Censoring/Suppressing films

splinter65 · 08-10-2019 1:39pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

For the nth time, it's not being censored :rolleyes:

And all opinions are not as valid as each other, that's an unbelievably naive... opinion

Opinions based on facts, evidence and justice will always outweigh opinions which are based on lies, fantasy and oppression. Such as Mr Pence's.

But who decides which opinion should be aired and which silenced?

Boggles · 08-10-2019 2:08pm

splinter65 wrote: »

Lol! prolife website wants people to know where when and for how long a pro life film will be shown!
HOW OUTRAGEOUS!
IT SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED! WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
What a nuisance for you boggles. You really need to write a strongly worded letter to someone somewhere to complain about websites and other media publishing stuff you don’t approve of. It’s quite disconcerting.

Jaysus, relax lad you are rage typing, it's never a good look.

I merely asked you because I don't frequent pro-life web sites like your good self.

The point remains though, why if they want to be taken seriously as an organisation are they actively promoting a movie, which you said was not a documentary and you pointed out was / is probably pointless. Again, I ask, have you seen it?

That's before you even consider the book it's based on seems to be based on more fiction than fact.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-convert/

Hotblack Desiato · 08-10-2019 2:08pm

jimgoose wrote: »

The point, Grasshopper, is that that isn't a reason to suppress said opinion.

It is not being suppressed. But people are free to protest within the law, which has also been pointed out multiple times on this thread.

splinter65 wrote: »

But who decides which opinion should be aired and which silenced?

Silenced? That's strange, because a few posts back you were saying that it was a huge box office success. So can you clarify which one of your posts is complete nonsense? Or, as I strongly suspect, is it both?

jimgoose · 08-10-2019 2:09pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is not being suppressed. But people are free to protest within the law, which has also been pointed out multiple times on this thread...

Of course, agreed.

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 2:41pm

In Ireland, the state retains laws that allow for censorship, including specific laws covering films, advertisements, newspapers and magazines, as well as terrorism and pornography.
In the early years of the state, censorship was widely enforced, particularly in areas that were perceived to be in contradiction of Catholic dogma, including abortion, sexuality and homosexuality

Now we seem to have switched completely to the other side and we're all happy to frame the abortion debate as 'choice' when clearly and demonstrably it is not.

With our current laws all that matters is who is in charge and what the public perception is(was offence caused?). There is no objective standard by which to measure 'offence'.

What needs to change is these laws so that no matter what crazy bugger is in charge we won't have to worry about what we say.

James Brown · 08-10-2019 2:49pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

In Ireland, the state retains laws that allow for censorship, including specific laws covering films, advertisements, newspapers and magazines, as well as terrorism and pornography.

In the early years of the state, censorship was widely enforced, particularly in areas that were perceived to be in contradiction of Catholic dogma, including abortion, sexuality and homosexuality

Now we seem to have switched completely to the other side and we're all happy to frame the abortion debate as 'choice' when clearly and demonstrably it is not.

With our current laws all that matters is who is in charge and what the public perception is(was offence caused?). There is no objective standard by which to measure 'offence'.

What needs to change is these laws so that no matter what crazy bugger is in charge we won't have to worry about what we say.

No 'we' haven't. You keep trying to sell that.
If the supporters of the film had their way we'd return to the bad old days. I can see why people would want to protest any moves on a return to those days. By the way we've a hell of a long way to go to have any form of a switch. The whole culture wars thing is the conservatives not liking how equality is on the rise.

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 2:54pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No 'we' haven't. You keep trying to sell that.
If the supporters of the film had their way we'd return to the bad old days. I can see why people would want to protest any moves on a return to those days. By the way we've a hell of a long way to go to have any form of a switch. The whole culture wars thing is the conservatives not liking how equality is on the rise.

Weren't you the poster earlier that you'd allow a woman to kill her child one day before due date as to preserve her choice?

Yes.. it was you.. that is absolutely disgusting.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Answer my question first: Would you deny a woman the choice to kill her baby one day before birth?

Never said I would.

