You could try a:
Repeat
something
Until FALSE
approach
Actually no one answered (or even commented) on the question I posed earlier "where do the limits lie?"
I don't particularly have a problem with the YouPorn thread myself as nothing offensive was included in the thread and the following discussion was just the usually DC friendly banter and silliness. However, I didn't choose to click the link or make a comment and it did make my eyebrow raise and wonder if it was an appropriate topic when it was originally posted.
What is the limit though ... what if a site YouPaedo appears? Could some post a similar thread? In many countries accessing such a site would be illegal and may result in a prison sentence (certainly in big brother UK) but exactly the same 'technology' arguments for inclusion apply.
I was somewhat surprised by some of the self righteous pontificating going on here (and I am not necessarily talking about codeTRUCKER's posts). Stating that codeTRUCKER has no right to state or argue his position or that by stating it he is trying to force his morals and beliefs on others is just as intolerant (if not more so because you are TRYING to supress his freedom). Surely the argument being made by some of the protagonists is that you don't have to read or comment on stuff you don't like - doesn't the same apply to you in this thread? Or does the unpleasantness of personal attack illustrate that we all end up reading threads at times (and continuing them) that we really don't like or agree with?
After receiving a PM from codeTRUCKER I invited him to start this thread because I believe it is a question that at least needs to be asked. OK we will never reach a full concensus for a number of reasons, including:
- everyone has (and are entitled) to their own viewpoint
- some people see anything opposed to full on 'anything goes' as evil
- some people like picking fights for the sake of it
- some people are too selfish to consider other peoples feelings
there are probably many other categories too but these are just a few that spring to mind (mainly because I recognise all those traits in myself at times).
My personal opinion is that there are acceptable limits on freedom of speech. The difference is that I think those limits should be self imposed limits that take into account the need to avoid deliberately offending others who have a contrary view. Being able to consider others is, for me, a fundamental of any definition of what it means to be civilised.
Recent Posts
).
. Your list above isn't fair. You seem to believe that you can see into the hears of other people to divine what they're thinking, what their motivations are. This is never a safe assumption. You have no way of knowing why each of us chooses to voice the views that they do. I suggest that the only civil way of handling such a discussion is to make every effort to avoid assuming the thoughts of another; if something seems to flow from illegitimate sources as you list above, ask the person for clarification.
-CWuestefeld (January 06, 2008, 12:10 PM)