I have split this thread from the Formal Debate proposal thread. It raises an interesting question concerning free speech and censorship.
Perhaps it is easiest to reply to Epictetus's post...
I second kwhilborn's demand. I wrote as much in this same thread, as did others (one member even called steampunk an 'attention whore' LOL) but James R (I presume) deleted all such remarks because this is a Formal Debate :worship: so apparently anyone who is offended by the sheer stupidity of the topic is not permitted to participate.
I suggest that Epictetus goes and reads the rules of the Formal Debates subforum. That forum is
strictly moderated. There are three types of threads allowed there, and only three. In a debate Proposal thread, discussion of the actual topic of debate is prohibited.
This has nothing at all to do with being offended by the proposed topic.
I was there. I saw both planes hit the towers, but I suppose steampunk on his high and mighty pedestal where he will deign to pick and choose and decide by his esoteric standards, unknown to us inferior (i.e., sane) people what constitutes real and acceptable evidence of existence is the one who gets to say whether 9/11 actually happened because this is a Formal Debate.
And if we adopt your preferred course of action, then steampunk will be censored and simply not be allowed to express any view that disagrees with yours.
I have to wonder: what are you so scared of here that you want to shut down a conversation just because it offends your sensibilities?
I think you're heading down a dangerous slope once you start advocating the censorship of views that differ from your own or from those whose opinions your support.
The measure of freedom of speech is not the protections you give to those with whom you agree, but the protections you give to those with whom you vehemently disagree - even dislike.
What would you have done if you could? Burn all 9/11 conspiracy books? Shut down all 9/11 conspiracy sites on the web? Put people in jail for daring to express the blatantly silly view that airliners didn't hit the World Trade Centre?
I've asked before and I'll ask again, why are nutsoid trolls allowed to pose idiotic questions like 'Did Albert Einstein actually exist?' and then "invite" us to disprove his mad assertion as if he were some tiny god who gets to say what is true and what is false because he claims to understand logic and semantics better than anyone else? - And then we find that's not the case it at all, no it's just another ridiculous troll that feels orgasmic shivers when he sees a reply to something he posted on the net.
Nutsoid trolls are not proven by mere assertion, ridicule or dismissal by yourself and those with whom you agree. Who knows? Maybe other people may regard
you as a nutsoid troll at some point, because you hold an unorthodox view on something.
You are, of course, free to decline any invitation to debate somebody, here or anywhere else. If you think that mere dismissal of a claim is enough to refute it, or that refutation is self evident, then so be it. Don't get all hot under the collar. Just decline and move on.
On the other hand, if you're
really worried that some people may take a false claim seriously, then here's an idea:
address the point. Don't seek to censor the person making it.
So, you're an eyewitness to the planes hitting the Twin Towers? Great! What better way to respond to a ridiculous claim that no planes hit the towers than with a first-hand account of what happened?
Why this need to resort to a demand for censorship?
I really want to see your response here. And not just yours, but those of the other posters above who have called for steampunk to be banned outright for even daring to make certain unpalatable suggestions.
