If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
"Once you permit those who are convinced of their own superior rightness to censor and silence and suppress those who hold contrary opinions, just at that moment the citadel has been surrendered." -- Archibald Macleish - (1892-1982) Poet, playwright, Librarian of Congress, & Assistant Secretary of State under Franklin Roosevelt Source: Saturday Review, 12 May 1979
Sam wrote: Hey Pal, you just don't get it. What a shame. You could be writing about yourself.
Sam wrote: Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive
Sam wrote: Why if Crux bothers you all so much don't you all just ignore him.
fangz1956 wrote:I personally like the idea of being able block certain posters from personal view.........kind of like flipping off the TV or changing the channel when Bill O'Reilly is blowing hot air.
Parker wrote: I admit I've been tempted in other forums to do just that, but it just seems to be a bit of a copout and closedminded to me. I don't mean that to be offensive or mean-spirited- I just think folks should realize what sort of censorship that type of tool really represents.
fangz1956 wrote:Parker wrote: I admit I've been tempted in other forums to do just that, but it just seems to be a bit of a copout and closedminded to me. I don't mean that to be offensive or mean-spirited- I just think folks should realize what sort of censorship that type of tool really represents.
Following this line of reasoning, I should also read every shred of junk mail delivered by the USPS AND every bit of SPAM dropping into my inbox everyday. If I throw it away or delete without reading it, doesn't that fall into your category of close-minded, cop-out censorship? I also find that this line of reasoning takes away something quite valuable........PERSONAL CHOICE and PERSONAL FREEDOM.
Just as folks are entitled to say or write or advertise what they wish, the rest of us have a right to not being subjected to reading it or hearing it.
I have used the blocking filters before and find they work quite nicely. They are particularly useful when passions are heated and you find your buttons being pushed in all of the wrong ways. Blocking the offending poster, at least temporarily, allows intelligent folks time to cool their jets until rational thinking can be re-established. It is really no different than walking away from a fight or a heated argument....which is generally the best option when emotion over-rides clear thinking and consideration.
fangz1956 wrote:Given the actual definition of 'teabagging", I think some folks might find that offensive....or even sexually explicit...
Certainly, tags such as this should be considered as inappropriate if the Administrator receives a litany of complaints from a number of participants of the forum.
stonewall wrote:An optional user filter allowing you to select user(s) whose postings you wish to make invisible. It is wholly voluntary and applies only to your own view of the Forum. It is not censorship in the usual meaning of that term, one party's restricting the flow of information to another party.
ParkerLongbaugh wrote:It is not like walking away from a fight or argument- instead you remain in place to speak your side while denying that counterpoint ability to your Foe. It is like participating in a telephone conversation with several people, one of whom you decide should have to use a broken mouthpiece. If you simply hung up and dropped out too, then it would indeed be like the spam comparison- but technologically forcing it to be one-way is much more about censorship than about simply exercising personal choice.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest