Diversity of Everything but Thought

Distribution, Walter, is yet to be finalized. Apparently, in some legal juristictions, a particular scene is causing us a smidgeon of trouble It involves some avant garde camera work with a Texas man whose buttocks could, as one character puts it, "dock a tugboat".

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

DTOM refers, if I have him/her right, to the quote from our genius from Alabama that what he is suggesting regarding these books isn't really censorship.

yep, blatham, ya got my drift. people can call it whatever they care to. but, whenever you have a group, a government or an ideology determining that "this must not be seen, heard or discussed', it is indeed censorship.

and the new promoters of this practice, have even taken this argument to the internet. o'reilly was complaining about the advent of the bloggers, cyberpublishers et,all the other day. (paraphrased) "they can post and say whatever they want, without the standards of the legitimate news organizations.

so, now who's playing "elite media, bill ??

no doubt in my mind that the same type of person also complained a hundred or so years back, " hey! what's with this everybody havin' a printing press stuff"??

my other crack was meant to point out;

today, the big issue is coming down on alternative lifestyle, and more than just gay marriage. alternative thinking and alternative policy are also in the crosshairs.

and the religious social conservatives are all for stamping it out. with a lot of help from the government. a quite slippery slope that leads to no good for anyone.

because it's not so far fetched that in creating a government that is all to happy to eradicate vestiges of free thought, they also are in peril of creating a government that would be happy to eradicate "non-state sanctioned" thought and materials. that would include christian thought and materials. such as the bible.

"if they'll do it with ya, they'll do it to you".

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
For a moment, consider the possibility that Liberals might be off the path of the beam. ..

Are you taking this a little personally, Finn?

finn, you are patently expecting that liberals do something that conservatives (not all, of course) do not seem prepared or willing to do.

tell ya what you cannot expect;

for anyone that voted against the current administration and the wave of conservative paranoia to suddenly lock in step and silently go along with whatever the conservative agenda of the week is.

"51% is not the same as 100%"

and " 3 points is neither a landslide or a mandate" "mandate". jeez, that word is already so overused. and incorrectly at that. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

it's true DTON, it's easy to excuse all sorts of violence to civil rights in the name of "restoration of family values"

it's a good indication for us all where Bush is planning to go with his agenda

and it's way farther than most voters are prepared to support........or I hope it is

There will be buyer's remorse, to coin Dys's phrase.....if it's not rampart yet, it will be soon........or if it's not, I'll agree with Blatham, we're doomed. Great movies like Blatham's planned project will be extinct. Pity

What a scary bunch of people we have in control of our government right now

Merry Christmas everyone, please pass the censorship and regression.

0 Replies

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

What would you label a guy like me who works to judge his own behavior and the behavior of others on the basis of what he judges does work and what he judges does not work?

(be nice! Smile

)

I define that which does work as that which increases the probability that eventually every human being will live long, honorably, healthfully, and prosperously.

I define that which does not work as that which reduces the probability that every human being will eventually live long, honorably, healthfully, and prosperously.

Helping secure the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will generally increase that probability, while helping make insecure these rights of others will generally reduce that probability.

However, helping secure these rights for those helping to make insecure these rights of others will generally reduce that probability.

Acting individually for yourself to be living long, honorably, healthfully, and prosperously will increase that probability.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

... for anyone that voted against the current administration and the wave of conservative paranoia to suddenly lock in step and silently go along with whatever the conservative agenda of the week is. ... "51% is not the same as 100%" ... and " 3 points is neither a landslide or a mandate" ...

Perspective may be the key here. While I can judge only from my experience with my conservative and liberal acquaintences, I'd say that many of those that call themselves liberals are easily as paranoid about Bush as many of those who call themselves conservatives are paranoid about non-conservatives. While I look at decisions Bush has made to be a mixed bag of workable and non-workable decisions, I cannot make any sense out of many of those who call themselves liberal acting like they are convinced Bush is both moronic and diabolical.

0 Replies

Judging how well a behavior works is the only basis I can think of for the purpose of determining the value of such behavior.

But it all depends on our definitions of long, honorably, healthfully, and prosperously (and I'd be sure to add as gratifying as possible, given the conflicts we all experience in what we want). And ultimately on what is the most functional method conducive of these values. There's a lot of leeway for diagreement there.

