This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Pragmatic Rationalist Party

12346

Comments

  • Whelp that has satisfied all my problems!
  • https://torrentfreak.com/dutch-pirate-bay-blockade-goes-live-120131/
    So? No state-ISP. If you actually read that article you'll notice that other ISPs refuse to just oblige, because it's not law. Return when the Netherlands actually censors the internet, and not just one ISP, there's a very important difference.
  • That not really much different from here, like how some ISPs have blocked 4chan before.
  • I will also add that the UK has the Press Complaints Commission and OFCOM which makes things like Fox News difficult to set up here.
  • I will also add that the UK has the Press Complaints Commission and OFCOM which makes things like Fox News difficult to set up here.
    As much as I hate FOX News, I consider that a bad thing. Freedom of speech. If someone wants to make the Nazi News channel, that should be allowed.
  • I will also add that the UK has the Press Complaints Commission and OFCOM which makes things like Fox News difficult to set up here.
    As much as I hate FOX News, I consider that a bad thing. Freedom of speech. If someone wants to make the Nazi News channel, that should be allowed.
    QFT
  • edited April 2012
    I don't think people should be allowed to lie to a large audience.

    Specifically, you can hate speech all you want, but they come down on people who say things that are actually incorrect.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • I don't think people should be allowed to lie to a large audience.

    Specifically, you can hate speech all you want, but they come down on people who say things that are actually incorrect.
    Define a large audience. Should I be allowed to lie to the forum? How about a room full of people at a panel? Where do you draw the line? As icky as it makes me feel, banning something like Fox News feels ickier than not.
  • edited April 2012
    Let me rephrase that for you, it's the size of the network that allows them to lie unopposed (In given areas.). As it is the government's job to look out for those who cannot help themselves, safe-gaurds against outright false propaganda (I'm pretty sure you'll agree this is the case.).

    Hang on a second, isn't the FCC a far worse version of this. The PCC is specifically for misinformation [Someone look that up.].

    Edit: The Press Complaints Commission is specifically aimed at journalism and news.
    Edit 2: The PCC is an industry board. And is shutting down.

    In addition, much as Mr Macross dislikes this fact. Texas and Arizona are part of the US.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • Except that Fox News only lies unopposed to people who only watch Fox News. Pretty much anyone else hears about their lies left, right, and center.
  • edited April 2012
    As I understand it, that's not an insignificant number of people. Misleading people just because they already believe you isn't much better.

    Repeat correction: The PCC was an industry board. So we have no more government regulation.

    I would like to add that I agree with you in an idealistic sense, but I disagree in a realistic sense.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • What if we solved this problem with stricter anti-monopoly laws? We don't restrict speech, we restrict how much power any one company has. That seems less dangerous.
  • I'm legitimately interested: Would it be easier to further take away free speech in America or corporate rights and powers?
  • If you'll allow me to make sweeping generalizations, I've noticed that Americans, and American culture value Freedom of Speech above all, but any other freedoms are incidental, or only with measure.

    To me, all other freedoms come before freedom of speech. Do you feel differently?
  • I feel that the Third Ammendment is the most important. Soldiers quartering towns led to high mortality and cannibalism in the 30 Years War, but I'm weird like that.
  • If you'll allow me to make sweeping generalizations, I've noticed that Americans, and American culture value Freedom of Speech above all, but any other freedoms are incidental, or only with measure.

    To me, all other freedoms come before freedom of speech. Do you feel differently?
    I only have problem with the thing that it seems that everything in America is a issue of free speech. Heck, probably even shitting on a boardwalk can be treated as a self expression an such it should allowed in the name of free speech.

    For me freedom of speech should primarily mean the freedom to express your opinions without government censoring them.

  • edited April 2012
    To me, all other freedoms come before freedom of speech. Do you feel differently?
    I think that either one is an oversimplifcation.
    In any case, the main reason free speech is so important is a pragmatic one, not an ideological one - the ability for people to speak freely is an invaluable innate defense against all other evils in society.
    Although there are many ways in which free speech could be restricted for overall benefit, giving anyone the power to do so could easily have much greater negative consequences if that power is misused.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • The ability of a population to organise and act together is the basis of a democracy.

    Another thing to look at is how your rights are if you aren't male, white and 20-40.
  • Lying is still speech. The only lying that should be outlawed is false advertising, and the old fire in crowded theater example.
  • Lying is still speech. The only lying that should be outlawed is false advertising, and the old fire in crowded theater example.
    Actually I think you can get civilly, or possibly criminally, penalized for maliciously spreading false information. But the bad intent has to be there. That's why we have slander/libel as causes of action. There's also a much more lax standard for public figures since it's expected that people will sling shit about them.

  • Lying is still speech. The only lying that should be outlawed is false advertising, and the old fire in crowded theater example.
    Actually I think you can get civilly, or possibly criminally, penalized for maliciously spreading false information. But the bad intent has to be there. That's why we have slander/libel as causes of action. There's also a much more lax standard for public figures since it's expected that people will sling shit about them.

    NYT v. Sullivan 1964
  • HAHAHAHAhaha I just remembered this existed.

    https://sites.google.com/a/frontrowcrew.com/pragma-party/core-ideology

    I was such a young idealist.
  • Reminds me oddly of "Teenage Anarchist" by Against Me!. Mostly "do you remember when you were young and you wanted to set the world on fire".
  • edited January 2015
    Suggestion for name: Tappa Kegga Bru
    Stated Goal: To bring rational thought and meaningful discussion back to national policy, focusing on spirited debate backed up by facts.

    I'm not editing this out just because the thread was Necromanced.
    Post edited by Jack Draigo on
  • Safe to assume it's shit-talk then?
  • Starfox said:

    Safe to assume it's shit-talk then?

    Shit-Talk Aged in Cedar Barrels since 2009.
  • Starfox said:

    Safe to assume it's shit-talk then?

    Shit-Talk Aged in Cedar Barrels since 2009.
    Strong earthy hints, with a bitter aftertaste. Finely aged.
  • Well, I DID form it back then. The problem was that I would have had to quit my job to manage all the legal bullshit of making it a state party capable of fielding donations. That was the specific thing that made me give up.
  • Kickstarter party time
Sign In or Register to comment.