This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Censorship on YouTube
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SHallowvale
If you think that porn should be censored because showing it to kids would be unethical, why do you take issue with Youtube removing content that they deem to be unethical, e.g. videos promoting neo-Nazism?
There is a huge difference between sexuality and the human body which are very sensitive issues with everything else around. Obviously I am not thinking that it should be censored. Society itself has decided on the news regarding this issue.
Videos promoting whatever material that are unlawful will be removed by any plarform . In the case of Nazi Videos I am not quite sure what is the legislation here but I will assume it depends on the country. For example Germany has very strict laws in relation to references of Nazism.
As I said earlier I am against banning videos as it is itself unethical.
You have given me two cases, Pornography and Nazism. However the vast majority of videos banned have nothing to do with either cases. Here we are talking about perfectly legitimate material that is banned on a regular basis.
Classical absurdity on youtube the banning of scientists but the permission of very disturbing material such as public executions. As for Nazism I am quite sure there are several videos or used to be in the field.. However it maybe the case that YouTube could be changing their policies.
Original post by ByEeek
Cool. So why don't people like you isolate so that people who do care can go about their lives as normal?
It's very simple that you ask the people in the risk groups to do so. Not the ones who are healthy. Healthy people who are not in the risk groups don't isolate or shield. It's the other way around.
Also healthy people need to remain healthy in order to help the others who are not. They are also have to be able to go to work. With repeated and lengthy lockdowns, and you seem not to understand this point well, even the healthy and the young will eventually become sick and miserable in the long term, as unemployment and poverty will have more catastrophic results from any known virus..
Original post by Lucifer323
I like that you ask for evidence as if it's a matter of science or as if you are scientists about to examine the evidence presented and then write a paper and make review.
Given that you are all accustomed to Google searches, a simple google search will give you plenty of results. Alternatively, newspapers or articles that you have read will do. But I suppose you haven't..
Given that you are all accustomed to Google searches, a simple google search will give you plenty of results. Alternatively, newspapers or articles that you have read will do. But I suppose you haven't..
It is the whole point of this thread, there is no evidence of the censorship.
If it was that easy to find you would have posted something by now.
Why did you make this thread if it is all lies?
Original post by DiddyDec
It is the whole point of this thread, there is no evidence of the censorship.
If it was that easy to find you would have posted something by now.
Why did you make this thread if it is all lies?
If it was that easy to find you would have posted something by now.
Why did you make this thread if it is all lies?
Who said that there is no evidence at all here? Who said that these are all lies? These conclusions of yours are troubling..
Just make a simple Google Search and you will find a lot of material on the subject.
You are not reading what I am posting and what others posting, unfortunately.
Original post by DiddyDec
It is the whole point of this thread, there is no evidence of the censorship.
If it was that easy to find you would have posted something by now.
Why did you make this thread if it is all lies?
If it was that easy to find you would have posted something by now.
Why did you make this thread if it is all lies?
You need to be aware that I am not conducting myself with links from websites. I rather leave this to the reader to find for themselves, in all threads and all discussions. You are clearly coming to the wrong conclusions.
I have given you names since the beginning of the discussion but you chose to ignore them.
Pr John Ioannidis
Pr Scott Atlas
Dr Wittkofski
Several others...
Original post by ByEeek
Brilliant. Your life isn't in danger but you are a potential danger to others, so why don't you play your part and self isolate indefinitely so that others can go about their lives safely?
I am really trying to understand the logic behind your comment here and eventhough I have answered yesterday evening I want to comment on the lack of any scientific knowledge by your side and even the basics in medicine, care, and prevention...
So in a sense you are asking me or other people, let's say the healthy and the ones who are in low risks groups, why don't we isolate indefinitely so others can go about their lives safely?
Anyone here wants to give an answer?!
@LovelyMrFox @1st superstar [br] [br] If the healthy and the ones were about to self isolate indefinitely then who will perform the tasks needed and who will go to work? There wouldn't be many left... Society will collapse and massive unemployment and poverty will cause catastrophic consequences to everything we know...
I am still finding these conversations very strange as you don't seem to have a clue about what is happening around here..
Original post by 1st superstar
I think that people who are really scared of the virus, those acting irresponsibility (those partying, breaking the rules etc) should be the ones to isolate imo.
That's another category. But even these young people If they have to isolate then it's for two weeks not indefinitely as ByEeek suggested...
Original post by Lucifer323
Who said that there is no evidence at all here? Who said that these are all lies? These conclusions of yours are troubling..
Just make a simple Google Search and you will find a lot of material on the subject.
You are not reading what I am posting and what others posting, unfortunately.
Just make a simple Google Search and you will find a lot of material on the subject.
You are not reading what I am posting and what others posting, unfortunately.
Original post by Lucifer323
You need to be aware that I am not conducting myself with links from websites. I rather leave this to the reader to find for themselves, in all threads and all discussions. You are clearly coming to the wrong conclusions.
I have given you names since the beginning of the discussion but you chose to ignore them.
Pr John Ioannidis
Pr Scott Atlas
Dr Wittkofski
Several others...
I have given you names since the beginning of the discussion but you chose to ignore them.
Pr John Ioannidis
Pr Scott Atlas
Dr Wittkofski
Several others...
So you still can't find any evidence to support your argument? What a surprise.
@ByEeek
@1st superstar
@LovelyMrFox
@SHallowvale
I am again having to make some more comments in terms of the suggestions here that healthy people and those in low risks groups have to self isolate either for a few weeks or idefinitely (suggestion made by ByEeek)
Let's see this again as there is a confusion which is still going on.
43,000 deaths in the UK, 27,000 in care homes. The rest 16,000 deaths concern mostly people who are over 65 and in high risk groups by more than 95%.
It doesn't take much time to see where the issue is.
The medical consensus is that those in care homes and those over 65 and in high risk groups MUST be shielded and isolated for some period of time especially when there is an epidemic wave-the second one
Isolation & shielding are medical terms and they don't imply social exclusion.
The proposal that somehow there is discrimination here is just ludicrous.
The other proposal that healthy people in low risk groups should isolate indefinitely to protect the others (who are the others by the way?) is also ludicrous and will lead to a humanitarian catastrophy with massive unemployment and poverty.
Viral epidemics are not treated by locking down entire populations or creating massive unemployment and poverty which will eventually cripple the economy and kill many more people than the virus will ever do.
The answer here for which many scientists had their interviews taken down by youtube is that society should leave the science to the scientists and not to politicians or completely uninformed and uneducated reporters and pedestrians who think they have a say on how this crisis should be treated.
The medical consensus is that extensive lockdowns are not the answer to viral epidemics. The best of the two worlds is to isolate and shield those in care homes and the ones over 65 who belong to the high risk groups and let the rest of the society go about their lives with care and caution in regards to hygiene and social distancing, until some effective medicine or vaccines are found.
I think is not that too difficult to understand..
@Pinkisk
@1st superstar
@LovelyMrFox
@SHallowvale
I am again having to make some more comments in terms of the suggestions here that healthy people and those in low risks groups have to self isolate either for a few weeks or idefinitely (suggestion made by ByEeek)
Let's see this again as there is a confusion which is still going on.
43,000 deaths in the UK, 27,000 in care homes. The rest 16,000 deaths concern mostly people who are over 65 and in high risk groups by more than 95%.
It doesn't take much time to see where the issue is.
The medical consensus is that those in care homes and those over 65 and in high risk groups MUST be shielded and isolated for some period of time especially when there is an epidemic wave-the second one
Isolation & shielding are medical terms and they don't imply social exclusion.
The proposal that somehow there is discrimination here is just ludicrous.
The other proposal that healthy people in low risk groups should isolate indefinitely to protect the others (who are the others by the way?) is also ludicrous and will lead to a humanitarian catastrophy with massive unemployment and poverty.
Viral epidemics are not treated by locking down entire populations or creating massive unemployment and poverty which will eventually cripple the economy and kill many more people than the virus will ever do.
The answer here for which many scientists had their interviews taken down by youtube is that society should leave the science to the scientists and not to politicians or completely uninformed and uneducated reporters and pedestrians who think they have a say on how this crisis should be treated.
The medical consensus is that extensive lockdowns are not the answer to viral epidemics. The best of the two worlds is to isolate and shield those in care homes and the ones over 65 who belong to the high risk groups and let the rest of the society go about their lives with care and caution in regards to hygiene and social distancing, until some effective medicine or vaccines are found.
I think is not that too difficult to understand..
@Pinkisk
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by ByEeek
I've never heard of this chap such is his insignificance. Why do you think he's been censored?
Yes you have never heard of this scientist as well as many other scientists and I will assume that most of you don't know the names of even a handful of scientists, generally speaking, not the ones that may have been censored.
This is because the vast majority of people are irrelevant with science 😫
and they only know what is served to them in the media. So, if I was to ask what scientist you know, most people would probably go to the most famous such as Albert Einstein and will have a complete ignorance of anyone else in the field or anyother fields.
Have you happened to know Abdus Salam by the way?! Not many people will say yes. But guess what?! He was as good and even better to Einstein and the founder of the Theoretical Physics Group at Imperial College London. He got the Nobel Prize for his contribution in the electroweak unification theory.
Likewise just because you dont know Professor John Ioannidis that doesn't make him lesser of a scientist. The fact that works at Stanford must be very alarming to you as Stanford employs the best brains around. Einstein also worked there.
But I recall that you have had doubts in relation to this guy and you have implied he might be a quack or a conspiracy theorist. 😫😫😫
I can only verify that the level of science and education of ordinary people in the UK is non existent in many cases. It's a very alarming situation when people of who are irrelevant with science and medicine are expressing opinions as if they were experts or at the very least educated in the matter.
@Pinkisk
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Lucifer323
Videos promoting whatever material that are unlawful will be removed by any plarform .
I don't understand why you keep referring back to the legality of what Youtube can / can not do, since the questions I have been asking are irrespective of what the law says. I have been asking what you think should be allowed.
You said earlier that children should not be able to watch porn because it is unethical, but now you are saying that you are against the censorship of porn. Which is it?
Original post by Lucifer323
@ByEeek
@1st superstar
@LovelyMrFox
@SHallowvale
I am again having to make some more comments in terms of the suggestions here that healthy people and those in low risks groups have to self isolate either for a few weeks or idefinitely (suggestion made by ByEeek)
Let's see this again as there is a confusion which is still going on.
43,000 deaths in the UK, 27,000 in care homes. The rest 16,000 deaths concern mostly people who are over 65 and in high risk groups by more than 95%.
It doesn't take much time to see where the issue is.
The medical consensus is that those in care homes and those over 65 and in high risk groups MUST be shielded and isolated for some period of time especially when there is an epidemic wave-the second one
Isolation & shielding are medical terms and they don't imply social exclusion.
The proposal that somehow there is discrimination here is just ludicrous.
The other proposal that healthy people in low risk groups should isolate indefinitely to protect the others (who are the others by the way?) is also ludicrous and will lead to a humanitarian catastrophy with massive unemployment and poverty.
Viral epidemics are not treated by locking down entire populations or creating massive unemployment and poverty which will eventually cripple the economy and kill many more people than the virus will ever do.
The answer here for which many scientists had their interviews taken down by youtube is that society should leave the science to the scientists and not to politicians or completely uninformed and uneducated reporters and pedestrians who think they have a say on how this crisis should be treated.
