Censorship cedes the point.

[Gottservant]

I'm not following what you mean here.

you are saying a claim is made and then silence is given

but the silence that is given means something that was not given in the claim

that is incoherent

 

[variant]

you are saying a claim is made and then silence is given

but the silence that is given means something that was not given in the claim

that is incoherent

I mean that enforcing silence after making a claim damages it's credibility.

 

[bhsmte]

I mean that enforcing silence after making a claim damages it's credibility.

A good analogy would be; not allowing a defense attorney to cross examine a prosecutor's witness.

 

[Gottservant]

I mean that enforcing silence after making a claim damages it's credibility.

which is to enforce a meaning not given before the silence

you

you are enforcing something not given

the trouble is you won't even agree to understand me, unless I love you

 

[bhsmte]

which is to enforce a meaning not given before the silence

you

you are enforcing something not given

the trouble is you won't even agree to understand me, unless I love you

What???????????????

 

[Gottservant]

A good analogy would be; not allowing a defense attorney to cross examine a prosecutor's witness.

no I am saying to accuse someone of damaging their own credibility

is to refuse a prosecutor the right to cross examine a defense's witness.

its an excess of the right to defence, in the context of the most vulnerable point of reference (for someone's own argument)

I mean its fine if the defence is actually innocent, but what has that got to do with the credibility of the prosecutor's prosecution?

 

[bhsmte]

no I am saying to accuse someone of damaging their own credibility

is to refuse a prosecutor the right to cross examine a defense's witness.

its an excess of the right to defence, in the context of the most vulnerable point of reference (for someone's own argument)

I mean its fine if the defence is actually innocent, but what has that got to do with the credibility of the prosecutor's prosecution?

You are not making a lot of sense.

The credibility of the prosecutions argument, is determined by the quality of his evidence and how well his witnessed hold up to cross examination. If the evidence does not hold up to cross examination and a bunch of holes are punched in it, the jury is likely going to find the prosecutions argument and evidence, is not reliable.

 

[variant]

which is to enforce a meaning not given before the silence

you

you are enforcing something not given

the trouble is you won't even agree to understand me, unless I love you

I really am making my best effort here to understand you.

The problem is that the "silence" is forced the discussion ends whether there is a case against the assertion or not, and this fact looks bad for the person who is enforcing the silence.

Basic assertions if not open to weathering criticism are inherently weak.

 

[Gottservant]

I really am making my best effort here to understand you.

The problem is that the "silence" is forced the discussion ends whether there is a case against the assertion or not, and this fact looks bad for the person who is enforcing the silence.

Basic assertions if not open to weathering criticism are inherently weak.

yes but you are implying the revocation of discussion is motivated, it may not be (it may be a completely coherent denouement of factors not mentioned)

 

[variant]

yes but you are implying the revocation of discussion is motivated, it may not be (it may be a completely coherent denouement of factors not mentioned)

Those are the implications though, if you want to forcibly halt the discussion of a topic.

Why do you think we should we give such actions the benefit of the doubt?

 

[juvenissun]

Direct threats of violence I would suppose.

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

Idea is cheap.
Consequence is the prize or the price.
No censorship of any kind is needed. Just face the consequence.
That is what Christianity says.

 

[variant]

That is what Christianity says.

I suppose that depends on the Christian you ask.

 

[bhsmte]

I suppose that depends on the Christian you ask.

And boy, do we get a lot of differing opinions.

 

[juvenissun]

And boy, do we get a lot of differing opinions.

Always, always.

But any opinion is always good and useful for the one who speaks, not necessary for the one who listens.

 

[bhsmte]

Always, always.

But any opinion is always good and useful for the one who speaks, not necessary for the one who listens.

And this supports your statement of; "this is what Christianity says" how?

 

[juvenissun]

And this supports your statement of; "this is what Christianity says" how?

Christianity does not support censorship

 

[bhsmte]

Christianity does not support censorship

Does Christianity censor the idea there may be other Gods, or no God at all?

Have you read your bible lately?

 

[Davian]

Christianity does not support censorship

What does the bible say about those that do not believe?

 

[juvenissun]

Does Christianity censor the idea there may be other Gods, or no God at all?

Have you read your bible lately?

No. Christianity never tried to censor anything. If some Christians did, that is not Biblical.

The reason is very simple: Do or say whatever you like. But be prepared to face the consequence.

 

[juvenissun]

What does the bible say about those that do not believe?

If the person do not believe when he died, then he will not see God forever.