I think it's a war between those who want to fall back on tradition without taking an open and honest look at it and those who want to hold everything up for scrutiny. The freedom to doubt is my criteria for what will work and what will not. The exception proves the rule to be wrong. And it seems to me we should be always looking for those exceptions. Then we should struggle with how the rule is changed by observed exceptions.

It's an attempt at objectivity.......recognizing of course that total objectivity is impossible. Still I think it's worth striving for. Some here disagree with me.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

... people can call it whatever they care to. but, whenever you have a group, a government or an ideology determining that "this must not be seen, heard or discussed', it is indeed censorship.

That's true only if by the word determining you mean compelling or forcing.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

and the new promoters of this practice, have even taken this argument to the internet. o'reilly was complaining about the advent of the bloggers, cyberpublishers et,all the other day. (paraphrased) "they can post and say whatever they want, without the standards of the legitimate news organizations.

Funny, I didn't interpret O'Reilly as complaining about that. I thought he was merely acknowledging that reality in the context of his analyzing the cause of the decline of the [so-called] legitimate news organizations.

Interesting!

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

... "51% is not the same as 100%" and " 3 points is neither a landslide or a mandate" "mandate". jeez, that word is already so overused. and incorrectly at that.

Huh?

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: 1man·date
Pronunciation: 'man-"dAt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French mandat, from Latin mandatum, from neuter of mandatus, past participle of mandare to entrust, enjoin, probably irregular from manus hand + -dere to put -- more at MANUAL, DO
1 : an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
2 : an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>
3 a : an order or commission granted by the League of Nations to a member nation for the establishment of a responsible government over a former German colony or other conquered territory b : a mandated territory

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Judging how well a behavior works is the only basis I can think of for the purpose of determining the value of such behavior.

But it all depends on our definitions of long, honorably, healthfully, and prosperously (and I'd be sure to add as gratifying as possible, given the conflicts we all experience in what we want). And ultimately on what is the most functional method conducive of these values. There's a lot of leeway for diagreement there.

I agree!

Here's a test case for what does or does not work in securing liberty. I claim it is necessary to secure the rule of law in order to secure liberty.

Perspective 1. To secure the rule of law, the law must be interpreted in the context of the times by an appropriate, specifically appointed or elected individual (e.g., a judge changes the law by changing its interpretation).

Perspective 2. To secure the rule of law, the law must be interpreted according to the interpretation of those who adopted the law (i.e., only a legislature can change the interpretation of the law by amending, replacing, or rescinding it).

What do you think?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
... people can call it whatever they care to. but, whenever you have a group, a government or an ideology determining that "this must not be seen, heard or discussed', it is indeed censorship.
That's true only if by the word determining you mean compelling or forcing.

but wouldn't "digging a hole and throwing "the stuff" into it and covering it up" do just that ? isn't it a "judgement" to determine something? and if somebody else decides if i should or should not read "catcher in the rye", "tom sawyer" or whatever, and make it unavailable to me, aren't they then forcing their ways on me, and forcing me to toe their line ? it's clear violation of the first amendment to boot.

"political correctness" and "family values" are two sides of the same coin.

and, ya know how dubya likes to say, "freedom is god's gift to the world"? i believe that it's more like "free will is the creator's gift to mankind". without self determination (there's that word again, ), there is no freedom.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
and the new promoters of this practice, have even taken this argument to the internet. o'reilly was complaining about the advent of the bloggers, cyberpublishers et,all the other day. (paraphrased) "they can post and say whatever they want, without the standards of the legitimate news organizations.

Funny, I didn't interpret O'Reilly as complaining about that. I thought he was merely acknowledging that reality in the context of his analyzing the cause of the decline of the [so-called] legitimate news organizations.

Interesting!

it's true that my perception could have been colored by his previous rants on the subject. but i don't think so. i do think he has a particular bias against the websters because he takes a lot of hits from bloggers and such.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
... "51% is not the same as 100%" and " 3 points is neither a landslide or a mandate" "mandate". jeez, that word is already so overused. and incorrectly at that.
Huh?

www.m-w.com

Quote:
Main Entry: 1man·date
Pronunciation: 'man-"dAt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French mandat, from Latin mandatum, from neuter of mandatus, past participle of mandare to entrust, enjoin, probably irregular from manus hand + -dere to put -- more at MANUAL, DO
1 : an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
2 : an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>
3 a : an order or commission granted by the League of Nations to a member nation for the establishment of a responsible government over a former German colony or other conquered territory b : a mandated territory

my complaint is the way and the circumstances the word is being used in.

