Free press? [Archive]

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 15:21

What does everyone here think of the idea of freedom of the press? I think that TV broadcasting stations and large newspapers like the New York Times are own by big corporations, and therefore will always serve ruling class interests. Aside from that, I feel that broadcasting corporations show an unacceptable amount of sex and violence in their shows, which I feel is directly responsible for much of the crime and drug use in society. I say that all TV and major newspapers should be owned and run by the government, and that only programs that have some educational value and advocate positive political aims should be broadcast. I feel that local non-profit, privately run, government subsidized newspapers are acceptable, since all it takes is a few ordinary individuals do one. However, I still think these shold be subject to censorship if necessary.

Y2A

13th March 2004, 15:26

Yes, let it all be government owned and then magically expect the government not to use this to it's advantage. You think that the media is bad now, imagine when a government monopoly has complete power over it.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 15:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:26 PM
Yes, let it all be government owned and then magically expect the government not to use this to it's advantage.
Whats wrong with that?

Y2A

13th March 2004, 15:31

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 13 2004, 04:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 13 2004, 04:29 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 12:26 PM
Yes, let it all be government owned and then magically expect the government not to use this to it's advantage.
Whats wrong with that? [/b]
It'll eventually become a propaganda machine for the government. That is what is "wrong with that". It still boggles my mind how ludicrous the idea of a state-controled "fair" media source is.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 15:33

Originally posted by Y2A+Mar 13 2004, 12:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Mar 13 2004, 12:31 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:29 PM

[email protected] 13 2004, 12:26 PM
Yes, let it all be government owned and then magically expect the government not to use this to it's advantage.
Whats wrong with that?
It'll eventually become a propaganda machine for the government. That is what is "wrong with that". It still boggles my mind how ludicrous the idea of a state-controled "fair" media source is. [/b]
As opposed a propaganda machine for corporations? Take a look here and watch some Cuban state owned TV. http://www.cubaweb.cu/eng/index.asp?screen=1024 There isn't really much propaganda when you watch it. They do show party members giving speeches quite often, but overall, its a pretty good station I think.

Y2A

13th March 2004, 15:38

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 13 2004, 04:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 13 2004, 04:33 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:29 PM

[email protected] 13 2004, 12:26 PM
Yes, let it all be government owned and then magically expect the government not to use this to it's advantage.
Whats wrong with that?
It'll eventually become a propaganda machine for the government. That is what is "wrong with that". It still boggles my mind how ludicrous the idea of a state-controled "fair" media source is.
As opposed a propaganda machine for corporations? [/b]
The idea of a privatized media outlet being better then a state-owned media outlet is that the privatized media outlet has the incentive to come out with better stories in order to make more profit. The state-owned outlet however has no incentive because the taxpayer pays for it's broadcast, it's only purpose would be to help the govenment.

monkeydust

13th March 2004, 15:43

At the moment, it's quite clear that the 'free' press isn't free at all. Moreover, its influence is of such significance that people don't think 'freely', they instead spout media rhetoric.

How many Euro Sceptics associate the Euro with 'rule from Brussels'? How many thought about this notion, how many simply believe Murdoch's lies?

In my opinion, ideally, the media should serve only to deliver 'facts', as far as is possible. In this way, news will simply be 'news', not some value loaded nonesense. From objective facts people can make their own rational conclusions.

Thus the sun should say "Labour want the Euro". Not "Labour wants to hand over control of Britain to Brussels....the Wankers".

Y2A

13th March 2004, 15:44

State-owned news isn't bias towards the government's interests???? :lol:

"La Habana.- El Presidente Fidel Castro condecoró este viernes con la Orden José Martí a Gladys Marín, Presidenta del Partido Comunista de Chile, valiente luchadora en su país y por los derechos y libertades de su pueblo. En la solemne ceremonia, en el Palacio de la Revolución, se destacó la trayectoria de esta ejemplar mujer, su entereza y coraje. Marín se recupera en Cuba de una dolencia neurológica."

monkeydust

13th March 2004, 15:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:38 PM

The idea of a privatized media outlet being better then a state-owned media outlet is that the privatized media outlet has the incentive to come out with better stories in order to make more profit.
This is the very point Y2A.

The private media likes a good story.

