You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: There's absolutely nothing wrong...
Nice job dodging the question. You should be a politician.
What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?
Nice job dodging the question. You should be a politician.
What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?
Why do you want to know because I have a hard time relating what that has to do with censorship and freedom of expression.
It's a simple question.
(IFF) you don't have a reason (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
(IFF) you claim to have a reason but refuse to reveal it, claiming it is secret, or unimportant, or "just too complicated to explain" (THEN) your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
It doesn't matter how simple the question is because if you cannot explain what it has to do with censorship then it's a non sequiturs as the conversation has absolutely nothing to do with the type of person I am. I also find it very perplexing that you don't give a reason for why or how that relates to the conversation, so why are you avoiding revealing what that question has to do with Freedom of Expression and Censorship, it couldn't be because you're an unreasonable person asking unreasonable questions. .
Do you believe censorship is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
Do you believe racism is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
Do you believe murder is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
I'm perfectly happy to follow you down either path (the primacy of intention (OR) the primacy of consequence).
All conversation boils down to an exchange of personal opinions.
My intention is to explore the similarities and identify the differences between our opinions.
Would it be fair to say that you believe intention is NEVER relevant?
What belief? Censorship is either ON/HAPPENING or it is OFF/NOT-HAPPENING. Though that might not be as interesting to you as the why behind it, censorship is the act irrespective of intent, and no matter how you try and avoid that absolutely no intent can make something censorship simply and/or purely because of intent.
You're avoiding what I said initially about intentions and Censorship either way through, and this left turn in the conversation you tried to make with intention and censorship was in avoidance of what I said regarding your false equivalents that Booing is Censorship, something you've to yet refute:
Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
We aren't discussing my philosophic ideations but the fact that intent is not what makes ANYTHING censorship. Censorship is the Effect, the Result, ergo Either there is Censorship or There Isn't.
(IFF) censorship is the effect (THEN) a news outlet that prefers to publish national news and ignores local news (or vice-versa) is de facto censoring the news stories it doesn't publish.
Does this standard sound consistent with your "censorship is the effect" framework?
Deontological ethics
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.