# Talk:Censorability

andy, could we have some sources??? --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. EdwardS 19:14, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
Right. What's next, demanding a source for an arithmetic calculation?--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. --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.--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 Liberals, 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. 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.--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.
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.
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.
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. --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.--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 :-) ) --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.--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.--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 x, 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 x and o the number of uncensored occurences of x.
x$E(t)={\operatorname{c}100\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!$%
The higher the percentage the less resiliant the concept, movement or ideology x is to censorship. So 0% means completely resilant to censorship and 100% means completely vulnerable to censorship. Censorability thus expresses vulnerability to censorship.
AmandaBunting 12:12, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
Your suggestion is excellent and I included a slightly modified notation in the entry itself.--Andy Schlafly 13:20, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
I took the liberty of adding brackets and explaining the parameters. AmandaBunting 13:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
Thank you. Well done!--Andy Schlafly 14:00, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
That equation doesn't make sense. There is no time variable in the function. Placing any time in the equation will not affect the outcome. For example, if the time is 2 years, that will give us $E(2)={\operatorname{c}100\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!$. But it will turn out the same if we make time 3, 4, 5, or any other amount of years because time is not factored into the equation. I think a better way to express the equation would be $E(t,c,o)={\operatorname{ct}\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!$% where t is time in years. Now we can have the function as such:$E(1/2,5,10)={\operatorname{(5)(1/2)}\over\operatorname{5}+10} \!$ Which gives us a censorability of 16.7% or .17 JonS 19:17, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
I'm no math major, but I don't know that time needs to be factored in; times censored over opportunities to be censored seems logical to me. Why would you multiply the result of that equation by time? If something is censored 50% of the time for 5 years ... does that mean that the censorability is 2.50? That's impossible; the percent would be 250%.--IDuan 22:22, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
I see your point. But the original equation of E(t)=c/c+o, doesn't make sense. In that form it is not dependent on time, yet the E(t) suggests it is. E(c,o)=c/c+0 works to set a simple percent up, but if we want to add time we need to change the equation. JonS 15:20, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

## 100% Censorable?

Is it possible for something to be 100% censorable? If so, you should include it on the table. You need it for a frame of reference. Maybe it should be something that is self evidently wrong, like atheistic materialism or that theory that claims that life started from bacteria on a meteor that hit earth.--NateSmall 15:48, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

## Is Christianity truly censorable?

I'm concerned by the implications of Christianity having such a high censorability rating. While it is true that Christianity is targeted at an extremely high rate--probably the HIGHEST rate--the Bible teaches that the Word is available to all men, which would imply that Christianity cannot be successfully censored, no matter how frequently opponents try. --Benp 22:51, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

It's the rate of attempts and the successful public censorship by lawmakers and regimes around the globe. But like in China, the underground Church thrives. The Soviets made strong attempts at crushing Christianity without success.--Jpatt 22:56, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
Nice insight into the censorship of Christianity. [1] --Jpatt 00:20, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
Many anti-Christians think they can win by censoring Christianity, and in some environments (e.g., liberal college campuses) the censorship does largely prevail. Denial of this phenomenon may delay remedying it.--Andy Schlafly 00:25, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

## Media

Globally, we have media that is state controlled e.g Cuba. In Western countries, biased toward liberalism with the conservative POV distorted or censored altogether. That is changing thanks in part to the internet but the field is still dominated by liberals and they are still censoring. What type of censorship would we classify this as and does it merit a 0.7 rating or higher? --Jpatt 23:17, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

I'd say that a 0.7 or higher rating is accurate for the liberal media in censoring conservative truths.--Andy Schlafly 00:18, 29 May 2010 (EDT)