Stop Internet Censorship!

[Arthmoor]

@ Arthmoor:

 

I guess you forgot that the Civil Wars were not fought with tanks, nor aircraft. Civilians don't have tanks. That's the difference. Back then, what you had was what the government had. So no, it wouldn't be terribly effective these days.

True, but the Revolution included naval vessels with cannons, and the field armies had cannons as well. The general population did not have ready access to either of these things. Had there not been vast popular support for expelling England from America, then it wouldn't have been any more effective back then either because you'd have civilians going up against not only the British Regulars, but ALSO the Continental Army.

 

Today, who are the members of the bulk military? Civilians. It's somewhat disingenuous to say that if there was an issue of sufficient magnitude that the military with their tanks and aircraft would automatically do the government's bidding. That's not how these things work. Were it to come to that, you can bet that most of those in the military who DO have ready access to large scale weaponry would not be inclined to turn it against their families and friends back home if the government were attempting to subvert our rights by force.

[SilverDNA]

History only seen through the victors eyes bears a facility every modern historian will not stand, because in too much cases the context of historical events is lost. and it would be ethical inappropriate for researchers to only view it from only one side. ( this has been much complained about the farer a historian goes back in history to accept the facts but in modern history of the last 300 years it isn't a statement because we have much historic information on more than one side in most cases and we are having much more evidence on the whole context. It is a historians job and scientific ethic to see all sides of;;history not only one.

 

You might know the story of the three blind men that wanted to to know what an elephant is.

 

I tried hard to see a context i admit I have not full insight on American laws and how they are used, but I'm certain where someone is in power that has only his / her viewed that isn't controlled in one way or another there will be abuses and I have already seen it on even protesting Wikipedia (on German pages how this is done. in way that is superficial correct but in context with other valid data is an abuse. ( yes there is a structure there that i could cultural and methodical prove even but there is lack of viewing the truth in a context and most people tend to take the road to simplify what they don't understand because they are too lazy . In ;viewing only spots by highlighting;one spot the things surrounding them that have a direct context are bordered out, because they are either too complicated or simplified either because it don't fits the one raising the argument or they are undesirable and contra productive to the argument I rate.;Scientific reports and studies that are made where the one that paid for a study has the last word what is published and what is not published (;or what is made a ridiculously minor problem has brought not only false studies forward but only wide accepted association falsities.)

 

Here a little actual example out of many that can come along with above mentioned; .

Red wine researcher Dr. Dipak K. Das published fake data

Yes i have fallen for years to that facility i can take the consequences and i can take the self deceit i did to my self and that makes me angry believing such a ( insert swear word of your choise ) .

 

PIPA the most dangerous of the two. laws can be expanded or winded so they fit an abuses that can be made by a single person how the companies are going to enforce this can only be on a subjective matter and there for the abuses is set because in this case this can only be done by lawyers with a subjective mind guess now how much it will cost and think again who shall pay for the costs then look again where the money now comes from i think i know what will happen who pays get information and who can not pay

;remains uneducated and poor. The word classicism now gets more and more form and where does this lead to?didn't you pick my country as argument for your points of now what was again one of the major crimes in the aftermath my country was found guilty?

;Sounds similar to classicism and is related to it by the context (hmm); Might be you can denie the relevance with the other subjects only taking on point by point, but then again someone misses the context. I think, I'm here already 10 corners thinking ahead, but I can live with this handicap pretty well.

 

SOPA, I think it was thought up by a politician that had either too much vacations or too less, because politicians in my country come up with such funny ideas at such times in the year when they have 3 months of vacations. It is only deepest sub level political entertainment.

 

Sorry fast edit messed up somehow if something is a bit amiss

Edited January 19, 2012 by SilverDNA

[Aurielius]

@ Arthmoor:

 

I guess you forgot that the Civil Wars were not fought with tanks, nor aircraft. Civilians don't have tanks. That's the difference. Back then, what you had was what the government had. So no, it wouldn't be terribly effective these days.

