The board and the children

[Noclevername]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

That doesn't negate censorship. Never said people were required to do anything for anyone's rights.




Ah yes, the Tyrannical Ruler of the Sandbox Argument.

Ownership rights doesn't make censorship, not censorship. Note definition above.

Okay then, it's censorship. So?

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

That doesn't negate censorship. Never said people were required to do anything for anyone's rights.

Ownership rights doesn't make censorship, not censorship. Note definition above.

There are different meanings. Jeff mentioned the Freudian self-censorship, which involves a model of the brain.

When you start talking about "rights", there are other definitions involved.

If you are implying that there are rights being denied, let's discuss that. Rather than quibble over what is or what isn't censorship. That would be the real issue, no?

[RalofTyr]

Originally Posted by Noclevername

Okay then, it's censorship. So?

So people, stop censoring language and topics, and then telling me its not censorship.

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

There are different meanings. Jeff mentioned the Freudian self-censorship, which involves a model of the brain.

When you start talking about "rights", there are other definitions involved.

If you are implying that there are rights being denied, let's discuss that. Rather than quibble over what is or what isn't censorship. That would be the real issue, no?

Well, one, there's not such thing as rights. And two, children should be outside instead of on the internet getting converted to an -ism.

Censorship is a lost cause in the information age.

[Kaptain K]

Saying "You can't say that" is censorship.

Saying "You can't say that in my house" is not!

Do you see the difference and why it's important?

[Jeff Root]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

There are different meanings. Jeff mentioned the Freudian self-censorship,
which involves a model of the brain.

No, I didn't mention the Freudian kind of censorship. As I understand it,
that involves a person censoring their own thoughts, to avoid thoughts
that are painful to them. I explictly described censorship as involving
an attempt to express something to other people. I used the word
"publicly". That clearly means "to other people". How to distinguish
between public expression and private expression, I do not know, but
I was always and only referring to expression to other people.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

That doesn't negate censorship. Never said people were required to do anything for anyone's rights.

Ownership rights doesn't make censorship, not censorship.

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

Well, one, there's not such thing as rights. And two, children should be outside instead of on the internet getting converted to an -ism.

They have that right

Censorship is a lost cause in the information age.

Like entropy, that holds in the big system

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

No, I didn't mention the Freudian kind of censorship. As I understand it,

Sorry, my error. Still, it's a model of the brain, when you are describing internal conversations with yourself.

[Jeff Root]

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

Saying "You can't say that" is censorship.

No it isn't -- Not if it doesn't prevent or stop the intended expression.

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

Saying "You can't say that in my house" is not!

Yes it is -- If it prevents or stops the intended expression.

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

Do you see the difference and why it's important?

You believe that censorship is bad, so when you see censorship done
in a situation where it is good, you deny that it is censorship.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

You believe that censorship is bad,

Ergo, different definitions.

Let's talk about whether or not the situation is good, rather than which name to call it.

[Kaptain K]

Am I the only one who sees the difference between censorship and setting limits on private property?

My sister does not smoke and does not allow smoking in her house. She does not say "you cannot smoke" (censorship). She says "you cannot smoke in my house" (setting limits on private property).

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

Am I the only one who sees the difference between censorship and setting limits on private property?

Nope. Several people have explained the difference in this thread, myself included.

By the way, Ral, you're being more than a bit inconsistent. "Kids should be outside", aka, prevented from participating here at all while simultaneously arguing against any limits on your own participation.

There are plenty of adults-only sites where we can kick around adult topics about which we'll have no measurable tangible effect by discussing.* We're not going to benefit tangibly by having those discussions. It's leisure, nothing more. We can give that up and have our fun on other, more inclusive topics.

Policies that would exclude kids here are the very last thing we want to do.

It's far more important to let kids be able to experience critical thinking when and where they can. Those discussions do have measurable, tangible benefit for all concerned. Right now, adults are failing kids miserably in terms of preparing them for how gullible and manipulative we adults can be. BAUT's rational discussions on science and skepticism, and the stubbed toes of fallacy littering the roadside of CT, lets kids see how reason is supposed to work, how science and logic can be their "sword and shield" when they start having to face these issues for real.

