3 ms·

I completely disagree. An individual's rights should have nothing to do with the people who happen to surround them and what they happen to think. If differen

I completely disagree. An individual's rights should have nothing to do with the people who happen to surround them and what they happen to think. If different countries allow different things, that would mean that what a person is allowed to do would depend on where they happen to live, which is usually close to where they happened to be born. That doesn't make any sense to me- the lottery of birth should have no impact on one's rights.

hackerlight 4y ago
Possibly true, but can we at least agree that a democratic majority deciding to censor something is significantly better than a dictatorship deciding to censor something?
- throwaway98797 4y ago
  well, depends with whom your views align with more
- earth_walker 4y ago
  I disagree. The majority is never informed enough to make a good decision on something as nuanced as censorship. At least a dictatorship could, theoretically, be benevolent and act on the advice of experts.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    A democracy can act on the advice of experts too via representative democracy with representatives (or appointees of representatives) that rely on experts.
- agileAlligator 4y ago
  ideally no one should be allowed to censor anything (using state power)
micromacrofoot 4y ago
Despite the ideology that it shouldn’t matter, the lottery of birth is probably the single largest factor on someone’s life trajectory today - changing that is incredibly difficult and would likely require the dissolution of many countries
concordDance 4y ago
A reason to allow different people groups to do different things could be uncertainty about what is harmful. Letting the various restrictions and allowances play out can give a better understanding of the consequences of these.
fallingfrog 4y ago
It’s certainly an interesting philosophical problem, finding the balance between the individual and the society. My take on it is this: decisions should be made by the people who those decisions affect. In the case of censorship I agree with you completely- my watching a slasher flick does not give you nightmares. If I were playing devils advocate I might say that it corrodes the national character or something like that- but that to me is a very weak argument.

hackerlight 4y ago

Possibly true, but can we at least agree that a democratic majority deciding to censor something is significantly better than a dictatorship deciding to censor something?

throwaway98797 4y ago
well, depends with whom your views align with more
earth_walker 4y ago
I disagree. The majority is never informed enough to make a good decision on something as nuanced as censorship. At least a dictatorship could, theoretically, be benevolent and act on the advice of experts.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  A democracy can act on the advice of experts too via representative democracy with representatives (or appointees of representatives) that rely on experts.
agileAlligator 4y ago
ideally no one should be allowed to censor anything (using state power)

micromacrofoot 4y ago

Despite the ideology that it shouldn’t matter, the lottery of birth is probably the single largest factor on someone’s life trajectory today - changing that is incredibly difficult and would likely require the dissolution of many countries

concordDance 4y ago

A reason to allow different people groups to do different things could be uncertainty about what is harmful. Letting the various restrictions and allowances play out can give a better understanding of the consequences of these.

fallingfrog 4y ago

It’s certainly an interesting philosophical problem, finding the balance between the individual and the society. My take on it is this: decisions should be made by the people who those decisions affect. In the case of censorship I agree with you completely- my watching a slasher flick does not give you nightmares. If I were playing devils advocate I might say that it corrodes the national character or something like that- but that to me is a very weak argument.