To those who care, please help out !

*SIL said:
I understand than this is Your overlook?

I know it is every persons belief that the most important thing going on the universe is them--or around them. Just because a radio station was forced to pull a popular radio show, doesnt mean I must care; it makes for an interesting question about censorship for others, that is all. Do you care about American censorship? Again, as Ive stated, there is almost no coverage of Poland in even say a Ny Times or Wall Street Journal. Ive visted Poland, but i have no connections to Poland, just as you Im sure, are not terribly concerned with poverty in Malawi, or tensions in Ethiopia.
 
speed said:
I know it is every persons belief that the most important thing going on the universe is them--or around them. Just because a radio station was forced to pull a popular radio show, doesnt mean I must care; it makes for an interesting question about censorship for others, that is all. Do you care about American censorship? Again, as Ive stated, there is almost no coverage of Poland in even say a Ny Times or Wall Street Journal. Ive visted Poland, but i have no connections to Poland, just as you Im sure, are not terribly concerned with poverty in Malawi, or tensions in Ethiopia.
I do not think You should care. I mean You can
care not for anything in Your life as it comes to me.
This is Your life.

Thank God that my country has no coverage in US,
cos' if Poland had, then You would all felt out of
Your chairs, like whole UE does, when watching
our president, prime minister and minister of education...
;-)
 
Justin S. said:
However, if the programs *SIL listed are indicative of the mentality of the station, and a segment of Polish youth in general, then maybe some english of the governments boot is not such a bad thing. :p

why?
 
Its funny how people only recognize the utmost explicit mechanisms of control. Its quite laughable to talk about "freedom" in any era, but especially so in ours.

The type of "protesting" under discussion is baggage from mommy and daddy.

Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly (who else thought that skit was damn funny?) It might be worthwhile for policy makers to flex a little and remind the pissants who controls what, even so called "free-speach" and the other baits of liberal "democracies".
 
Justin S. said:
Its quite laughable to talk about "freedom" in any era

Why?

The type of "protesting" under discussion is baggage from mommy and daddy.

How?

Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly (who else thought that skit was damn funny?) It might be worthwhile for policy makers to flex a little and remind the pissants who controls what, even so called "free-speach" and the other baits of liberal "democracies".

What? I'm not seeing any kind of argument here. You're just repeating yourself while tacking on those previous two points I quoted, as if they're supposed to support your conclusion. Maybe they do, but I can't see how since you didn't elaborate on your points at all.
 
Hey, I have this idea- whenever you post something, Ill expend no effort to interpret or understand it, and respond with an interrogative demanding explicit logical formulation of every statement.

Huh?
 
Justin S. said:
Hey, I have this idea- whenever you post something, Ill expend no effort to interpret or understand it, and respond with an interrogative demanding explicit logical formulation of every statement.

Huh?

Haha! Its fun when two epistemologists (is this a word--im making it one) argue.
 
I dont know... our thinking may be too far apart to actually argue ;), but Im glad Cythraul is around, even though hes a pain in the ass.

Here though, hes just being difficult cause hes lazy (he told me so!), and Im having a good time with it.
 
Justin S. said:
Hey, I have this idea- whenever you post something, Ill expend no effort to interpret or understand it, and respond with an interrogative demanding explicit logical formulation of every statement.

Huh?

oh jesus christ. Nice copout! What the hell am I supposed to do when you just make assertions left and right without 1) providing any argument or support for your assertions and 2) providing nothing to clue me in as to how you came to accept such views and how they're supposed to relate to your conclusion? Why don't you try to be clear? I mean, I don't even know where to begin with statements such as: "Its quite laughable to talk about "freedom" in any era"

I'm sorry, but the above example is in no way obviously true nor is it even clear what you mean by that. "Why?" and "How?" are simple questions and if your views hold any water then you should be able to give answers to them.
 
Cythraul,

Certainly, my statements in this thread arent supported by further text- the degree of this varies with the topic and parties present in communication. We dont start from scratch each time we attempt to communicate, flailing our hands because we need to construct language or build from simple premises on up in an excruciating fashion, we make manifold assumptions regarding shared knowledge (understanding). This process requires interpretation, which sometimes, it seems, you are reluctant to engage in. That said, I acknowledge that I can throw out "unconventional" ideas very abruptly, and that this may seem insufficient.

Often, I feel no need to provide background, such as with the statement "Its quite laughable to talk about "freedom" in any era...". Obviously, I do not mean literally "talk" of the concept "freedom" as such. It means, for one to suppose that the categorical concept "freedom" is meaningful or is an actual condition is to ignore states of being. My statement was meant to provoke thought, not "prove" its "correctness".

That said, you should know by now that when pressed (and assuming I have time and am of proper mood) will respond as thoroughly as I can given the limitations of my ability and this medium. There are several threads here where I have typed out several pages of very controlled language to provide support and aid understanding.

Now that Ive diluted this thread :zombie: ....
 
Justin S. said:
Obviously, I do not mean literally "talk" of the concept "freedom" as such.

I never thought you did.

It means, for one to suppose that the categorical concept "freedom" is meaningful or is an actual condition is to ignore states of being. My statement was meant to provoke thought, not "prove" its "correctness".

I don't agree with you at all. Well, I hope I'm interpreting you correctly. How is it that the categorical concept of freedom isn't meaningful? That's far from obvious. Why do you hold this view? And how exactly is it that to suppose that the concept is meaningful or that freedom is an actual condition is to ignore states of being?
 
Would *SIL care to explain this:

Grass asked to give up citizenship of Gdansk over SS past

14 August 2006

WARSAW/HAMBURG - Poland's governing Law and Justice party (PiS) has called on Nobel Prize-winning German writer Guenter Grass to give up his honorary citizenship of the Polish Baltic port city of Gdansk after he recently admitted to being a member of the Nazi Waffen SS during the Second World War.

"No member of the Waffen SS can be an honorary citizen of any Polish city, especially not Gdansk where the Second World War erupted," PiS Member of Parliament Jacek Kurski told reporters Monday in Gdansk.

It seems inconsistent with her description of what the Polish authorities are up to.
 
Norsemaiden said:
Would *SIL care to explain this:



It seems inconsistent with her description of what the Polish authorities are up to.

Isn't it enough to make coalision with LPR ?
(The Polish Families League) - strong
right-wing-oriented party, whose members have been reported giving
statements of xenophobic, anti-European, racist and anti-Jewish sound, and
have never apologized for that. Some, including the vice - head of Polish TV
Piotr Farfał, are former or active members of MW (Młodzież Wszechpolska,
which may be translated as Omnipolish Youth). MW is a youth section of LPR;
the name is a tribute to a similar organization that existed in the 1930's
and is known for its strong anti-Jewish propaganda. The present MW does not
deny a certain resemblance of its structure and methods of upbringing its
members to the infamous Hitlerjugend. Its members have been numerously
reported to participate in xenophobic and fascist actions including
demonstrations during which violence was used, attacks on the members of
left-wing organizations (a few murders are still being investigated), publishing
xenophobic, racist, fascist and Nazi propaganda in underground magazines.
The official website of MW there is a description of organization doctrine that contains numerous quotes from propaganda speeches of Adolph Hitler, used in exactly the same context as in their "ancestor's" originals.
LPR suggests to tight-en law and introduce death penalty for
perpetrators of crime commited with special brutality against
sexual motives on under age of 15 years old victims.

PiS is cautious. I will not fail to let you know about
their , let's call this, "black side".
 
Justin S. said:
Its funny how people only recognize the utmost explicit mechanisms of control. Its quite laughable to talk about "freedom" in any era, but especially so in ours.

The type of "protesting" under discussion is baggage from mommy and daddy.

Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly (who else thought that skit was damn funny?) It might be worthwhile for policy makers to flex a little and remind the pissants who controls what, even so called "free-speach" and the other baits of liberal "democracies".

This statement is what I want clarification on. I think, your intention was to explain how so few have any real grasp or understanding what freedom is, and most of the juvenile set, complain or protest about trivial and self-indulgent matters instead of addressing freedom itself. Yet, you offerred no true or alternative definition of freedom, and indeed, it seemed you were essentially mocking the very nature of freedom for some confused Nietszchean/Heideggerian haughtyness and will to power; which in my mind, is as laughable as these adolescents you mention, crying about their "freedom".

Im just wondering here.
 
*SIL said:

On the other hand, Communist groups and fascist groups are illegal in Poland (and that's a real outrage).

Then again, this ban doesn't stop Communists from getting into power (so in theory it might not stop "fascists"). After all, in 2002 Poland had an ex-communist Prime Minister and a government with other ex-communists in it (as does the UK) who thought the USSR should have stayed in Poland. It would be my guess *SIL that you'd vote for the likes of him.

http://www.anneapplebaum.com/politics/2002/03_23_spec_slippery.html

The present Polish government, as well as being condemnatory towards Gunther Grass, and not allowing the Iranians to investigate Aushwitz,
also has allowed Israeli children to come to Poland to escape the present bombing, courtesy of Polish taxpayers.
http://www.sirhumphreys.com/taxonomy/term/99

I think there is more oppression in Poland of those who wish to criticise Jews and immigration - which can lead to prosecution. That is censorship.
 
Speed and Cythraul,

I will try to briefly clarify my statements on freedom. They are certainly not derived from Nietzschean ideas of "will to power", and generally speaking, I dislike him specifically for his "haughtiness". My curt manner is not an arrogant boasting, but more like crabbiness (with a weary smile of course ;)) due to the difficulties of making oneself understood.

My statement, "Its quite laughable to talk about "freedom" in any era, but especially so in ours" is sweeping, and requires the reader to infer a lot, probably too much. I followed with another statement that, while still very broad, makes several important distinctions, "for one to suppose that the categorical concept "freedom" is meaningful or is an actual condition is to ignore states of being." This says that we are talking about freedom, not vaguely, or it as such, but the categorical condition that is the common understanding (to be "free", in opposition to not-free, obligated, controlled, mitigated, oppressed, bound, etc.). It says that this understanding ignores all states of being, the many simultaneous states and conditions of our existence.

I must say what I mean by "freedom". In this thread, Im responding to this word in terms of its most popular and potent use (its effect), not by what I think of it, nor Plato, nor Kant or Heidegger. The word-concept "freedom" has incredibly powerful social/psychological effects that steam from very shoddy metaphysics, not the elaborations of careful thinkers.

Free-dom, the state of "free", the absence of restraint (possibly necessity), the availability and exercise of choice and independence, freedom from some controlling force, freedom to exercise will in some manner. This concept is pure fantasy when understood categorically (I would argue that this is now entrenched in the very construction of the word).

It thinks not of "thrown-ness", the condition of existence we all in each case find ourselves. It disregards our being-in-the-world, that we are assailed by presence, and do not choose how something can come to exist (the enabling condition of being), it is oblivious to historicity, that we are a lineage of genetics and acculturation, we are born into a family, community, society, hierarchy with endless restrictions, rules, policies, and conditions that determine our existence, a language that structures and sets limits to thought and conceptualization. Freedom clings to linear causality, a reductionist method that seeks to tear states of affairs from their context to "simplify matters" and affirm the fleeting power of human will. This, and so much more that I cannot list, is what the category "freedom" passes over and obliterates once set as a foundation for a metaphysical system.

A much more rigorous idea is that of our "free play", the room for our engagement (negotiation) within the conditions of our existence.