as above, "mandate" infers that everyone is calling for an action by a representative.

in our case, 51% of voters, with only a 3 point spread over the opposing group is being called "everyone", or as the speech writer's like to put it, "the will of the people".

and basic math tells us that "51% does not equal 100%"

so therefore, i believe that the word "mandate" is being misused. it would be acurate to say " 51% of the voters have voted for the president's agenda", or "48% percent of voters have voted against the president's agenda".

i know it is tempting to say, "well, we're just playing the word game". but words have a hell of a lot of power. example;

"give me liberty or give me death". you just know king george hated hearing stuff like that.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

...i believe that the word "mandate" is being misused. it would be acurate to say " 51% of the voters have voted for the president's agenda", or "48% percent of voters have voted against the president's agenda".

i know it is tempting to say, "well, we're just playing the word game". but words have a hell of a lot of power. example;

"give me liberty or give me death". you just know king george hated hearing stuff like that.

You've got a point, a good point.
How about this as a substitute for the claim Bush won a mandate? A heluvah lot more people voted for Bush than I ever dared think they would, so I really want to celebrate and rub it in.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

...if somebody else decides if i should or should not read "catcher in the rye", "tom sawyer" or whatever, and make it unavailable to me, aren't they then forcing their ways on me, and forcing me to toe their line ? it's clear violation of the first amendment to boot.

Yes they are and yes it is. Tell me again who did or is doing that.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
...i believe that the word "mandate" is being misused. it would be acurate to say " 51% of the voters have voted for the president's agenda", or "48% percent of voters have voted against the president's agenda".

i know it is tempting to say, "well, we're just playing the word game". but words have a hell of a lot of power. example;

"give me liberty or give me death". you just know king george hated hearing stuff like that.

You've got a point, a good point.
How about this as a substitute for the claim Bush won a mandate? A heluvah lot more people voted for Bush than I ever dared think they would, so I really want to celebrate and rub it in.

wellllll... hmm. that's an honest representation. i can accept that. uh, i don't like it, but, i can accept it. Confused

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
...if somebody else decides if i should or should not read "catcher in the rye", "tom sawyer" or whatever, and make it unavailable to me, aren't they then forcing their ways on me, and forcing me to toe their line ? it's clear violation of the first amendment to boot.
Yes they are and yes it is. Tell me again who did or is doing that.

the mission hasn't been accomplished yet. but here's how it starts;

gerald allen

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

...the mission hasn't been accomplished yet. but here's how it starts...

I scanned your linked forum. Directing taxpayer money to the financing of A but not B is not censorship, but it is bias toward A and against B. Finances are always limited so the choices made about what and how much to finance are limited too.

That is the problem of spending taxpayer money on stuff other than that which is explicitly authorized by our Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to finance libraries, museums, art galleries, or even schools. Yet Congress does it nonetheless. No matter who the librarian, curator, or teacher is there will be bias in their choice of stuff purchased or rented or stacked.

I recommend that taxes not be used to fund such places. That will of course require such public facilities to be funded privately. That can be done simply by allowing taxpayers to deduct any contribution they make to such places to be deducted not from their taxable incomes, but rather directly from the taxes they owe. That way the contributors can have some indirect influence over what stuff is purchased by their choice of what places to contribute to and how much to contribute to them.

There are lots of organizations I would like to finance that way, and there are lots of organizations I would not like to finance that way.

0 Replies

Don'tTreadOnMe: I just noticed your new signature line, and all I have to ask is: "What about my pickle?!"

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Don'tTreadOnMe: I just noticed your new signature line, and all I have to ask is: "What about my pickle?!"

i could swear i saw it, just over there, under the dwarf maples... :wink:

now that's real news!!!

you realize this could go on for hours ?

my wife gave me a dvd recorder for christmas. then i informed her that one of the channels is running a "noon to midnight three stooges festival".

she's threatening to return it...

0 Replies

DTOM Writes:

Quote:

my wife gave me a dvd recorder for christmas. then i informed her that one of the channels is running a "noon to midnight three stooges festival".

she's threatening to return it...

What is it with you guys? My husband, a reasonably well-educated professional, thinks the Three Stooges are the funniest ever and "Brother Where Art Thou" is the best movie ever made. Just goes to show you that diversity of thought isn't entirely dead. Smile

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know