Ah joy, plenty to respond to.
I'll start with fluff
I apologize for the misuse of your metaphor, and for misunderstanding your previous statement. I had taken it to mean that anyone who asks should be told everything about an issue, even a small child asking what mommy and daddy were doing last night. I see this is not the issue now. I believe you have a point, Fluff, and have made a reasonable stand. I would like to inquire, however, on what grounds you believe documents intended to incite violence are permissable to release to the public. Does the freedom to say what you want supercede the safety of the populous? take for instance, the hapless citizen, who has neither read nor been aware of these documents, killed in the riots that ensue (hypothetical worst-case), caused by information which he was not party to. Given that he was negatively affected by the information in a way that he had no choice, does the freedom of speech still supercede his right to safety and life? Note: i'm not denying your point of view, just asking for a small clarification. I believe you have a fully valid point of view.
Your definition of ownership is quite complete, and i enjoy this fact. Though i find a few small flaws with it yet still.
malice wrote:1. Information you create. (Example: a recipe you invent, a joke you write.)
2. Information you observe. (Example: the other side of a conversation you have, a poll you administer to the public.)
3. Information you purchase. (Example: secrets you trade through gossip, a patent you purchase.)
Those three methods of ownership, then, cover any cases for which there are no superceding agreements; for any other case, of course, one must refer to the agreement.
I greatly enjoy your stipulation at the end, that superceding agreements must be taken into account before one can consider the issue of ownership. This saves much complication and is a reasonable idea.
1: Is information i created based on another's information still my own? For instance, if i take a file from the patent offices, and improve upon the design in significant ways, without changing the fundamental design, do i own the new design wholly? Is there a partial ownership?
2: If i observe, illegally, a conversation, such as spying on a government official or eavesdropping on a therapist's session, do i still own this information? Has it then been stolen? Does theft, while illegal, still transfer ownership?
3: If i purchase information through dubious means, and the information was originally pirated, but i am not aware of this, do i still own it?
Mind you, these are somewhat extraneous, i simply wish to test to a degree your revisions. As it is though, i am ready to accept this newer division.Okita
Okita, i am aware of the complexity of that situation, and that is exactly the reason i presented it. You see, if one is unable to determine ownership in ANY and EVERY situation which may possibly arise, through some set of criteria, then one cannot rely on a definition based around ownership. That is exactly the question to answer before proceeding with this definition, or, in failing to do so, revising it.
As to your parenthetical concerns, i'm quite happily a he.
And your point is very valid. I have not presented any position. If you re-read the text you quoted, you'll see that your post is really a redundancy, as i've already stated that. There is a reason for that.
I wrote:i'd like to know the moral standpoint of this forum's demographic with regards to this issue, censorship
That's from the good ol' Opening post. That's my personal goal in this thread, to achieve a better understanding of the various points in this issue (see my discussion with Malice for an example of a very productive discussion of a personal preconception, and it's resulting revision). This stems from a personal lack of any real grounding in the issue. Having never really considered it before recently, i found myself at a loss as to answer the question i posed to myself, 'is censorship justified?' In failing to answer that question, i sought enlightenment, from those in this forum. I do believe, however, the assertion that i have been 'waffling' is incorrect. I have said that to in some cases censorship is justified, and in others it is not, though i have no criteria on which to judge it. My position has not changed on this.
As it is my objective, in this discussion, to further my own enlightenment on this issue, i find it more productive to withhold my own opinions. As my opinion is formed off of incomplete notions and as i'd put it, fairly invalid, i find it to be somewhat detrimental to the discussion at hand. Not only that, but as i am intending to form a better justified opinion, it makes no sense to allow my own opinion into the discussion until such a point as it is relevant but more complete. Biasing the discussion toward or against my own opinion at the moment does me no good.
Indeed my definition of censorship contains many situations which are vastly different and may yield different results. I believed i had made it clear that the objective of my broad definition was to consider censorship as a whole, and then revise the criteria on which we define 'acceptable censorship'. That is to say, yes, it's braod, it's counter-intuitive, but it's intended to be so, in order to have obvious instances as to where it definitively is
justified and other instances where it is not
justified, and then move toward the middle from either end, until such a criteria is created that satisfactorily defines 'acceptable censorship', in all situations, including those 'exceptions to the rule'. Does this not make sense to you? Is this so unreasonable that it must continually be questioned?
I do believe they may all be solved by one solution. the goal is to develope a solution that encompasses all circumstances. What is the point of having a solution which only encompasses a majority, such as "censorship is bad so long as it is justified". Well, of course, this makes sense, but how do you determine it is justified? It is no solution at all. A later definition, then, of what 'justified' is, may then offer a solution to all cases. Understand?
And as you've not contributed anything of real substance to this discussion, save to criticise those in it, i hardly think it's fair of you to criticise anyone in this discussion. That doesn't stop you, does it?
I'm not demanding, or requiring further revisions. I'm simply saying i cannot accept a differentiation between 'censorship' and 'discretion' without an adequate distinction between these terms. For what that matters to each, it is for them to decide. Had malice replied with 'whatever dude, your way doesn't make sense to me', i'd have respectfully responded with 'same to you, buddy', and we'd have been on our ways, not thinking of the discussion any further. He chose to respond with a clarification, though, and i've acknowledged not only that it was valid but that he is likely going to prove me incorrect.
You see, okita, this is what we call a 'discussion'. That is, it's an exchange where two or more people present ideas and question each other's ideas. I've presented my idea, he questioned it, presenting his own idea. I questioned that, he revised. Is this an illogical course of a discussion? Would you prefer i simply accept anything anyone say without questioning it? This seems an irresponsible way to live. But should you decide to live so, i'd like to declare that you're a duck. If you refuse to question this, you must believe you are a duck, no? Perhaps this illustrates my frustration with your question.
I'm going to say, as enlightening as these side discussions about the discussion are...they're useless. Talking about why we're talking about censorship, or whether or not we're justified in the way we're approaching the issue...really doesn't have anything to do with the issue. If you have an idea on censorship
, i'd be more than happy to see you post it here. If you have an idea on any other issues, including on the manner of discussion, me as a person, my motives, or my fairness, please, by all means, keep that crap out of this thread. PM me, start a new thread "is it ok for sarcio to ask so many damned questoins", but do not discuss it here, please. It's grown quite laborious, and more than irritating. I've already addressed any issues that need to be addressed external to censorship. Back to the topic, eh?
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.