The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I like the new thread we have about god, at least it's a different approach than the one about the creation of the universe.

on the topic of making new topics, maybe making a topic about to what degree governments should be allowed to keep information confidential, if at all.

Hmm... that sounds like an interesting idea for a thread.

 

[Aesir]

Dre your display picture is really pretty.

Just sayin.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Dre your display picture is really pretty.

Just sayin.

I agree, In terms of DPs, I think Dre's is excellent.

 

[Dre89]

Thanks guys.

I always have avatars that have some sort of practical purpose for other people. That's my avatar will always be a character I main, a picture of me so people know what I look like, a visual puzzle, or an optical illusion that fascinates people.

 

[Sieguest]

Christmas Break has arrived! So I won't be a bump on a log anymore. I also had something I wanted to you guys opinion on?

What do you all think about internet censorship?

 

[Faithkeeper]

What do you all think about internet censorship?

undecided.

on the one hand, I'm all for the free exchange of information, but I'd want things like videos of children being tortured, *****, and killed censored. Extreme example, but I just used it to illustrate a point.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Christmas Break has arrived! So I won't be a bump on a log anymore. I also had something I wanted to you guys opinion on?

What do you all think about internet censorship?

Depends on the extent. If it's like it is in China, where the government restricts information that they don't like, because it's a little subversive than that's too far. However, if it's restricting access to child pornography or a site that trades credit card numbers, then that's okay.

 

[jaswa]

undecided.

on the one hand, I'm all for the free exchange of information, but I'd want things like videos of children being tortured, *****, and killed censored. Extreme example, but I just used it to illustrate a point.

What's wrong with videos of children being tortured?

 

[Sieguest]

Okay. So say someone's "friend" on facebook is harassing them, but the person being harassed has their profile set to private. Should the government be allowed to censor whatever the harasser is posting on the victim's wall, since what is being posted on there is viewable by the rest of the victim's "friends"? The harasser could be posting extremely personal things about the victim or just being flat out vulgar.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What's wrong with videos of children being tortured?

Maybe it condones the torturing of children?

 

[jaswa]

Maybe it condones the torturing of children?

And what's wrong with that?

 

[Dre89]

And what's wrong with that?

I thought you were at work now?

 

[jaswa]

Phone.....

 

[Sucumbio]

And what's wrong with that?

Are you trying to get infracted for trolling?

Okay. So say someone's "friend" on facebook is harassing them, but the person being harassed has their profile set to private. Should the government be allowed to censor whatever the harasser is posting on the victim's wall, since what is being posted on there is viewable by the rest of the victim's "friends"? The harasser could be posting extremely personal things about the victim or just being flat out vulgar.

Nah, Facebook can do what it wants, but the governemnt should have no part in it. Essentially the government's role in censorship should be limited to illegal content, such as child pornography.

 

[jaswa]

Are you trying to get infracted for trolling?

There is no absolute morality without God. Just because the Government deems child torture an abomination doesn't make it so.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes, the government does not set morality. But neither should God. If God told you to suicide bomb innocent people, would you do it? Just because God says to do something doesn't mean that it is right either. It's just as arbitrary as any other moral rule (unless of course, you define "morally right" as "what God wants", which is an unjustified assumption itself).

 

[Sieguest]

Nah, Facebook can do what it wants, but the governemnt should have no part in it. Essentially the government's role in censorship should be limited to illegal content, such as child pornography.

I see. What are your thoughts on the Megan Meier's case (Here is another article about an initiative the Meier's attempted to take and also has the story behind the incident), or the incident at Rutgers?

The reason I ask is because I just finished a project concerning internet censorship and I found a lot of interesting things while I was looking stuff up.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I see. What are your thoughts on the Megan Meier's case (Here is another article about an initiative the Meier's attempted to take and also has the story behind the incident), or the incident at Rutgers?

The reason I ask is because I just finished a project concerning internet censorship and I found a lot of interesting things while I was looking stuff up.

Umm... what? People killing themselves over cyber relationships is an example of people being stupid. Not the internet being a hate machine. Not something that needs to be stopped, like bullying. Simply someone being a complete overreactionary wreck. Yes, it's a ****ish thing to do. But so is hotlinking to goatse on a public message board. So is dumping your girlfriend. Fun fact: people have killed themselves over things like that. But if you're too stupid to not get emotionally involved in the internet, then stay the **** out.