That's why the debate should not be framed as choice. It's not about choice. Choice is a propaganda used to gain support. Nobody is opposed to women's choices.

jimgoose · 08-10-2019 3:00pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

...That's why the debate should not be framed as choice. It's not about choice. Choice is a propaganda used to gain support. Nobody is opposed to women's choices.

Why are you honking on with the "choice is propaganda" horse-shit? Not that it's the subject of this thread or anything, but plenty regressive bullies, some women among them, are opposed to women's choices.

It occurs to me that if anything, declaring one's self to be "pro life" is propaganda, insofar as it's the ultimate claiming of the moral high ground, to the point of strawmanning. The implication seems to be that everyone opposed to you is in favour of murdering ickle babbies with a chainsaw.

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 3:11pm

jimgoose wrote: »

Why are you honking on with the "choice is propaganda" horse-shit? Not that it's the subject of this thread or anything, but plenty regressive bullies, some women among them, are opposed to women's choices.

Because the slogan 'choice' as a framing of the abortion debate is propaganda. Why?

Most people have no problem with early term abortion.
Equally, most people have a problem with later term abortion.

Therefore this implies it is more concern for the fetus/baby then for the choice of the woman.

To frame this as a matter of choice is emotive propaganda.

Boggles · 08-10-2019 3:12pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Now we seem to have switched completely to the other side and we're all happy to frame the abortion debate as 'choice' when clearly and demonstrably it is not..

WTF?

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 3:15pm

Boggles wrote: »

WTF?

What percentage of the people that voted to repeal the 8th would be happy with women having abortions one day before due date? Real question, is it 100%?

Boggles · 08-10-2019 3:16pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What percentage of the people that voted to repeal the 8th would be happy with women having abortions one day before due date? Real question, is it 100%?

I have no idea, but are you over thinking lad, big time.

The choice is now there.

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 3:19pm

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea, but are you over thinking lad, big time.

The choice is now there.

I know it feels awkward right now to consider that the framing that you have accepted so readily might be incorrect; but believe me it is.

Surely you like most sensible people have a problem with late term abortions when a fetus/baby is nearly fully developed? If that is the case; it is demonstrable how framing this as choice is not just incorrect; but a dangerous play to obfuscate reason with emotion.

jimgoose · 08-10-2019 3:21pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Because the slogan 'choice' as a framing of the abortion debate is propaganda. Why?

Most people have no problem with early term abortion...

Except, presumably, most of the third or so of the population here that voted to preserve the Eighth. You're trying to dance on a pin here, for some reason, and it's rather dull! :pac:

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 3:24pm

jimgoose wrote: »

Except, presumably, most of the third or so of the population here that voted to preserve the Eighth. You're trying to dance on a pin here, for some reason, and it's rather dull! :pac:

A repeal of the 8th didn't just allow early term abortions.

If the vote had been "Should we allow early term abortions"I believe the percentage would have been a lot higher.
People were also afraid of abortion on demand(as seen by Matt Barrett's response).

gmisk · 08-10-2019 3:28pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is not being suppressed. But people are free to protest within the law, which has also been pointed out multiple times on this thread.

Silenced? That's strange, because a few posts back you were saying that it was a huge box office success. So can you clarify which one of your posts is complete nonsense? Or, as I strongly suspect, is it both?

Of course people have every right to protest if it's within the law, I see 4 pro life people with signs opposite the national maternity hospital every day when walking to and from work. As long as they aren't harassing people and have offensive imagery work away.

Same goes for anyone protesting about this film being shown, though in this case I think it's more likely to raise the films profile, having the opposite effect they want.

Boggles · 08-10-2019 3:33pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I know it feels awkward right now to consider that the framing that you have accepted so readily might be incorrect; but believe me it is.

Surely you like most sensible people have a problem with late term abortions when a fetus/baby is nearly fully developed? If that is the case; it is demonstrable how framing this as choice is not just incorrect; but a dangerous play to obfuscate reason with emotion.

Again you are riding the loon express.

Choice now exists where no choice existed before.

an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

You are welcome.