The medical consensus is that extensive lockdowns are not the answer to viral epidemics. The best of the two worlds is to isolate and shield those in care homes and the ones over 65 who belong to the high risk groups and let the rest of the society go about their lives with care and caution in regards to hygiene and social distancing, until some effective medicine or vaccines are found.
I think is not that too difficult to understand..
@Pinkisk
@1st superstar
@LovelyMrFox
@SHallowvale
I am again having to make some more comments in terms of the suggestions here that healthy people and those in low risks groups have to self isolate either for a few weeks or idefinitely (suggestion made by ByEeek)
Let's see this again as there is a confusion which is still going on.
43,000 deaths in the UK, 27,000 in care homes. The rest 16,000 deaths concern mostly people who are over 65 and in high risk groups by more than 95%.
It doesn't take much time to see where the issue is.
The medical consensus is that those in care homes and those over 65 and in high risk groups MUST be shielded and isolated for some period of time especially when there is an epidemic wave-the second one
Isolation & shielding are medical terms and they don't imply social exclusion.
The proposal that somehow there is discrimination here is just ludicrous.
The other proposal that healthy people in low risk groups should isolate indefinitely to protect the others (who are the others by the way?) is also ludicrous and will lead to a humanitarian catastrophy with massive unemployment and poverty.
Viral epidemics are not treated by locking down entire populations or creating massive unemployment and poverty which will eventually cripple the economy and kill many more people than the virus will ever do.
The answer here for which many scientists had their interviews taken down by youtube is that society should leave the science to the scientists and not to politicians or completely uninformed and uneducated reporters and pedestrians who think they have a say on how this crisis should be treated.
The medical consensus is that extensive lockdowns are not the answer to viral epidemics. The best of the two worlds is to isolate and shield those in care homes and the ones over 65 who belong to the high risk groups and let the rest of the society go about their lives with care and caution in regards to hygiene and social distancing, until some effective medicine or vaccines are found.
I think is not that too difficult to understand..
@Pinkisk
I do not care about the conversations you are having with other people, so please stop '@ - ing' me.
Why has this shifted from you arguing anti censorship to you arguing anti lockdown? Why didnt you just make a thread regarding the latter if you really wanted to debate it?
And would you stop tagging in irrelevant posts to what you and I were discussing? I assume you're doing this since everyone is done with your antics and your thread is dying, if you actually gave some sort of evidence or new arguments ( the basic components of a debate... ) it might not die so quickly.
And would you stop tagging in irrelevant posts to what you and I were discussing? I assume you're doing this since everyone is done with your antics and your thread is dying, if you actually gave some sort of evidence or new arguments ( the basic components of a debate... ) it might not die so quickly.
Original post by Lucifer323
No
Who says that I am a potential danger to others?
If I am a potential danger to others then everyone else who is out there is a potential danger to everyone else! All then according to you must be isolating and shielding and nobody will attend work, school, University or anything else.
You are twisting a lot what has been said and you seem to try to find a way around this...
Those who have to isolate and shield according to all standards and the ones in high risk groups. Not the others! What scientific publication and doctor says what you have claimed?? Can you show me one??
I live that someone has rated you given that the text makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
I am still intrigued on the way you have tried to define discrimination though..
Who says that I am a potential danger to others?
If I am a potential danger to others then everyone else who is out there is a potential danger to everyone else! All then according to you must be isolating and shielding and nobody will attend work, school, University or anything else.
You are twisting a lot what has been said and you seem to try to find a way around this...
Those who have to isolate and shield according to all standards and the ones in high risk groups. Not the others! What scientific publication and doctor says what you have claimed?? Can you show me one??
I live that someone has rated you given that the text makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
I am still intrigued on the way you have tried to define discrimination though..
You are a potential danger. If you get covid and are asymptomatic and give it to someone else they could be at risk because of your selfish actions. So why shouldn't folks like you isolate so that the vulnerable can go about having their best lives without worry?
You seem to not like this idea? Why not? Someone has to isolate so why not you? Or is it a case that as long as someone else is taking the hit so that your life is fine then all is well?
How can you expect others to self isolate if you are not prepared to do the same? That is my point. And if you still don't get it, I give up. It really isn't rocket science. In fact it isn't science. It is having morals and kindness. If we are all in this together, we all have to do our bit and all have to make some level of sacrifice. Alas you seem to have no empathy or the ability to see something from someone elses point of view. And I don't mean my view. I mean the people you are condemming to solitude, isolation and the mental and physical conditions that causes... all for some random blokes opinion on YouTube.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by LovelyMrFox
Why has this shifted from you arguing anti censorship to you arguing anti lockdown? Why didnt you just make a thread regarding the latter if you really wanted to debate it?
And would you stop tagging in irrelevant posts to what you and I were discussing? I assume you're doing this since everyone is done with your antics and your thread is dying, if you actually gave some sort of evidence or new arguments ( the basic components of a debate... ) it might not die so quickly.
And would you stop tagging in irrelevant posts to what you and I were discussing? I assume you're doing this since everyone is done with your antics and your thread is dying, if you actually gave some sort of evidence or new arguments ( the basic components of a debate... ) it might not die so quickly.
I agree. Heck even I agree with the OP's posts in regards to the lockdown but they still tagged me as if I was disagreeing with them... seriously?
Original post by ByEeek
You are a potential danger. If you get covid and are asymptomatic and give it to someone else they could be at risk because of your selfish actions. So why shouldn't folks like you isolate so that the vulnerable can go about having their best lives without worry?
You seem to not like this idea? Why not? Someone has to isolate so why not you? Or is it a case that as long as someone else is taking the hit so that your life is fine then all is well?
How can you expect others to self isolate if you are not prepared to do the same? That is my point. And if you still don't get it, I give up. It really isn't rocket science. In fact it isn't science. It is having morals and kindness. If we are all in this together, we all have to do our bit and all have to make some level of sacrifice. Alas you seem to have no empathy or the ability to see something from someone elses point of view. And I don't mean my view. I mean the people you are condemming to solitude, isolation and the mental and physical conditions that causes... all for some random blokes opinion on YouTube.
You seem to not like this idea? Why not? Someone has to isolate so why not you? Or is it a case that as long as someone else is taking the hit so that your life is fine then all is well?
How can you expect others to self isolate if you are not prepared to do the same? That is my point. And if you still don't get it, I give up. It really isn't rocket science. In fact it isn't science. It is having morals and kindness. If we are all in this together, we all have to do our bit and all have to make some level of sacrifice. Alas you seem to have no empathy or the ability to see something from someone elses point of view. And I don't mean my view. I mean the people you are condemming to solitude, isolation and the mental and physical conditions that causes... all for some random blokes opinion on YouTube.
It has been explained to you several times but you don't seem to get it simply because you don't understand the basics of viral infections and epidemics. If you did you would not argue the same nonsense again and again without understanding we are not all in the same risk group and hence we don't have to self isolate and shield.
If I am sejfish then is most of the population of the UK who goes out everyday and 'transmits' the virus as you claim.. By selfish means going to work and support your family?
Asymptomatic people usually don't transmit viruses in most cases if you happened to know.. but you obviously don't. That's why they are called asymptomatic. It means there is not enough virus to cause symptoms and hence in most cases they can't transmit anything.
In the infectious disease world, the people in the highest risk groups isolate and shield not the healthy ones. If you want to find out why ask your GP or any medical expert.
If you were a little educated in the matter you would know why. But you are completely irrelevant with this issue and you are asking nonsensical questions which show your irrelevance.
I am not quoting any random guy on YouTube. The persons I was talking about was Pr John Ionannidis from Stanford and Pr Scott Atlas from Stanford. I have referenced a couple of others who just point to the obvious and what Governnents should have done from the beginning of this story. They were right as it seems because they are scientists and experts in their fields
.
(*)
Most Governnents now even if its late in the game proceed exactly as these scientists have suggested i.e isolating and shielding the most vunerable in care homes and those who are over 65 who are in high risk groups letting the others go on with their lives until appropriate medicine and vaccines are found.
(*)
The other way around as you suggested is not even worth criticising as it is ludicrous and will lead to a humanitarian catastrophy. Nobody has ever suggested what you have suggested i.e the healthy and young to self isolate and those in risk groups to proceed with their lives. It's absolutely ludicrous and stupid!!!
I wonder if you would like to make a thread claiming the above.
The level of ignorance and lack of basic knowledge from your side is unbelievable. Not even common sense you can apply here...
The mostly disturbing aspect of your story is that you call members of Stanford, ones of the best Universities in the world, as quacks, conspiracy theorists, and random guys on YouTube when you have no credentials and not even basic GCSE science knowledge...
Finally I quote what you said: 'Screw the science'
I don't know if you would like me to go further making even more criticisms about the way you call others immoral and unethical when you are clearly clueless..
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by LovelyMrFox
Why has this shifted from you arguing anti censorship to you arguing anti lockdown? Why didnt you just make a thread regarding the latter if you really wanted to debate it?
And would you stop tagging in irrelevant posts to what you and I were discussing? I assume you're doing this since everyone is done with your antics and your thread is dying, if you actually gave some sort of evidence or new arguments ( the basic components of a debate... ) it might not die so quickly.
And would you stop tagging in irrelevant posts to what you and I were discussing? I assume you're doing this since everyone is done with your antics and your thread is dying, if you actually gave some sort of evidence or new arguments ( the basic components of a debate... ) it might not die so quickly.
We have come to a case where several scientists had their interviews and videos taken down on YouTube in relation to their criticisms of lockdowns and the way Governnents were handling the crisis.
Given that this is serious censorship on YouTube the conversation sifted there. If there are other matters you are aware of I don't have any problems discussing them.
Original post by SHallowvale
I don't understand why you keep referring back to the legality of what Youtube can / can not do, since the questions I have been asking are irrespective of what the law says. I have been asking what you think should be allowed.
You said earlier that children should not be able to watch porn because it is unethical, but now you are saying that you are against the censorship of porn. Which is it?
You said earlier that children should not be able to watch porn because it is unethical, but now you are saying that you are against the censorship of porn. Which is it?
I am of the opinion that most matters should be allowed and there should be no censorship.
Porn is not allowed and I want it to remain this way because kids are involved. This is for the protection of kids and it doesn't qualify as censorship.
Public executions is something which is also disturbing but allowed on YouTube on most occasions.
Other than that everything else should be up for viewing.
Original post by LovelyMrFox
Why has this shifted from you arguing anti censorship to you arguing anti lockdown? Why didnt you just make a thread regarding the latter if you really wanted to debate it?
And would you stop tagging in irrelevant posts to what you and I were discussing? I assume you're doing this since everyone is done with your antics and your thread is dying, if you actually gave some sort of evidence or new arguments ( the basic components of a debate... ) it might not die so quickly.
And would you stop tagging in irrelevant posts to what you and I were discussing? I assume you're doing this since everyone is done with your antics and your thread is dying, if you actually gave some sort of evidence or new arguments ( the basic components of a debate... ) it might not die so quickly.
By the way, I am not concerned on how much attention my thread is getting. The reason I was tagging you and a few others is because you showed some interest and replied to some of my texts, so I assumed you are engaged in these conversations.
Original post by 1st superstar
I agree. Heck even I agree with the OP's posts in regards to the lockdown but they still tagged me as if I was disagreeing with them... seriously?
No no no.. as I explained to the other user the reason I was tagging you together with the others is that I ve seen you had an interest in some of my texts and replied. Hence I assume you were engaging in these conversations and it's easier to tag other rather than making the reply to every single one of you.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
