Re: Another Censorship . . . .

Timothy R. Butler wrote:

>  On the other hand, I am very dubious of censoring anything less
>invasive, such as the internet (except by parents on their home system
>or libraries to keep offensive stuff, again, out of a public place),
>printed materials, etc. 
>  
>
I do not agree on the library issue. The Internet requires a specific 
act on the part of the recipient in order to receive something (that act 
may be as simple as setting up an email account, but the point is it 
still requires an action on the part of the recipient). Sometimes, you 
may receive something different to what you expected but that doesn't 
justify censorship, especially given that automated Internet censorship 
is highly unreliable.

>>I find it hard to imagine a context in which it was not racist, except 
>>in the case that you are talking about your physical/sexual attraction 
>>to a person (and since we all naturally look for certain traits in a 
>>partner I think this is the one case where this is hardly avoidable).
>>    
>>
>
>  Hmm... you have a point, although, the fact that I love to play the
>"devil's advocate," what if while specifically saying the above about
>$XYZ, I also held it true for all other groups as well? :-)
>  
>
Then that would amount to a completely different statement, thus making 
your point completely irrelevant.

>>Given that Christians have been known to condemn others on the basis of their sexual preferences, perhaps you hold a conflicting view here).
>>    
>>
>
>  Without getting too deep, I'd note that what is generally held as the
>correct theological view is that the preference isn't wrong, its what
>you do with that preference. Homosexual activity being held to be as
>sinful as premarital heterosexual activity.
>  
>
In that case it would appear that you would not object to a person 
holding a sexual preference for a certain race on similar grounds. 
Although perhaps you would object to them acting on that preference (a 
bit hard if you favour monogamy :)).

>  The unfortunate part is that the former gets more attention than the
>latter from both groups inside and outside of the Christian Church and
>thus it looks unfair. Many people (inside the church especially) forget
>that there is no such thing, theologically, as "big sins." Sins are
>sins.
>  
>
I am always deeply, deeply troubled by the idea that consensual 
homosexual relationships are just as bad as murder. I hope, at least, 
that you would not argue for this to be enacted into law.

>>Perhaps what you were trying to say is that it is hard to draw a line 
>>between acceptable racism and unacceptable racism. Some would consider 
>>no racism acceptable; I am undecided but my current feeling is that this 
>>is a little extreme. A fairly average view seems to be that racism is 
>>acceptable until it harms others (i.e. is used to discrimate against 
>>certain employees, or racist violence).
>>    
>>
>
>  Another very interesting point. Not exactly what I was saying, but
>related.
>  
>
If this is not what you meant then I'm afraid I remain puzzled at your 
suggestion that the definition of racism is non-technical.

>  I would, however, go back to my example of public censorship. Should
>one be allowed to express racist/hateful/obscene things in public where
>I have no choice about avoiding them (such as a billboard, perhaps on a
>street or highway that I must use to get somewhere). The problem, is
>where do you draw the line, since virtually anything will offend some
>people... overall, up to this point, I think the line has been drawn
>fairly responsibly on the average.
>  
>
I'd have to assert here that w/r/t obscenity, the problem lies at least 
as much on the side of the person who takes offense as it does on the 
side of the person who creates the offensive item. In cases where 
offense was not intended, clearly the problem lies entirely on the side 
of the offendee.

As for racist or hateful items, I must be honest and state that I do not 
know the solution to this problem.


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.