It doesn't like a true story.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 15:46

Originally posted by Y2A+Mar 13 2004, 12:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Mar 13 2004, 12:38 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:29 PM

[email protected] 13 2004, 12:26 PM
Yes, let it all be government owned and then magically expect the government not to use this to it's advantage.
Whats wrong with that?
It'll eventually become a propaganda machine for the government. That is what is "wrong with that". It still boggles my mind how ludicrous the idea of a state-controled "fair" media source is.
As opposed a propaganda machine for corporations?
The idea of a privatized media outlet being better then a state-owned media outlet is that the privatized media outlet has the incentive to come out with better stories in order to make more profit. The state-owned outlet however has no incentive because the taxpayer pays for it's broadcast, it's only purpose would be to help the govenment. [/b]
Wrong, they have an incentive to come out with more sensational stories that distrort the truth, and feed the people mindless drivel full of sex and violence in order to incease profit. The state owned outlet doesn't need an incentive to show media. They don't even need to produce their own shows. All they really need to do is broadcast cultural events and plays that are already taking place. That stuff has a higher artistic value, and it doesn't cost anything to produce. Furthermore, broadcasting stuff that is actually happening encourages people to actually go there and be a part of it and being more involved in there community rather then rotting away in front of the screen.

Y2A

13th March 2004, 15:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:43 PM
At the moment, it's quite clear that the 'free' press isn't free at all. Moreover, its influence is of such significance that people don't think 'freely', they instead spout media rhetoric.

How many Euro Sceptics associate the Euro with 'rule from Brussels'? How many thought about this notion, how many simply believe Murdoch's lies?

In my opinion, ideally, the media should serve only to deliver 'facts', as far as is possible. In this way, news will simply be 'news', not some value loaded nonesense. From objective facts people can make their own rational conclusions.

Thus the sun should say "Labour want the Euro". Not "Labour wants to hand over control of Britain to Brussels....the Wankers".
If that is the case, then do you honestly think that the completely state-owned media that messer Midnight here purposes would actually solve the problem?

Misodoctakleidist

13th March 2004, 15:47

What does everyone here think of the idea of freedom of the press? I think that TV broadcasting stations and large newspapers like the New York Times are own by big corporations, and therefore will always serve ruling class interests.

yeah and if they were state owned they would serve the...errr....ruling class interests.

Aside from that, I feel that broadcasting corporations show an unacceptable amount of sex and violence in their shows

Too much sex and violence for what?

which I feel is directly responsible for much of the crime and drug use in society.

Yeah becuase poverty and opression has nothing to do with it, people don't really enjoy using drugs the media convince them that they do.

I say that all TV and major newspapers should be owned and run by the government, and that only programs that have some educational value and advocate positive political aims should be broadcast.

Would those positive political aims be dictatorship and oppresion?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 15:57

yeah and if they were state owned they would serve the...errr....ruling class interests.

No, they would serve the interests of the Communist Party.

Too much sex and violence for what?

Too much for society! Too much for families! People shouldn't be watching that garbage, and if they wanted to, they can go out and find it themselves, I'd be damned if its going to be shown on a state-owned network.

Yeah becuase poverty and opression has nothing to do with it, people don't really enjoy using drugs the media convince them that they do.

True, poverty and oppression are the main factors, but the stuff shown by the media doesn't help.

Would those positive political aims be dictatorship and oppresion?

Try equality and socialism.

Y2A

13th March 2004, 15:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:57 PM
No, they would serve the interests of the Communist Party.
And of course as history has shown the Communist Party has been traditionally uncorruptable :rolleyes:

monkeydust

13th March 2004, 15:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:46 PM

If that is the case, then do you honestly think that the completely state-owned media that messer Midnight here purposes would actually solve the problem?
No I don't.

Midnight seems to be arguing along flawed Marxist-Leninist ideals that state distributed media will not be used as a form of propaganda. It clearly will!

Obviously my propsal of a 'value free' media is merely an abstract notion. Obviously any media outlet will, if only implicitly or unintentionally have some bias, usually in favour of the social group producing the 'facts'.

In a 'true' communist society, I would like to think that, because social dividing lines are dramatically lessened in importance, a group of people will be able to produce news, for news' sake. Simply because they wish to inform 'the people' of what really is hapening.

If we are to pursue capitalist society then I believe all groups should be allowed 'Their say' in the media. At the moment, only the bourgeouis classes have the privaledge. With state funding however, ordinary people will be able to produce their own news and to voice their opinions on the public stage.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 16:00

Originally posted by Y2A+Mar 13 2004, 12:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Mar 13 2004, 12:58 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 04:57 PM
No, they would serve the interests of the Communist Party.
And of course as history has shown the Communist Party has been traditionally uncorruptable :rolleyes: [/b]
That is another issue entirely.

Misodoctakleidist

13th March 2004, 16:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:57 PM
No, they would serve the interests of the Communist Party.
It wouldn't really be a communist party then would it? Communism is stateless as several people pointed out to you yesterday

Too much for society! Too much for families! People shouldn't be watching that garbage, and if they wanted to, they can go out and find it themselves, I'd be damned if its going to be shown on a state-owned network.

So why don't you go and join the conservative party, you'll get plenty of sympathy there.

True, poverty and oppression are the main factors, but the stuff shown by the media doesn't help.

So when you said 'directly' you actualy meant 'indirectly.'

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 16:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:59 PM
With state funding however, ordinary people will be able to produce their own news and to voice their opinions on the public stage.
That sounds like a good idea, as far as one program is concerned. There is much more to the media then news broadcasts though.

Y2A

13th March 2004, 16:03

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 13 2004, 05:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 13 2004, 05:00 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:58 PM

[email protected] 13 2004, 04:57 PM
No, they would serve the interests of the Communist Party.
And of course as history has shown the Communist Party has been traditionally uncorruptable :rolleyes:
That is another issue entirely. [/b]
No it is not. Corruption comes because they were given absolute power like you purpose to give them.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 16:08

It wouldn't really be a communist party then would it? Communism is stateless as several people pointed out to you yesterday

I believe it is impossible to achieve socialism or communism in any way shape or form without a state. The anarchist party gives that view.

So why don't you go and join the conservative party, you'll get plenty of sympathy there.

Hardly, most of them oppose any form of government intervention in the media, and LIKE how the media is controlled by big businuss.

So when you said 'directly' you actualy meant 'indirectly.

I think the media is directly responsible for some (not most) of what happens.

Misodoctakleidist

13th March 2004, 16:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:08 PM
I believe it is impossible to achieve socialism or communism in any way shape or form without a state. The anarchist party gives that view.
So then you don't believe it's possible to achieve communism?

The 'anarchist party' (as i'm sure they're called) may 'give that view' but so does every communism party including the bolshevik party so why don't you stop using that avatar of Lenin?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 16:12

Originally posted by Y2A+Mar 13 2004, 01:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Mar 13 2004, 01:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:58 PM

[email protected] 13 2004, 04:57 PM
No, they would serve the interests of the Communist Party.
And of course as history has shown the Communist Party has been traditionally uncorruptable :rolleyes:
That is another issue entirely.
No it is not. Corruption comes because they were given absolute power like you purpose to give them. [/b]
As I said, cracking down on corruption is another issue entirely, you may want to start another thread for it. I oppose giving anyone absolute power. The party shouldn't have absolute power, there needs to be a balance of power system between the party, the labor unions, and the courts, futhermore I say, and abolish the executive office.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 16:15

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Mar 13 2004, 01:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Mar 13 2004, 01:11 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 05:08 PM
I believe it is impossible to achieve socialism or communism in any way shape or form without a state. The anarchist party gives that view.
So then you don't believe it's possible to achieve communism?

The 'anarchist party' (as i'm sure they're called) may 'give that view' but so does every communism party including the bolshevik party so why don't you stop using that avatar of Lenin? [/b]
The Bolsheviks might say that, but their actions prove otherwise. Perhaps some day when everyone learns to be perfect people, it might be possible, but until then, I see the state as necessary.

Misodoctakleidist

13th March 2004, 16:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:15 PM
The Bolsheviks might say that, but their actions prove otherwise. Perhaps some day when everyone learns to be perfect people, it might be possible, but until then, I see the state as necessary.
so you admit that you aren't a communist?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 16:24

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Mar 13 2004, 01:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Mar 13 2004, 01:16 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 05:15 PM
The Bolsheviks might say that, but their actions prove otherwise. Perhaps some day when everyone learns to be perfect people, it might be possible, but until then, I see the state as necessary.
so you admit that you aren't a communist? [/b]
My beliefs are for the most part, in agreement with those of the Communist Party. I feel that your anarchist views are those entirely different then those of the party. I think a libertarian such as you would strongly disagree with many of the actions taken by the Cuban or Soviet communists, where as I tend to be more in agreement with that type of system.

Misodoctakleidist

13th March 2004, 16:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:24 PM
My beliefs are for the most part, in agreement with those of the Communist Party. I feel that your anarchist views are those entirely different then those of the party. I think a libertarian such as you would strongly disagree with many of the actions taken by the Cuban or Soviet communists, where as I tend to be more in agreement with that type of system.
I'm not an anarchist.

Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society. Since a state society can't be classless then you don't fill either of those requirments. Your veiws are authoritarian socialism so please stop tarnishing the name of communism.

Which communist party are you refering to?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 16:37

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Mar 13 2004, 01:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Mar 13 2004, 01:28 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 05:24 PM
My beliefs are for the most part, in agreement with those of the Communist Party. I feel that your anarchist views are those entirely different then those of the party. I think a libertarian such as you would strongly disagree with many of the actions taken by the Cuban or Soviet communists, where as I tend to be more in agreement with that type of system.
I'm not an anarchist.

Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society. Since a state society can't be classless then you don't fill either of those requirments. Your veiws are authoritarian socialism so please stop tarnishing the name of communism.

Which communist party are you refering to? [/b]
I feel you are wrong about how a socialist society cannot be classless, but as far as the party, I am referring to the communist movement in general. When I say "The Party" I mean how the party SHOULD be, the party of Lenin. I am in the CPUSA, but I feel that my views are more in agreement with those of the Communist Party of Cuba, or those prevailant the post-Stalin Soviet Union, or some combonation of the two. Perhaps you should stop tarnishing the name of communism and stick with an anarchist label?

Misodoctakleidist

13th March 2004, 16:42

So you are in agreement with what you think the communist party should be?

By definition communism is statless, if you want a state then you aren't a communist, that's a fact. You're a socialist so stop pretending otherwise.

Perhaps you should stop tarnishing the name of communism and stick with an anarchist label?

Perhaps you should;

1) learn what communism is.
2) learn what anarchism is.
3) read 'state and revolution'
4) realise, after reading 'state and revolution', that you aren't a Leninist.
5) refer to your-self as a socialist.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 16:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:42 PM
So you are in agreement with what you think the communist party should be?

By definition communism is statless, if you want a state then you aren't a communist, that's a fact. You're a socialist so stop pretending otherwise.

Perhaps you should stop tarnishing the name of communism and stick with an anarchist label?

Perhaps you should;

1) learn what communism is.
2) learn what anarchism is.
3) read 'state and revolution'
4) realise, after reading 'state and revolution', that you aren't a Leninist.
5) refer to your-self as a socialist.
Read it, I know what Leninism is, I just feel that the transitional stage of communism that Marx refers to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is something that would end up being indefinate.

The Feral Underclass

13th March 2004, 16:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:37 PM
I feel you are wrong about how a socialist society cannot be classless,
Yes I suppose it could be if you reject the concept of socialism and completely reinvent it. Socialism is a society based on the perpetration of a state. Either in reformist politics or what Marx described as the first stage of communism. A state, by its very essence creates classes. In order for a state to exist there must be a ruling class, those who lead and those are led. If a state exists then so do classes and as socialism as a theorized system relies on a state classes will exist.

Perhaps you should stop tarnishing the name of communism and stick with an anarchist label?

I think you should understand what the words mean before you start throwing them around at people.

The Feral Underclass

13th March 2004, 16:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:47 PM
I just feel that the transitional stage of communism that Marx refers to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is something that would end up being indefinate.
That's called Stalinism!

Misodoctakleidist

13th March 2004, 16:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:47 PM
Read it, I know what Leninism is, I just feel that the transitional stage of communism that Marx refers to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is something that would end up being indefinate.
Well then you aren't a Leninist. If you believe that the socialist transition stage is the best form of society possible that make you a socialist.

You can't just change the definition of communism becuase you want to call yourself a communist.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 16:50

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 13 2004, 01:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 13 2004, 01:48 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 05:37 PM
I feel you are wrong about how a socialist society cannot be classless,
Yes I suppose it could be if you reject the concept of socialism and completely reinvent it. Socialism is a society based on the perpetration of a state. Either in reformist politics or what Marx described as the first stage of communism. A state, by its very essence creates classes. In order for a state to exist there must be a ruling class, those who lead and those are led. If a state exists then so do classes and as socialism as a theorized system relies on a state classes will exist.

Perhaps you should stop tarnishing the name of communism and stick with an anarchist label?

