Deep Floyd Mars

Mxsmanic wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
    > message de news: [email protected]...
    > > If you have a suggestion for a workable way to remove
    > > censorship completely, then please feel free to voice
    > > it.
    > What prevents it?

Mixamatic, it's moronic to suggest removing something that works without
having an alternative. What benefit could there possibly be in removing all
censorship?
---
DFM

Deep Floyd Mars

    > This happens all over the world, all the time, no doubt, but I was a bit
    > unprepared for seeing it on the programme when I did. It's certainly
    > stuck in my mind, however repulsive.

They really should have a bit of a warning prior to displaying these images
so you can prepare for what you are about to see. This gives you a bit of
time to mentally prepare for something that could have an impact on you.
This is where a code of conduct is more appropriate than censorship.
---
DFM

Ken Pisichko

itsmine wrote:

    > There is soooooooo much more to do than get redeyed and go to the
    > redlight district. Museums, Architecture and history. I wish that
    > Amsterdam didn't have the stigma that it does because coffeeshops and
    > hookers are a relatively small part of what there is to do and see in
    > a truly beautiful and interesting city.

I have never been to Holland. That said, I'd like to think that the dope and
red-light district are "marketing ploys" (so to speak) to draw folks to Holland.
Naturally, what you say will occur after folks realize there is more to life
that getting stoned 7/24 and getting laid till you are limp....

Naturally the recovery period will allow for "sober reflection" and visits to
"the rest" of the country.

That said, I'll bet that these folks will still talk (after they have returned
to North America) about the dope and the district more that about the rest of
the country. THAT is the real pity!

And will the Dutch care? No way! Their marketing ploy will have worked. They
will have satisfied the "needs" of these folks from North America, their own
economy will have received a transfusion, AND both groups will depart happy.
Great stuff! I should still go to Holland if at least to visit the places my
Dutch friends speak of.....

David Horne

Deep Floyd Mars wrote:

    > >
    > > This happens all over the world, all the time, no doubt, but I was a bit
    > > unprepared for seeing it on the programme when I did. It's certainly
    > > stuck in my mind, however repulsive.
    > >
    >
    > They really should have a bit of a warning prior to displaying these images
    > so you can prepare for what you are about to see. This gives you a bit of
    > time to mentally prepare for something that could have an impact on you.
    > This is where a code of conduct is more appropriate than censorship.

I think you're right.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Mxsmanic

"Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...

    > Mixamatic, it's moronic to suggest removing
    > something that works without having an alternative.

First you said it was unworkable to remove censorship. When I asked why,
you ignored the question and made a completely different statement, above.

What does censorship work to accomplish, and why is an alternative required?

    > What benefit could there possibly be in removing all
    > censorship?

Freedom need not be justified; only restrictions of freedom have to be
justified.

So I'll ask again: Why _not_ remove all censorship? Why have it in the
first place?

Sjoerd

"Ken Pisichko" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > itsmine wrote:
    > > There is soooooooo much more to do than get redeyed and go to the
    > > redlight district. Museums, Architecture and history. I wish that
    > > Amsterdam didn't have the stigma that it does because coffeeshops and
    > > hookers are a relatively small part of what there is to do and see in
    > > a truly beautiful and interesting city.
    > I have never been to Holland. That said, I'd like to think that the dope
and
    > red-light district are "marketing ploys" (so to speak) to draw folks to
Holland.

Huh? Marketing ploy? Do you really think the the Netherlands' soft drugs and
prostitution policies were designed for *tourists*? That's nonsense of
course. They were designed for the benefit of local people (the soft drug
users, soft drug sellers, police and justice departments, prostitutes, users
of prostitutes)

    > Naturally, what you say will occur after folks realize there is more to
life
    > that getting stoned 7/24 and getting laid till you are limp....
    > Naturally the recovery period will allow for "sober reflection" and visits
to
    > "the rest" of the country.
    > That said, I'll bet that these folks will still talk (after they have
returned
    > to North America)

Not all tourists are from North America. In Amsterdam, only about 10% come
from NA.

about the dope and the district more that about the rest of
    > the country. THAT is the real pity!
    > And will the Dutch care? No way! Their marketing ploy will have worked.