 

[Sieguest]

Umm... what? People killing themselves over cyber relationships is an example of people being stupid. Not the internet being a hate machine. Not something that needs to be stopped, like bullying. Simply someone being a complete overreactionary wreck. Yes, it's a ****ish thing to do. But so is hotlinking to goatse on a public message board. So is dumping your girlfriend. Fun fact: people have killed themselves over things like that. But if you're too stupid to not get emotionally involved in the internet, then stay the **** out.

So are you saying what happened in both of those cases was not a form of bullying?

True, killing yourself over the internet isn't smart, but even you have just said that bullying is something that needs to be stopped.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Can you ignore bullying by simply turning off your computer (or even better, just ****ing blocking myspace)? No, not really.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

There is no absolute morality without God. Just because the Government deems child torture an abomination doesn't make it so.

Yeah. Brilliant. I don't care about your absolute morality, to me it's just another case of subjective morality that is deemed absolute by the person who's got that belief.

I can tell you what's wrong with it in a way that should appeal to your humanity and would make sense if you are a moral consequentialist; it hurts people.

 

[Dre89]

But if you can appeal to someone's humanity, then doesn't that suggeste we have an objective morality?

We consider it inhumane if a person is not disgusted by the torture of a child. So really, we do have some sort of universal standard.

 

[ballin4life]

That isn't objective, it's something that each of our subjective moralities happens to agree on.

There are probably people out there who don't think that such acts are morally wrong, so I don't know how you can say that it is objective. The vast, vast majority of people believing something to be right doesn't make it objectively right.

 

[Dre89]

But we say something is wrong with those exceptions.

We can define humane and inhumane, which suggests an objective notion of humanity.

If that's not going to convince you of objectivity, I don't know what would.

 

[ballin4life]

We say something is wrong with those exceptions. They say something is wrong with us.

We can define humane and inhumane, but as long as we stipulate that humane is right and inhumane is wrong, someone can disagree with our definitions.

People disagree about plenty of moral issues, so I don't know how you can say that any morality is objective.

 

[Dre89]

You're confusing descriptive ethics with normative ethics.

Just because someone disagrees, doesn't mean **** isn't objectively bad. That'd be like saying food isn't objectively good because a few people disagree.

 

[Sucumbio]

There is no absolute morality without God. Just because the Government deems child torture an abomination doesn't make it so.

What are you even talking about?

You said "and what's wrong with [condoning child torture]." There is a HUGE difference between condoning the torture of children and deciding on whether or not videos of child torture should be censored. In point of fact, I don't necessarily think that videos of child torture should be censored, depending on the context. Stock footage of the massacres in Darfur for example will no doubt include plenty of horrific images and videos, some of which are that of children being tortured. This is educational and it's irresponsible to turn a blind eye to it, or automatically censor it because it's disturbing.

And I think you agree. So why wouldn't you defend that point? Instead you just move right along into it's okay to torture kids? C'mon...

I see. What are your thoughts on the Megan Meier's case (Here is another article about an initiative the Meier's attempted to take and also has the story behind the incident), or the incident at Rutgers?

The reason I ask is because I just finished a project concerning internet censorship and I found a lot of interesting things while I was looking stuff up.

Oh yeah! Heh I remember that case. Tragic... what really got me about that case was that no one thought to prosecute the mother for inappropriate conduct with a minor. "Harmless flirtation" I mean, I'm sorry but what does that really mean? What's a 47 year old woman doing tricking a 13 year old girl into thinking she's talking to a young boy? I don't care what the supposed justification or excuse was by the woman, that just seems really perverted. Like the kind of thing Dateline NBC would have been all over... I guess the mother never said anything overtly sexual or whatever, but still... to a lot of young people flirtation is just as dangerous.

Anyway, yeah I still don't see this as an appropriate instance of censorship. Though tragic, the real folly of the situation is in Myspace and its vetting process. There's no real way for the government to step in, though they've apparently set up a up-to-500-dollar fine/90 days in jail penalty in that county for "internet harassment" but ... lol this is the internet, you gotta know what you're getting involved in when you click "log on." Children especially but even adults have to take care of themselves first and foremost, and even I can attest to having been involved in some pretty serious relationships online that have gone bad, but you just have to chalk it up to experience. That girl was suffering from depression to begin with, so she was at a disadvantage in the situation, and the fact the woman preyed on that is foul, but it's not a matter of censoring content, it's more a matter of personal integrity and accountability.

 

[ballin4life]

You're confusing descriptive ethics with normative ethics.

Just because someone disagrees, doesn't mean **** isn't objectively bad. That'd be like saying food isn't objectively good because a few people disagree.

