The use of a source in writings and comments

The use of a source in writings and comments

When people are using sources in writings, those sources should be that everybody can confirm that data by using the same sources, what the first writer has been used. This is the normal rule in life. If the person uses the discussion or some other thing like a lecture as the source, that person should identify the source sharply.

That thing is that there should mention the date and time and the place, where that lecture has been given, and who was the person, who gave the lecture. Things like a lecture in the year 1900 at some university in Paris are not very sharp data.

Of course, the source would be mention in the form "the lecture, what Dr. David Hilbert gave in the international mathematical conference in Paris in the year 1900". But if the person tells that the lecture was given in Paris in some year is not a very sharp way to give the sources.

Of course, David Hilbert could give many lectures during that meeting, and that's why some tip to lecture, like "lecture where Hilbert introduced the Millenium problems for mathematics" or something like that would be a good tip if somebody would like to check facts and ask the minutes or records of that lecture from the host. This kind of data will be useful information if somebody wants to check, what Hilbert said in those lectures, and that would also contain the data, what other people were taking in that meeting.

How freedom of speech supports democracy?

How freedom of speech supports democracy?

Freedom of speech and the lack of censorship is supporting democracy, because of those things denies the opportunity, that candidate could hide behind the censorship. If there would be censorship in some nation, the candidate, who has nothing to say would claim that censorship has been removed the things, what that person has been written or spoken in the media.

In real life, there are many people, who want to go to parliament for making decisions, but they actually want only the job, where they can get a good salary. The freedom of speech has given us the opportunity to see the entire agenda, what some person has when that inmate attends to get the seat as the parliamentarian. And those things are telling people, would they want to give their votes to some candidate.

There are many people in history, who have been criticized the leaders of the nation by using very strong arguments, but when they have got the power in the nation, the permissions have been forgotten. That person has started to build the personal cult around self, and then leave to keep the power in the hand because people don't need free elections. In that case, a person just thinks, that only real leader for the nation is that inmate self. And the thing, what is those persons argument for the authoritarian rule is that the nation needs strong leadership.

 Every discussion with the opposition is a weakness, and every demonstration would be crushed by law enforcement because any argument against the leader is not tolerated. The agenda of those national leaders is that the only thing, what is right is their way to think and act. And the nation must be strong. That strength and respect for those nations are guaranteed by the heavy-duty military organization and strong firepower. The fear is their weapon.

If somebody even dares to speak against those people, they are facing the nuclear threat, and the best way to act, of course, is to sit on a chair and keep the mouth shut. This would make sure, that there would not be troubles with the opinions. If a person keeps the mouth shut,  there would be very nice to see things, what is supporting the point of view of some group. And that guarantees that some discussion forums and other organizations like church are leaving in the hand of the fanatics and radicals. There is not allowed to say anything, what doesn't support the opinions of the leaders of those groups. And that kind of things is driving groups to the road of radicalism and hate.