See above.

They
    > will have satisfied the "needs" of these folks from North America,

See above.

their own
    > economy will have received a transfusion,

What kind of transfusion?

AND both groups will depart happy.
    > Great stuff! I should still go to Holland if at least to visit the places
my
    > Dutch friends speak of.....
You are welcome.

Sjoerd

Marie Lewis

In article , Deep Floyd Mars
writes
    >It is definitely a darker side of the human psychic



Psychic?
--
Marie Lewis

Deep Floyd Mars

Mxsmanic wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
    > message de news: [email protected]...
    > > Mixamatic, it's moronic to suggest removing
    > > something that works without having an alternative.
    > First you said it was unworkable to remove censorship. When I asked why,
    > you ignored the question and made a completely different statement, above.

Hey, you are the one that keeps taking massive logic leaps, and the trimming
them off in follow up posts. In fact, you haven't said anything at all
except for "why not remove all censorship". To do something as
questionable/risky/dubious/unproven as that, YOU NEED A BLOODY GOOD
REASON!!!! You DON'T however need a reason to leave it the way it is.

    > What does censorship work to accomplish, and why is an alternative
required?

Censorship is to protect people from disturbing/offensive material that can
result in people being hurt.

    > > What benefit could there possibly be in removing all
    > > censorship?
    > Freedom need not be justified; only restrictions of freedom have to be
    > justified.
    > So I'll ask again: Why _not_ remove all censorship?

Why _not_ remove traffic signals? They are a restriction on freedom.

    > Why have it in the
    > first place?

See above.
---
DFM

Deep Floyd Mars

Ken Pisichko wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > itsmine wrote:
    > > There is soooooooo much more to do than get redeyed and go to the
    > > redlight district. Museums, Architecture and history. I wish that
    > > Amsterdam didn't have the stigma that it does because coffeeshops and
    > > hookers are a relatively small part of what there is to do and see in
    > > a truly beautiful and interesting city.
    > I have never been to Holland. That said, I'd like to think that the dope
and
    > red-light district are "marketing ploys" (so to speak) to draw folks to
Holland.
    > Naturally, what you say will occur after folks realize there is more to
life
    > that getting stoned 7/24 and getting laid till you are limp....
    > Naturally the recovery period will allow for "sober reflection" and visits
to
    > "the rest" of the country.
    > That said, I'll bet that these folks will still talk (after they have
returned
    > to North America) about the dope and the district more that about the rest
of
    > the country. THAT is the real pity!
    > And will the Dutch care? No way! Their marketing ploy will have worked.
They
    > will have satisfied the "needs" of these folks from North America, their
own
    > economy will have received a transfusion, AND both groups will depart
happy.
    > Great stuff! I should still go to Holland if at least to visit the places
my
    > Dutch friends speak of.....

Why would you "like to think that"?

Sorry Ken, but you are miles off!!! Tolerated dope and prostitution is not
some cynical marketing ploy. If it was done in North America is possibly
would be, but in Holland it stems from the attitude of tolerance in the form
of 'verzuiling' (kind of means the division into smaller bits), where each
part of society functions happily on its own. Maybe Sjoerd can explain it
better...

Your view is nothing more than extrapolation, and would certainly be
different if you had been there. Holland is not some theme park designed to
attract tourists! I urge you to drop your views and check it out for
yourself, then make up your mind.
---
DFM

Mxsmanic

"Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...

    > Hey, you are the one that keeps taking massive
    > logic leaps, and the trimming them off in follow
    > up posts.

That's two questions that you haven't answered.

    > In fact, you haven't said anything at all
    > except for "why not remove all censorship".

And you haven't even answered that question.

    > To do something as questionable/risky/dubious/
    > unproven as that, YOU NEED A BLOODY GOOD
    > REASON!!!!

