MacInsiders Logo

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If they were Free..? Sport fan Athletics & Recreation 18 03-30-2010 08:15 AM
Obama's Health Care speech fullsmash26 General Discussion 4 07-24-2009 08:29 PM
Going to be Making a Speech About Macinsider.com Today! douglas.C-Sm General Discussion 3 05-07-2009 01:34 PM
"Campus Free Speech in the Age of Terror and Multiculturalism" Chad MacInsiders Announcements 0 11-02-2008 03:34 PM
Obama's Democratic Convention Speech - wow Chad Politics 4 09-09-2008 10:32 AM

Free Speech

 
Old 09-22-2009 at 02:20 PM   #16
micadjems
Awesome Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,091

Thanked: 145 Times
Liked: 382 Times




Once you start banning anything that is 'contributing to dangerous behaviour', it grows OUT OF CONTROL.

Don't you think some groups would start petitioning to ban sites that, for example, tell you how to make alcoholic drinks because it contributes to alcoholism?
__________________
Jackie Howe
B. Eng Society (Materials), Minor in Theatre & Film '11

lawleypop likes this.
Old 09-22-2009 at 02:36 PM   #17
adrian
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 593

Thanked: 40 Times
Liked: 143 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by micadjems View Post
Once you start banning anything that is 'contributing to dangerous behaviour', it grows OUT OF CONTROL.

Don't you think some groups would start petitioning to ban sites that, for example, tell you how to make alcoholic drinks because it contributes to alcoholism?
speaks the ultimate truth
Old 09-22-2009 at 03:37 PM   #18
MDCL
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 115

Thanked: 10 Times
Liked: 29 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian View Post
speaks the ultimate truth

Jackie, will you let Adrian in your pants so he'll stop brown nosing? Thanks.

The bar for the restriction of free speech should be set as high as possible. I'll go out on a limb here and state that it is indeed impossible for a state to indefinitely oppress its people in a free speech environment. Don't be foolish and assume that we can continue to live indefinitely in a modern liberal democracy without free speech. I assure you that the path to severe restrictions on free speech will be paved with well intentioned restrictions.

adrian says thanks to MDCL for this post.

adrian likes this.
Old 09-22-2009 at 03:51 PM   #19
Taunton
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,592

Thanked: 219 Times
Liked: 598 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
On a related note, how do people feel about sites like fantasyfeeder.com (NSFW)?

It seems like it seems acceptable for people to criticize pro-ana websites, but people are hesitant to talk about people who are excessively overweight. Both lead to major health consequences and in many cases there are mental or genetic factors involved.
I'm willing to criticize lots of things, and frankly pro-anorexia websites are equally disgusting as pro-obesity websites.

Again, this isn't about any specific topic... the pro-anoriexia thing was what inspired me to start this discussion, that's it.

And just for reference, I've always been 100% against censorship of any kind. I simply enjoy debate and discussion and that's why I started this thread.
__________________
Ben Taunton
Life Science IV
McMaster University

MDCL likes this.
Old 09-22-2009 at 03:56 PM   #20
MDCL
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 115

Thanked: 10 Times
Liked: 29 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton View Post
I've always been 100% against censorship of any kind. I simply enjoy debate and discussion and that's why I started this thread.
I'm guessing that not too many people here are familiar with the idea: I vigorously disagree with you but I'll defend your right to say that till my death.

Taunton likes this.
Old 09-22-2009 at 07:54 PM   #21
sew12
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,851

Thanked: 227 Times
Liked: 470 Times




What the hell, there are pro obesity websites?

While anorexia and pro-ana websites are dangerous and sad I find the pro-obesity one pretty weird. What exactly is the motivation to want to be fat?

The desire to be skinny is easy enough to understand but the desire to be over weight is definitely a little weird.

People come in all shapes and sizes and that's cool but being dangerously over weight and not eating healthy b/c you're pro-being fat is not good for your health.

Again though neither type of site should be banned or censored as it is still ultimately the choice of the person reading to participate in the actions that lead to health/mental problems w/ the whole thing.

Re: the question about texts like Mein Kampf, lol, that should be banned just for being such a crappy piece of writing. Seriously Hitler may have been a convincing orator but a writer he was not. If it wasn't filled with garbage for content for Nazis to buy into and was just a crappily written book (which it is) it never would have become popular.
__________________
-Stefanie Walsh-
4th Year Multimedia 2010-2011
Old 09-22-2009 at 07:57 PM   #22
Lois
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,069

Thanked: 318 Times
Liked: 361 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by sew12 View Post
What the hell, there are pro obesity websites?

While anorexia and pro-ana websites are dangerous and sad I find the pro-obesity one pretty weird. What exactly is the motivation to want to be fat?

The desire to be skinny is easy enough to understand but the desire to be over weight is definitely a little weird.

People come in all shapes and sizes and that's cool but being dangerously over weight and not eating healthy b/c you're pro-being fat is not good for your health.

Again though neither type of site should be banned or censored as it is still ultimately the choice of the person reading to participate in the actions that lead to health/mental problems w/ the whole thing.

Re: the question about texts like Mein Kampf, lol, that should be banned just for being such a crappy piece of writing. Seriously Hitler may have been a convincing orator but a writer he was not. If it wasn't filled with garbage for content for Nazis to buy into and was just a crappily written book (which it is) it never would have become popular.
There are websites about everything nowadays if you look hard enough. :p
Old 09-22-2009 at 10:50 PM   #23
Marlowe
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,621

Thanked: 195 Times
Liked: 421 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mowicz View Post

What you mean to say is suppression never helped everyone. The thing is, little websites like this for instance, although they didn't cause anorexia to come into existence, they do reinforce the concept. It's like picking at your scabs...no, the act of picking your scab didn't cause the cut/abrasion, but it does prolong the healing process.

Not to mention, exposure is the whole problem. If someone goes through their life and never sees anything remotely close to a cigarette, it's statistically very unlikely that they'll just up and go "Hey, I'm gonna invent these things and smoke them." If someone is surrounded by thoughts of poor body image they'll turn to anorexia...they don't need disinformation to reinforce those thoughts.
Keep in mind though, that cigarettes in their current incarnation are the product of many people's contributions. One person could not have the creative capacity to come up with them.

Anorexia is a bit different, even someone who has never heard the term anorexia could become one. And I am pretty sure that seeing one of these sights has never caused someone to become anorexic. The people who would seek them out are the people who would probably already be anorexic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mowicz View Post
To put it another way: YOU may be smart enough to know this causes anorexia, but what about the people who aren't? The people who are duped into this whole problem? Such people can be compared to infants, because of a genuine lack of knowledge/foresight. (It's not necessarily a bad thing, I for instance, am an infant when it comes to say, Shakespeare).

So given they are like infants...suppose I published a website aimed at children (like this website is aimed at the naive), which told children to drown themselves because Santa Claus will bring them gifts or something like that. A naive child would believe such things.

Should action be taken against me?

What about if later, a child actually does drown themselves? Does the situation change?
No, its not society's responsibility to protect people, even infants, from information that could be harmful. In the case of children, its the parent's responsibility to take care of them, both physically and mentally. This includes potential monitoring of what they look at on the internet, as well as raising them to be smart enough to know that drowning themselves is a bad plan.

A lot of censorship is justified by the argument that people aren't smart enough to deal with the information, or as Jack Nicholson put it "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" While it might start with good intentions, the end result isn't worth it.

adrian, sew12 like this.
Old 09-22-2009 at 11:17 PM   #24
lawleypop
I am Prince Vegeta.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,770

Thanked: 224 Times
Liked: 1,373 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mowicz View Post
They do, that's why you go to jail if you're caught even having looked at it once in your life without reporting it. :p The problem is this isn't quite a relevant analogy: with child ****, people hide it...it isn't a deliberate publication of false or harmful information, like the sites being mentioned. (If anyone deliberately published child **** information, 'advice' or videos, they're trackable, and toast).
Viewing child **** once would not land you immediately in jail. Not reporting it would not land you immediately in jail. If you had a pop up that contained child ****, anyone's immediate reaction is to Alt + F4 asap. Not to keep it open and copy down the URL/find out who's hosting this site.

Child pornography is a deliberate publication of harmful information/content. It doesn't get put on the internet accidentally.

Let's keep in mind that while people may "hide" child ****, it is still accessible. It might be a little more difficult to access compared to pro-ana websites, but it's accessible nonetheless.

Quote:
Not to mention, you shouldn't have to start anywhere...if something, whatever it may be, is deliberately harmful to others it should be lumped together, regardless of the severity. It's right or wrong here, there aren't varying degrees of wrong...
Of course we should start with child pornography. It's hurting children who are physically, psychologically, and emotionally unable to consent for themselves. Child pornography is directly hurting someone. Pro-ana websites have the ability to harm someone by providing false information.
Quote:
Not to mention, exposure is the whole problem. If someone goes through their life and never sees anything remotely close to a cigarette, it's statistically very unlikely that they'll just up and go "Hey, I'm gonna invent these things and smoke them." If someone is surrounded by thoughts of poor body image they'll turn to anorexia...they don't need disinformation to reinforce those thoughts.
I'll meet you with the cigarette comment. But I'll also argue that since they've never heard of anything (be it positive or negative) about cigarettes, wouldn't someone be inclined to "see what it is?" If they don't know what it is and they don't know the effects and they've never heard anything bad about it, why NOT try it? Flawed logic, maybe. But curiosity does get the best of even the most intelligent of people.

