Post by General Veers on Jan 2, 2009 2:09:24 GMT -5
It looks like perpetual motion has been taken care of relatively easily (although there were only three or so of us discussing it).
Shall we move on to one of my favorite controversies (favorite does not mean that I can easily persuade others to my side)?
Resolved: Censorship is necessary for human welfare.
(I.e. we debate about if there ought to be censorship.)
I'll start out by defining censorship in my own words, with Google, with Live Search, and with Dictionary.com.
Now for my position: I believe that, to an extent, censorship is necessary.
In order to preserve peace, certain things that are simply outrageous (e.g. racism, severe profanity, etc.) should be permanently censored from the human race, while some things (e.g. sexual implications) should only be censored before the audience is mature enough. Once the audience is mature, it should beware of such material and only sparingly be allowed to use it out of context.
Other things (e.g. religion, etc.) should be censored from those who would be offended by it, but be made accessible after being covered with disclaimers (e.g. "Relgion Thread: Prepare to be Offended" warning page with "I agree not to flame." checkbox similar to EULAs [End User License Agreements] before the actual page with the questionable content).
Most other, universally harmless things (e.g. "I'm not too fond with the way your rules work...") should not be censored at all, unless there is a literal life-and-death situation that requires censorship to choose the "life" option.
Shall we move on to one of my favorite controversies (favorite does not mean that I can easily persuade others to my side)?
Resolved: Censorship is necessary for human welfare.
(I.e. we debate about if there ought to be censorship.)
I'll start out by defining censorship in my own words, with Google, with Live Search, and with Dictionary.com.
- Me: Censorship is the process of masking, hiding, or otherwise removing material in order to avoid problematic conflicts, usually (albeit not always) for political purposes of keeping and/or earning power. Several totalitarian regimes have used censorship to their advantage, including the National Socialist German Workers' Party during the Third Reich in Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Communists during Premier Josef Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Many republics and democracies also employ censorship in order to prevent mass panic or mass uprisings by terrified or offended people. This very forum employs censorship in order to allow images to take up less characters within signatures (which have character limits) and to prevent flame wars based on potentially offensive material.
- Google: (define: censorship)
- Live Search: (define: censorship)
- Dictionary.com: (censorship)
Now for my position: I believe that, to an extent, censorship is necessary.
In order to preserve peace, certain things that are simply outrageous (e.g. racism, severe profanity, etc.) should be permanently censored from the human race, while some things (e.g. sexual implications) should only be censored before the audience is mature enough. Once the audience is mature, it should beware of such material and only sparingly be allowed to use it out of context.
Other things (e.g. religion, etc.) should be censored from those who would be offended by it, but be made accessible after being covered with disclaimers (e.g. "Relgion Thread: Prepare to be Offended" warning page with "I agree not to flame." checkbox similar to EULAs [End User License Agreements] before the actual page with the questionable content).
Most other, universally harmless things (e.g. "I'm not too fond with the way your rules work...") should not be censored at all, unless there is a literal life-and-death situation that requires censorship to choose the "life" option.