There was no censorship originally, and the world continued to turn. No
risk, no doubt, entirely proven.

You're going to have to do better than this.

    > Censorship is to protect people from disturbing/
    > offensive material that can result in people being hurt.

Why shouldn't people be allowed to protect themselves from such material?
How can you develop a standard of censorship that is guaranteed to reflect
the needs of everyone affected? How do you know in advance what will be
disturbing or offensive to others.

The real reason for censorship is to prevent others from gaining access to
material that offends or disturbs YOU. Censorship also prevents them from
providing such material to anyone else. You aren't protecting them, you are
imposing your own moral standards on others. But since there is no reason
to believe that your moral standards are objectively superior to all others,
this action is not objectively justifiable, and it is a form of oppression.

    > Why _not_ remove traffic signals? They are a
    > restriction on freedom.

Because people in vehicles cannot protect themselves from accidents with
other vehicles in certain cases. In contrast, it's always possible to not
watch TV or not read a book.

Deep Floyd Mars

Mxsmanic wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
    > message de news: [email protected]...
    > > Hey, you are the one that keeps taking massive
    > > logic leaps, and the trimming them off in follow
    > > up posts.
    > That's two questions that you haven't answered.

Then why do you keep trimming them?

    > > In fact, you haven't said anything at all
    > > except for "why not remove all censorship".
    > And you haven't even answered that question.

Because it could result in people being disturbed or hurt. This is common
sense that by default I assume everyone has. In your case my assumption is
wrong.

    > > To do something as questionable/risky/dubious/
    > > unproven as that, YOU NEED A BLOODY GOOD
    > > REASON!!!!
    > There was no censorship originally, and the world continued to turn. No
    > risk, no doubt, entirely proven.

And there was no money, law, roads, rubbish bins, or flared trousers
originally either. Life used to be a lot more brutal too. That is proven
because it happened, read the history books.

    > You're going to have to do better than this.

I cannot give you a common sense or reasoning transfusion.

    > > Censorship is to protect people from disturbing/
    > > offensive material that can result in people being hurt.
    > Why shouldn't people be allowed to protect themselves from such material?

Would you expect kids to be able to protect themselves for seeing something
like this?

http://www.jimgoad.com/am4pdf/kiely.pdf

This was part of the rape issue of Answer Me, and was banned pretty much
worldwide after mass outrage at its contents. Do some more research on this
case if you are not yet convinced. If you think this type of stuff should be
freely available, then you have some problems. Now imagine children somehow
stumbling across this sort of stuff. Censorship exists for precisely this
reason.

    > How can you develop a standard of censorship that is guaranteed to reflect
    > the needs of everyone affected?

How can you guarantee a perfect system of law and order? YOU CANT. But
society is much better of with an imperfect legal system than no legal
system. I am talking common sense here...

    > How do you know in advance what will be
    > disturbing or offensive to others.

You have to base it on common sense. Preventing mass access to media that
can result in harm to the viewer or others.

    > The real reason for censorship is to prevent others from gaining access to
    > material that offends or disturbs YOU.

No, it is to protect people from media that can result in harm to people.

    > Censorship also prevents them from
    > providing such material to anyone else. You aren't protecting them, you
are
    > imposing your own moral standards on others.
    > But since there is no reason
    > to believe that your moral standards are objectively superior to all
others,
    > this action is not objectively justifiable, and it is a form of
oppression.

It should have nothing to do with morality. If this is a factor, the
censorship model is going too far. Censorship is not about created a moral
society, it is about controlling media that can harm others.

    > > Why _not_ remove traffic signals? They are a
    > > restriction on freedom.
    > Because people in vehicles cannot protect themselves from accidents with
    > other vehicles in certain cases. In contrast, it's always possible to not
    > watch TV or not read a book.