Food isn't objectively good either.

When determining what is right and what is wrong, that is normative ethics. I even said myself "the vast vast majority of people" think ****/murder/etc are wrong, which is a descriptive statement. You are saying that they are objectively wrong, which is a normative statement.

If someone can disagree, then that means that it is a subjective opinion rather than an objective fact.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If someone can disagree, then that means that it is a subjective opinion rather than an objective fact.

I dispute that statement actually. People can be wrong. Some disagree with the idea that the Earth is a sphere.

 

[ballin4life]

Yeah I said that wrong. But you know what I mean about the difference between opinions and facts.

 

[Sieguest]

Can you ignore bullying by simply turning off your computer (or even better, just ****ing blocking myspace)? No, not really.

I don't see how this answered my question at all...

Oh yeah! Heh I remember that case. Tragic... what really got me about that case was that no one thought to prosecute the mother for inappropriate conduct with a minor. "Harmless flirtation" I mean, I'm sorry but what does that really mean? What's a 47 year old woman doing tricking a 13 year old girl into thinking she's talking to a young boy? I don't care what the supposed justification or excuse was by the woman, that just seems really perverted. Like the kind of thing Dateline NBC would have been all over... I guess the mother never said anything overtly sexual or whatever, but still... to a lot of young people flirtation is just as dangerous.

Anyway, yeah I still don't see this as an appropriate instance of censorship. Though tragic, the real folly of the situation is in Myspace and its vetting process. There's no real way for the government to step in, though they've apparently set up a up-to-500-dollar fine/90 days in jail penalty in that county for "internet harassment" but ... lol this is the internet, you gotta know what you're getting involved in when you click "log on." Children especially but even adults have to take care of themselves first and foremost, and even I can attest to having been involved in some pretty serious relationships online that have gone bad, but you just have to chalk it up to experience. That girl was suffering from depression to begin with, so she was at a disadvantage in the situation, and the fact the woman preyed on that is foul, but it's not a matter of censoring content, it's more a matter of personal integrity and accountability.

This holds some truth, but should things such as voyeurism go unchecked? Do you believe the government would have ever found out about this breach of Rutgers student's privacy had he not committed suicide? I mean there wasn't anything he could do about that since he had not logged onto anywhere... it was his "friends" that did everything to him. Then we're stepping out of the realm of personal responsibility on the account of the victim and being strictly in the realm of extremely harmful behavior on the part of the offender. Government censorship of the internet could prevent this. We even allowed the Patriot Act to pass without such defensiveness! So where is the line drawn on this one?


I also have to laugh at myself a bit... what went from some questions actually turned into a discussion which I didn't intend on happening.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't see how this answered my question at all...

It's pretty simple. The difference between most cyberbullying (read: the kind which is not already criminally prosecuted) and bullying IRL is that if you're getting mocked and teased in school, you're forced to put up with it until you're done with school. There is no way to remove yourself from the hurtful situation; you can toughen up and ignore it, or you can just try to survive it-neither option is good. However, with cyberbullying, the answer to the situation is really very simple. A group of people on a website mocking you? Leave the website. People attacking your facebook page? Report them, and failing that, disable your facebook. Big ****ing deal. You either use the built-in ignore function that almost every website has, you put up with them, or you leave. Here's the point:

Options when dealing with bullying:
-Put up with it
-Report it to the proper authorities and hope it gets dealt with (usually doesn't)

Options when dealing with cyberbullying:
-Put up with it
-Report it to the proper authorities and hope it gets dealt with (usually does)
-Leave website
-use ignore feature (in most cases)

 

[Aesir]

Yes, the government does not set morality. But neither should God. If God told you to suicide bomb innocent people, would you do it? Just because God says to do something doesn't mean that it is right either. It's just as arbitrary as any other moral rule (unless of course, you define "morally right" as "what God wants", which is an unjustified assumption itself).

Economics we won't agree.

9/11 we won't agree

The role of Government probably will never agree on that either.

But this 100% Agreed.

 

[ballin4life]

Did I ever post about 9/11?

Heh.

 

[Aesir]

Yes Provin grounds.

 

[ballin4life]

I can't find any post by me in the 9/11 thread besides one about using wikipedia as a source.

What did I say about 9/11?

 

[Aesir]

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

 

[Dre89]

You might be confusing him with Ballistics.

 

[Aesir]

I think you might be right Dre.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

How old is everyone here?

I'll start. I'm a simple 18 year old.