Censorship cedes the point.

[variant]

When you censor an idea, or cooperate with the censorship of an idea, you have ceded the point intellectually.

When an argument can not be tolerated, it means it is already lost.

 

[Freodin]

Well, yes. But I don't think that is something that bothers the authorities.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[variant]

Well, yes. But I don't think that is something that bothers the authorities.

Progress is often made by shaming authorities.

 

[pgp_protector]

When you censor an idea, or cooperate with the censorship of an idea, you have ceded the point intellectually.

When an argument can not be tolerated, it means it is already lost.

Are their any ideas that should be censored?

 

[bhsmte]

Progress is often made by shaming authorities.

I agree, but the authorities would probably disagree.

 

[variant]

Are their any ideas that should be censored?

Direct threats of violence I would suppose.

Any idea that can be reasoned through has no business being censored.

 

[variant]

I agree, but the authorities would probably disagree.

And anyone who is willingly or just plain ignorant of history.

 

[Gottservant]

This technically, is not correct.

Censored ideas have the perception, of being ceded to the opposition (but not justifiably)

The presumption of the Devil is that the existence of a self-fulfilling prophecy of destruction, justifies the condemnation of God for a less than perfect Creation (until he is in Hell (where that is all he has (at which point it is he that makes the concession (and therefore cedes the point to those that know it (let the reader take note))))).

The notion of ceding the point is therefore, not an absolute distinction of right and wrong, but a temporal bias that is established in relativity, as an example of order in the long term (when it returns to right and righteousness).

I repeat again, censored ideas have at best the perception of ceding the point to the opposition (but not justifiably)

 

[variant]

I repeat again, censored ideas have at best the perception of ceding the point to the opposition (but not justifiably)

The argument is that if you had a good argument against an idea you would let it be discussed freely and simply win the argument.

You'll have to explain why this isn't justified.

 

[Gottservant]

The argument is that if you had a good argument against an idea you would let it be discussed freely and simply win the argument.

You'll have to explain why this isn't justified.

The problem is the consequence you attribute to not participating in that process.

It is not your right to decide right and wrong on the basis of data not given.

If it were, everything you said could be fiction and at the last moment you could be silent and be "right".

 

[bhsmte]

The problem is the consequence you attribute to not participating in that process.

It is not your right to decide right and wrong on the basis of data not given.

If it were, everything you said could be fiction and at the last moment you could be silent and be "right".

Do you know how to identify fiction?

 

[Gottservant]

Do you know how to identify fiction?

Indirectly, there are attributes of truth, that fiction does not have.

 

[bhsmte]

Indirectly, there are attributes of truth, that fiction does not have.

Such as?

 

[variant]

The problem is the consequence you attribute to not participating in that process.

It is not your right to decide right and wrong on the basis of data not given.

If it were, everything you said could be fiction and at the last moment you could be silent and be "right".

Actually I think we agree here, on the point that how well we argue any particular point doesn't necessarily determine it's truth.

My point is that you cede the argument not that we absolutely determine something to be true or false absolutely under the circumstances I am discussing.

 

[Gottservant]

Such as?

I don't believe my definition of fiction is under the spotlight, here

my understanding is that variant is saying counter-relativity has an unfair consequence (one that no one says relativity even closely has)

 

[Gottservant]

Actually I think we agree here, on the point that how well we argue any particular point doesn't necessarily determine it's truth.

My point is that you cede the argument not that we absolutely determine something to be true or false absolutely under the circumstances I am discussing.

I don't think you understand the meaning of context, if you can have an argument that does not directly determine the truth or falseness of a particular claim.

The whole point of contingency in reason, is that there is action that is consequent on certain things being the case.

If you destroy that, in order to allow arguments to flourish - or some such thing - you create a conversation that erodes everyone's hope of any position.

 

[variant]

my understanding is that variant is saying counter-relativity has an unfair consequence (one that no one says relativity even closely has)

I think you may have misunderstood my point. Censorship only exists where someone has the power to censor and the power to argue.

If it were, everything you said could be fiction and at the last moment you could be silent and be "right".

The issue is when one stops discussion forcefully not merely being silent.

I don't think you understand the meaning of context, if you can have an argument that does not directly determine the truth or falseness of a particular claim.

How well or poorly something is argued does not determine the claims truth at all. To suggest otherwise is the fallacy fallacy:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Arguments may effect our perception of truth, and that is what you cede when you cede the argument via censoring it (instead of having it).

The whole point of contingency in reason, is that there is action that is consequent on certain things being the case.

If you destroy that, in order to allow arguments to flourish - or some such thing - you create a conversation that erodes everyone's hope of any position.

Reason works by linking true premises to true conclusions, how well it is (or poorly) it is done does not change facts.

My point is that it is unlikely that if someone has a convincing and well constructed argument that they are unlikely to prohibit the discussion of it.

 

[Gottservant]

I need some time to think about what you have said.

It doesn't follow that something poorly argued is less true, no, but that is different from saying that what is implied by the truth claim puts the contestability of that which is implied in question

 

[variant]

but that is different from saying that what is implied by the truth claim puts the contestability of that which is implied in question

I'm not following what you mean here.