It has nothing to do with stopping people from reading books and watching
tv. It is about controlling extreme media that goes so far that it can
result in people (directly or indirectly) being hurt. You cannot have
magazines freely available showing how to drug women to take advantage of
them and get away with it, you cannot glorify cruelty to animals, you cannot
show splattered bodies during a movie aimed at children. You want to remove
these controls to see what happens???

I expect you to trim the bits that are too hard for you to answer if you can
actually come up with a reply to this. A growing part of me is wondering why
I am trying to talk sense to someone as way out as you.
---
DFM

Deep Floyd Mars

Marie Lewis wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article , Deep Floyd Mars
    > writes
    > >
    > >It is definitely a darker side of the human psychic
    > Psychic?

You brain is supposed to automatically interpret typos into the obvious
meaning. It was meant to be 'psyche'.

Just how many people are reading this thread anyway? We are phenomenally off
topic here!
---
DFM

Mxsmanic

"Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
message de news: %[email protected]...

    > Then why do you keep trimming them?

Trimming?

    > Because it could result in people being
    > disturbed or hurt.

So can crossing the street. But people are still permitted to cross the
street.

Furthermore, freedom of speech does not do unavoidable physical harm, as a
gun or stick might.

    > This is common sense that by default I
    > assume everyone has.

There's no such thing as common sense. People who refer to it in their
arguments are trying to present their own beliefs and prejudices as
objective truths.

    > In your case my assumption is wrong.

Which would make your assumption wrong entirely, since you assumed that
everyone had it.

    > And there was no money, law, roads, rubbish
    > bins, or flared trousers originally either.

All of these can be had without censorship.

    > Life used to be a lot more brutal too.

Some of the places where it remains particularly brutal are also the places
with the greatest amounts of censorship.

    > I cannot give you a common sense or reasoning
    > transfusion.

I agree. You barely even seem to answer the questions I ask.

    > Would you expect kids to be able to protect
    > themselves for seeing something like this?

What do they have to be protected from? It's just a document file.

And what happened to adults? Why do you exclude adults in your attempt to
justify censorship?

    > This was part of the rape issue of Answer Me,
    > and was banned pretty much worldwide after mass
    > outrage at its contents.

Why? I don't see anything outrageous about it, although it's a bit
unconventional. Is it a humor publication?

    > Do some more research on this case if you are
    > not yet convinced.

Convinced of what? Convinced of a massive excess of censorship in the
world? I already knew about that.

    > If you think this type of stuff should be
    > freely available, then you have some problems.

I do think it should be freely available. That's freedom of speech.

    > Now imagine children somehow stumbling across this
    > sort of stuff.

Children aren't interested in this sort of stuff. In fact, they wouldn't
even understand it. The only people likely to understand it are those old
enough to be unaffected by it. So there's nothing to worry about.

One mistake routinely made by adults is to assume that children have the
same prurient interests they do, and that children will be interested in and
seek out pornography and related materials. In fact, children who have not
reached puberty care nothing about such things, and will find them boring
and perplexing even if they stumble across them.

    > Censorship exists for precisely this reason.

No, censorship exists to impose the will of one group upon another.

    > How can you guarantee a perfect system of
    > law and order? YOU CANT.

Correct.

    > But society is much better of with an imperfect
    > legal system than no legal system.

But a legal system can have positive effects. Censorship does not. Law
against victimless crimes would be the legal equivalent of censorship.

    > I am talking common sense here...

No, you are expressing your opinion, but you hope that by calling it "common
sense" you'll somehow persuade me to go along with your point of view.

As I've said, you'll have to try harder than that.

    > You have to base it on common sense.

Then there is a problem, given that there is no such thing as common sense.

    > Preventing mass access to media that
    > can result in harm to the viewer or others.

There are no such media. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but names
will never hurt you.

    > No, it is to protect people from media that
    > can result in harm to people.

Why can't you at least admit that you wish to force your viewpoint upon
others? It's one thing to advocate oppression; it's yet another to deny
that one is doing so. If you really think your morals are better than those
of anyone else, why are you unwilling to admit that they are your morals,
and not any objective values?

    > It should have nothing to do with morality.