I think you should understand what the words mean before you start throwing them around at people. [/b]
Perhaps you should understand what fascism is before you throw it at me!

The Feral Underclass

13th March 2004, 17:00

Fascism is a political system which advocates loyalty and obidience to a state. Things which you have often called for. Fascism is a doctrine which believes that the opinion of a ruling party should be forced onto a majority. A belief you hold. Another belief you hold is that of government censorship. You also believe in strict government control, as does fascism and you are moralistic, yet again another trait of fascism. So although I admit there are other concomitants of fascism which you do not adhere to, at least you havent admitted to yet, there is a strong argument to be had that in fact, you are a fascist.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 17:57

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2004, 02:00 PM
Fascism is a political system which advocates loyalty and obidience to a state. Things which you have often called for. Fascism is a doctrine which believes that the opinion of a ruling party should be forced onto a majority. A belief you hold. Another belief you hold is that of government censorship. You also believe in strict government control, as does fascism and you are moralistic, yet again another trait of fascism. So although I admit there are other concomitants of fascism which you do not adhere to, at least you havent admitted to yet, there is a strong argument to be had that in fact, you are a fascist.
Authoritarianism in general advocates obediance to a state, but Fascism is the merger of corporate and government power. They are nationalistic to the extreme and are typically racist to some extent, and do not believe in the separation of church and state. They are against any worker's representation and are strongly elitist, as in, they believe the free market does not do enough to protect the bourgoise, so the government must give them additional protection. I am not really moralistic, I am a pragmatist, as in, I do not advocate doing things which may have a negative consequence. I think homosexuality is acceptable, but I feel that promiscuity should not be encouraged for fear of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, I believe government action should be taken on this religion problem... It is true that authoritarians and fascists share a few traits such as censorship and government control, but to call me a fascist is like me calling you a neoliberal free market capitalist because you oppose government management in the economy. It is easy to take any left wing view and make it seem like its from the far right.

EDIT: I notice you are no longer in CC?

The Feral Underclass

13th March 2004, 19:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:57 PM
I am not really moralistic, I am a pragmatist, as in, I do not advocate doing things which may have a negative consequence. I think homosexuality is acceptable, but I feel that promiscuity should not be encouraged for fear of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Why dont you work towards educating people rather than taking away their freedoms.

It is easy to take any left wing view and make it seem like its from the far right.

Ok...you're not a fascist.

EDIT: I notice you are no longer in CC?

:o

el_profe

13th March 2004, 19:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:57 PM

yeah and if they were state owned they would serve the...errr....ruling class interests.

No, they would serve the interests of the Communist Party.

Too much sex and violence for what?

Too much for society! Too much for families! People shouldn't be watching that garbage, and if they wanted to, they can go out and find it themselves, I'd be damned if its going to be shown on a state-owned network.

Yeah becuase poverty and opression has nothing to do with it, people don't really enjoy using drugs the media convince them that they do.

True, poverty and oppression are the main factors, but the stuff shown by the media doesn't help.

Would those positive political aims be dictatorship and oppresion?

Try equality and socialism.
:lol: :lol: :lol: ., What if it was a fascist gov. would you still want a gov. controlled media? :lol: :lol: .

If peole do not want to watch that garbage, watch TBN or the history channel or the discovery channel.

Drug abuse of course only happens if your poor and oppressed like so many hollywood actors are. :lol: :lol:

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th March 2004, 19:40

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 13 2004, 04:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 13 2004, 04:16 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 06:57 PM
I am not really moralistic, I am a pragmatist, as in, I do not advocate doing things which may have a negative consequence. I think homosexuality is acceptable, but I feel that promiscuity should not be encouraged for fear of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Why dont you work towards educating people rather than taking away their freedoms.

It is easy to take any left wing view and make it seem like its from the far right.

Ok...you're not a fascist.

EDIT: I notice you are no longer in CC?

:o [/b]
Education is a fundamental part of a judicial system. You cannot simply pass laws and expect people to obey them. Education is there to teach people why certain things are unacceptable. However, education alone is not enough, certain people will do what they will do no matter what you tell them. Some people care only for themselves. The law is there to keep society going smoothly. If education is truely effective, then the people will have no problem with a law. As for the CC thing, all I have to say is.... HAHAHHAHHAHAHHA OMG!!!1111 THATS SO FUNNY!!!!!111 THATS WHAT YOU GET FOR GETTING ME KICKED FROM CC AND RESTICTED!!!