Freedom, responsibility and selfishness
https://forum.sedty.com/t262353.html
Freedom, responsibility and selfishness
Strange and even bizarre that writers want absolute freedom, freedom without responsibility and they are the first to understand - and even brag - that freedom is the responsibility. I understand that when a creative person needs to feel free and ready, the perfect starting point is appropriate for a person living in a non-social environment. But when other mortals found, freedom was associated with responsibility. It is the narcissistic tendency that we find in most of the books (most of us or one of us, and this is a matter we discuss later), which drives many of us to ask for total freedom, which is free of any authority except the power of personal conscience, which is, of course, subjective.
The strangest thing is that these writers themselves are the ones who demand comprehensive, monitoring and exclusionary practices when their interests are harmed or when they come back against them. That is, let us translate this diminishing schizophrenic act: "Hello, I am a writer and I would like to undermine any authority that focuses on what I write, but at the same time I expect the society, the authority and the judiciary to guarantee my rights to me and to limit me to those who trample on me. My misery is the torment.
The dictatorship of freedom!
I sometimes like to add some information to Wikipedia, as it has become the first destination for those looking for information, regardless of its reliability. Of course, we expect Wikipedia, the Internet's owner, and the freedom bearer to be the leader in freedom, and to minimize as much as possible editorial policy that sometimes turns into rigid and sometimes conciliatory censorship of traditional encyclopedias. I had recently craved reading
Some scientific studies on a scientific subject related to Islam, and I was excited to add the results of these studies to the English article in Wikipedia. But one of the editors of the volunteer encyclopaedia, Sultalla Ali, added that the more information you have added to a scientific study, the more likely it is that the source is unreliable, although all the studies I referred to were from the popular PubMed database, which collects scientific studies on medicine. I entered this editor in a "war of liberation", whenever I come to study, found a specimen; this is biased, and these are preliminary data, and the other case study may not be circulated. And when I added a matching study in its methodology to a study mentioned in advanceفي
In the article, he also wanted to keep it, and even removed the study mentioned above in the article claiming it is unreliable and mentioned in the article was a mistake, and thanked me for alerting to this error! I do not know whether this editor hit a wave of scientific accuracy, or intolerance and stubbornness? But this is an example that one of the examples of practical freedom in our time (Wikipedia) is not immune to censorship, and is not immune to excessive censorship of its sensitivity or intolerance. And that freedom when it exceeds a certain level to be in the conscience of someone, when there is no authority to resort to, we do not face anything but tyranny and tyranny.
https://forum.sedty.com/t262353.html
Bad literature
The misfortune that the proponents of the assassination of our friend Phoenix, I mean censorship, are themselves inspired by bad literature, trivial books, writers who have become objects of review, and reading that turned into an activity rather than intellectual rather than intellectual. By God, what you are doing is totally exclusionary, let them be the decision of the reader. They will say, "They spoil the public taste," so I know this and agree completely, but at the same time I do not understand their contradiction, those who want to undermine the censorship of their release, but want to be a way to "prevent" these pedophiles from publishing their vanities.
