Given the current state of discussion between our political leaders in the Faroe Islands regarding censorship of the internet, in regards to pornographic materials, I've created this forum so that we may give our thoughts on the subject of censorship.
Our host of all real knowledge (Be it true or not), Wikipedia, defines censorship as "The suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor."
As I write this, the leaders of our various political parties (or parodies, take your pick) are debating if they should work to introduce filters on our internet connections, so as to protect us feeble and easily swayed members of the public from the various damaging bits of material and/or information that is apparently all to easily accessible trough the internet.
That it is possible to introduce and maintain such censorship has been stated by one of our political leaders, Jenis Av Rana, as he yesterday stated: "At tað ber til, hava kinverjar prógvað." (Or in English: "That it is possible, has been proven by the Chinese." )
Trough the usual garbled nonsense and hypocritical disguise of protecting our children from becoming future rapists and (all) vulnerable women from becoming damaged and stereotyped as sex-objects, some of our politicians are preparing to expand our current anti-pornography law dating, pretty much unchanged, from 1939, to include all manners of potentially harmful or disturbing material, also its access over the internet.
I, personnally, think censorship should only be applied to those who would wish to enchroach the freedom of any of us, by enforcing said censorships.
(It's an oxymoron, I know)
I detest censorship in most any form. If a forum is deliberately being used to spread hatespeach (the speach, not the band) then I can see the reasonablility of setting some sort of restriction on the use of said forum, but to bluntly cut the publics access to said forum, should not be allowed to happen.
Am I wrong, if I want everyone to have access to anything that they may desire or not, whether it be information on Wiki or dirty pictures on (other) websites? Am I wrong in saying, that it is disgracefull to pretend to want to protect others, so as to enforce your own moral beliefs and standards on others who do not share your point of view. And am I wrong in saying, that ANY political leaders, who would seriously use China as an example to aspire too, in any aspect, should promptly be buh'ed from public office?
I see this as nothing else, but a blatant attempt to force a regime upon us, led by a self-declared "mind-police". That this is being led by politicians, in our otherwise free and peaceful country, is shameful at best, and a complete and total bankruptcy of our democratic and liberal ideals and beliefs if implemented. If this is implemented in our country, how far are we then away from book-burnings?
The funny (or scary, depending on your point of view) is that censorship is prohibited in any sort or form in the Danish constitution. Does this not apply to FO then as well?
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
I always thought it was weird that it is ok to show people killing other people and eating their brains (zombie movies or Hannibal) while the act of copulating was censored
Also, how come some adult people get to decide what images other adult people get to watch? How dare they assign themselves that power!
There are probably better sources to choose from, but here is a quote from Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri (I looooove that game):
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
ps. This move could of course be some weird sort of misdirection, but I don't get what they would be distracting us from.
Do you think Jenis wants porn banned because he's afraid he might accidentally see some and it will corrupt him, or because YOU might see it and YOU won't be able to handle it? This is just typical, religious superciliousness.
"At tað ber til, hava kinverjar prógvað." (Or in English: "That it is possible, has been proven by the Chinese." )
The fact that a Christian who supports smuggling Bibles into China uses Chinese censorship as a positive example to follow is mindbogglingly ironic. The shallowness of this thinking must have set some kind of record. My suspicion that Jenis is suffering from a real mental illness is once again strengthened.
I don't think that all information should be free. If you do, please tell me your PIN-number. Obviously, some information should remain private, but also information that is not personal. The instructions for making a hydrogen bomb should not be put on the internet.
Censoring certain, so-called deconstructive, information or speech - like porn - is quite another matter. This is an attempt to control people's thoughts and behavior. I think the people who want this censorship should start to think for themselves, and let others do so too.
The very idea that it is possible to censor speech and thought is a mistake, and to think that some people can be appointed to do this without they themselves becoming the most corrupted people themselves is ridiculously absurd and self-contradictory to the point that only a person whose mind has been numbed by a life of dogmatic religiosity could ever believe it.
I, personnally, think censorship should only be applied to those who would wish to enchroach the freedom of any of us, by enforcing said censorships.
(It's an oxymoron, I know)
I don't completely disagree, although I would state my opinion slightly, but significantly, differently:
I think that those who wish to deprive others of any given right (such as the right to free speech), have forfeited this right, and should not necessarily be afforded it themselves.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
I fear that there is no misdirection at all, but that this really is what it appears to be. An attempt at curbing free speech and personal freedom.
I will tell you my PIN-number, if you tell me yours (you probably have more money in the bank currently than I do)
I have talked to some of the head-honchoes of Fólkaflokkurin today, and they are currently preparing an attempt at removing the old porn-law entirely. The only members of A who oppose this, is predictably enough the too-religious-for-their-own-good ones (Yes, we've got some of those as well )
I would imagine quite a different world, if everyone had enough time to download the full blueprints to a hydrogen bomb
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
I can't recall correctly, but someone can help me on track...
Doesn't the bible state somewhere that you are only supposed to have sex with the intention of making children?
How many children does our 'beloved' master-speaker of cencorship have? two? Has the 'saint' then only had sex twice? Or does he indeed sin in dark places?
I need porn, and will fight to the very last sperm for my freedom!
1. How technically difficult is filtering porn? Or put another way how much does it cost? Or is this even possible?
The easiest, and most cost-efficient, thing to do is to do a reverse filter. All pages are banned by default, and then you can apply to the Ministry of Public Guardianship (Overformynderiet?) to get a page unbanned.
2. Who decides what should be banned?
Jesus, of course. Jenis talks to him daily, so this is no problem.
3. There will be fucking civil war. 266B will be a storm in a teacup compared to this.
There will? Well, just more signs of Jesus' impending return. Hallelujah!
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
If Jenis wants to protect women by banning porn, it should be enough to ban porn that actually involves them. Leaving gay porn, male models and maybe muscle men.......
Those represent abominations worse than the devil incarnate himself!!!
Gays, Jews and Abortionists would probably be the first to follow the porn into blissful oblivion on the net, if Jenis and his disciples got this law passed.
Found this quote from Jenis today:
"Millum uppgávurnar her heima er at meta um tey árin, ið koma á okkum uttanífrá. Sjálvandi skulu vit taka ímóti, læra av og taka til okkum tað góða, men eins umráðandi er at finna og steðga tí, ið ikki er av tí góða. At júst hendan uppgávan er størri enn flestu gruna, fæst varhugi av í tí viðmerking, ið Dimma mikukvøldið ber víðari frá løgtingsformanninum. Har ger hesin annars skilagóði hampamaðurin seg til talsmann fyri einum kvinnukúgandi mentunnarpolitikki, sum Miðflokkurin í hvussu so er altíð fer at stríðast ímóti."
Jenis av Rana
formaður Miðfloksins
How dare he even attempt to pre-determine what's good for me and what's bad!!!! I think I've earned the right to determine this for myself!
The remark Jenis is talking about is this,:
"Eg haldi tað vera skeivt, at bara eitt blað er pilkað burtur úr rúgvuni og er forboðið at selja. Tað er grundleggjandi skeivt, at sensurerað verður í mentanartilboðunum, tí vit síggja og hoyra. Vit skullu ikki hava nakran yvurdómara at sensurera."
Hergeir Nielsen -E
Tingformaður
It was printed in Dimmalætting on 1. oktober 2008 as a remark about the porno-law and the police confiscating a few porn magazines at a gasstation in Argir.
I'm genuinly scared for the future of FO, with people like this becoming evermore powerful and influential in our political community. I fear we might end up as a ultra-christian mirror image of countries like Iran and China. The time to make a stand against these enemies of freedom and democracy (Amply embodied by Miðflokkurin and their under-cover minions in the other parties) draws ever more near, if we are to be able to stop them in time. And I pray that it is not to late allready.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Of course he wants a ban on all porn. Especially the gay material. I was just pointing out that he is lying when he says he is trying to protect women.
It just helps me to illustrate my point, that they are eventually going to try to put a total ban on all 'non-sanctioned-by-we-who-know-best' material.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
jogvanth wrote:
How dare he even attempt to pre-determine what's good for me and what's bad!!!! I think I've earned the right to determine this for myself!
Actually, I think you gave up that right when you became a Christian. You have free will, but not free thought.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
Actually, I think you gave up that right when you became a Christian. You have free will, but not free thought.
So, because I am a Christian, I am automatically unable to make intelligent decisions?
That's stretching it, even for your twisted standards. It only proves to me that you have no insight into religious behaviour and standards, except the radical ones.
I'm very much against people placing their code of ethics and their definiton of how people must live life "right" unto others. Be it religious or othervise. That also includes the more 'modern' semi-religious movements.
The fact that I'm a Christian has no bearing on this subject. If you wish to live your life in a Christian manner or not, is for no one but yourself to decide. I can't think of anyone in here, who does not share this view.
