Censorship is not about intentions. Censorship is either happening or it isn't, it is the results that matters and not the intent, and it must be a result that arrives at solely because of that act and does so with repeated frequency, so being booed once or a million times, regardless of who's being booed, must every time result in being silenced, which it never does, EVER. One boo or a million boos won't make it censorship because it doesn't stop anyone from speaking, exactly like one downvote or a million cannot stop someone from writing and posting. You can keep believing that one boo magically becomes censorship when it is longer than normal, I'm sure you also believe that standing up for freedom to express oneself is advocating whatever or however that said one was expressing themselves,
and much like you seem to believe that intentions is what constitutes censorship, ergo, if I intend to silence someone with a boo or a downvote, I tried to censor, despite the resulting disregard of either that is obvious option numero one as a response to my "censorship" (intent).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Nice job dodging the question. You should be a politician.
What is your conscious intention when you downvote someone?
It's a simple question.
(IFF) you don't have a reason (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
(IFF) you claim to have a reason but refuse to reveal it, claiming it is secret, or unimportant, or "just too complicated to explain" (THEN) your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
Do you believe censorship is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
Do you believe racism is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
Do you believe murder is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
I'm perfectly happy to follow you down either path (the primacy of intention (OR) the primacy of consequence).
All conversation boils down to an exchange of personal opinions.
My intention is to explore the similarities and identify the differences between our opinions.
Would it be fair to say that you believe intention is NEVER relevant?
Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics