self censorship

[felson]

i haven't read it yet, and want to distance myself from his opinion.

working link to limon's article

[Leaky Eye]

I rarely tell people that I don't believe in free will. They are awfully attached to that idea.

[JaredL]

limon et al,

I read the article and agree with pretty much all of it.

It's not so clear that the guy doesn't "support the troops" though. He basically thinks that we need to get the soldiers the care that they need (hospitals and mental I guess) aftwerward and tools like armor they need to fight. While he's not doing anything, nor are the people who put up yellow ribbons and bumper stickers. At least if the things he has to say were implemented the soldiers would actually get real support that would help them.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got to put you on the spot here as I have to hear your reasoning on this one. I promise not to turn this into anything more than just accepting your response.

[/ QUOTE ]

here is an intro to the subject. candy coated and simplistic but i dont want ot really get into it if most arent interested.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...e-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you or it just sums up your opinion?

I want to reply more, but I said I wouldn't and I'll keep it that way [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
I rarely tell people that I don't believe in free will. They are awfully attached to that idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

new kind of science is a book i go back to again and again (on several topics). i tend to think wolframs ideas about free will have alot of merit. heres a snippet of an interview:

"I do think that the history of the universe--and everything in it--is completely determined. But the point about computational irreducibility is that it shows that that doesn't mean it has to be dull. Even though it's determined, it can still be unpredictable and surprising. And it's irreducible--so we actually have to live it in order to see what happens. I find that a bit ennobling: to know that our history can't just be compressed--that we can't predict its outcome without living it.

NKS brings science into quite a few issues that have only been addressable by philosophy--or theology--before. And one of the things that at first seems troubling is that it makes humans seem less special than we thought. But that's often the way science advances. The Copernican revolution showed us that we don't live at a special point in the physical universe. NKS is now telling us that we don't represent a special point in the computational universe either. Still, it tells us something ennobling too: it tells us that we are just as computationally sophisticated as the physical universe."

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got to put you on the spot here as I have to hear your reasoning on this one. I promise not to turn this into anything more than just accepting your response.

[/ QUOTE ]

here is an intro to the subject. candy coated and simplistic but i dont want ot really get into it if most arent interested.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...e-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you or it just sums up your opinion?

I want to reply more, but I said I wouldn't and I'll keep it that way [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

two quotes are spot on:

"I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

and

"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

much of the rest can be quibbled w/, added to or simply discarded.

[mbillie1]

I censor tons of opinions I have, on religion, ethics, relationships etc... why bother starting an argument when you don't have to? I'm not going to back down from an opinion because it's unpopular, but in casual conversation I'm more likely to give a lazy "yeah" than launch into a philosophical discussion on why I don't think it's possible to have an absolute morality, etc. IMO Certain opinions only resonate with certain people and it can be incredibly time-wasting to argue for an hour with someone who is set in his or her ways and will not concede any point to any logic, evidence, etc.

[jkkkk]

Determinism is probably best left out of most conversations unless you are speaking with like minded people.

Oh yeah and fwiw I believe everyone has loads of self censors, whether they realise it or not.

[Boris]

Limon - Don't really care about your reasons. I support the war and the troops.

"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

[shemp]

I think the phrase "self-censorship" is inapt. Editing one's own expressions, for whatever reason, is not censorship imo.

And the invocation of "censorship" strikes me as a cowardly advance against some other who can't handle freedom of speech-- so I the victim am double wronged, not only am I being suppressed, but I'm forced into being my own suppressor.

Anyway. I often don't express my thoughts on this or that (many subjects) for many of the reasons already provided in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]

two quotes are spot on:

"I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

and

"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

much of the rest can be quibbled w/, added to or simply discarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first quote is irrelevant, I assume, because neither the author or you are pacifist-- in which case, a direct refutation of the distinction between "jus in bello" and "jus ad bellum" would be necessary.

The second quote strikes me as incoherent.