A note about exposure:

These websites are not being advertised or thrusted in front of us. I spend easily 8 hours a day on the internet, EVERY DAY, and have never seen an advertisement or anything of the sort promoting anorexia.

The people visiting these websites have already been introduced (or are dealing with) to this condition. These people are not going on the computer to check their e-mail and see an advertisement promoting this and clicking it and saying to themselves, "You know, I've never heard of this, but it seems like a good idea! I think I'm gonna try it out."

These people are LOOKING for the websites. If someone is looking for them, they obviously already have a distorted vision of reality and of what is healthy. Censoring these sites aren't going to accomplish anything because one way or another, these people are going to get the "information" they desire. And if they don't, the best way to learn something is through trial and error.
__________________

Mathematically it makes about as much sense as
(pineapple)$$*cucumbe r*.


Last edited by lawleypop : 09-22-2009 at 11:19 PM.

adrian likes this.
Old 09-23-2009 at 12:16 AM   #25
Mowicz
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,538

Thanked: 274 Times
Liked: 529 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by lawleypop View Post
Viewing child **** once would not land you immediately in jail. Not reporting it would not land you immediately in jail. If you had a pop up that contained child ****, anyone's immediate reaction is to Alt + F4 asap. Not to keep it open and copy down the URL/find out who's hosting this site.
Any popup containing child **** would be traced and shut down within hours. Like I said, child **** is against the law, and ISPs have been flagged (and taken to court) to find the identity of perpetrators.

Child **** isn't something you can just 'stumble across.' So yes, I re-state that, even viewing it once (which given the situation, is a deliberate act) and you're going to jail.

I suppose the only time it's not deliberate is if someone is say, 15 but looks older. This is still illegal, but a lot harder to 'verify' as child ****. This falls into a category of its own however, and the legal repercussions are different. (I assume this isn't really what you're talking about anyway).

--------------

I'd discuss the rest of your post, but frankly I'm exhausted and still have to prepare my tutorial for tomorrow. lol

EDIT: I did wanna remark on this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawleypop View Post
And if they don't, the best way to learn something is through trial and error.
There are three ways to learn:

1) Pissing on the electric fence
2) Watching your best friend piss on the electric fence, or
3) Read about it the next day in the newspaper.

Trial and Error is a foolish way to learn life lessons. Academic lessons, yes...but it isn't as if something like "Oh damn...so X-Rays DO cause cancer! Oh well, now I know." or "Ok, so if I mess with the mob, they're going to shoot me in the head. It's so obvious now!" are good ways to learn...not when your health's involved. You don't always bounce back to 'learn' your lesson.

Last edited by Mowicz : 09-23-2009 at 12:22 AM.
Old 09-23-2009 at 09:16 AM   #26
lawleypop
I am Prince Vegeta.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,770

Thanked: 224 Times
Liked: 1,373 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mowicz View Post
Any popup containing child **** would be traced and shut down within hours. Like I said, child **** is against the law, and ISPs have been flagged (and taken to court) to find the identity of perpetrators.

Child **** isn't something you can just 'stumble across.' So yes, I re-state that, even viewing it once (which given the situation, is a deliberate act) and you're going to jail.

I suppose the only time it's not deliberate is if someone is say, 15 but looks older. This is still illegal, but a lot harder to 'verify' as child ****. This falls into a category of its own however, and the legal repercussions are different. (I assume this isn't really what you're talking about anyway).
I'm going to stop arguing because there's no way to "win" this. I know it's the law, and I KNOW the laws which is why I phoned the police when some ****ing creep decided it'd be cool to show me "what he's into."

He didn't get arrested. He didn't even get investigated!

Quote:
There are three ways to learn:

1) Pissing on the electric fence
2) Watching your best friend piss on the electric fence, or
3) Read about it the next day in the newspaper.

Trial and Error is a foolish way to learn life lessons. Academic lessons, yes...but it isn't as if something like "Oh damn...so X-Rays DO cause cancer! Oh well, now I know." or "Ok, so if I mess with the mob, they're going to shoot me in the head. It's so obvious now!" are good ways to learn...not when your health's involved. You don't always bounce back to 'learn' your lesson.
Well, you are the one to compare them to infants, so I went off of that basis.

Assuming they are like children, their mother can tell them 15million times not to touch the stove because it's hot and it will hurt, but they're still going to touch the stove.

These people are already in a deluded state of mind. These people are looking for these sites because they've been introduced to the concept elsewhere and have probably already been told it's a good idea and it'll make you look great. Sure, the pro-ana sites won't help in aiding them to make the right decision, but it's not as though there aren't any other sites with real, factual information about the dangers. It doesn't matter though, because these people already have an idea in their mind!