True, but the Revolution included naval vessels with cannons, and the field armies had cannons as well. The general population did not have ready access to either of these things. Had there not been vast popular support for expelling England from America, then it wouldn't have been any more effective back then either because you'd have civilians going up against not only the British Regulars, but ALSO the Continental Army.

 

Today, who are the members of the bulk military? Civilians. It's somewhat disingenuous to say that if there was an issue of sufficient magnitude that the military with their tanks and aircraft would automatically do the government's bidding. That's not how these things work. Were it to come to that, you can bet that most of those in the military who DO have ready access to large scale weaponry would not be inclined to turn it against their families and friends back home if the government were attempting to subvert our rights by force.

Speaking from the military's perspective we defend the Constitution not the government that's our oath and our allegiance any government that suborned the Constitution would have a heck of time gaining the support of the military against the people.

[Arthmoor]

History only seen through the victors eyes bears a facility every modern historian will not stand, because in too much cases the context of historical events is lost.

The problem with this argument is that the history hasn't just been reported from our side. The British know they got kicked out of North America. So far as I know they're not trying to revise the past to suit some hidden agenda. They tell the history of the war as they saw it - a bitter defeat. One they had to contend with later once it became clear our independence wasn't something they could stop. The irony here is we became staunch allies. Britain no doubt saw that it wouldn't be useful to make an enemy of us.

 

I don't really see what all this science and ethics stuff has to do with it though. You said freedom can't be won by using guns. I think it's pretty clear that's entirely false. We certainly are not the only nation in the last 250 years to have accomplished it this way.

 

SOPA, I think it was thought up by a politician that had either too much vacations or too less, because politicians in my country come up with such funny ideas at such times in the year when they have 3 months of vacations. It is only deepest sub level political entertainment.

Not really. The legislation was initially drafted by Hollywood, and then refined by their lawyers and lobbyists before they got someone in Congress to sponsor it for them.

 

If only our politicians had 3 month vacation periods. Actually I'd be all for returning the legislature to how it was prior to the 1900s here. Have them come to DC for a few months, do what needs doing, then go back home to their jobs. They should only get paid for their reasonable expenses while performing their congressional duties.

 

I firmly believe no good is served by having them in session all year. That just leads to them drafting legislation for lack of anything better to do. There wouldn't be time enough to cater to special interests if they only had 5 months available to work in.

[SilverDNA]

I was more in the 20th century the complete time and arguing from that now in context with above post, can you see why you and I are arguing from complete different historical positions you might see why we aren't getting any positive response from one another and/or a mutual agreement that we speak about two different things on historical matters .... while you are still on the independence war, I'm on the 20 century and you can denies that methods changed a loot even between the to historical periods. so we can't really compare them to one another so it would be good if we uses the same historic period. Do we have here an agreement? it gets funny talking to one another in such a matter if someone comes by and starts to really read this .... Psst we could gain laughter with this in similar fashion on TV as Statler and Waldorf and we could get paid for this..

 

From Arthmoor 's post:

Not really. The legislation was initially drafted by Hollywood, and then

refined by their lawyers and lobbyists before they got someone in

Congress to sponsor it for them

.

i can guarantee you that in the times we life today a politician is needed to get this in to political motion and only one that wants attention due to some hidden agenda be it re election or something else seams in their mind legit to fool around and cost the citizens unnecessary money at worst .. i think that's the case here with SOPA. but I not 100% certain, ( I don' know him that much in the media for a certain reason but so i did compare the situation with one I do know pre-tie well and it happens every year that in those three months one of those comes up and I watch this now for over 25 in particular it gets boring and is only short-lived entertainment ) so it is only my opinion. But if that's the case he hopefully will get smacked by next elections results.

 

Edit:

Marharth and you in the other debate, well .. take your time, I have the patience of silver!

Edited January 19, 2012 by SilverDNA

[Arthmoor]

I was more in the 20th century the complete time and arguing from that now in context with above post

I don't think the time period really changes the argument at all. there have been any number of armed revolutions in the 20th century, many of them in South America, where the people took up arms and deposed their dictators. I've already granted you that this isn't possible without the support of the military. It wasn't in 1776, and it isn't possible now in 2012 either.

