On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Tom Morris <tom(a)tommorris.org> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged
straw-horse argument, it
does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to *attempt* to
refute. There are
much stronger arguments, both practical and philosophical, at any
attempt to elide
controversial content. Even as such, I am not convinced by the
argumentation, but
would not prefer to rebut an argument that does not address the
strongest reasons
for opposing elision of controversial content, by choice or otherwise.
My point was not to provide an argument for or against any particular
implementation. It was a response to one particularly god-awful
argument.
"So, if you wanna make censorware, it’s gotta be pretty damn strict.
And you’ve also got to keep the false negatives down for PR purposes
because otherwise snarky people will relentlessly mock you. Oh, and
you’ve got to keep your lists secret because this is capitalism and
competition requires secrecy. And if you leak the list, people will
start poking around on those websites."
Happily enough, if you want to use faulty rhetoric, people will also
make fun of you.
You just successfully jumped over the shark like a half a dozen times.
It isn' one incidence, it isn't a class of incidences. Take it on board that the
community is against the *principle* of censorship. Please.
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]