that is legitimate people can get offended. If the point IS a legitimate point and someone takes offense at it, that doesn't negate the point being made, nor should it. If you give a negative to someone making a legit point, that says more about you than it does them. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
The point should be whether or not the post in question MAKES a legitimate point, and if it does so then whether or not someone is offended is immaterial.
"Making a point" while belittling , name-calling, slamming or otherwise being rude to others on this forum will earn a negative vote from me regardless of "your point".
No one said that a negative mark makes the post in question illegitimate.
Then you don't understand the point I'm making. I said nothing about attacking anyone. I am referring to the fact that even when you make a point that is legitimate people can get offended. If the point IS a legitimate point and someone takes offense at it, that doesn't negate the point being made, nor should it. If you give a negative to someone making a legit point, that says more about you than it does them. And clearly you did not understand what I said. A point can be perfectly legitimate but delivered in a totally unacceptable manner. A negative mark would be issued for the unacceptable delivery manner not because the point is "legit". Just because a point is legitimate does not mean that you have free reign to offend people while delivering it. If you do, then you can expect to be "marked" accordingly. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | <shakes head> This is simply unbelievable, except that i am not surprised...unfortunately.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 810 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
<shakes head> This is simply unbelievable, except that i am not surprised...unfortunately.
Skip What is unbelievable? That some of us would like to see debate on the issues, not name calling. That some us us can tell the difference between saying I hated that film and I hate you. That some of us can see that saying "I hope your family dies in pain" is clearly over the line. pdf | | | Paul Francis
San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | No Paul that some of us feel that they are qualified to sit in judgement of another. You forget who gewts called the names around here, including by YOU, sir.. That is why I shake my head and say what a pity, that is also why I say I refuse to sit in judgement of ANY user including you or some of our other hypocritical friends. If you don't think you have insulted me more than one time, Paul, i strongly recommend you go look at your posts AGAIN, you have done it any number of times. Now I wish NOIT to have this discussion any further, it is an utter waste of time. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...10 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |