Censorship cedes the point.

[variant]

ok, but how do you make or justify that distinction?

without speaking? according to your rule?

No I justify it by speaking, like I just did.

I can assume that a normal person will see that distinction of what I am talking about when I talk about censorship.

If you don't understand distinctions I am making it means we aren't communicating well, so it is best resolved by further attempts not silence.

 

[Gottservant]

No I justify it by speaking, like I just did.

I can assume that a normal person will see that distinction of what I am talking about when I talk about censorship.

If you don't understand distinctions I am making it means we aren't communicating well, so it is best resolved by further attempts not silence.

Yes but you are simultaneously incoherent and irresolute at that point?

You are presuming upon us to understand while you tell us that you know what we think, of what we have not said?

And you are insulted that I want to correct you on the simple point that it is up to you whether to believe what you say (though you say "it is not you that decides whether we believe what I say, but I")?

 

[Gottservant]

Asking for censorship to cede the point, compromizes the integrity of a conversation in which everyone is accepted (selah)

 

[variant]

Asking for censorship to cede the point, compromizes the integrity of a conversation in which everyone is accepted (selah)

I stated that censorship cedes the point.

Everyone isn't accepted in a conversation that is censored.

Familiarize yourself with the concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Yes but you are simultaneously incoherent and irresolute at that point?

You are presuming upon us to understand while you tell us that you know what we think, of what we have not said?

And you are insulted that I want to correct you on the simple point that it is up to you whether to believe what you say (though you say "it is not you that decides whether we believe what I say, but I")?

You didn't correct me, you made an irrelevant point. What you choose not to say isn't part of our conversation here.

I presume only that you speak English and can follow a conversation.

No one else is having trouble following my meaning and I took special aim at explaining it to you further when you didn't understand.

 

[Gottservant]

Everyone isn't accepted in a conversation that is censored.

You contend.

You didn't correct me, you made an irrelevant point.

I presume only that you speak English and can follow a conversation.

No one else is having trouble following my meaning.

Except that they are not quoting you, so you can only presume that God imagined their response for them and left them to decide whether or not they would be alive or not enough for it to matter.

In other words, you could be criticised by any one of them and it would come as a surprise to you.

 

[variant]

You contend.

Can someone be accepted in a conversation when they aren't allowed to speak their point?

Except that they are not quoting you, so you can only presume that God imagined their response for them and left them to decide whether or not they would be alive or not enough for it to matter.

In other words, you could be criticised by any one of them and it would come as a surprise to you.

This is incoherent, please restate.

 

[Gottservant]

Can someone be accepted in a conversation when they aren't allowed to speak their point?

Ah, I see the problem now, you are presuming that the point has not been spoken.

But if it is known that a point has been made - which has needed to be censored - how can it be that a point has not been made?

This is incoherent, please restate.

Your statement is too limited, to compute.

 

[variant]

Ah, I see the problem now, you are presuming that the point has not been spoken.

I am not how else would it have provoked a response of censorship?

But if it is known that a point has been made - which has needed to be censored - how can it be that a point has not been made?

Who said the point had not been made? I said the person was not allowed to speak on a point (was censored).

 

[Gottservant]

I am not how else would it have provoked a response of censorship?



Who said the point had not been made? I said the person was not allowed to speak on a point (was censored).

the speaking is the making of the point?

but to you it is also something more?

yet I can say your point is "something more" and still not "say it"?

That is above you, I know

The point is you would like me to say something that cannot be said, as if everything is permissible (because you want to make an uncensorable argument, which could not be contradicted, on the basis of the wasted permission alone)

 

[variant]

the speaking is the making of the point?

but to you it is also something more?

yet I can say your point is "something more" and still not "say it"?

That is above you, I know

The point is you would like me to say something that cannot be said, as if everything is permissible (because you want to make an uncensorable argument, which could not be contradicted, on the basis of the wasted permission alone)

It only doesn't make sense to you because you can't seem to grasp the topic.

How censorship works is that people are expressing an idea that some authority doesn't like and thus forces the discussion of that topic to stop.

At that point I argue that forcing the discussion to stop is a sign of inherent weakness on the part of the authority.

It's very simple and you've yet to raise a coherent counterpoint to the idea.

It's so bad that if I were to try to censor you, I doubt anyone would know what the point was you were trying to make.

 

[Gottservant]

It only doesn't make sense to you because you can't seem to grasp the topic.

How censorship works is that people are expressing an idea that some authority doesn't like and thus forces the discussion of that topic to stop.

At that point I argue that forcing the discussion to stop is a sign of inherent weakness on the part of the authority.

It's very simple and you've yet to raise a coherent counterpoint to the idea.

It's so bad that if I were to try to censor you, I doubt anyone would know what the point was you were trying to make.

When no context is given, a free mind is the surest thing to assume.

As for your attempt to censor censorship before censorship censors you, it doesn't work on the grounds that you are assuming the censor knows nothing about the argument

which, as I said, you cannot do on the basis of silence alone

I think the thing which you are finding hard to grasp (and I readily admit it does not come naturally) is that authority has inherent worth

simply complaining that you should be equal in powers with something far greater than you, does nothing to close that gap (but voice an opinion)

 

[Chany]

Blind post. I'm not wading through seven pages.

My problem with the argument is it does not seem to consider the pro-censorship side. I would agree in a perfect world where everyone is rational.

However, not everyone is rational.

 

[Gottservant]

Blind post. I'm not wading through seven pages.

My problem with the argument is it does not seem to consider the pro-censorship side. I would agree in a perfect world where everyone is rational.

However, not everyone is rational.

Again, another great example of my side of the argument.

There is simply no reason to assume something censored, is even worth reading.

 

[Chany]

Again, another great example of my side of the argument.

There is simply no reason to assume something censored, is even worth reading.

Actually, to the contrary, I generally think things that are censored deserve at least a look.

I don't know where I stand on this issue, though I usually lean to anti-censorship. What the state wants me not to read interests me.

I just disagree with the argument put forth with the OP. They don't necessarily censor to win an argument. They could be completely rational and are dealing with entirely irrational/idiotic people who can be lead to believe anything.

 

[Gottservant]

Actually, to the contrary, I generally think things that are censored deserve at least a look.

I don't know where I stand on this issue, though I usually lean to anti-censorship. What the state wants me not to read interests me.

I just disagree with the argument put forth with the OP. They don't necessarily censor to win an argument. They could be completely rational and are dealing with entirely irrational/idiotic people who can be lead to believe anything.

As much as you resort to skeptical negativity, you support my argument in principle

that fundamentally is what I am waiting to see if variant will comprehend

there is just no rational way to judge someone based on what they do not say, its not even plausible as a suggestion of madness (that must be avoided)

 

[Chany]

As much as you resort to skeptical negativity, you support my argument in principle

that fundamentally is what I am waiting to see if variant will comprehend

there is just no rational way to judge someone based on what they do not say, its not even plausible as a suggestion of madness (that must be avoided)

How do I support your argument in principle? What even is your argument?

I merely stated I don't necessarily think that a government intellectually concedes an argument through censorship (though it can). I have not really given my support for censorship, and actually lean the other way.

 

[Chany]

Again, another great example of my side of the argument.

There is simply no reason to assume something censored, is even worth reading.

No, it doesn't. I don't understand how the statement "There is simply no reason to assume something censored, is even worth reading" follows from what I said.

The statement isn't even very good on its own. Let's say a book comes out called "American Hypocrite: Human Rights and Constitutional Rights Violations by the United States in 2014". Let's say the United States government, somehow, manages to enact a law censoring the book. Would you say that the government censoring this specific book doesn't give us reason to look deeper? You don't think it is worth checking out specifically because the government may have something to hide? Doesn't this apply to technically any title i.e. the government doesn't want me to read this for some reason? Isn't a state issue against the book worth checking out, even if it is to see what the commotion is about?