Google censors TheologyOnLine!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Flipper
New member
Knight wrote:
On the face of it, yes. But, as always, with a few caveats....
You know how us relativists love to lose you in the gray areas.
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz628.html
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/g/giovanni/bologna/rape.jpg
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/poussin/poussin37.html
So, whatchoo think? Are you with Bob E?
Should this sort of filth be burnt or should it be smashed with hammers? Or smashed with hammers and burnt?
On the face of it, yes. But, as always, with a few caveats....
You know how us relativists love to lose you in the gray areas.
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz628.html
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/g/giovanni/bologna/rape.jpg
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/poussin/poussin37.html
So, whatchoo think? Are you with Bob E?
Should this sort of filth be burnt or should it be smashed with hammers? Or smashed with hammers and burnt?
Again....
Should IMAGES of young girls being raped (child pornagraphy) be censored?
It really isn't that tough a question, I am sorry that it makes you stumble.
Last edited:
Freak
New member
Flipper, Zakath, Pure X, and all the others fools simply fail to see the obvious--that child ponography is evil.
Knight says: I am sorry that it makes you stumble.
Knight, you must understand, atheists support child ponography (implication is clear since they reject the notion that ponography is a absolute evil) that is why they are hesitant to answer the obvious.
Oh, I am well aware of that my fine friend Freak. I am just going to drag Pure-X though his own contradictory mud for sport.
Flipper, you are attempting to distract from the topic and move into another debate (what is art?) etc.
I am not going to be distracted by you (at least not here - on this thread).
Flipper are you against ALL FORMS of censorship as pure-X claims to be?
Flipper
New member
*sigh*
Freak.
To not agree with a statement != necessary support for a contrary position. It simply means what it says: "Flipper does not believe that child porn is absolutely wrong".
It's really quite a simple concept. To misunderstand it is to proudly wave around your ignorance of argumentative logic as if it were the flag of Moronistan.
Please, I beg you all, let us not embark once again on the fruitless voyage of what constitutes an absolute. Let me at once assure you that the worthlessly debased conceptual mangle traditionally produced by your side in way of an answer makes the concept of an absolute quite worthless.
Unless you can prove the existence of God (and better men than you have tried), then your assertions of absolute morality are without merit. You can employ as many emotive arguments as you like, but reason is merciless.
Freak.
To not agree with a statement != necessary support for a contrary position. It simply means what it says: "Flipper does not believe that child porn is absolutely wrong".
It's really quite a simple concept. To misunderstand it is to proudly wave around your ignorance of argumentative logic as if it were the flag of Moronistan.
Please, I beg you all, let us not embark once again on the fruitless voyage of what constitutes an absolute. Let me at once assure you that the worthlessly debased conceptual mangle traditionally produced by your side in way of an answer makes the concept of an absolute quite worthless.
Unless you can prove the existence of God (and better men than you have tried), then your assertions of absolute morality are without merit. You can employ as many emotive arguments as you like, but reason is merciless.
Flipper
New member
No, I'm just trying to understand what your attitude towards censorship is. To 'understand where you are coming from' on this one. I think it's important to find out what you believe on this matter, since you were the one who brought up the subject of rape imagery.
So why don't you answer the question. I'm not asking "do you think these images are art"? The answer to that should be patently obvious. I'm asking "what, in your view, should be done with these images"?
Good, we agree!
Now I will wait to hear back from Pure-X.
PureX
Well-known member
Photos of a rape are not a censorship issue. They are a criminal issue. AFTER the police release them, and AFTER the victim, the rapist, and anyone else in the photograph give their permission for it to be released, then it would become a censorship issue, and then I would say no, they should not be censored.
Flipper
New member
PureX: Why should having the permission of those in the photographs be a criteria? That just makes those involved the potential censors.
You're not "solving" the issue of censorship, just devolving it. Oddly enough, the French have a similar approach in their newspapers - you can't run a picture without permission of the main parties involved. It prevents tabloids from proliferating and may play a partial role in controling the impact of sex scandals and the like in France.
However, it's still a form of censorship. You're telling other people (with the best will in the world, maybe) that they can or can't use certain pictures.
You're not "solving" the issue of censorship, just devolving it. Oddly enough, the French have a similar approach in their newspapers - you can't run a picture without permission of the main parties involved. It prevents tabloids from proliferating and may play a partial role in controling the impact of sex scandals and the like in France.
However, it's still a form of censorship. You're telling other people (with the best will in the world, maybe) that they can or can't use certain pictures.
Ugh.
Many IF NOT MOST issues pertaining to censorship are legal issues!
Why do you think child pornography is censored?
You made the bold claim that.....
"I don't agree with any form of censorship."
I began to test that bold statement of yours and the first thing you do is describe a "form" of censorship that you favor (I.e., illegal activities).
Yet when presented with this obvious error in your train of thought you claim this some how isn't censorship.
Would it be so harmful to simply revise your original assertion and admit you overstated your case when you claimed... "I don't agree with any form of censorship."
PureX
Well-known member
It's not my place to "solve" the censorship issue, that in itself would be censorship. However, the people in a photograph have the right to control what happens with their own image, as they will have to live with the effect of that image being publically distributed. I don't believe it is censorship for one to control their own images (or expressions of whatever form), for censorship to occur, one would have to be attempting to control the expressions of others, or the right of others to experience them.
I anticipate that this dialogue will soon come to "what about children?", so I would say that as children are not mature adults and cannot be fully allowed to make their own decisions as an adult would, they are not part of the "censorship" issue, as they have to be governed by their nature as children.
Flipper
New member
If I take a picture of you in an unguarded moment, whose picture is it?
Let me give an alternative point of view. We are at war. An ABC News Correspondent knows that a special operations team is about to go into battle. Should that correspondent be prevented from filing a detailed report on this before it takes place? Is censorship appropriate in this case? What about self-censorship to prevent loss of life? What if the special operations team was killed as a direct result of the journalist's loose lips? What if the military subsequently banned journalists from the front line? Is that censorship?
Let me give an alternative point of view. We are at war. An ABC News Correspondent knows that a special operations team is about to go into battle. Should that correspondent be prevented from filing a detailed report on this before it takes place? Is censorship appropriate in this case? What about self-censorship to prevent loss of life? What if the special operations team was killed as a direct result of the journalist's loose lips? What if the military subsequently banned journalists from the front line? Is that censorship?
PureX
Well-known member
One of the reasons I do not believe we need censorship is because many of the circumstances that people want "censored" are already illegal criminal activity. I have no problem witholding a photo of a crime from the public, because 1. it's evidence of a criminal act and as such needs to be handled like any other evidence of criminal activity, and 2. because the victim in the photo did not consent to the crime nor the documentation of the crime, and they have a right to control what happens with their own image. As that right was denied by the rapist taking the photos, it would be illegal to distribute them without the victim's permission.Originally posted by Knight
Ugh.
Many IF NOT MOST issues pertaining to censorship are legal issues!
Why do you think child pornography is censored?
Regarding "child porn" which incidentally have not yet even mentioned, it is evidence of a crime, because having sex with children is a crime. So it should be treated as above, with the exception that a child would not be expected to reasonably "give permission" for the photos to be distributed, just as they could not reasonably "give permission" to have sex in the first place. A child's "permision" is not bonefide regarding sexual issues.
However, if an adult rape victim chose to allow photos of her/his ordeal to be published, then they should be allowed to do so.
Last edited: