Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + + +
→Basis of determining values: zero censorability means 100% resilience. In fact, maybe the scale should be on a percentage basis.
You can't censor the laws of mathematics because, like the ratio of Pi, they are there for anyone to observe and understand for themselves. Other concepts, like Christianity, ''could'' be censored in theory and replaced by indoctrination in other ways of thinking in restrictive places like North Korea. However, it's the ''powerful nature'' of a concept like Christianity that ultimately defies censorship. Suppress it in one place, and it grows in several others, waiting to be spread back to where it was suppressed.<br/>
You can't censor the laws of mathematics because, like the ratio of Pi, they are there for anyone to observe and understand for themselves. Other concepts, like Christianity, ''could'' be censored in theory and replaced by indoctrination in other ways of thinking in restrictive places like North Korea. However, it's the ''powerful nature'' of a concept like Christianity that ultimately defies censorship. Suppress it in one place, and it grows in several others, waiting to be spread back to where it was suppressed.<br/>
As I'm writing this, I thinking that the best way to express this is by defining a corollary property, ''Resilience to Censorship''. Some concepts, like math, are solid like rocks and practically immune to censorship. Others are susceptible to censorship, in the way that plants can be eradicated from a location, but as with plants, are resilient enough to be reseeded and take root if they survive anywhere else. (Look at the area around Mt. Saint Helens or even Chernobyl now). So unless I totally missed the point about censorability, you need to match it up with the corresponding resiliency to truly understand how powerful an idea or concept is. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:18, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
As I'm writing this, I thinking that the best way to express this is by defining a corollary property, ''Resilience to Censorship''. Some concepts, like math, are solid like rocks and practically immune to censorship. Others are susceptible to censorship, in the way that plants can be eradicated from a location, but as with plants, are resilient enough to be reseeded and take root if they survive anywhere else. (Look at the area around Mt. Saint Helens or even Chernobyl now). So unless I totally missed the point about censorability, you need to match it up with the corresponding resiliency to truly understand how powerful an idea or concept is. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:18, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
: Truth continues regardless of censorship, but some articulations of the truth are more easily censored than others. "Resilience to Censorship" is what is meant by "censorability": zero censorability means 100% resilience. In fact, maybe the scale should be on a percentage basis.
: Christianity is easily censored in institutions of academic learning, hence its poor score. Other concepts, like pro-life, are more difficult to censor even in the most hostile (liberal) environments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:32, 28 May 2010 (EDT)