Morality is often the sole motivation for censorship. One group seeks to
impose its morals on other groups by forbidding any form of expression that
might conflict with those moral standards.

    > If this is a factor, the censorship model
    > is going too far.

Then all censorship is going too far. QED.

    > Censorship is not about created a moral
    > society, it is about controlling media that
    > can harm others.

Then I should contact your ISP and have your access to the Internet
interrupted. You see, the name you use for posting has an obvious,
perverted sexual connotation that may harm the minds of young people, should
they happen to stumble upon your posts. The only way to protect them is to
remove your perverted nickname from the Internet.

No offense, of course ... it's just common sense, as I'm sure you'll agree.

    > It has nothing to do with stopping people from
    > reading books and watching tv.

That's exactly what censorship is.

    > It is about controlling extreme media that goes
    > so far that it can result in people (directly or
    > indirectly) being hurt.

No medium is that extreme.

    > You cannot have magazines freely available showing
    > how to drug women to take advantage of them and get
    > away with it ...

Why not? You suggest that all magazines containing liquor advertisements be
banned?

    > ... you cannot glorify cruelty to animals ...

You suggest that all hunting and fishing magazines be banned?

    > ... you cannot show splattered bodies during a
    > movie aimed at children.

You wish to ban cartoons as well?

There isn't much left, is there?

    > You want to remove these controls to see what happens???

First they'd have to be put in place. These things are not censored today.

    > A growing part of me is wondering why
    > I am trying to talk sense to someone
    > as way out as you.

Because you are driven by emotion rather than logic, and you hope that if
you become extreme enough in your untenable arguments, you might be able to
arouse sufficient emotion in me to sway me to your way of thinking.
Unfortunately, you are wasting your time. Your emotion will increase, mine
will remain unchanged and minimal, and your posts will further degenerate
into ad hominem as you lose control and run out of even implausible
arguments in support of your position.

Deep Floyd Mars

Congratulations, you have won. I am no longer interested in your surreal
version of reality. Enjoy your little world where commonsense doesn't exist,
McDonalds is healthy, and kids are never interested in porn.