3 ways to learn:
1) Someone's going to become anorexic, regardless of the internet, if they have serious self esteem issues and they've been told from someone they "trust" that it can help them. Or they'll try it because they see how happy other people who "look good" are.
2) Their friend told them about it, but they were kinda iffy about it. Then their beloved friend becomes anorexic (or begins the process) and then this person (who has severely bad self-esteem issues) realizes that "all of her problems" have been solved. "Hey, if it works for my friend who I trust, it must work for me!"
3) They do read about it in the newspaper. When models are IDOLIZED and admired left, right, and center. How many "fat" people do you see in the papers? Skinny people get recognition. Skinny people are admired. Skinny people are thought to be beautiful.

What is the internet going to do? Give them false information about a problem where they don't WANT (or try to look for) the correct answer?
__________________

Mathematically it makes about as much sense as
(pineapple)$$*cucumbe r*.


Last edited by lawleypop : 09-23-2009 at 09:35 AM.

adrian likes this.
Old 09-23-2009 at 02:10 PM   #27
Mowicz
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,538

Thanked: 274 Times
Liked: 529 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by lawleypop View Post
I'm going to stop arguing because there's no way to "win" this. I know it's the law, and I KNOW the laws which is why I phoned the police when some ****ing creep decided it'd be cool to show me "what he's into."
This has very rapidly gone from friendly and silly to just plain cold...so I'm not going to say anything now, besides pointing that out. It's one thing to attack the argument, but another entirely to suggest I'm somehow stupid for holding that position.

There's no reason to get excited...I mean it's not like you are being accused of anything here, neither am I. It's just a pointless topic on a pointless forum somewhere in cyber space where I've decided to play devil's advocate, and you've decided to take it to a personal level.
Old 09-23-2009 at 02:25 PM   #28
lawleypop
I am Prince Vegeta.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,770

Thanked: 224 Times
Liked: 1,373 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mowicz View Post
This has very rapidly gone from friendly and silly to just plain cold...so I'm not going to say anything now, besides pointing that out. It's one thing to attack the argument, but another entirely to suggest I'm somehow stupid for holding that position.

There's no reason to get excited...I mean it's not like you are being accused of anything here, neither am I. It's just a pointless topic on a pointless forum somewhere in cyber space where I've decided to play devil's advocate, and you've decided to take it to a personal level.
I have not taken it to a personal level, nor am I offended or excited about anything. Maybe I worded something incorrectly, or you interpreted it wrong. So I'll try again.

What I mean is that we both know the laws. I know that it (should) only take one (caught) offence to be landed in jail. I have just personally experienced a situation in which I knew someone who was into child pornography and was not jailed or even investigated, even AFTER I had phoned the police. Which relates back to my original post of "viewing child **** once would not land you immediately in jail."

I said I would stop arguing it because we both agree on the same things. We both know the laws. I've simply just experienced a situation in which the law wasn't enforced. Now, if you don't believe me that I've experienced this, this is where the argument comes to a stale mate. Hence why I said "I'm going to stop arguing it since there's no winning."

It wasn't meant to be cold. I guess it was poorly worded, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Edit: And I definitely didn't even imply that you were stupid for holding that position, and I really do think you're misinterpreting something. I don't ask advice from people I think are stupid. o_O
__________________

Mathematically it makes about as much sense as
(pineapple)$$*cucumbe r*.

Old 09-24-2009 at 10:47 PM   #29
Mowicz
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,538

Thanked: 274 Times
Liked: 529 Times




I guess the problem is I tend to 'sugar coat' my challenges, haha (unless they're flat out jokes, like the 'pissing on the electric fence' thing). And when I stop sugar-coating, it's usually when I'm starting to get a bit offended...But I guess that's just me, and where the confusion arises. So if you didn't mean it, then I've nothing to take offense from, and do an internet handshake. (:

On a completely unrelated note, I think I saw you and Mark playing pool on Wednesday around 5:30 ish (I know it was definitely Mark, but I've never actually met you before but I think it's a good guess). It was amusing to say the least, haha.
Old 09-24-2009 at 11:20 PM   #30
reeves
Jedi IRL
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,782

Thanked: 105 Times
Liked: 557 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mowicz View Post
On a completely unrelated note, I think I saw you and Mark playing pool on Wednesday around 5:30 ish (I know it was definitely Mark, but I've never actually met you before but I think it's a good guess). It was amusing to say the least, haha.
Dude! That was you in the black shirt, right? Right after you left, I said to Cheri "I think that guy was Mowicz fom MI". I didnt want to say anything and look like an ass if I was wrong

Say hi or wave or something next time lol
__________________
Mark Reeves
Humanities I Victory Lap!



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.

Copyright © MacInsiders.com All Rights Reserved. No content can be re-used or re-published without permission. MacInsiders is a service of Fullerton Media Inc. | Created by Chad
Originally Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved. | Privacy | Terms