board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Sat 23 Jun , 2018 4:14 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 16 Apr , 2008 8:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 7810
Location: MO
Axordil wrote:
Maria, can you resize your pic? It's stretching pages wherever you post.


Sorry, it wasn't stretching my view on this end!

_________________

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 16 Apr , 2008 9:17 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
It isn't when I'm at home on a widescreen, either, but at work I'm not so lucky :D

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 16 Apr , 2008 10:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14146
I've said this before but - so much of the disagreements on these sorts of government control type issues comes down to what you think the word "right" means and why rights matter at all. Anyone care to try and answer those? Cuz as far as I can tell, people use the word "right" to mean "desire" most of the time. That certainly seems to me to be the case here:

Quote:
Person A's right to be a hateful bigot simply doesn't trump Person B's right not to be the victim of bigotry.
Person A's right to smoke doesn't trump Person B's right to smokefree air.
Company A's right to sell Alcohol doesn't trump Individual B's right to protect their children from damaging advertising.


But if rights are nothing more than lists of competing desires then rights mean nothing to me and aren't even worth mentioning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 16 Apr , 2008 11:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 2:34 pm
Posts: 1858
Location: Norway
Well, if you want to bring desire into this, I'll say that I think all rights stem from desires. The desire for "life, liberty and security of person", freedom of speech, or whatever.

What is a right?

Wikipedia wrote:
Rights serve as rules of interaction between people


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right

They do. Fundamental rules with a more or less general support and approval. Yes, I do think that rights are more than and different from what we usually call rules, but just like rules, rights are a human invention designed at making society the way we want it. A sort of basic code. And because we think they are so important, and want people to act according to them, we give them a very special place in our society, making them something akin to holy. (These are my short, jumbled thoughts on a difficult subject at 2 in the night. :blackeye: )

Can rights collide? Of course they can. And then they must be balanced. And looked upon with reason. You have a right to freedom, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. That would mean chaos (and very limited freedom for everyone...).

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


Another person's life, liberty and security of person can very well be threatened by your freedom of speech. You are not allowed to harm someone physically. Statements can do a lot more damage than that, or lead to physical damage (for example if you encourage someone to hurt or kill others). Rights must be balanced against each other.

Oh, and when it comes to freedom of speech, I object to the talk about "banning what is unpopular/you don't like". I don't like murder. Murder is forbidden. Not because I don't like it, but because it harms others, and inflicts with their right to and freedom of life. It's not about banning statements you don't like. We're talking statements that are in fact harmful to others.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:
Article 29 (2). In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

(Sorry again if my post (and English...) reflects that I'm about to fall asleep on my keyboard here. )

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 17 Apr , 2008 1:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14146
Quote:
(Sorry again if my post (and English...) reflects that I'm about to fall asleep on my keyboard here. )


Not at all, I thought it was a very good post. I appreciate the thoughtful response. :)
I will respond in kind soon...hopefully.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 17 Apr , 2008 1:23 am 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
lol I have more to apologize for mt English than you do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 18 Apr , 2008 9:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 2:34 pm
Posts: 1858
Location: Norway
Thanks. :) Too bad I seem to have killed the thread, though. :blackeye:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 20 Apr , 2008 9:53 pm 

Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2420
Location: Queensland, Australia
Late to the party as always, but anyway…

Agreeing to regulate speech which promotes unacceptably damaging outcomes seems like a good idea in principle. The problem is that one person’s unacceptably damaging consequences are not someone else’s.

For example, if I did decide to start shutting people up, I’d probably start with the 9/11 Truth Movement. In general, they use dishonest and distorted propaganda to try and make the public believe that there is no threat from terrorism, and that we should blame someone else (it usually ends up as the Jews). The consequences to our national security seem to trump any value in the speech itself (which any expert could easily demolish). I don’t see any real harm in, say, alcohol advertising on TV. We either need to appoint some body to decide which speech to regulate (which I would find chillingly totalitarian) or simply rely on the opinion of the majority (which is disturbingly like mob rule to me, and will probably see all sorts of speech banned that the advocates of the policy at the start wouldn’t think of). In addition, there’s the whole problem of turning people into martyrs by trying to shut them up.

Finally, if you give people power to do something good, they can easily use that power to do something evil. I have no desire at all for anyone to have the power to stop me expressing my opinions, and so I can hardly someone holding that power over someone else.

Ultimately, I draw the line at misleading and deceptive advertising (which is objectively wrong no matter what way you look at it), treason and actually inciting violence. Everything else should be legal and unrestricted.

tolkienpurist wrote:
I (mostly) agree with you, but here's my issue: it's one thing to proclaim that the Nazis have the right to march so long as they are a marginalized, despised fringe group. Assume, however, that the Nazi party in America is seriously a growing force, and they have a very simple message - all Jews and gays in America (for starters) must be relocated, exterminated, or both. For how long are you willing to fight for their "inalienable" right to free speech? Is there some point - at which 10, 30, 50, 70 percent of the population is persuaded by that message - where you'd feel that they should no longer have the right to express that message?


I’ll answer this as well seeing as I agree with yov.

Quite simply, no. If most of the population is willing to buy into this message in the first place, then we’re screwed anyway. Simply shutting them up won’t change anything. And as CG acknowledges, if they were in a majority, then they could quite as easily shut down their opposition, and what’s good enough for the goose has to be good enough for the gander.

Alatar wrote:
Person A's right to be a hateful bigot simply doesn't trump Person B's right not to be the victim of bigotry.


