Do you think discussion of invermectin should have been censored? I just about garantee you that our current government would argue that such an act would save lives.
How about climate deniers? There is no doubt in my mind that the current government would argue that siliencing them would save lives.
Perhaps you only support censorship from a totaly pure and benevolent government that only has the best interests of the people at heart? I'll simply say, good luck with that :--)
Read a great quote the other day, went something like.. The most important lesson history has to teach is that so many fail to learn the lessons history has to teach.
that sounds like a Mark Twain ism. Close to a Yogi Berra but a little too deep for him maybe. And many of our founders had similar quotes. Good one at any rate. Of course in today's world anyone who would dare read and learn from our founders would be chastised, maybe even burned at the stake. Lord knows if this latest round with abortion doesn't show how much our leaders don't know about the founders and their incredible works nothing will.
Do you think discussion of invermectin should have been censored?
Nope. Ivermectin is not that harmful. Doesn't even meet a minuscule fraction of the threat for my personal standard for extreme legit threat to significant number of people's lives.
How about climate deniers?
Nope. Not even a threat, we're having a climate optimum, not climate crisis.
Tim, censorship (for me) isn't about censoring disagreements like this below, based on trying to keep the other sides views from reaching as many eyes/ears as possible:
Tim: "When one network chooses not to air something that is being covered by every other broadcaster in the country, that's hardly censorship. That's good business."
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85500/#85517
So, you don't think any of these should be censored. I agree. But you appear to be missing the point. Is it deliberate?
By the criteria you have plainly stated many many times, the government would be correct in suppressing these topics because they believe it would save lives. The fact that you disagree has no bearing on the argument. Everyone disagrees with something.
Your constant referal to Fox not giving enough emphasis to this kangaroo court demonstrates once again that you don't understand the word. as has been clearly discussed/defined already; but the attempt at deflection is duly noted.
By the criteria you have plainly stated many many times, the government would be correct in suppressing these topics because they believe it would save lives.
Tim,
I realize that being a strawman on every argument is just part of who you are and you can't control it and even when I point it out numerous times, you double and triple down on the strawman strategy..............twisting something that I'm strongly against, to being what my position is so you can attack the made up position and then claiming what my criteria is, using the made up, twisted like a pretzel position.
On the other hand, I showed you the money quote and YOUR actual rationale for censoring what YOU want censored.........and yet, you continually attack my position and try to twist it being what your actions show is really YOUR position.
Tim, TO CRYSTAL CLARIFY AGAIN, I'm extremely opposed for censoring information like you and FOX demonstrated for political reasons.
I am for laws in this country to protect people. Speed limits are the most obvious example. Driving after consuming large amounts of alcohol. Stealing property that's not yours. Punching innocent people in the face as part of your training for an upcoming boxing match (-: There's 1,000 other relevant examples.
When it comes to freedom of speech and the First Amendment, I am strongly in support of people saying anything they want when it comes to 99.99% of stuff.
The standard/bar for censorship to protect people is in the stratosphere high for me. Only in extreme, obvious cases is that appropriate for me.
It's sad that you keep attempting to portray me as being otherwise with another misleading strawman attack...........even while you talk out of the other side of your mouth on the exact same topic : https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85500/#85517
Trying to impose on me, what your actual position is when it comes down to real life examples.
You will never be able to show me one example of me censoring a post here, simply because I disagreed with a position.
Again, those are my FAVORITE posts.
In the situation above, where you and FOX justified censorship of hearings because they represented the other sides views, if that had been metmike, I would have broadcast every second of the hearings, live and welcomed the opposing views for all my viewers to hear.
THEN, if I had authentic facts to debunk them, I would have proceeded to do so but only after letting the other side state whatever they wanted on my show/forum.
Please stop imposing YOUR censorship position on me, when I would have done the polar opposite as what FOX did and YOU endorsed.
And, in fact anybody reading here, KNOWS by my actions and words is what I do and how I feel about censorship.
Tim, TO CRYSTAL CLARIFY AGAIN, I'm extremely opposed for censoring information like you and FOX demonstrated for political reasons.
To be crystal clear again,. NO YOU ARE NOT. And quit trying to project your obvious flaw onto me or anyone else. You have clearly and categorically stated on many occasions, and I have directly quoted you, that you feel that censorship is good "Under the right circumstances". You can qualify that rationalization anyway that makes you feel more comfortable with your support of totalitarianism, but no matter what, you cannot put lipstick on that pig.
But lets cut to the chase, shall we?
I don't really have a problem with your hopelesssly flawed opinions. It's a God given right.
I don't even have a problem with the concept that you feel being an "Atmospheric Scientist" makes you an expert on all things. (I'll be happy to provide links to the posts where you have claimed this very thing in the likely event you try the "Strawman" Gambit again). BTW, I'm a computer scientist. A science that uses billions of combinations of true/false, yes/no, on/off, 1/0 combinations to accomplish extrememly complex functions. I find it a bit amusing that your science would be much more difficut without mine, but that's neither here nor there. Here's the thing. I don't think that makes me an expert in anything but computer science.
Where I have a problem is how you take these hopelessly flawed opinions and these delusions of adequacy and feel these qualify you to support the concept of limiting or eliminating the rights of others. And like other like minded individuals, you have no idea how dangerous that thinking is. History is replete with examples of how badly it can end.
You support the idea of government mandates to force people to get vaccinated.
You support the idea of government modifying the 2nd amendment.
You support the idea of government forcing us to accept "one size fits all" medical coverage.
You support the idea of government censoring thoughts or ideas that you feel may be dangerous.
The list goes on, but like all tyrants throughout history, these ideas are all supported by "For the good of the general population". And here's the very worst part of the whole thing. I honestly, truly believe that your intentions are good.
As C.S. Lewis put it..
In other words, there a reason cliche's like "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" exist.
BTW, I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the works of Mr Lewis. It's like he wrote a lot of hw essays for you in particular.
Thanks Tim!