If you want to go to church, watch porn, have a beer, jerk off, go paragliding or just sit around doing nothing (which, by the way is also considered a sin) is fine by me. Why the hell should you not be allowed to do so? No Man has the right to judge another on this earth. That's also in the Bible, but is apparently very conveniently forgotten by Jenis and his likes. Judgement is reserved for the Lord God himself only. That is one of the things that I aspire to live by. I won't claim to be able to complete said goal on all occasions, but hey, no one is perfect.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
jogvanth wrote:
So, because I am a Christian, I am automatically unable to make intelligent decisions?
If you were able to, you wouldn't be a Christian, now would you?
Of course, that's just my opinion, but I think you missed my point. As a Christian you are not allowed to make intelligent decisions about what's good for you or bad for you. That's why it's called dogma.
I'm very much against people placing their code of ethics and their definiton of how people must live life "right" unto others.
LOL, I get it. You're poking fun at yourself and your religion, because that's the whole point of religion, and especially Christianity. You know, "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands." That sort of thing. You were joking, right?
If you wish to live your life in a Christian manner or not, is for no one but yourself to decide.
That is correct, but what the right Christian manner is is not for you to decide. Get it? You get to do what you want (free will), but you don't get to determine good or bad, right or wrong (dogma, no free thought).
On the other hand, I agree with you that Jenis' judgment and proactive stance on prohibition isn't very Jesusy, although it's quite biblical.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
How did this discussion about censorship become diverted to a discussion about Dogma?
What you apparently refuse to accept, is that you have degrees of belief in most any religion, be it Christian, Muslim or Vegetarianism.
You have the Radical Christians: Jenis Av Rana, Ruth Evensen, The Pope etc.
You have Moderate Christians: Me and the vast majority of Christians in the world.
You have Radical Muslims: Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Abdul Wahid Pedersen etc.
You have Moderate Muslims: Naser Khader and most muslims living in developed countries.
You have Vegans (Radicals): People who won't even come close to any animal products even (like John f.e.)
You have Vegetarians (Moderates): Vuzman, Spiff and their brothers and sisters of the non-meat eating kind.
If you automatically deduce that any and all Christians are Radical by default, then you allow me, per the same definary standard, to declare you a Vegan tree-hugger and Whale-kisser.
You must accept that people are capable of having 'degrees' of religious fervor, or you'll prove yourself just as fanatic and judgemental as Jenis and his bunch.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
While I don't agree with Vuzman's debating methods, I have to take issue with your post.
What you apparently refuse to accept, is that you have degrees of belief in most any religion, be it Christian, Muslim or Vegetarianism.
You cannot call vegetarism a religion without redefining the word religion.
I hear this type of argument all the time and it is pissing me off. People say "Belief in science is a religion too", "you can't prove your theory absolutely therefore it is faith and faith is the mark of a religion" etc.
Religion is the service and worship of God or the supernatural. Faith, as used in religion, is believing something without sufficient proof.
But believing that animals suffer and acting on it is not Faith and certainly not a religion.
As long as the vegetarians and vegans act towards the non-vegans or vegetarians with a zealousness that very closely mimics the same fervor that you find amongst the radical religious types, then I will continue to compare them as one and the same thing. Both sides act the same, but with different (religious or fanatical, take your pick) scriptures or lifestyles, that cause them to mock and pity those who do not share their point of view.
But believing that animals suffer and acting on it is not Faith and certainly not a religion.
When it becomes the defining center of your ideological belief and dictates your behaviour towards yourself and others, then it has the same grip on you that religion has. It is the fervor of expressing and living by said acts of animal-protection and rabbit-food eating that can come very close to, or even surpass, religious fervor. Therefore, if my arguments, by default, become null and void, because I am a Christian, and therefore uncapable of having any free actions of any kind, lest they be dictated me, then you all are judging me because of your own set of moral and indoctrinated set of rules that you live by, in much the same way that I do mine. Therefore I say that your moral rules are becoming religious-like to you. Even if you don't see it yourselves.
Religion is the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
And Veganism is morality taken to (to me) ridiculous levels and practised by many with a fervor not unlike that of many radical religious persons.
It may not be right by definition of the word for me to call vegetarianism and veganism a religion, but the practices of both are very similar albeit of different views and defining characteristics.
P.S. Belief in Science is not and can never be deemed a religion.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Vegetarism isn't a religion. Regardless of zealousness, fervor, ideological belief and dictates, morality, indoctrinated set of rules, ridiculous levels or practices.
It just isn't a religion so stop saying that it is.
I can't make it clearer than that.
I'm saying it is often excercised, expressed and defended in a manner not unlike that of religions. I'm not saying it IS a religion.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
)
I think I've earned the right to determine this for myself!
