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.
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.
Asking for censorship to cede the point, compromizes the integrity of a conversation in which everyone is accepted (selah)
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.
You didn't correct me, you made an irrelevant point. What you choose not to say isn't part of our conversation here.Gottservant said: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")?
Everyone isn't accepted in a conversation that is censored.
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.
You contend.
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.
Can someone be accepted in a conversation when they aren't allowed to speak their point?
This is incoherent, please restate.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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)
Again, another great example of my side of the argument.
There is simply no reason to assume something censored, is even worth reading.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?