Censorship is inherently bad

[ici]

6 hours ago, ryoko said:

The only people who seemed to be crying about free speech are those who damage the morale growth of society for selfish means. Nobody holistic cries about free speech. 

Morale growth my ass.

You could define morale however you like. What seems moral to some might seem immoral to others.

Also, everyone is selfish by nature. Even those who act selflessly do it because there’s something selfish to gain.

Keep your holistic mouth shut since you’re obviously not in favour of free speech.

[Fluran]

Good thing about censorship is that it is easier to organize society, by limiting what people think and care about, power is also easily maintained

 

Bad thing about censorship is I really hate it when I am fucking being censored by these totalitarians not by moral or justice, but their corrupt power seeking intentions hiding behind the name of justice 

Edited September 8 by Fluran

[ici]

Take this libtards

 

[sholomar]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't personally trust human nature because I believe history repeats, and no it's not different this time.  The crying call of the dictator is the belief that people are too stupid to make their own decisions, so central authority should make it for them.

As an example...

Between 160,000,000 to 200,000,000 people have been killed by totalitarian governments around the world. Some estimates are as high as 262,000,000. There is a correlation between mass murders and gun confiscation imposed by governments who knew that the only way they could continue to control their people and stay in power was by disarming them.

And now anti-gun politicians, academics, news pundits, and uninformed people want our leaders to have the same ability to rule unopposed by disarming our citizens. Vladimir Lenin referred to them as “useful idiots”. A useful idiot describes a person who, through manipulation or not, is useful to a political cause that is not their own despite not fully realizing their role.” This makes them unwitting and useful pawns of propagandist.

Examples of governments killing disarmed citizens is a very powerful rationale for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Our Founding Fathers knew what could happen if a government disarmed it's citizens.

The Ottoman Empire in current-day Turkey achieved full gun confiscation in 1911. Between 1915 and 1917 approximately 1.5 million Armenians out of a total of 2.5 million were murdered by their government. This mass murder has become known as the Armenian Holocaust.

There are reports that discuss the formation of “Butcher Battalions” composed mostly of violent criminals released from prison to kill the Armenian people. Armenians who were part of the Ottoman military and discharged were disarmed, placed into labor battalions and killed.

Soviet citizens were allowed to have firearms until 1929 when private gun ownership was abolished. The regime of Joseph Stalin emerged at the same time that firearm ownership was outlawed. Tens of millions of Soviet dissidents and others perceived as threats to the government were rounded up and either murdered or placed in labor camps or prisons and forced to work, usually to their deaths.

Stalin’s indifference for life eventually led to the purging of the Communist Party at the same time a total gun ban was instituted. Stalin once said during the purge “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” Sound familiar? Representative Eric Swalwell said something similar during the 2020 presidential race. He said: “If Americans fight against gun confiscation, Feds can nuke them.” How about Joe Biden's statement of warning Americans who support the Second Amendment they would “need an F-15 to take on the government".

Another mass murderer of the 20th century was China’s Mao Zedong. In 1935 the Chinese government established gun control. According to the Black Book of Communism, an estimated 65 million Chinese people died as a result of Mao’s repeated attempts to create a “socialist” China. The Chinese people were killed by execution, imprisonment or forced famine.

Mao Zedong famously said on at least two occasions in speeches “Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Presumably that truth applied to gaining power by killing innocent people.

In 1938 Nazi Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler instituted gun control about the same time he ordered the extermination of Jewish men, women, and children. Which resulted in the death of approximately 13 million people.

Cambodia issued its total gun control edict in 1956, but the real problems did not begin until several years later during the regime of the Pol Pot. Between 1975 and 1977, his regime murdered as many as 1 million people in killing fields.

The facts could no be any more clear when it comes to gun control and confiscation.  The question is whether you trust human nature or not? I trust nobody.

Edited September 9 by sholomar

[El Zapato]

On 9/7/2024 at 0:59 PM, ici said:

Morale growth my ass.

You could define morale however you like. What seems moral to some might seem immoral to others.

Also, everyone is selfish by nature. Even those who act selflessly do it because there’s something selfish to gain.

Keep your holistic mouth shut since you’re obviously not in favour of free speech.

well, self = thought = speech...Not everyone 'lives' life through the lens of their own needs = selfishness

[ici]

1 hour ago, El Zapato said:

well, self = thought = speech...Not everyone 'lives' life through the lens of their own needs = selfishness

Everyone lives life through the lens of their own needs and desires.

Whatever you do is a result of your own need or desire to do it whatever the reason may be.

[Kid A]

On 7.9.2024 at 7:59 PM, ici said:

Keep your holistic mouth shut since you’re obviously not in favour of free speech.

Neither are you, apparently…

[ici]

4 hours ago, Kid A said:

Neither are you, apparently…

I very much am. You missed the point apparently.

If you endorse censorship, you will be censored.

Just giving people a taste of their own medicine.

[Kid A]

1 hour ago, ici said:

I very much am. You missed the point apparently.

If you endorse censorship, you will be censored.

Just giving people a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah, really clever. I bet this and calling people «libtards» is going to convince many.

[ici]

4 hours ago, Kid A said:

Yeah, really clever. I bet this and calling people «libtards» is going to convince many.

Yeah, I said a funny word, shocker. What a weak ad hominem attempt.

Don’t focus on me. Focus on Rowan Atkinson’s arguments. They’re far more convincing.

[Kid A]

3 hours ago, ici said:

Yeah, I said a funny word, shocker. What a weak ad hominem attempt.

Don’t focus on me. Focus on Rowan Atkinson’s arguments. They’re far more convincing.

If you expect people to watch anything you post when you act like a 12-year-old, you're going to be disappointed.

[ici]

4 hours ago, Kid A said:

If you expect people to watch anything you post when you act like a 12-year-old, you're going to be disappointed.

Your petty attempts of trying to discredit me because of a word I said are of no substance to the topic being discussed.

Watch the video if you care. Don’t watch it if you don’t care. Simple as.

[El Zapato]

21 hours ago, ici said:

Everyone lives life through the lens of their own needs and desires.

Whatever you do is a result of your own need or desire to do it whatever the reason may be.

It could be argued that you are correct.  It is mostly instinctive though AND we are not animals. Or so say those that know?!