This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
I'm saying if it was a game-changer. Karl Marx wrote probably one of the most influential political books of all time, and he was arrested.
And I feel that was completely and totally out of line.
However, I'm biased towards communism, so I'll mostly leave this point alone.
There is a favored quote of mine; Four hostile newspapers are more to fear than a thousand bayonets. That was from Napolean Bonaparte. Political propaganda helps turn elections, surely it's effects are underrated.
And TV news is exactly the same thing. If an anchorman trashed a politician, it would be the same as a writer for a nespaper trashing a politician.
The reason Nepoleon specified Newspapers is because they didn't hve TVs yet...
Books are not passive, like I said before, Karl Marx practically outlined the basis of what would be communism and a movement that would situate history in a bloody conflict. Books are not passive.
And yet, his book itself was completely passive.
The violence came from those who read it and took from it. Not from the author or the book itself.
There are two practical solutions*, others branch off the two
Except for these ones:
1. Publicly challenge the ideas the book it putting fourth and attempt to argue the good of democracy. You know; an intelligent counter, while banning the book would just show that they are scared and push the people further from Democracy.
2. Publish their own book to acheive the same results.
And I'm sure there are a lot of others.
We can hypothesize all day what the book would say
While, if it is a book trashing democracy? How much could it say?
what if people want the book banned? What if it's popular but disliked? Do you think the government should ban it then?
If the people do not like the book, they can ban it from their public libraries and stores on their own.
The Government shouldn't be able to shut it down.
Post by
Levarus
But do you think it right? If one party holds the power of dispelling a threat directly within their clutch, would you view it wrong if they used that to their advantage?
Post by
Monday
But do you think it right? If one party holds the power of dispelling a threat directly within their clutch, would you view it wrong if they used that to their advantage?
Um, yeah. There's a reason why the US has a two party system (though it definitely needs revitalization. The partisanship makes me gag).
The road of censorship leads to tyranny.
Post by
Levarus
But do you think it right? If one party holds the power of dispelling a threat directly within their clutch, would you view it wrong if they used that to their advantage?
Um, yeah. There's a reason why the US has a two party system (though it definitely needs revitalization. The partisanship makes me gag).
The road of censorship leads to tyranny.
What's that reason?
Post by
Monday
But do you think it right? If one party holds the power of dispelling a threat directly within their clutch, would you view it wrong if they used that to their advantage?
Um, yeah. There's a reason why the US has a two party system (though it definitely needs revitalization. The partisanship makes me gag).
The road of censorship leads to tyranny.
What's that reason?
Read what you wrote, then read the bottom line of my last post.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Levarus
Read what you wrote, then read the bottom line of my last post.
The reason there are two parties is that "censorship leads to tyranny" instead of a difference in views/opinions between the two political parties?
Post by
Squishalot
Yes, yes, good god a thousand times yes. Banning a book because it's a threat to democracy would be like killing a guy because he's a threat to pacifism. I mean democracy is great, but it's not so great it's worth giving up freedom of speech for.
Why wouldn't the same argument apply to bomb making and other criminal activities?
You lost me there. Do you mean why wouldn't it apply to books about bomb-making and etc.? If so, then it would. If not, I don't understand what you're asking.
That is what I'm inferring, yes. People here seem happy to outlaw books which advocate criminal activity.
Post by
Levarus
Yes, yes, good god a thousand times yes. Banning a book because it's a threat to democracy would be like killing a guy because he's a threat to pacifism. I mean democracy is great, but it's not so great it's worth giving up freedom of speech for.
Why wouldn't the same argument apply to bomb making and other criminal activities?
You lost me there. Do you mean why wouldn't it apply to books about bomb-making and etc.? If so, then it would. If not, I don't understand what you're asking.
That is what I'm inferring, yes. People here seem happy to outlaw books which advocate criminal activity.
Robbing a Bank for Dummies - I can see it now. Criminal Activity would quadruple if libraries didn't ban books which supported crime!
Post by
Atik
Yes, yes, good god a thousand times yes. Banning a book because it's a threat to democracy would be like killing a guy because he's a threat to pacifism. I mean democracy is great, but it's not so great it's worth giving up freedom of speech for.
Why wouldn't the same argument apply to bomb making and other criminal activities?
You lost me there. Do you mean why wouldn't it apply to books about bomb-making and etc.? If so, then it would. If not, I don't understand what you're asking.
That is what I'm inferring, yes. People here seem happy to outlaw books which advocate criminal activity.
I'm not.
Once again, I don't think the government should have the power to outlaw any books, websites, authors, TVshows, or anything of the like.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rystrave
Libraries should be able to choose which books they find appropriate, but I also think that the banned books list is ridiculous. Some of the most classic of literature is on that list. Books are books. Apparently reading and imagining the story in our minds is much much worse than seeing it on TV.
Now, the
Fifty Shades of Grey
series and books like them, on the other hand, due to the vivid umm.... descriptions..... of everything, I can see how that one might be unavailable to certain audiences (17 and younger).
Post by
Squishalot
Sure. Except of course you won't have a strong union if the employer can simply fire anyone who organizes - which they presumably can under the situation you're suggesting, if there are no legal protections for unions.
If an employee is really so worthless that an employer would fire them for trying to organise a collective bargaining group (noting that only the below-average employees would generally want to do so), I don't have an issue with that, provided that said firing is within the contractual terms of their employment agreement (which I doubt it would be in the situation you're describing).
Remember - an employer won't / can't fire a worker for asking for more money. They simply won't agree to the payrise, and it's up to the employee to walk away.
Indeed - which is incidentally why these toothless unions would do everything in their power to pressure employees into joining and otherwise entrench themselves. (With no other protections they'd have to.) Remember that union laws restrict the unions just as much as they restrict the employer, and they do both for good reasons. I think the short answer to what you're suggesting is, it's a nice idea but history establishes that it doesn't work well in practice.
Philosophical difference between us - I don't see anything wrong with that beyond what occurs at the present (i.e. unions pressuring employees into joining and entrenching themselves). I don't see how the industrial laws restrict unions any more than existing contract terms and bullying laws already do otherwise.
Then I answered - it would. As with all freedoms there are legal limits to free speech, but if the content of a book doesn't break any laws then I see no reason why it should be "outlawed" in any other sense. If we've gone this many years without some bright spark criminalizing the Anarchist's Cookbook, probably there's some kind of reason for that, eh?
That's fine. Just wanted to clarify your position.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
If Walmart could legally fire greeters for trying to organize, would you expect them to balk if the person in question was a particularly skillful greeter?
Not really, but it's a moot point because they can't legally fire anybody for trying to organise.
It's already illegal in Australia for unions to pressure people to join, pressure them not to work during a strike, recruit during business hours, etc. Those sorts of things are not illegal outside of a union.
Um, pressuring for anything would fall under bullying behaviour and workplace harrassment, no? There are other laws in place that would and should effectively deal with the issues. Recruiting during business hours, I don't really care about, providing that worker X is doing their job. If the Walmart greeter is spending time recruiting instead of greeting people, then they've given me an open reason to fire them for not doing their job.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
It varies by place but in the general case employers have latitude in firing employees they decide they don't need
And you would think, without the legal protections, unions would actually be encouraged to put meaningful KPIs and requirements into work contracts to prevent employers from having that latitude, the way that most skilled jobs do, rather than relying on legal protections to make demands that aren't always commercially justified.
The site you linked says: "It's illegal to try to make someone take part in industrial action." We can hardly interpret that to refer only to cases where the persuasion was so extreme as to already be illegal - if that was so they could just say "it's illegal to try and make someone do anything".
If that's the case, then I don't have any issues with a union representative asking a non-union employee to participate in a union-organised bargaining process or other event, precisely because no laws or terms are being breached.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#23: Should there be better civics education in the public school system?
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.