View source for Talk:Censorability

andy, could we have some sources??? --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 19:04, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:John, censorability is as logical a concept as the idea that 2+2=4. I suppose you also require "sources" for such logical truths as the positive effects of school prayer and of reading the Bible. Open your mind. [[User:EdwardS|EdwardS]] 19:14, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:: Right.  What's next, demanding a source for an arithmetic calculation?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:::so, you're refusing to simply cite a source, which I "requested". My mind is open, i just wanted this page to adhere to the Conservapedia Commandments. also, some cites with maths would be nice, because it would give the population links to further information. --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 21:22, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable," requires the Conservapedia Commandments.  Original insights can qualify.  Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia welcomes original, logical entries.  Conservapedia advances knowledge rather than merely regurgitating and distorting it as liberal sources do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

::I must say this is powerful stuff providing amazing  insights. I have noticed that both [[classroom prayer]] and economic [[allocative efficiency]] are objected to by [[Liberal]]s, and as such they will try and censor them. What I would like to do is quantify the censorability of [[classroom prayer]] and economic [[allocative efficiency]]. I am, however, uncertain as to how I should ascertain the censorability score on the scale of  "0" to "1" for the afore mentioned. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 09:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::: The scoring system could be improved.  Classroom prayer would have high censorability, I think.  Please improve this as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

== Basis of determining values ==

I'm probably just not understanding the concept properly, so an answer to my question may help in improving the article itself.  I can see how some concepts or topics are more easily censored than others ''in specific circumstances'', but that's not the same as ''the topic itself'' being susceptible to censorship.<br/>
To clarify what I mean, I was expecting Christianity to be a benchmark example of the "zero" end of this scale.  You can suppress the open worship of Christianity in some countries, and we see many examples where the sensible original intent of separating Church and State is taken to ridiculous extremes that go against that original intent.  Add to this two thousand years of Christian martyrs who suffered the ultimate form of censorship over their faith, and yet, Christianity itself survives and thrives, the core faith itself having defied censorship even as other religions from 2,000 years ago have faded. <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)

: 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)

::I see what you're saying, but I find it hard to accept that the Tea Party, which has been around for less than 24 months, should be regarded as more resilient than Christianity.  In 50 or 100 years, I know one will be around and thriving, but the other...?  (I'm not close-minded, but you'll have to forgive my pro-Christianity bias, Andy :-)   ) --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:39, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::The Tea Party itself won't be around in fifty years, but the values that underpin it might well be. The French Revolution only lasted a short time, but liberty, fraternity and equality are still going strong.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::In addition to CPalmer's point, the issue is not resilience, but resilience ''to censorship''.  Christianity is stronger and with greater history than the [[Tea Party Movement]].  But the Tea Party concept is taught more in liberal history textbooks than Christianity is.  And I'm not sure how one could censor the Tea Party Movement, while it is obvious how liberals are censoring Christianity.

:::This entry does not try make subjective claims about which is better, or which is stronger.  It focuses on '''censorability''' alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:49, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::::By expressing ''censorability'' as percentage it may perhaps be possible to determine the censorability of a concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''', in a given environment '''E''', over a particular period of time '''t''', using the following formula where '''c''' is the number of occurences of censorship of  '''<math>x</math>''' and '''o''' the number of uncensored occurences of '''<math>x</math>'''.

:::::::<sup><math>x</math></sup><math>E(t)={\operatorname{c}100\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!</math>%

::::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 12:12, 28 May 2010 (EDT)