A ‘victim of bigotry’ in what way? If they’re suffering from some sort of concrete disadvantage (eg: racial discrimination or violence) then I agree. However, simply stopping someone from expressing an opinion won’t help any in my view. You won’t make bigots any less bigoted by not letting them talk.

Alatar wrote:
Company A's right to sell Alcohol doesn't trump Individual B's right to protect their children from damaging advertising.


Person A’s right to read the Harry Potter books doesn’t trump person B’s right to protect their children from the influence of witchcraft. Prove me wrong ;).

As to advertising in general, it takes someone to make a conscious decision to actually buy and use the product (or follow the advice). Advertising on its own can’t actually hurt anybody, and I’m quite happy to let people make their own bad decisions. If we can’t trust people to do that, how do we trust them to vote for the Government?

_________________
[Space for Rent]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 20 Apr , 2008 10:18 pm 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7836
Location: Ireland
Lord_Morningstar wrote:
As to advertising in general, it takes someone to make a conscious decision to actually buy and use the product (or follow the advice). Advertising on its own can’t actually hurt anybody, and I’m quite happy to let people make their own bad decisions. If we can’t trust people to do that, how do we trust them to vote for the Government?


The big problem here is that some of the advertising is specifically targeted to circumvent that. The reason tobacco advertising was banned here was because much of it targeted the impressionable youth, while pretending not to. The "Marlboro Man" was a popular example.

I cane across this while looking for info. Its an interesting read.

Quote:
Anti-smoking activists argue that everyone has a basic right to freedom of expression, but only insofar as no harm comes to others as a result. When freedom of expression results in harm to others, society is morally obligated to restrict this freedom. Cigarette advertising, one form of free speech, causes grave harm. Of twelve published studies that have examined the effect of cigarette advertising, nine have shown that as cigarette ads increase, so too does smoking. And, smoking now accounts for at least 350,000 tobacco-related deaths each year. The costs of smoking to society as a whole are also staggering. According to a recent government report, cigarette smoking is responsible for an estimated $23 billion in health care costs annually and over $30 billion in lost productivity. Furthermore, cigarettes are the leading cause of residential fires and fire deaths in this nation. Society is morally obligated to ban the promotion of a product linked to so much suffering and devastation and that places such a drain on society's resources.

Those opposed to the promotion of cigarettes also argue that society has a duty to protect the right of individuals not to be deceived or manipulated. And, according to Joe Tye, a staunch critic of the tobacco industry, "No advertising is more deceptive than that used to sell cigarettes. Images of independence are used to sell a product that creates profound dependence. Images of health and vitality are used to sell a product that causes disease and suffering. Images of life are used to sell a product that causes death."


http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ ... lboro.html

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 20 Apr , 2008 10:28 pm 

Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2420
Location: Queensland, Australia
An argument can be made for banning tobacco advertising in any country with a public health system, due to the costs it imposes, so I'll make another exception there. Still, in general, I don't see promoting harmful behaviour as a reason to ban speech.

_________________
[Space for Rent]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 21 Apr , 2008 8:38 am 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7836
Location: Ireland
Again, this all comes down to where we each are willing to draw that line, which exceptions we are willing to make. Only yova believes in completely free speech. The rest of us believe in free speech "within reason".

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 21 Apr , 2008 1:32 pm 
You are hearing me talk

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Posts: 2569
Location: Great Lakes
I think most people living in democracies would approximately agree with a statement along the lines of "people should be free to say what they want, but not to do what they want". This brings us about 90% of the way there; the problems lie in the various odd cases where the saying is the doing. Treason, inciting riots, insults, and the predatory speech that is euphemistically called advertising are examples, and probably all need to be treated as special cases by the law.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 21 Apr , 2008 2:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14146
The obvious problem, Al, with your "within reason" position is, within who's reason? And the answer to that is generally...mine, and not the people who disagree with me. Which doesn't really accomplish much and kinda makes a mockery of the idea of rights IMO. Now what Dave says there is different. I'm not 100% sure I agree with that but it is at least an clear and objective principle that we can use to attempt to determine what speech can be considered for restriction and what speech can't ever be restricted. Your entirely subjective "within reason" position can be used to do all the things that the entire concept of freedom of speech was designed to avoid. I'd perhaps say that it was used here in the US to oppress Communism or anything that even remotely resembled Communism. Because, at the time, it was "within reason" to shut up and deny the basic right of anyone who might be a Communist. That. Is. Bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 21 Apr , 2008 2:24 pm 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7836
Location: Ireland
It is a problem yova. I don't think anyone's denying that. But its better than the alternative. All we can hope is that we elect leaders who don't push the line too far. That is the essence of democracy. Voting for those we trust to run the country.

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 21 Apr , 2008 2:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14146
Is it really better than the alternative? Is there really anything that's caused more harm than a government given too much power to control? I'd say the potential harm is far greater than any potential benefit and I think a fairly cursory look at history will show that I'm right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon 10 Jan , 2011 3:31 pm 
I've cried a thousand oceans, and I would cry a thousand more if that's what it takes to sail you home.

Joined: Fri 29 Oct , 2004 2:22 am
Posts: 11477
*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:
Scarier:

Image


(She's 27 btw. Read more here.)


Sorry for the dead links, but I knew I'd posted here, and wanted to make an update.

Isabelle Caro, from the "No. Anorexia" campaign, passed away in November. What a terrible loss. :( No one should ever have to experience what those photos show, and it breaks my heart that people are manipulated to feel as though they should. I hope that Miss Caro's message will continue being heard; by those it can save, and those with the power to save. It didn't have to get to this. :x

Image




*E*

_________________
Image For always.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 10 Jan , 2011 4:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 7810
Location: MO
That's very sad. :(

_________________

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group