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 3:34pm

Boggles wrote: »

Again you are riding the loon express.

Choice now exists where no choice existed before.

You are welcome.

Great rebuttal.. gold star for you. You over-simplify to perpetuate your propaganda. I know you are more clever than this, I've seen your posts before. I'm disappointed.

Boggles · 08-10-2019 3:38pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Great rebuttal.. gold star for you. You over-simplify to perpetuate your propaganda. I know you are more clever than this, I've seen your posts before. I'm disappointed.

I'll continue to keep it simple.

Choice now exists where it didn't before.

Fact not propaganda.

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 3:39pm

Boggles wrote: »

I'll continue to keep it simple.

Choice now exists where it didn't before.

Fact not propaganda.

Your newspeak grows tiresome. Enjoy your cognitive dissonance buddy.

A controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought — personal identity, self-expression, free will — that threatens the ideology of the régime of Big Brother and the Party, who have criminalized such concepts into thoughtcrime, as contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 4:03pm

This is the slippery slope the framing as choice is embarking us on;

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics,
Charles Sturt University,
Canberra, Australian

Stop moaning ffs · 08-10-2019 4:04pm

After birth abortion.

We’re in full loony tunes now it seems.

sabat · 08-10-2019 4:05pm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

We can’t change the constitution without a referendum. Would have though that wouldn’t have to be said.

The 36th amendment:

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

You should read and analyse what you're voting for; would have though that wouldn’t have to be said.

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 4:05pm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

After birth abortion.

We’re in full loony tunes now it seems.

That's where framing the debate as 'choice' leads us as shown by the ethics department of that Australia University.

Matt Barrett admitted earlier he'd be happy to give a woman the choice to abort a child one day before birth. What's 1 day difference ? Are you against a woman's right to choose?

Stop moaning ffs · 08-10-2019 4:08pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

That's where framing the debate as 'choice' leads us as shown by the ethics department of that Australia University.

The term after birth abortion is completely made up. It you killed a new born baby it’s murder.

Can you point to anyone who ‘chooses’ to do that ?

Stop moaning ffs · 08-10-2019 4:10pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

That's where framing the debate as 'choice' leads us as shown by the ethics department of that Australia University.

Matt Barrett admitted earlier he'd be happy to give a woman the choice to abort a child one day before birth. What's 1 day difference ? Are you against a woman's right to choose?

I don’t know what he said. Nice ninja edit tough.
Every woman has a right to choose.

I’m curious as to where you think you have the right to right to stop them choosing?

Veritas Libertas · 08-10-2019 4:12pm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Every woman has a right to choose.

I’m curious as to where you think you have the right to right to stop them choosing?

Does a woman have the right to choose to end her pregnancy one day before she's due?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

keano_afc · 08-10-2019 4:35pm

I'm assuming Galway Pro-Choice have changed their name?

Stop moaning ffs · 08-10-2019 4:50pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Does a woman have the right to choose to end her pregnancy one day before she's due?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

I don’t believe late term abortion is allowed outside the life of th mother being endangered and or the fetus being ‘incompatible with life’/ likely to die

Hotblack Desiato · 08-10-2019 6:08pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Now we seem to have switched completely to the other side and we're all happy to frame the abortion debate as 'choice' when clearly and demonstrably it is not.

Anyone who chooses to see this film can do so.
In fact these days, even if you could get something banned by law, it'd still be almost impossible to prevent anyone who wanted to from seeing/reading it.

With our current laws all that matters is who is in charge and what the public perception is(was offence caused?). There is no objective standard by which to measure 'offence'.

Causing offence isn't against the law afaik.

"outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion" was the standard in the blasphemy law brought in in 2009, but that's been repealed. Outrage was certainly a higher bar than offence.

Freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed (subject to public order and morality, however you want to define those...) but given various Supreme Court decisions (including on blasphemy) and in the context of the European Charter of Human Rights, it's hard to see how any law materially restricting free speech would hold up.

Censoring/Suppressing films

Comments