Mxsmanic wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
    > message de news: %[email protected]...
    > > Then why do you keep trimming them?
    > Trimming?
    > > Because it could result in people being
    > > disturbed or hurt.
    > So can crossing the street. But people are still permitted to cross the
    > street.
    > Furthermore, freedom of speech does not do unavoidable physical harm, as a
    > gun or stick might.
    > > This is common sense that by default I
    > > assume everyone has.
    > There's no such thing as common sense. People who refer to it in their
    > arguments are trying to present their own beliefs and prejudices as
    > objective truths.
    > > In your case my assumption is wrong.
    > Which would make your assumption wrong entirely, since you assumed that
    > everyone had it.
    > > And there was no money, law, roads, rubbish
    > > bins, or flared trousers originally either.
    > All of these can be had without censorship.
    > > Life used to be a lot more brutal too.
    > Some of the places where it remains particularly brutal are also the
places
    > with the greatest amounts of censorship.
    > > I cannot give you a common sense or reasoning
    > > transfusion.
    > I agree. You barely even seem to answer the questions I ask.
    > > Would you expect kids to be able to protect
    > > themselves for seeing something like this?
    > What do they have to be protected from? It's just a document file.
    > And what happened to adults? Why do you exclude adults in your attempt to
    > justify censorship?
    > > This was part of the rape issue of Answer Me,
    > > and was banned pretty much worldwide after mass
    > > outrage at its contents.
    > Why? I don't see anything outrageous about it, although it's a bit
    > unconventional. Is it a humor publication?
    > > Do some more research on this case if you are
    > > not yet convinced.
    > Convinced of what? Convinced of a massive excess of censorship in the
    > world? I already knew about that.
    > > If you think this type of stuff should be
    > > freely available, then you have some problems.
    > I do think it should be freely available. That's freedom of speech.
    > > Now imagine children somehow stumbling across this
    > > sort of stuff.
    > Children aren't interested in this sort of stuff. In fact, they wouldn't
    > even understand it. The only people likely to understand it are those old
    > enough to be unaffected by it. So there's nothing to worry about.
    > One mistake routinely made by adults is to assume that children have the
    > same prurient interests they do, and that children will be interested in
and
    > seek out pornography and related materials. In fact, children who have
not
    > reached puberty care nothing about such things, and will find them boring
    > and perplexing even if they stumble across them.
    > > Censorship exists for precisely this reason.
    > No, censorship exists to impose the will of one group upon another.
    > > How can you guarantee a perfect system of
    > > law and order? YOU CANT.
    > Correct.
    > > But society is much better of with an imperfect
    > > legal system than no legal system.
    > But a legal system can have positive effects. Censorship does not. Law
    > against victimless crimes would be the legal equivalent of censorship.
    > > I am talking common sense here...
    > No, you are expressing your opinion, but you hope that by calling it
"common
    > sense" you'll somehow persuade me to go along with your point of view.
    > As I've said, you'll have to try harder than that.
    > > You have to base it on common sense.
    > Then there is a problem, given that there is no such thing as common
sense.
    > > Preventing mass access to media that
    > > can result in harm to the viewer or others.
    > There are no such media. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but
names
    > will never hurt you.
    > > No, it is to protect people from media that
    > > can result in harm to people.
    > Why can't you at least admit that you wish to force your viewpoint upon
    > others? It's one thing to advocate oppression; it's yet another to deny
    > that one is doing so. If you really think your morals are better than
those
    > of anyone else, why are you unwilling to admit that they are your morals,
    > and not any objective values?
    > > It should have nothing to do with morality.
    > Morality is often the sole motivation for censorship. One group seeks to
    > impose its morals on other groups by forbidding any form of expression
that
    > might conflict with those moral standards.
    > > If this is a factor, the censorship model
    > > is going too far.
    > Then all censorship is going too far. QED.
    > > Censorship is not about created a moral
    > > society, it is about controlling media that
    > > can harm others.
    > Then I should contact your ISP and have your access to the Internet
    > interrupted. You see, the name you use for posting has an obvious,
    > perverted sexual connotation that may harm the minds of young people,
should
    > they happen to stumble upon your posts. The only way to protect them is
to
    > remove your perverted nickname from the Internet.
    > No offense, of course ... it's just common sense, as I'm sure you'll
agree.
    > > It has nothing to do with stopping people from
    > > reading books and watching tv.
    > That's exactly what censorship is.
    > > It is about controlling extreme media that goes
    > > so far that it can result in people (directly or
    > > indirectly) being hurt.
    > No medium is that extreme.
    > > You cannot have magazines freely available showing
    > > how to drug women to take advantage of them and get
    > > away with it ...
    > Why not? You suggest that all magazines containing liquor advertisements
be
    > banned?
    > > ... you cannot glorify cruelty to animals ...
    > You suggest that all hunting and fishing magazines be banned?
    > > ... you cannot show splattered bodies during a
    > > movie aimed at children.
    > You wish to ban cartoons as well?
    > There isn't much left, is there?
    > > You want to remove these controls to see what happens???
    > First they'd have to be put in place. These things are not censored
today.
    > > A growing part of me is wondering why
    > > I am trying to talk sense to someone
    > > as way out as you.
    > Because you are driven by emotion rather than logic, and you hope that if
    > you become extreme enough in your untenable arguments, you might be able
to
    > arouse sufficient emotion in me to sway me to your way of thinking.
    > Unfortunately, you are wasting your time. Your emotion will increase,
mine
    > will remain unchanged and minimal, and your posts will further degenerate
    > into ad hominem as you lose control and run out of even implausible
    > arguments in support of your position.

Marie Lewis

In article , Deep Floyd Mars
writes
    >You brain is supposed to automatically interpret typos into the obvious
    >meaning. It was meant to be 'psyche'.


"You brain?"
--
Marie Lewis