 

There is also an element involved where the people fighting for their freedom also need to want it badly enough to be willing to commit to what's necessary. It is possible to throw off the yoke of a military police state. It's much MUCH harder, but it can be done. Even without our help, Libya would have proven to be one such example where the inferior forces of the Rebels would have eventually toppled Qaddafi on their own. Sometimes it takes having tanks rolling in to your home to motivate you.

 

i can guarantee you that in the times we life today a politician is needed to get this in to political motion and only one that wants attention due to some hidden agenda be it re election or something else seams in their mind legit to fool around and cost the citizens unnecessary money at worst .. i think that's the case here with SOPA. but I not 100% certain, ( I don' know him that much in the media for a certain reason but so i did compare the situation with one I do know pre-tie well and it happens every year that in those three months one of those comes up and I watch this now for over 25 in particular it gets boring and is only short-lived entertainment ) so it is only my opinion. But if that's the case he hopefully will get smacked by next elections results.

 

Well, yes, legislation cannot get out of Congress if it's not initiated there by a congressman or senator. Hollywood can draft all the potential legislation they want, but it goes nowhere without sponsorship. there might well be a hidden agenda here, but I'm not seeing it. All I'm seeing is a clueless industry trying to figure out how to get a tech savvy band of thieves to pay for their crimes using a clueless legislature that doesn't know a lot more about it than Hollywood. I think what we ended up with was actually quite impressive given the circumstances. Heck, SOPA is only a 78 page bill. That's a miracle unto itself considering the monsters they usually write.

 

I don't really see how any of this is going to cost the general public any money, aside from whatever expense is incurred by the Attorney General's office.

 

If it's reelection these guys were seeking from this, that has backfired already despite the majority of the protesting being about as clueless as Hollywood itself. That's politics in America though.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Arthmoor

[SilverDNA]

In my opinion the context of education of historical characters that participate in a any argument or even war must be historically measured by today's means, in all levels as well picking out only a the rosins out of the cereals can give it not a complete story ..

example: Start:

Once upon the time ....

.. and they lived happy there after on.

end

See missed a good fairy tale. Seams we napped in lesson now we have the home work to retell the fairy tale .. ouch happened to me once and i learned my lesson "Never sleep in history class even when you have only eaten the rosins in your cereals." (btw it was before the internet)

 

Now on legislative issues as SOPA or PIPA I would like more transparency on the facts how they could be abused but since the politicians are so eager to get publicity they tend to drop this aside .. now see if historical facts come along the same way and in old ancient times historians our modern days historians have not much in the hands and have to uses other methods to prove the fairy tale from the truth of historic events and here it is quite similar .. i miss a transparent report of how PIPA and SOPA on how they can get abused by the same people that want them to be enforced because they don't want to enforce this but force other company's enforce new laws and there for are responsible for the cons as well. but in most cases the neurotic profiling of politicians surfaces in such matters not the common-sense of the ones that later have to deal with the consequences ( not the net pirates but the ones that seeing to it that they don't violate the laws ) but the critics comes only from the later ones that have all the trouble.

Edited January 19, 2012 by SilverDNA

[Raum777]

Internet censorship can and should be used as it is on the phone system. Only key words used in conversations should encourage investigations of people who intend harm to others. As for pirating. Yes; it's wrong. And if proper security is used and maintained; no one should be able to pirate them from any company. That is a bad thing and we all realize it. But that is their responsibility, their problem and not ours! All music and Movies can be blocked from being copied or downloaded.

If I made a movie and said you can watch it; that would be fine. You can watch it. But if I say you can't copy it; then I would need to provide that security to prevent it from being downloaded to you. That would be my responsibility! Not passing laws to stop you by providing censorship in everything you do on the net. What's difficult about that? Youtube.com and several others are allowing this by taking on their own accord to allow others to copy or download from their sites. So why bust our chops for the wrongs of others? Nuff said; I don't need to go on.