Re: Another Censorship . . . .

Timothy R. Butler wrote:

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>  Right, but I'm more concerned about the fact that you have a bunch of
>monitors lined up, and a passer by can see what's on them. If I sit down
>to look up the latest new on CNN, I don't want the guy next to me
>downloading "Par|s H|lt0n footage" (as some of the 500+ spam messages I
>get a day put it). Know what I mean?
>  
>
How do you propose to stop him? How do you propose that we ensure that 
'legitimate' content is not blocked?

>>> 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.
>>    
>>
>
>  My point is simply that context has a lot to do with what something is
>or isn't.
>  
>
Making an altogether different statement is different to using the same 
statement in a different context.

>>I am always deeply, deeply troubled by the idea that consensual 
>>homosexual relationships are just as bad as murder. I hope, at least, 
>>    
>>
>  Well, in the most basic terms, lying is as bad as murder too (or at
>least, warrants the same eternal punishment). The worst part of a
>homosexual relationship (or an extramarital heterosexual relationship)
>is that it usually involves more premeditation and is willingly allowed
>to continue for days, months, years, etc. Usually what ends up being
>thought of as "lesser sins" happen without much thought and usually are
>"repented" from (if you believe that they are sins, that is). Am I
>making sense?
>  
>
In the context of your beliefs, yes. To anyone else, no.

>  The Bible generally bases judgment based on the person's intentions,
>etc. For instance, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount suggests lust is as bad as
>adultry, anger is as bad as murder, etc. I guess this is, in a way, sort
>of like a modern justice system, if I accidentally hit someone and kill
>them (man slaughter) it isn't considered as bad as if I purposely kill
>them (murder), even though for the victim the result is just as bad.
>  
>
Umm, I think maybe you meant 'hit someone and accidentally kill them'. I 
don't see that there are many circumstances where you can 'accidentally' 
hit someone, at least not hard enough to result in a fatality :).

Anyway, I don't see that it is at all like a modern justice system, or, 
indeed, at all like anything which falls under the term 'justice'.

To take your example of manslaughter vs. murder let us consider the 
relative intents and results in each case (I realise this is a grotesque 
simplification but hope it works for the sake of argument :)):
Assault: An attack with no intent to kill, no resulting death and the 
smallest punishment.
Attempted murder: An attack with intent to kill, but no resulting death 
and a medium punishment.
Manslaughter: An attack with no intent to kill, but nevertheless 
resulting in death and a medium punishment.
Murder: An attack wih intent to kill, resulting in death and therefore 
holding the highest punishment.

What I am trying to illustrate here is that the punishment for each 
crime seems to be derived from both from the harmfulness of the intent 
of the perpetrator and the harmfulness of the result. (Maybe this is not 
what lawmakers were thinking but it seems to hold true).

Also, let us imagine a situation where I have run down and injured or 
killed a pedestrian. In this case, there was no intent to harm on my 
part but I may nevertheless receive a punishment depending on my 
responsibility. For example, if the accident occurred due to some kind 
of malfunction in my car which I was powerless to correct, I will 
probably not be punished. If it occurred due to carelessness on my part, 
for example not paying attention to the road or drink driving, then I am 
punished depending on my level of carelessness and the resulting harm.

So it seems to me that, as a rule, modern justice systems dispatch 
punishments depending on three factors: intended harm, resulting harm, 
responsibility for that harm.

If I understand you correctly, Christianity doesn't deal with levels of 
intent, levels of resulting harm or levels of responsibility, but 
absolutes. Either you committed a sin, or you didn't. Whether you did or 
possibly could have harmed anyone is irrelevant. The only consideration 
is whether you did something that you were told not to do in the Bible. 
That doesn't sound very just to me.

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>  When I think about it, I think what you said was right about what I
>was getting at. Sorry.
>
Hehe.

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.