• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

The Political Theories Underlying the Disinformation Debate

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
187,963
68,919
Woods
✟6,350,258.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Contemporary debates about “disinformation” point back to a fundamental tension in Enlightenment philosophy.

The debate over disinformation today reveals a fundamental divide not merely between Republicans and Democrats, but between two philosophies of human nature that both trace their lineage to the Enlightenment.

Those advocating government suppression of disinformation believe that individuals are products of their environment, molded by the inputs they receive. Confident that society can be perfected by carefully controlled influences, they envision a government capable of shaping an informational landscape that fosters collective well-being. Opponents, however, see this ambition as profoundly misguided. They believe in the individual’s capacity for self-direction and doubt the wisdom giving the state the authority to impose or encourage such controls. This clash is not just political; it is philosophical, reflecting a deep-seated disagreement about man’s potential and his autonomy.

Continued below.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
11,034
7,774
71
Midwest
✟406,791.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The whole liberal/conservative thing goes back to the enlightenment also especially when it come to Biblical hermeneutics.

On this one I doubt the "individual’s capacity for self-direction". Don't we have enough evidence that such capacity is lacking. That realization and disappointment leads some from the enlightenments liberalism or humanism (whatever we want To call it0 to Neo-conservativism.
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Site Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
11,315
6,587
Utah
✟899,709.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Contemporary debates about “disinformation” point back to a fundamental tension in Enlightenment philosophy.

The debate over disinformation today reveals a fundamental divide not merely between Republicans and Democrats, but between two philosophies of human nature that both trace their lineage to the Enlightenment.

Those advocating government suppression of disinformation believe that individuals are products of their environment, molded by the inputs they receive. Confident that society can be perfected by carefully controlled influences, they envision a government capable of shaping an informational landscape that fosters collective well-being. Opponents, however, see this ambition as profoundly misguided. They believe in the individual’s capacity for self-direction and doubt the wisdom giving the state the authority to impose or encourage such controls. This clash is not just political; it is philosophical, reflecting a deep-seated disagreement about man’s potential and his autonomy.

Continued below.
Nobody is the arbiter of truth ... especially our government. If we do not have free speech ... then our rights to question things are eliminated and we are then totally controlled and have no recourse of any kind .... a type of slavery.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram