Temp Debates#4

  • Thread starter Deleted User
  • Start date
  • Views 6,375
  • Replies 61

Media Censorship. Protective or Restrictive?

  • Protective, explain your point. (Read OP description too)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Restrictive, explain your point. (Read OP description too)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted User

Guest
OP
3972882tempdebates.png
"Now lasts 1 DAY each" (Or as long as it takes)

Debate IV Media Censorship. Protective or Restrictive?​
How to debate
We will be debating about a question, make your point heard.
If the question is: Can we live without air?

A response can be: No, because air sustains life.
Another can be: No, that point is wrong because we can live on Oxygen alone, not air.
Another can be: No, because plants need CO2 which is in air to live, and without plants, we would die.

and so on.
OK.

You will find today's debate title at the top of this post/in the topic description. Happy debating! I am impartial to this and will ignore the posts I have made to count the final score, as they were made solely to get the debate up and running. I will judge which side has won at the end, however will join the debate.

The debate will last ONE DAY




Previous Debates
Can we live without modern technology? The 'Temp says we can.
Will the world end in 2012? The 'Temp says 'fuck no'.
Genetic/DNA Manipulation on humans. Should it be legal in the UK? The 'Temp thinks that it should be legal
Media Censorship? Protective or Restrictive. The 'temp believes media censorship is restrictive

Future Debates
5 Health and Safety laws. Protective or restrictive?
6 Equal Rights for Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals.
7 Marijuana should be legalized solely for medicinal use.
8 Medical Research on animals. Does it do more good than harm?
9 Will Space be colonized? ~suggested by Scott-105
10 Should fascists be given a platform to speak? ~Suggested by TrolleyDave
...



Description:
Media Censorship. The censoring of innapropriate content and governmental secrets in the media. Is it protective to censor such things, or is it restrictive as to restrict the general public from hearing or reading certain texts and videos.
 

naglaro00

Mildly disturbed
Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
1,380
Trophies
0
Age
28
Location
Pulse
Website
Visit site
XP
171
Country
Depends on the situation.

If by censorship you mean censoring explicit videos (for example - a chopped up body) then it would be somewhat protective.

But if the media doesn't want us to see what's happening to our country and government, then it's restrictive.

But really, it depends on the situation.
 

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
There are very few situations in which media censorship is warranted. The entire concept that adults need "protection" granted from our governments or corporations is laughable.
 

BobTheJoeBob

The most optimistic person on the temp. :)
Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
1,683
Trophies
1
Age
27
Location
London
Website
Visit site
XP
354
Country
As said before, depends on the situation. I don't exactly like the government keeping secrets from us but I don't think everyone wants to see a chopped up body.
 
D

Deleted_171835

Guest
OP
Restrictive. We don't need media censorship.
I'm not sure of the American version but in Canada, we have freedom of expression in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom and should be able to act upon that. It's absurd to allow the media to censor what we say unless it's hate speech.

The topics still aren't open long enough. Open them for a week, at least.
glare.gif
 

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
In the US it is our first amendment to the Constitution. Theoretically we value freedom or speech, press, and religion more than anything else or anyone else as it is one of the most fundamental tenets of our government. Theoretically.
 

monkat

I'd like to see you TRY to ban me. (Should I try?.
Banned
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
2,242
Trophies
0
Age
32
Location
Virginia
Website
www.monkat.net
XP
105
Country
United States
This is touchy. It's not that censorship is important that our citizens can't hear it, it's that if it is made publicly available, it can become a national security threat.

I've never actually seen important media censorship (lol Aqua Teen Hunger Force dick episode), except for how our government was keeping national security secrets about statistics and things. I don't see that that really matters, though - it happened: no matter what we know, it's not going to change that.

I would say that when it's used in the Western World, it's typically for protection, or for the success of various military missions. When it's used in, say, China, it's typically going to be restrictive, but as long as the citizens support it, that's fine.
 

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
monkat said:
I would say that when it's used in the Western World, it's typically for protection, or for the success of various military missions. When it's used in, say, China, it's typically going to be restrictive, but as long as the citizens support it, that's fine.
And why would you say that?
 

monkat

I'd like to see you TRY to ban me. (Should I try?.
Banned
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
2,242
Trophies
0
Age
32
Location
Virginia
Website
www.monkat.net
XP
105
Country
United States
Blood Fetish said:
monkat said:
I would say that when it's used in the Western World, it's typically for protection, or for the success of various military missions. When it's used in, say, China, it's typically going to be restrictive, but as long as the citizens support it, that's fine.
And why would you say that?

Because, as far as I know, most of the Western world does have a set of regulations on the government to protect the media against censorship. The only time that it is every censored, or not let known to the media, is when it is important not to show it for one reason or another, as I said previously, usually for the success of military missions.

I would say that China is usually going to be restrictive because....it is.
 

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
You believe that, as a whole, the general population is too stupid and emotional to make rational decisions. It is therefore in our best interest to keep things hidden from us for our own good. That is truly frightening.
 

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
We are not children. We do not need a government to act as a parent on our behalf, deciding what is too "harmful" for us to know about. I am honestly shocked that you just said China has the right idea as far as censorship of information.
 

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
How, pray tell, would you know if I accepted the concept of free speech due solely to indoctrination or not?

That assumption aside, yes, I fully believe that censoring or otherwise withholding information from the public harms us as a whole. The more educated the public is the healthier society is, as we can all make more informed decisions.

People who believe that the public are too stupid to decide important issues for themselves and instead must guided by the hand of the government scare me a lot. Please, never run for office.
 

_Chaz_

GBAtemp's Official Mook™
Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
5,698
Trophies
0
XP
764
Country
United States
Restrictive.

If you don't want to be exposed to it, don't access it.
 

jalaneme

Female Gamer
Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
6,262
Trophies
1
Location
London
Website
www.youtube.com
XP
650
Country
restrictive, there is a lot that the government keeps from our public eyes including hidden unlimited energy, technological advancements, and other unknown stuff, the government know they will loose money if they reveal these unlimited energy to the world that's why they hide them from us because coal and gas makes more than enough money for them and it's a way to control us.

Blood Fetish said:
People who believe that the public are too stupid to decide important issues for themselves and instead must guided by the hand of the government scare me a lot. Please, never run for office.

it's not that we are too stupid to decide for ourselves, it's the fact that we are being controlled in everything we do if we like it or not, we have no decide in the matter, we are treated like cattle.
 

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
PharaohsVizier said:
Well that depends what sort of information your with-holding does it not? The reaction also depends on the people you are exposing the information to. Again I don't support extreme censorship, but there are things the public don't or shouldn't need to know.

The thought of people making informed decision is laughable really. There's a reason the people in the government are in the government, they have the experience and skills necessary to see things rationally rather than emotionally. Do you think every 18 year old who's earned the right to vote really has a clue about the world. They may throw out all the stats and all the information you need, but I doubt the average voter realizes what that means in say 10 years, they'll just vote for the guy who's less of a jerk or dresses nice.

Let's take a look at China. They do many things the public aren't exactly happy about, but it is for the good of the country in the long run. You build a dam that'll flood the houses of a couple hundred thousand people of course you'll get tough opposition. You don't tell them a couple hundred thousand people are getting flooded but instead it is only your area and that you need to move, you'll get a dam that'll control the floods that does a lot more damage in the long run.
I see. People who are 18 are clueless fools that have no understanding of the complex relationships present in modern day society. You, however, are wise and understand the ways of the world because you are 24.
 

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
PharaohsVizier said:
And that people is logical fallacy #1, Ad Hominem, which is to ignore the argument at hand and attack the person instead.

That being said, I hardly see the connection. I chose that particular example because I know for a fact that I voted without knowing enough. Obviously I'm generalizing here in regards to most people, but I seriously doubt that a lot of voters truly do their research prior to voting.
You are incorrectly applying the ad hominem label. You stated people who are 18 are uninformed about the world due to their relatively young age. It follows logically that since you are relatively young your argument is rendered self-defeating. I hope that clears up the connection between those statements for you.

As for the main topic, you are falling into a fairly typical position of assuming you know what is best for everyone even if they do not realize it. I agree that there are quite a lot of voters who do not understand the issues or stances of the candidates. They vote down the line according to whatever party their parents/society is or for whichever candidate had the best commercials. How will you filter out these people? Administer an IQ test before allowing them to vote? Quiz them on current events? And who gets to decide if a person is "informed enough"? Everyone needs a voice in a healthy society or it fails to be a society.
 

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
PharaohsVizier said:
I figure the best way to approach elections is rather than telling people what your plan is, you simply lie to them, or talk about non-related issues that will gain you the vote. In a way you filter the information, you don't talk about what people don't want to hear, and you get elected, THEN you do what you need to do. As horrible as that may seem, I'm pretty sure that happens in real life at least once in a while.
This is not a "once in a while" occurrence. This is the standard operating procedure for practically every politician higher than small towns. I realize that may come off as unnecessarily cynical, but in the US at least it is virtually guaranteed that campaign promises will be broken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    SylverReZ @ SylverReZ: @salazarcosplay, Morning