And where else are kids going to interact with adults who will take them seriously when they're being serious?

(* Sorry Gillian, I know the grammar's bad in that last sentence, but I'm not seeing how to fix it right off. I'm going to let grammar have that one and move on.)

[KLIK]

I think you have to go with whichever rules the forum hosts set.
If it was solely astronomy related it would be easier, but it is nice to have all the other threads.

Although I use bad language I don't like seeing it used around kids, it is one of the ways of teaching kids acceptable behaviour and that life has rules and limits, which they need to know as they grow up (if you want them to integrate into society). Different countries (and social groups within those countries) have different laws so I think it is useful to have a site that anyone can access, whether fervently religious, prudish, young or whatever, that is far better than having a site only accessible by the broad-minded amongst us,

I accept this site is predominantly American but it still gives me an odd feeling to read people casually talking about the best guns to own, what to do if a burglar breaks in etc, as owning a gun in Britain is a big no-no. Drugs talk is a big no-no but in some countries they are legal so you can only go with the forum hosts' rules, ditto explosives making (probably). (and my workplace filter is extremely harsh).

[DyerWolf]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

Children really shouldn't be on the internet.

They should be outside.

As should we all be!

My inner eight-year-old wants to go outside and play in the puddles. Unfortunately, my outer thirtyeight-year-old has to earn a living...






...OTB is recess for the working mind.

[DyerWolf]

Censorship is patently wrong when it is the GOVERNMENT limiting your speech and expression.

Personal choice about what speech you allow in your own home is a form of censorship, but it is also an expression of the right of a property owner to decide what is acceptable/allowable on his/her property.

For example: hate speech is not allowed in my house, but (until recently, when my infant son joined the household) you could drop "f-bombs" or say things some consider blasphemous all day...

We used to have some friends, who visited once after they'd consumed too many drinks. The couple started dropping "n-bombs" (they were fighting with one another and trying to embarass each other). I censored their speech that night and they've not been back.

The board's rules have a purpose: they set a certain tone that most of us appreciate. The enforcement of the rules preserves the environment of educational and professional discourse (which does include the ability to engage in play/ fun).

I suspect we've all seen too many boards where the lack of rules (or lack of enforcement) made the board devolve into little more than filth and expletive. I don't want that to happen here. Thus, I think its okay for the BA to set the rules and the Admins to enforce them. THe board is essentially property - and the BA/Admins have the right to set and enforce any rules they choose.

[Argos]

The oldest profession is a fact of life. And whether we like it or not it touches on public health issues that would be of the interest of youngsters. Its mere existence belongs in the field of study of some [soft] sciences. It is different than politics and religion goobledegook.

Any restriction on discussing it derives from behavioral morals [as opposed to ethics], which in turn stems from religion and/or taboos. Those restrictions are not appropriate in a science and skepticism forum, in my humble opinion.

[John Mendenhall]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

The price for this is that some subjects are off limits if the board is to continue fulfilling it's main purpose.

I'm in favor of a filter for the Board that can distinguish between the contraction for "it is", which is "it's" with an apostrophe, and the posseive of "it", which is "its" without an apostrophe. And will make the correction automatically.

Ask yourself, "Can I substitute "it is" in the sentence?" If you can, then use the contraction "it's". If not, then use the posessive form "its".

[CodeSlinger]

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall

I'm in favor of a filter for the Board that can distinguish between the contraction for "it is", which is "it's" with an apostrophe, and the posseive of "it", which is "its" without an apostrophe. And will make the correction automatically.

Ask yourself, "Can I substitute "it is" in the sentence?" If you can, then use the contraction "it's". If not, then use the posessive form "its".

Censorship! You're taking away my right to incorrectly use "it's" and "its"!

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

So people, stop censoring language and topics, and then telling me its not censorship.

Are you trying to censor us?